After selling my F33A bonanza (and now missing her terribly), I am beginning to think of what is next.

I originally had a 58 baron in mind, but, with fuel costs being absurd, have started to look at the TBM-700. Granted, the purchase price is quite larger (1.4+m vs. ~450k for a nice 1985+ baron), the fuel burn is actually lower, per mile, than the baron. Believe it or not, the gap in insurance premiums between the two is surprisingly small.

That being said, before I go for a test flight, I'd love to hear some input from you guys.

Things I like about the Baron-
- purchase price
- beechcraft construction quality
- twin engine
- de icing

Baron cons
- Speed
- fuel burn
- maintenance on two engines
- non pressurized
- low ceiling
- piston engine reliability and operation

TBM-700 Pro's
- ~285 knots
- 1500 mile range (Not that I'd ever use it)
- Turbine reliability and simplicity (plus smoothness)
- pressurized, de-icing
- A/C
- useful load, more comfortable seating/ entrance for passengers
- lower fuel burn per mile (plus Jet-A prices)
- 30,000 ft ceiling (weather)

TBM Con's
- ~1.4m$ (ouch)
- Turbine maintenance costs (kind of a gamble)
- Single engine (passengers are odd about this, saying "Oh, it only has one engine?" with a distressed look)
- higher insurance

So, that all being said- can anyone provide more to the list of pros/cons for each or any first hand experience?

Max Payload with Full Fuel 342.1 lbs.

With 6 seats full at 170lbs each, 3 hours of fuel @60gph. no reserves.

I've done a lot of homework on your comparison. I have never flown a TBM.

I think the bottom line is if you can afford the TBM over the Baron then do it. I would.

I just don't think you can really compare the two because they are night and day cost wise.

Also, reading the POH on the PT6, you don't get that speed out of it until you get up there really high.

I would lean towards a deal on an Allison Turbine Bonanza as a better comparison. There's a long thread on this topic in the Turbine section.

Good points made here. I have looked at the turbine bonanza, and if it were only pressurized...

The fuel burn on the TBM is closer to 50 gph, and on a normal trip (less than 2 hours), the payload increases dramatically. Even with full fuel, the payload is ~700lbs, though I can't imagine a trip that will require topping them off.

Another product that I would love to test fly is the Epic LT, though the aircraft is completely unproven as far as support goes.

I fly mostly for business, so on average 300+ hours a year, but there have been exceptions both north and south of this number. These are bonanza numbers, so 300 bonanza hours would be ~180 TBM hours? Well, maybe that isn't true, because the TBM allows me to fly more often when the weather wouldn't allow a bonanza trip.

Chandler -

If you're considering the TBM 700, have you considered the Pilatus PC-12? I'm not sure how they stack up on pricing (used), but they are comparable in performance and creature comforts.

Good points made here. I have looked at the turbine bonanza, and if it were only pressurized...

The fuel burn on the TBM is closer to 50 gph, and on a normal trip (less than 2 hours), the payload increases dramatically. Even with full fuel, the payload is ~700lbs, though I can't imagine a trip that will require topping them off.

Another product that I would love to test fly is the Epic LT, though the aircraft is completely unproven as far as support goes.

Chandler;

You're comparing the wrong bird. Compare to a P Baron, not a NA 58. Then at least you're starting off equal with pressurization, air conditioning, and known ice.

You'll also be comparing a 20-year old plane to a much newer one, of course.

I've had lots of discussions with folks over the reliability and safety issues of two piston engines versus one turbine. I think that if you're flying behind a Pratt, you're probably just as safe as if you were flying behind two Continentals, but of course there's arguments on both sides of that.

I know some folks that moved from Cirrus to TBM. They compared the Piper single turboprops as well as the Pilatus, but the Pilatus is really a different bird, and last time I checked you're looking at another million to go there. The guys I know needed the range and payload of the TBM over the Meridian (which has none). But, they had the mission for the range and payload as well, so it helped justify the purchase.

Both guys have nothing but good to say about TBM and the support. One just traded his 700 for a new 850...so he's a convert for sure. Both have positions on twin engine jets as well....

I would bet that the workload behind a twin engine, turbocharged, piston is a lot more than a single engine turboprop. If you're flying a lot of single pilot IFR, that would be a consideration as well.

Tough decision....wish I was in a position to make it!

Cheers,

Greg N58TB KADS

Beech built the Pressurized P Baron through 1985. It performs well, and if a TBM or Pilatus is being considered, the P Baron should be included in the evaluation, especially if you will not have more than four people flying frequently.

David Sciliano wrote a very good article in Twin and Turbine ~2 months ago that discussed a very similar analysis he performed. IIRC there is even a discussion of some of the points in the Twin section of this board.

I'm very happy with my P Baron. I've become familiar with maintenance issues of turbine aircraft over the past several years. I would not have one if there were any way to avoid it. Yes they do have their points, but low operating costs do not seem to enter the equation from my vantage point. YMMV

A lot of us have been going through this same decision making process: that's why I wrote the article in T&T. I'm in a P-Baron now and it really fits me today. The TBM is a big step up in price; the price you cite would be for an early 90s model with old avionics and substantial engine time. The speed you cite is high speed cruise. The guys I know flying them pull the power back a bit from there.

Everything is a trade off; let you mission dictate what you need. There are a lot of twin turbines that have landed on one and not had to report an engine out. There are several single engine turbines that have had an engine failure; much lower failure rate than a recip, but to the crew recently lost in the Caribbean, that low probability didn't mean much.

The cruise fuel flow on my P-Baron is 33 per hour; in the low flight levels I true out between 210 and 220. The climb fuel burn is twice that when full rich. In all but Summer, I can climb LOP under 35 per hour.

A friend just looked at these same choices an purchased a King Air instead (upgraded engines). What sold him, besides him liking Beech quality, was the short field performance. He lives on a shorter grass strip and the King Air got off the ground much more quickly than the TBM.

It sounds like you're looking at the right comparisons: now, you just have to decide .

One course of action could be to purchase a P-Baron for awhile; let all this VLJ and new turbine stuff settle down a bit; then, look later. That's the track I'm now on. How often do you need six seats? Two hour trips are reasonable. The turbine will get you up faster; if you can do unrestricted climbs, even better.

As for paper airplanes, there aren't too many that really deliver what marketing seems to promise. There are exceptions like the Cessna Mustang, but they do stretch a few points. Since they are flying today, you can ride in one and sort it out. I like the Epic on paper, but have learned to look before I leap. I want to fly it, with my mission profile and have actual trips in it under comparable circumstances before I plunk down over $1MM.

Good luck! Keep us posted and bounce things off us if you like. It's just not an easy decision.

Best,

Dave