So your saying people would buy a $2m 4 seater over a $1.5m TBM C2? No way no how. If I had the money it would be the TBM all day long.

Yes. All day long. Why buy a $4.5MM PC12 when you can have a legacy version for half? Well, they build them and sell them faster then they know how.

You cannot compare new to used.

Gerry,
I dont see how you can do it cheaper than the other guys. Most pilots want certified aircraft for various reason, especially resale value and support.
What good is an aircraft AOG and you cannot get parts or support.

Here is what my friend had to say about his homebuilt Epic.


I probably know more about the Epic LT than anyone in the TBMOPA community since I not only built and flew 160 hrs in my Epic (the last out of the door before the previous bankruptcy). My Epic had a PT6-67 with 1350 hp (same as the Pilatus) and yes my Epic weighed about the same as my TBM.

Handling was fantastic. If the aircraft were certified, it would be a winner, no contest.

So why did I sell my Epic for a TBM? Because one cannot fly around the world with an Experimental aircraft, especially with no support.

What makes the TBM exceptional is not only the fact that it is well built performer but also because of the truly excellent global support Socata delivers.

I saw the Epic people (as well as the Kestrel) at Oshkosh this summer. Do no hold your breath. Neither of these aircrafts will be certified anytime soon. 2015 certification is optimistic for sure; it is based on 'hope' not a fully funded game plan. Sad but true.

Meanwhile let's keep enjoying the current best turbo-prop available in its class.

Cheers,

I think that Cirrus would have been better served to build an Evolution type airplane rather than "The Jet." It could have been as fast, or faster, 30% more fuel efficient, and land on shorter runways...

But it would not have been a "Jet."

"Jet" is so key. The Cirrus guys are smart.

Depends on the target market. From a marketing stand point the Jet wins without even trying. This is what I think Cirrus evaluated. Also, modern small turbofans have had dramatic increases in power and efficiency. I just do not see the 30% difference anymore and this is shrinking.

Tim

Yes I agree. Id love to see a 4 seater pressurized aircraft. It probably wont be cheap enough to compete against the 6 seater.
I dont dig Jets.

If they can make a turbo-fan as efficient as a TPE-331, then they can put a gearbox and prop on a FJ-33 and I would wager it would be ~30% more efficient than the jet. Below 300 KTAS props will always win on efficiency and runway lengths... The PT-6 and 331 are getting very long in the tooth...

Everyone said that the LJ and VLJ would kill the King Air. It hasn't happened and it won't because west of Denver in the Summer it is high and hot, and in the winter the runways are contaminated... Either way, the King Air, TBM, or Pilatus, wins everytime...

Doug,

I said the difference was declining. Not that it is gone!
Since I was not around for the LJ and VLJ debate about the KA I will not comment.
Just kidding, in the IT field we have been saying the mainframe is dead for thirty years. Yet IBM sold more mainframes in 2010 then any time in history (this was the last time I looked at that market).

But back to planes. If you are talking about small 4-6 person planes, where the target market is significantly more toward a owner-operator then a bean counter. The jet wins the coolness factor and if it can do the mission, even with a slightly higher opex it will win the new plane debate. Once you get beyond 6 people, you generally have to deal with the bean counters, and this increases the likely nature of the efficiency gain a turboprop will be much more meaningful.

Tim

I heard that if the plane uses a Jet engine, even if it is a single, you will need to take an annual checkride with an examiner. This is for single pilot operations. I think this will hurt the Cirrus Jet and others. Makes the single turboprops more desireable in my view.

I'm headed to SimCom next week because insurance requires it. What's the difference? I could pass a check ride in my plane easy

Probably not much difference if using Simulator based training. I find it interesting that many type ratings are done using only a simulator. I've never done a Simcom. Is it the same for Insurance requirements as it is for Single Pilot Jet proficiency? How long are you there for?

If they can make a turbo-fan as efficient as a TPE-331, then they can put a gearbox and prop on a FJ-33 and I would wager it would be ~30% more efficient than the jet. Below 300 KTAS props will always win on efficiency and runway lengths... The PT-6 and 331 are getting very long in the tooth...

Everyone said that the LJ and VLJ would kill the King Air. It hasn't happened and it won't because west of Denver in the Summer it is high and hot, and in the winter the runways are contaminated... Either way, the King Air, TBM, or Pilatus, wins everytime...

I don't understand why there would be absolutely no support. It's not like it is impossible to purchase parts. It has to be done somehow. Maybe not the manufacturer but I know the builders of the kits give support.

The 61.58 checkride is what you are referring to. They should extend that to every turbine powered aircraft out. Do you really want someone flying a 300 mph aircraft with 8 people on board that just legally has to do a BFR with a CFI? IMHO, this is one of the reasons that the accident rate of "preventable" accidents is lower in jets.

The checkride is really not a big deal. You just need to be on your game, and you should be anyway. As Jason points out, most insurance requires it anyway.