19 May 2025, 17:33 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900  Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 11:15 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/12/14
Posts: 33
Company: a shop in Texas
Location: South Texas
|
|
Ok, so now I'm allowed to say this: Radar integration Carbon cowl Zero bulkhead is composite....and really thick New inertial separator, with new drive motor, can operate up to VMO New intake plenum, seals much tighter, easy removal Rubber inertial sep debris oulets 300amp starter, bus tied to ground power, for fast starts Pedestal change No 850 mode, torque scale is 0 to 100% 5 blade comp prop New stacks Curved dorsal to match winglets New A14 box, with t/s diag LED's Head cutting strakes New power station Lower inst panel is curved the whole length of panel Auto pressurization Tire covers New yoke with more buttons than an xbox controller We have talked about some of this stuff already. There are many changes that will ease maintenance that pilot really wont be concerned about. Looks like we are getting serial number 0003. Ill have more I'm sure. 
_________________
Do what makes you happy!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900 Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 11:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/13/14
Posts: 85
Post Likes: +19
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Socata as spent $30m US to develop the TBM 900.
$3.7m is what they need to stay in business, they will sell them all 40-50 a year. I am, in no way, saying that SOCATA might have a financial problem. They belong to a large group and the AIRBUS biz must bring them a lot of cash. Having said that, selling 40/50 900 a year is another story.In the 3.5/4.5 millions bracket business plane there is a lot of competition from VLJ to PILATUS going through KING AIR. Let see.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900 Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 13:16 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6060
Post Likes: +709
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
What is zero bulkead in composite? The inertial seperator operating to VMO is very good, a lot of time I need to slow down in descent to under 200 kts as I forgot to deploy it, I saw that the VMO is now 270 vs 266, is that true? What have they changed? Username Protected wrote: Ok, so now I'm allowed to say this: Radar integration Carbon cowl Zero bulkhead is composite....and really thick New inertial separator, with new drive motor, can operate up to VMO New intake plenum, seals much tighter, easy removal Rubber inertial sep debris oulets 300amp starter, bus tied to ground power, for fast starts Pedestal change No 850 mode, torque scale is 0 to 100% 5 blade comp prop New stacks Curved dorsal to match winglets New A14 box, with t/s diag LED's Head cutting strakes New power station Lower inst panel is curved the whole length of panel Auto pressurization Tire covers New yoke with more buttons than an xbox controller We have talked about some of this stuff already. There are many changes that will ease maintenance that pilot really wont be concerned about. Looks like we are getting serial number 0003. Ill have more I'm sure.
_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900 Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 15:38 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 1671
Post Likes: +465
Location: Redwood City, CA (KPAO)
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Doesn't matter with this TBM 900 and maybe you guys are right on the Cirrus Jet. Either way, with the Cirrus Jet and this TBM you're really stacking the marketplace with ridiculously fast and efficient, easy to fly airplanes. There's lot's of innovation going on in GA. The only thing left is to get these things to fly themselves. This is a great time to be in GA. It is certainly true that innovation is taking place in GA. The Cirrus Jet and TBM 900 appear to be efficient and designed to be easy to fly. What is missing is this equation is the cost parameter: could a manufacturer deliver ease and efficiency at an "affordable" price? I realize that affordable is a relative term. If a manufacturer could use cheap labor (China) using reliable design (a la Apple: designed in California, built using cheap labor in China), why can't such an airframe be produced for a more attractive (i.e. much lower) price? 
The airframe probably could be produced at a much lower cost. Unfortunately, that still wouldn't enable them to sell them at an affordable price. Given their massive R&D and certification costs, and their low volume, recouping R&D is a huge chunk of the price. Consumer electronics companies, who sell hundreds of millions of units, don't really care about reducing R&D costs, but they are fanatical about optimizing per-unit cost (parts and assembly labor). With airplanes, it is pretty much the exact opposite.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900 Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 15:55 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/19/11
Posts: 3307
Post Likes: +1434
Company: Bottom Line Experts
Location: KTOL - Toledo, OH
Aircraft: 2004 SR22 G2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Only 30m to develop?? My assumption on that figure is that the $30M estimate are the incremental costs to develop the 900 from the existing 850 (700N) Type Certificate. Incremental Type Certificates cost a fraction of entirely new Type Certificates.
_________________
Don Coburn
Corporate Expense Reduction Specialist
2004 SR22 G2
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900 Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 16:30 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12804
Post Likes: +5254
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: . Im not really sure how they could get their cost down on their airframe? : Massive automation with robotic riveting machine specialized for each part of the airframe. I'm sure with a couple billion invested they could get costs down substantially and also be able to turn out 1000 airframes per month.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900 Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 17:40 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16153
Post Likes: +8866
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: . Im not really sure how they could get their cost down on their airframe? : Massive automation with robotic riveting machine specialized for each part of the airframe. I'm sure with a couple billion invested they could get costs down substantially and also be able to turn out 1000 airframes per month.
Sure, like Eclipse  .
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900 Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 19:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/12/14
Posts: 33
Company: a shop in Texas
Location: South Texas
|
|
Username Protected wrote: . Im not really sure how they could get their cost down on their airframe? : Massive automation with robotic riveting machine specialized for each part of the airframe. I'm sure with a couple billion invested they could get costs down substantially and also be able to turn out 1000 airframes per month.
Im sure you are right, automation is great, it costs money to get there, especially "massive automation". 1000 airframes per month? Thats a lot, could they sell that many? Anyway comparing an Eclipse to the TBM doesn't really make sense to me. I don't know, but I would think the maintenance on the Eclipse would be higher, but I am not familiar with it. I don't have the money for any of it, but from what I have seen, TBM maintenance is pretty reasonable. People that want two jet engines, buy airplanes with two jet engines. People that want a jet with a prop on the front buy one of those. Didn't Eclipse go bankrupt?
This thread is to talk about the TBM900, so I will continue with that.
So the pilot door is going to standard now, but they are still going to produce them with no pilot door as an option....at least for now. The pilot door is awesome, I don't know why anyone wouldn't want it.
_________________
Do what makes you happy!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: TBM 900 Posted: 13 Mar 2014, 19:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12804
Post Likes: +5254
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Im sure you are right, automation is great, it costs money to get there, especially "massive automation". 1000 airframes per month? Thats a lot, could they sell that many? :
My ultra-dry wit again convinces people I'm being serious... There's no scenario where you can get your labor costs meaningfully down. The volume's just not there to mass produce.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
