Marc I fly over 200 hours a year in almost all weather conditions, train twice a year to ATP standards and do most of my flying in the mountain west. I have flown most of the currently available sub 5 million dollar aircraft, so have quite a comparative database. While I am confident in my flying aptitude, I do not think I am a pilot superhero. I do think that pilots on average tend to overestimate their own ability, and tend to downplay the contribution of complexity and pilot workload in safety. The more stuff there is to do, the more chances there are to do something wrong, and the more complicated things becomes in a real emergency. All that is compounded by fatigue, time away from the aircraft, or time between training events.

I have A days where I am ready for the world to throw all it has at me, and then for a multitude of reasons I have had my C days as well. Late flight, after a long day at work, suboptimal weather, a plane that decides to throw a temper tantrum. I have flown with pilots that are behind the plane, and surprised that often they don't even know it. One emergency or unforecast weather event away from an interesting ride. Just saying.

Anything an OEM can do to decrease pilot workload, increase automation, and add in backup safety features is going to pay dividends in safety for the typical non-professional GA pilot flying single pilot. So I am very comfortable flying a more forgiving aircraft, even if I have to give up a few knots. Until the SF50, Piper has built the easiest to fly single pilot turbine. Still not convinced the SF50 is easier in the real world since there is a lot more performance information to process particularly if high hot and heavy.

Torque roll is not an issue in the TBM. I have tried numerous times at altitude in landing configuration and slaming full power and it didnt budge.
Got told after by another instructor maybe if the plane was in a full stall then slaming full power you may get it to torque roll. Thats where I think this torque roll stories comes from.

Earlier when I started flying the TBM i got it too slow closer to the runway and the plane started to sink fast, I pushed in lots of power and it arrested the sink. If there was a time that it could have torque rolled that would have been it but no it was solid.

You have so much torque at low altitude that you dont even need to push full power, 50-60% torque is all you need on a missed or overshoot.

I do the approach from 80-90 kts depending on weight with full flaps. The AOA works really good and will make it really easy to peg those speeds.
Follow the poh, land with full flaps under 90 kts and you wont come close to hit the prop on landing.

Not sure how you can get a plane easier to fly than a TBM, its very forgiving and with a VMO of 266 kts, its Built like a tank. A TBM empty weight is between 4500-4600 ibs.
With 42 ft of wingspan, Thats why its so solid in turbulence.

Not sure what a M500-M600 weights but its a lot lighter with more wings and you get bounced a lot in turbulence, even the PC12 with those big wings dont fly as nice in turbulence than a TBM.

Torque roll in a SETP is an old wives tale.

I believe the entire fleet has been equipped with the strakes. The HP limitation on take off isn't an issue as the 900 series demonstrates. Torque roll is simply not an issue.



You do. And are quite knowledgeable. However, I do think that that knowledge isn't complete as demonstrated here. Your essential point here is that the M600 is superior to the TBM. But you bring into the argument things that aren't factually correct. That lessens the impact of your argument.



Agreed.



Does the M600 windscreen come on automatically? We all make mistakes but turning on all of the anti ice protections (separator, prop deice, windscreen heat) are SOP entering IMC close to freezing. Turning on (as opposed to Auto) ignition is in precipitation. He could just as easily have failed to engage any ice protection, including boots, in an M600 and come to grief. I'm not sure how you can claim the M600 is a superior airplane for flying in icing conditions solely on the basis of this accident.



Yes, he screwed up and paid the ultimate price for his error. Flipping the IS switch is, or should be, reflexive for a TBM pilot (or other similarly equipped planes) when entering IMC. There are many reflexive actions pilots must do to properly fly an airplane. There are many others that require thought. Since there are plenty of examples of PA46's that have come to grief I suppose we could litigate all of those as well but I'm not sure what the point would be. Buy the aircraft that best serves your mission, train to proficiency regularly.



I believe that conclusion is the accepted wisdom. Not having to turn on the IS is as beneficial as not having to push on the rudder pedals all the time. It reduces workload. But the workload in this instance is miniscule in my mind. Any pilot entering known icing conditions that isn't on the edge of their seat, spring loaded for action, having reviewed mentally the steps he must take to assure safety of flight in his airplane is foolish.



That's a fairly enormous exception. Having no IS is nice. Ice carrying capability, and ice shedding capability is also critically important. I don't know if there have been any PA46 icing fatalities, although I'll bet there have, and it's probably too early in the M600 history to have had, but I'd rather be in the TBM airframe if I'm accreting ice personally. If you have data to suggest that the M600 can carry more I'd love to see it.



I totally agree.

Earlier in the thread I opined that the M600 was a better choice for the OP than the SF50 for the missions he described. Later I suggested he might consider a used TBM 850 for a similar budget. I don't agree with you that it is a lesser airplane. We can keep up the back and forth but I prefer we do it on the basis of fact and not conjecture.

Tony

I've read the entire thread and kept up with the posts. I don't believe Chuck is making a claim the M600 is superior to the TBM. I believe what he is saying is it is simpler in many regards, is cheaper to operate and maintain, and cheaper to buy and I don't disagree with him. The OP question is M600 versus SF50. When the TBM drivers thread drift to make points about why the TBM should be considered it is only natural to bring up counter points. I think there are many "factual" errors here, like the TBM engine is running cooler and more efficient with the ice doors closed than the M600 which are always "open". Given the M600 is a de-rated engine I'd be willing to bet the M600 runs cooler than the TBM (and I know it runs on less fuel) with the ice doors closed. People simply are eager to defend their ride and a bit of exaggeration is likely. Just like my post here.

David,

Not Mark obviously! But, I'll take a stab at your question. There isn't an "average" annual in a TBM 850. There are 4 inspections which roll on a continuous basis with three essential inspections: A, B, C. They each vary in terms of the cost of the inspection and the relative amount of money that required repairs cost as a result of the inspection.

Then there are items like the landing gear and empennage inspection, which generally speaking is overhauled every 10 years. Obviously, a 10 year "annual" throws out the average.

Then there is the 1750 hour hot section and 3,500 hour overhaul which you may never face but you will pay for proportionately in the purchase and sales price.

The type of avionics in the plane also affects the inspection and repair expenses to some degree and there is a wide variety of avionics installed in "legacy" 850's with a fairly standard set in the G1000 versions.

And of course the amount of time put on the airframe and engine is a factor in annual costs.

My brief experience, operating a TBM 850 is that the "normal" costs run about $25k per year with the 10 year items, HSI and catch up items adding to the bill. That's for 200 hours flying.

My suggestions to you, if you decide to pursue an 850, would be:

1. Avoid airframes close to, and before, 10 years of age, or price the known costs into the purchase. Or look for a 10-11 year old plane where they've been done.

2. Avoid engines within 3 years of HSI or price that inspection (about $30k mol) into the deal.

3. Speak with Terry Winson at Avex about the overall costs of 850's by model, year and time. You'll find he can give you a highly accurate picture. I find that the costs projected on his website are fairly accurate.

Tony

Greg,

I think the implications are pretty clear in the posts.

I don't believe you can demonstrate that I've made any erroneous claims and I'm only interested in defending any I've made. I'm not here to defend the TBM as better or worse, but since I suggested it as an alternative to consider I just want it to be represented accurately. We have all made our choices but that doesn't mean we all believe our airframe is either the absolute best or the best choice for someone else. I don't. The one I fly is just best for me. You have made a different choice for different reasons. I'd prefer that we not "defend our (sic) ride" but stick to information.

By the way, the P&W engines installed in all TBM's regardless of model are derated as well. So I'm not sure how that impacts running temps directly. I think the issue is much more complicated than that. I can say that with the IS deployed in my airframe, since I like to keep my cruise ITT below 800 degrees (max continuous allowed is 840) I reduce power which reduces my cruising speeds to somewhere between 250-260 and FF to something in the low 40's to low 50's (depending on altitude and ISA). So, I slow down to M600 speeds with a higher fuel burn. But I'm flying a bigger, heavier airplane with potentially more payload, so I'm ok with the extra burn.

My airframe isn't for everyone and neither are any of the others discussed here. I do think we're all trying to be helpful frankly and I also believer our motivations are altruistic (none of us has an airplane we're trying to sell!).

I love this thread drift so much I'm going to continue it! I have no turboprop or turbofan time, little interest in the SF50, but I am interested in the TBM and the M600.

Charles, I take your point that all of us have good days and worse ones, and pilots will be safer in a simpler airplane on their worst days - the days that accidents happen. If we each have a personal safety-zone, the simpler airplane would allow us to make flights we wouldn't in a more complex one. In that case the simpler airplane could have greater utility without enhancing overall safety. A real benefit that might compensate for less raw performance.

Marc defended the safety of the TBM on landings, and I accept that. How easy it to finesse them so the pilot looks good to their passengers? I've read that is difficult. Does the marginal clearance of the prop translate into maintenance and make you pass over airports with poor surfaces?

Ashley

Tony - I was not implicating you directly. Just making a point in general and I agree that we all have altruistic intents. Regarding temps, I am rarely above 680 in cruise and I am burning 38GPH or so. Granted, I have the Meridian (M500) but just seeing these temp differences makes the point. My understanding is the M600 gross weight is just at 6k pounds so, if your empty weight is 5100 or so, the difference in gross weight between the M600 and TBM is not what I would all a "much, bigger heavier plane". The M600 bumps up against TBM numbers in range, payload, and within 45 knots or so of speed on a much lower fuel burn for $1M less than the TBM. When you factor in the acquisition, Mx, and and operating costs I think it is clear why the OP is comparing M600 to SF50.

Wasn't someone working on a ram air recovery STC for the meridian? put me in the camp of preferring additional efficiency vs "saving me" from the complex action of flipping a rocker switch. The other game changer on the TBM is the huge door. For me the sweet spot would be a pre-G1000 TBM 850. Near jet speeds, avionics freedom, cargo and pilot door.

I think Tony makes a good point here. It’s helpful if the information discussed has integrity. When comments/opinions are made about other airplanes that someone doesn’t have as much experience with, it’s a good thing when clarifications can be made by a more credible source. I’ve run into that with the Mustang quite a bit. A lot of inaccurate data gets spewed onto the board without any experience to support it. Sometimes I jump in to correct it, and sometimes I just let it go. Regardless, I appreciate Tony taking the time to clarify facts about the TBM.

Power on stall in a PC12 at altitude with the stick shaker off

unless you completely unload the wing. i even got the A36 to do it when unloaded. that was sporty.

Is it being smart, or is it just being human, and sometimes getting distracted. I used to fly a plane that had an ice door, and never came to any grief, but I have to admit that I missed opening it more than I would like to admit. Especially when you are flying in the lower flight levels. Take off in the clouds open, now in the clear want more climb, closed, uh oh, another layer open, cruising altitude in the clear closed, except for those bands of clouds ahead open, clear of clouds again closed, descending into the clouds into the terminal open You remember every single time? How about at night?