Tony if you feel that I am saying the M600 is better than the TBM, either you are reading too much between the lines, or I am not being clear with my writing. The TBM is a fine aircraft, and I would be happy in one. They are more similar than different, I just point out some of the differences that appeal to me. Been a long time but I also think if you read all of my posts, I also talked about advantages of the TBM such as speed, cargo loading lav etc. For me the M600 is a sweet spot of comfort, speed, utility, price, efficiency, moderness, fit and feel, community (MMOPA and Piper) familiarity, lots (lots of PA46 experience), etc. So it just fits. Everyone has some complex formula in their constitution that lets them know when a plane/car/home/spouse is right for them. Good thing that formula is very complex, and just as fortunately only good for a single individual, would hate to be fighting 3 billion dudes over my wife, who I feel is the best model out there. . I like hearing about how people feel about their aircraft, and the reasons that they chose what they did. I am always willing to learn other systems and Brand X is my favorite place to read.

Had to chuckle when I hear this. Now of all the things an engineer might want to do designing a plane, building it like a tank is not going to be very successful. Extra weight in plane is not something that aeronautical engineers typically brag about. Although I will grant you that the TBM is plenty strong.

Not so strong, though, that you can't break it. Any plane can break with a determined pilot. The Morristown TBM came apart in the air. This wing section was found 1/4 mile from the main wreckage along with some of the empennage if I recall. Overall the SETP's have done very well. The PC12, TBM and Meridian's each have one in flight failure that I am aware of. Not bad with millions of hours of flight time in challenging conditions among the 3. The M600 is young so will give it a pass on its perfect record. I would say they are all built strong enough for what they are designed to do.

I am thankful for the TBM 850 vs 600 info. It’s understandable to be partisan we love our birds everyone is civilized enough for me. I used to be a lawyer though so I probably have lower standards

So is there anything else beyond the following items to consider M600 vs TBM 850 complexity. So far we have a more accurate flare and separator operation. I would also note it’s stall speeds are about 10% faster making it more demanding in the terminal areas. Lets disect any differences in detail please....

I would have envelope protection added to the 850 with either the G1000 NXi upgrade or a GFC600 and G600 Txi combo....

I think m600 just has an annual and no other maintenance checks, right?

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

There are some Piper recommended checks, we do those even though they are not required. The plane has a 5 year or 2500 hour airframe and 7 year engine warranty, so we would be happy to not defer any reasonable maintenance. But I don't think there are many required for part 91. The prop and engine recommendations are straight from Hartzell and Pratt, 6 year prop OH, and 1800 HSI 3600 OH for the PT6. No mandatory gear intervals, just maintenance on demand. The hull has a life limit that like a lot of new aircraft is pretty short, but should be extended as the airframe matures and Piper collects data. Can't remember that number. We have found we have to do a little maintenance between annuals because of our high utilization. We get new tires about every 7 months or so, and need to keep an eye on ignitors, prop heat brushes and starter generator brushes that iirc seem to be good for 400-600 hours each. Brakes, I think it has them, but with Beta who knows

One thing to consider in a single, although I have a lot of confidence in the PT6 versions that are in the TBM and M600, is glide ratio. I can't find the glide ratio for the TBM in the Socata POH, it is not where it usually is in section 5, unless I am just missing it, but from reading 2 reviews it was reported to be 13.5:1 and 14:1. If someone has definite data would love to see that.

In the M600 the glide ratio is 16.1:1. At 25,000 ft. AGL, that gives you a 67 nm no wind landing radius which is 18,651 square statute miles if my napkin math is correct. That is larger than the surface area of the 9 smallest states. In my experience, there are very few places I regularly fly that there are not numerous landing airports at any given time in a normal flight.

Even in the relatively remote intermountain west, at normal cruise altitudes, using just a little common sense in routing, you are never out of glide of usually multiple suitable field, so I have no qualms about flying night IMC over the mountains, especially with synthetic vision. Caveat, I have practiced quite a bit for engine out procedures. Night IMC over the Rockies is probably not the time to wing your engine out technique. Foreflights glide rings can help educate you on how you need to think about engine outs.



On the safety front, you can return the M600 to field from 500 feet, and above 500 feet in most situations you can return to your departure airport if you lost an engine all the way to cruise altitude. Now your departure airport may not be your best airport as you climb.

Per the FAA FSB report, The SF50 is prohibited from doing power off 180's, and CAPs is prohibited below 1000 feet. The SF50 is also prohibited form doing slips, so your engine out options are much more limited in the jet. Not sure how that is represented or not in the actual POH, that is just the type rating documents. So while many find comfort in the parachute, I would personally take a 99+ percent likelihood of landing on a runway than a completely unknown chance of an almost completely untested CAPS system in the SF50.

From: http://www.tbm.aero/wp-content/uploads/ ... __E0R2.pdf

Thanks Debbie. That looks like about a 13.5:1 glide ratio. I like the emergency descent part of that graph, since if you have many landing options below, you may not want or need max glide. Can chew into your onboard oxygen. There are some times out west or over water where you may need that max glide, but would be rare east of the Rockies.

One of the things that I really like about my airframe is the pilot door. I think once you get used to getting in/out of the Piper, or the TBM without the door, it's probably not a big deal that you need to do the shuffle, or waive your rear end in the faces of your pax. But the pilot door makes all of that unnecessary. Plus it's quick. I also like to leave it open when I'm preparing for start up. Nice to have on a hot ramp.

I don't the prop clearance and flare to be a big thing frankly. I learned not to land on the nose wheel during private pilot training. But you do need to fly the airplane.

If you buy a later model 850 you can look for the "executive" seating option which allows you to turn the middle seats forward and you can install a potty in the back if you like.

At the end of the day what each of us desires in an airplane, or practically anything else, comes down to the weight we give a lot of variables. My suggestion is to fly both and see which you like the best. It sounds like you're not leaning to the SF50...

How would the composite prop hold up on Bahamian runways getting a coral rock sandblast? Should I stick with aluminum for that reason? What are the performance and noise benefits on the M600 for the five blades?

I am leaning M600 mainly because I only have a few long trips a year. TBM is still a possibility though I will need to fly them both first...SF 50 is out of the running at this point even though I like it. I bet Mike C will buy one someday.

I'm in the Bahamas a lot. I use the same rule there I use everywhere..... if the prop is turning, I am rolling. I also shut down before I come to stop. Kill the fuel 30 feet before where you want to stop. My prop is pristine.

Those rolling starts must be interesting. I have a '62 VW bug I would have to roll start too.

Jason, I get it when stopping but do you do all your preflight checks while taxiing?

Piper designed its TPs to be the easiest single pilot planes to fly with the lowest acquisition and operating costs. You can't just pick one thing like the IS and compare a Piper and a TBM. The simplicity and forgiveness runs throughout the airframe. Having owned both, the M600 is easier and more forgiving than the M500/Meridian. But nonetheless, Piper designed it for simplicity and price and some speed compromises were made.

TBM designed its TPs to be the fastest. And they are. They cost more and have more cargo space. I would love one. I'd be willing to bet some simplicity/forgiveness compromises were made in the name of speed along with operating costs.

Pilatus designed its TP to be the most capable. It is. They left speed on the table and efficiency and added cost but the thing is a beast.

There are pros and cons to each and you can certainly argue one is better than the other but that depends on mission and price. Personally I'm happy I went from a Cirrus to a Meridian and not a TBM. Now that I have a bunch of TP hours, I'd feel just as safe in a TBM or a PC12.

I don't think there is any comparison in the strength of the composite versus aluminum, especially with FOD. carbon... well is one of the strongest substances we have, 5 times the tensile strength of steel, there is a mesh erosion screen outside the Carbon and the edges have a nickel cobalt leading edge. There is no life limit on the Hartzell blades, and with all that it is 15 lbs lighter than the 4 blade aluminum prop. It is not cheap, but is probably the best prop money can buy right now.

The 5-blade is definitely smoother, and I think it is good for 2-3 dBa's in sound reduction comparing our aluminum 4-blade to composite 5 blade using a common iPhone sound app. Per Harzell the 5-blade is good for 20% better acceleration (and braking), gives 90 fpm more climb and 2-3 knots more cruise. Now if I had a plane with a 4-blade, I would probably wait until the 4-blade needed an overhaul and switch it at that time. The difference is perceptible but worth the price???

Interesting Piper did not rewrite the performance tables for the 5-blade prop. Their justification is that it is "at least as good" so you may be pleasantly surprised like us that everything about our plane is better than book