Chuck & others.

I wanted to see the new PT6 offering with Fadec on this one but I think its still a few years away. I heard 20% improvement in fuel efficiency but I need to see it.
I think thats were Daher is going for more range and not more fuel as that would increase weight and redesigning the wing.
More power is always nice but they have to deal with the ground clearance and no way to get a bigger prop without redesigning the landing gears for more prop clearance.

Im really interested to see what the auto mode does for engine management as I heard it offer some over torque & over heat protection.
Nice that Daher comes out with new models with new features every few years.

FADECs don't improve fuel efficiency in turbine engines. The efficiency is set by the thermodynamic properties of the gas path.

50 GPH dumped into the combustion chamber yields the same output whether that fuel flow is controlled by a FADEC or a old fashioned mechanical fuel controller.

Mike C.

FADECs don't improve fuel efficiency in turbine engines. The efficiency is set by the thermodynamic properties of the gas path.

50 GPH dumped into the combustion chamber yields the same output whether that fuel flow is controlled by a FADEC or a old fashioned mechanical fuel controller.

Mike C.

Agreed

I do think Daher is headed in the right direction with the safety features that are available with the Garmin autopilot, auto throttle, auto ice, etc. But it's not nearly enough. To me one of the issues with the TBM as compared to the PC 12 is it's safety record.

There is a dramatic disparity. Obviously, the first answer is that there are a lot more pro pilots flying the PC12 than the TBM as a per cent of the fleet and flight hours by all accounts. But when you look at the accident record of the TBM it's clear that the vast majority (75% +/-) happen in the vicinity of the airport. During a lengthy discussion during my recurrent training this year on the issue the conclusion was most are a failure of basic airmanship. During my recurrent last year, with a different training vendor, we had a similar discussion and watched the recorded landings during the TBMOPA convention of the previous year. It was shocking how many of the landings were too fast and too flat (3 pointers are a tail wheel technique).

Many owners coming through Simcom can't pass the course satisfactorily apparently.

There are also a fair number of ADM issues in the record. I don't know how many or what per cent are due to relative inexperience in flying per se, but Terry Winston has pointed out in his safety presentations that a high per cent of accidents have occurred in pilots relatively new to the fleet. Certainly, some of the weather related accidents make you wonder about the pilot's judgement or weather experience.

It's bad enough that there is a long thread on the TBMOPA website about whether there should be something like a type rating or SFAR 142 requirement. Of course, owners aren't in favor of that.

What Cirrus did to address their safety issues was not just technological. They called for a safety stand down and encouraged all owners to, among other things, take instruction on traffic pattern procedures and landing technique. That was roundly made fun of here (although watching people land Bonanzas ought to be pretty embarrassing for a lot of pilots even with it's forgiving gear) but it was important and necessary. They followed it up with certifying instructors to teach a standardized course with mandatory and fairly rigorous completion standards (pulling the chute being but a small part of it) AND they added the safety features they are known for, some of which Daher is adopting. They added a required biannual icing certification course and provide a broadening suite of online courses designed around safe operations.

I know from private conversations that Daher has had many discussions with involved parties about it but to date there isn't anything like what Cirrus did. Nor have there been anything like the results the Cirrus community has achieved in the last half dozen years or so.

It may make no difference at all to some owners who have the wherewithal to plunk down the kind of money required to buy the plane but the feature that would be most useful, in my opinion, to add to the aircraft would be the kind of initial and recurrent training and safety resources that with the world's most expensive piston single.

Fly higher. Certification rules make that hard as a single.

Change engine to a more efficient one, or more powerful one, or both.


To get 6% more speed (330 to 350 KTAS), at same altitudes, requires 19% more power. That's a lot to add to the airframe.

Mike C.

Fly higher. Certification rules make that hard as a single.

Change engine to a more efficient one, or more powerful one, or both.


To get 6% more speed (330 to 350 KTAS), at same altitudes, requires 19% more power. That's a lot to add to the airframe.

Mike C.

Tony,
Nice write up, I agree. I just spoke with Terry last week and he (for those that don’t know he owns Avex, the largest TBM dealership) is really disturbed (my words not his) over the whole training issue.

Regarding PC-12 v TBM safety record, I also wonder about the differences in pilot background for owner/pilots stepping up. It would be interesting to know the percentage of new owners for each type that came from piston single, piston twin, turbine powered twin.

I suspect the PC-12 guys are more experienced in demanding airframes but I can’t back that up. I met a new owner a while back that came out of a C182. Different avionics than the 700C2 and admitted not current/proficient IFR, even in the 182. Understandly was having a hard time with training.

I think PC12 serves a more diverse market than the TBM. PC12 has a lot of utility for commercial ops like charter or whatnot, with a correspondingly larger population of pilots who have been in the structured training environment, but the TBM is probably much more concentrated with owner flown. Definitely a problem getting guys like your 182 example up to speed on a 300 knot turbine performance airplane even though it is “just” a single. How many engines isn’t really the issue at this level of performance...

I think PC12 serves a more diverse market than the TBM. PC12 has a lot of utility for commercial ops like charter or whatnot, with a correspondingly larger population of pilots who have been in the structured training environment, but the TBM is probably much more concentrated with owner flown. Definitely a problem getting guys like your 182 example up to speed on a 300 knot turbine performance airplane even though it is “just” a single. How many engines isn’t really the issue at this level of performance...

I think PC12 serves a more diverse market than the TBM. PC12 has a lot of utility for commercial ops like charter or whatnot, with a correspondingly larger population of pilots who have been in the structured training environment, but the TBM is probably much more concentrated with owner flown. Definitely a problem getting guys like your 182 example up to speed on a 300 knot turbine performance airplane even though it is “just” a single. How many engines isn’t really the issue at this level of performance...

After you're ready for the 940 and have your new A/P and interior finished, I'll make you a GREAT offer on your 850 Tony.

After you're ready for the 940 and have your new A/P and interior finished, I'll make you a GREAT offer on your 850 Tony.

I think my point was I don't ever see myself ready for a 940...

I think PC12 serves a more diverse market than the TBM. PC12 has a lot of utility for commercial ops like charter or whatnot, with a correspondingly larger population of pilots who have been in the structured training environment, but the TBM is probably much more concentrated with owner flown. Definitely a problem getting guys like your 182 example up to speed on a 300 knot turbine performance airplane even though it is “just” a single. How many engines isn’t really the issue at this level of performance...