The engine guru from Daher answers that question by saying it makes no difference, except for how much money you want to spend at HOT or OH.

So what parts of the engine get hurt by running it harder? If there is a published table, I don’t understand how it will hurt it. Are you literally burning up t wheels by running it hotter? There doesn’t seem to be anything else in the engine that would be different at overhaul if you ran it harder.

The published tables for the Meridian and M600 are all by torque, not temperature.

For the M600, you get a normal cruise and max cruise table. The max cruise table says that it is not recommended by PWC and most of that table at/above FL250 isn’t doable — you will hit a temp or Ng limit first.

As for what might cost more at hsi or oh by running the engine hotter? Can repairs and the CT blades.

But absent fleet data, it’s hard to know what the actual cost impact is, net net.

If I understood/recall correctly the torque limits were intended to honor the temp limitation at the anticipated worst case of a worn out, just before overhaul, 3600 hour engine. I wonder what reasons, or if there are any, for the lower at altitude recommended torque settings other than simply worst case performance?

Don't the Meridian/M500/M600 all use the same -42 engine used in the King Air 200 since the 1970s? Wouldn't that fleet provide enough data?

Don't the Meridian/M500/M600 all use the same -42 engine used in the King Air 200 since the 1970s? Wouldn't that fleet provide enough data?

Some have debated the logic of a continuous inertial sep in the Meridian. Certainly you could get a little more speed with a controllable inertial sep. Piper purposefully built the most automated and pilot proof turbine, since it was designed as a step up plane. The very derated engine and continuous inertial sep makes engine management super easy. Seems like a lot of the flying I Do is IMC, or is cloud, clear cloud clear.... So would have the sep open a lot of the time. One thing nice about the continuous sep is that there is no difference in the performance tables in ice or IMC. While the TBM 700 looks good against the Meridian in climb and cruise, the Meridian will outperform it in IMC and ice since there is no engine penalty. Climbs 1500 for in clear air, climbs 1500 fpm in ice/IMC. Plus anyone who has NEVER EVER forgotten to open the sep/alt air in IMC/Ice/ground ops please raise their hand

This stuff does matter. The TBM icing fatal where the pilot got in over his head, and forgot to turn on his window deice, and forgot to open his intertial sep, may have still been here if those features were deployed. The windscreen is the single biggest frontal drag on a FIKI single with rough mixed ice, and the rattle that he described to ATC before he lost control, I think was ice raising heck with his compressor or even compressor stalls. Either way, nice to not have to worry about it. I like simple, and will happily give up some knots for that.

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=123577

Previous BT thread with the same debate. Nothing conclusive.

LOL
How hard it is to put a switch up?
The Meridian is loosing a lot of efficiency because of this bad design.
Dont even compare a Meridian to a TBM, its not in the same league.

Warning - Thread drift!
Charles, what you say regarding accepting less optimal in lieu of robustness makes sense to me - being conscious of my fallibility. But that consciousness makes me leery of the G1000. I'm sure I could learn it, but worry about maintaining currency with it. Is it not more complex than an FMS plus attendant separate devices?

And there's updating it. My impression is that's not possible in any piecemeal fashion. Am I wrong to be skeptical of the G1000?

The beauty of the G1000 is its integration. Everything talks to everything else, so the alarms, systems . As far as updating, the next update is the Nxi G1000 which Garmin is working on with Piper. After the Nxi will be Nxii, so wouldn't worry about it. :-)

And yes the Meridian is not a TBM. It is simpler, easier to fly and more forgiving of poor technique. Attributes that attract me to it as a self admitted A-grade pilot that has the humility to accept that on some days I am barely pulling a C.

History has unfortunately shown us it's harder to push that switch then not to have to even remember.

Chip-

History has unfortunately shown us it's harder to push that switch then not to have to even remember.

Chip-

Or the old disastrous auto dropping gear. . The M500/600 do have the gear tied to the TAWS though in addition to the tyoical links to power and flap settings. So even if you fail to get in a landing configuration, you will get a clear voice reminder that the gear are not down as you get below 400 ft. AGL. Beats the old buzzer, bell common in retracts, that only work if you pull power and or put in more than approach flaps. I believe it says check gear, check gear, with a yellow or red CAS as well on the PFD. Pretty idiot proof. Although, I have heard they keep making better idiots.

My main concern is whether the G1000 is harder to fly because of its greater complexity?