21 Jun 2025, 07:58 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 21 Jan 2021, 17:23 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 12807 Post Likes: +5255 Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What is it about the PA-46 turbine series which is less expensive to "operate and maintain" than the TBM or PC-12 series?
Cost per mile in gas? Fixed costs? MX schedule (hours vs calendar items)? I see this mentioned a lot but never expounded upon.
-J 600 vs 900 vs 1200 hp is basically the story. Why does a 206 cost more than an 182 than a 172. Fuel, systems, maintenance. Just bigger, more complex planes
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 21 Jan 2021, 17:32 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/14/09 Posts: 821 Post Likes: +312 Location: Boise, ID
Aircraft: 06 Meridian, C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What is it about the PA-46 turbine series which is less expensive to "operate and maintain" than the TBM or PC-12 series?
Cost per mile in gas? Fixed costs? MX schedule (hours vs calendar items)? I see this mentioned a lot but never expounded upon.
-J 600 vs 900 vs 1200 hp is basically the story. Why does a 206 cost more than an 182 than a 172. Fuel, systems, maintenance. Just bigger, more complex planes I agree on the engine sizes being different. Outside of acquisition cost what makes a 1200HP more expensive to maintain than a 600HP PT6? Parts cost more but the only cost you should have up to 3600 hours is the HSI. What systems are more complex on a PC-12 or TBM versus an M600?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 21 Jan 2021, 17:44 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/27/19 Posts: 545 Post Likes: +271 Company: OwnShip Technology AG Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Aircraft: C33/P32R
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 600 vs 900 vs 1200 hp is basically the story.
The easy, golden rule of GA plane costs: 1$ or €/hp/hr. Try it, you‘ll like it.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 21 Jan 2021, 17:45 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/14/09 Posts: 821 Post Likes: +312 Location: Boise, ID
Aircraft: 06 Meridian, C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The big block pt6’s are $$$ more to overhaul
But seriously look at a 172 vs 206. Or a 20’ boat vs 24’. Size matters, size brings complexity and cost I agree. More cost to overhaul a big block PT6. But that is overhaul after 3600 hours. More to purchase too. But to maintain, year over year? What is the difference? At the risk of saying size doesn't matter and my wife reading this, how does size increase complexity on the SETP? Same engine accessories. I would say the G300 avionics and Garmin Autoland are more complex on the M600. Same de-ice systems. All have pressurization. Retractable gear. I really don't see why size should matter here.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 21 Jan 2021, 19:31 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 08/24/13 Posts: 9783 Post Likes: +4573 Company: Aviation Tools / CCX Location: KSMQ New Jersey
Aircraft: TBM700C2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I love having a lav. As we used to tell the new guys, that is the speaking tube
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 21 Jan 2021, 19:49 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20361 Post Likes: +25541 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I love having a lav. This is easier and less messy: Attachment: tj-small-1.png https://www.traveljohn.com/products/dis ... le-urinal/They work, no smelly relief tube left in the cabin, no relief tube port on the outside of the airplane, and no airframe corrosion from urine. My plane came with a relief tube, and I removed it. I consider it safety equipment since it can remove a very strong distraction. There have been scientific studies to show needing to go approximates being drunk in terms of mental impact. Mike C.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 21 Jan 2021, 19:55 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20361 Post Likes: +25541 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The big block pt6’s are $$$ more to overhaul This is a huge factor. The PT6A-6x engines can cost $500K to overhaul. The small block engines can be half that. I saw an invoice for a Cheyenne III with PT6A-61 engine overhauls that was about $1.1M. That was back in 2013! A PC-12, despite having only one engine, costs way more per mile for engines and fuel than my twin engine MU2. Two engines is not necessarily more expensive. The M600 engine will be a lot less costly to maintain and fuel than a PC-12. Just being larger means everything costs more. Tires, windows, gear parts, etc. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 21 Jan 2021, 21:09 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12 Posts: 12807 Post Likes: +5255 Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The big block pt6’s are $$$ more to overhaul
But seriously look at a 172 vs 206. Or a 20’ boat vs 24’. Size matters, size brings complexity and cost I agree. More cost to overhaul a big block PT6. But that is overhaul after 3600 hours. More to purchase too. But to maintain, year over year? What is the difference? At the risk of saying size doesn't matter and my wife reading this, how does size increase complexity on the SETP? Same engine accessories. I would say the G300 avionics and Garmin Autoland are more complex on the M600. Same de-ice systems. All have pressurization. Retractable gear. I really don't see why size should matter here.
The bigger airplane has bigger boots and a bigger windshield and sometimes different class of software and a bigger flap drive motor and that much more square feet to paint and more seats to reupholster.
If you get lucky- or maybe are comparing new to new - it may not matter much. But bought 10 years old and kept for 10 years it will matter
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 22 Jan 2021, 00:47 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6652 Post Likes: +5959 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Aerostar Superstar 2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The big block pt6’s are $$$ more to overhaul This is a huge factor. The PT6A-6x engines can cost $500K to overhaul. The small block engines can be half that. I saw an invoice for a Cheyenne III with PT6A-61 engine overhauls that was about $1.1M. That was back in 2013! A PC-12, despite having only one engine, costs way more per mile for engines and fuel than my twin engine MU2. Two engines is not necessarily more expensive. The M600 engine will be a lot less costly to maintain and fuel than a PC-12. Just being larger means everything costs more. Tires, windows, gear parts, etc. Mike C.
This is what I keep telling them over at the European boards whenever this subject comes up. Nobody believes me, they all think I'm full of BS. Theres this single engine OP cost bias that's just impossible to shake. Heck, the PC12 doesn't even burn much less fuel in total than a MU2 or Commander either, but try to convince them of that on top as well...
_________________ Without love, where would you be now?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 22 Jan 2021, 01:02 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 05/30/17 Posts: 198 Post Likes: +159
|
|
I love Travel Johns! I swear by them and they make my long legs possible!!
On the MX costs, most (but not all) of the M600 maintenance is on condition, rather that based on scheduled MX intervals. I think that’s one big difference in the cost expectations. There are some life-limited items and inspections, but for Part 91 operations, there are relatively few of those. That means more flexibility in managing MX costs at annuals.
I believe that’s true for all the PA46s but can’t swear by it as the 600 is the only one I have owned.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: New M600 vs used TBM/PC12 Posted: 22 Jan 2021, 01:48 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 07/28/15 Posts: 67 Post Likes: +41
Aircraft: C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I love having a lav. This is easier and less messy: Attachment: tj-small-1.png https://www.traveljohn.com/products/dis ... le-urinal/
Easier and less messy than a real lav? Really? Did you take out all the toilets in your house too in favor of piddle packs?
I can see arguing that a lav isn’t any good for a single pilot but not that it is worse for pax...
|
|
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
|
|
|
|