concur.

From what I understand the TBM is significantly more expensive to maintain with several expensive time related not hour related items. If I'm wrong let me know. The TBM is a great plane though.

Mike makes too much sense. Even the Grumman Tiger/Gulfstream Tiger (AA-5B) has a 12,000 hour life limit and it has never gone down. It's peculiar to see the hours go down after certification. Usually they go up. It would be interesting to see why they went down.
The M500 has life limitations from EASA in excess of 10,000 hours and 15,000 hours dependent upon the airframe.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2014.pdf

Someone tossed a turd into the punch bowl. ...wonder what it is.

Why would you say that??

None of the inflight pa-46 break ups are from a faulty airframe design. Please see the article below. The airframe is sound. Wings don’t flutter until 600kias. Tail at 1000 kias. Tail breaks off at 9G’s (after the pilot goes unconscious).

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ibu-mirage

Val

The very low wing life limit is a real black mark on the long term viability record of an M600.

Hopefully Piper will address that very soon.

Otherwise I suspect a lot of M600’s will simply be traded back into Piper for new ones and let Piper figure out what to do with the airframes.

It’s interesting that I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere but here on BT.

If I were in the market for a SETP this is absolutely information I would want to know.

Not mentioned, because it is a non-issue. Piper sent a letter to all the owners, and said it is simply that they need to complete the fatigue testing, and expect to achieve at least what the M500 has as to limits. The wing is substantially overbuilt.

Can you provide a copy of that letter?


Then why was the wing lifetime revised downward in the latest TCDS revision, just 4 months ago? Did the Piper letter explain that change?

Mike C.

The only Mooney remnant in its legacy is the M in TBM.
What could've been.

The only Mooney remnant in its legacy is the M in TBM.
What could've been.

If you are buying it right, you should not be much more than $150k over the value of the engines. That is a pretty easy exit in the worst case scenario.

As someone who is pondering the purchase of a 40-year-old jet, I can say that it would not cost very much to have that Cheyenne interior look like the M600. Passengers will get that "new airplane smell." Exterior paint is not cheap but if you care about such things, you can have the latest fashions in exteriors as well. Avionics upgrades are another order of magnitude of course, but IMO, plenty of airline cockpits still look like the Cheyenne one and people still get on them. Plus, that Cheyenne panel can be upgraded more cheaply as technology changes in the future. W/ the M600, you could become orphaned w/ the current tech since it is all integrated into one monolithic and proprietary system.

For the OP, you should try and fly both of them and see which one you like to fly. You're going to be spending a lot of time in that seat, so get the one that is the most comfortable.

Finally, if you like to tinker and have the time, the Cheyenne can be rewarding. You will be free to make the changes that suit you, on the schedule you want. If you don't have the time or don't like doing that kind of stuff, get the M600. It will "just work."

From what I have heard first hand from a Piper dealer who shall remain unnamed - the yearly maintenance on a Cheyenne that is well maintained on purchase is equal or very likely less than the Meridian.

If you buy in the lower 3/4 of the market, all bets are off as far as what it takes to put the plane into shape in the first place!