There are no environmental conditions in which an M600 doesn’t make that trip non-stop. Today KIND to KNVC takes 130 gallons in 2:53. With very little fuel needed, you can carry 1150 in the cabin with IFR plus mandatory alternate fuel. Could carry more but the limit is zero fuel weight. If the weather in Florida is bad, could call an audible and make the trip to phoenix, 1284 nm with 34 knots on the nose. But that is a loooong flight. So take the jet. But still only 220 gallons.

There are a few reasons:

Jet engines are more reliable. Turboprops are vey reliable, jet engines are extremely reliable. With both engines, not only are you unlikely to ever have a failure, you are unlikely to personally know someone who has ever had a failure.

Now IF you have a failure…

Jets are overpowered. By that I mean all business jets are able to climb very well on the thrust of just one engine. Most larger turboprops do fine on one engine, but they will not climb as steeply. This isn’t a huge factor except perhaps in the mountains. Some twin turboprops (early long body MU-2, early Cheyenne) don’t climb well at gross weight on one engine.

A turboprop pilot must react correctly when an engine fails. He generally does not have to react with lightning speed, but he MUST act, and act correctly. When a jet engine fails, the jet pilot has to do….almost nothing. A jet pilot who takes no action after an engine failure is much safer than a turboprop pilot who takes no action.

Yes.

To both.

And there is more to it. The jet profiles are safe with an engine failure *at any point*. Turboprops generally are not. For example, pilots rarely use the accel stop or accel go distance when using a turboprop, but all jet takeoffs are computed that way.

The high thrust at lower altitudes means the jet climbs out very easily on one engine. Turboprops, when high, hot, heavy, don't do nearly as well.

There is no prop to fail.

There is no feathering of the wrong prop.

There is no Vmc rollvoer.

The accident stats bear this out jet as far and away safer than turboprops.

Mike C.

One of the factors not mentioned is that a jet will also climb out of IMC and icing conditions a lot faster, the sooner you clear weather the better. In most cases accidents caused by weather are on approach / landing, so it’s not actually that great of a difference safety wise, but it does eliminate the being stuck at altitudes where you are dodging thunderstorms or picking up ice and distorting seat leather.

Not entirely true; There are real world runway limitations on turbojet aircraft, as alluded to before; especially those without the use of TRs.

I'll give you with the problem as presented a jet answers the mail, but we don't have the complete information. What if his site in Chicago is right next to Schaumburg, IL? ORD is not a realistic option, DuPage and Palwaukee aren't close by either.

I'm talking my book, for sure but the bottom line is a TP can get in and out of everywhere a light jet can. The same cannot be said in reverse.

I presume you are indicating 06C with a runway that is 3800 x 100 ft.

Citation V at max gross can use that runway up to 30 C for takeoff. At 40 C (about record high temp), you need to drop 900 lbs which is ~300 nm range if you need max cabin load. These figures are *WITH* an engine failure at the worst possible time, and clearing the far end of the runway by 35 ft when it does occur at or above V1.

Landing dry is no problem at max landing weight (and even at overweight max takeoff weight). This is with crossing the runway threshold at 50 ft high, so you waste the first 1000 ft of runway.

Wet corrections are no problem with TRs. They add less than 100 ft to dry distances.

For ice, the adder is about 1000 ft, so you need a book dry length of 2800 ft. That is achievable by dropping 900 lbs at 0 C (since it will be cold). I don't imagine this happens very often at 06C.


If you operate the turboprop under the same conditions, that is, you maintain accel-go and accel-stop distances, you will find many of them DO NOT fit at 06C.

For example, a 441 Conquest II (chosen because I have data for it) at gross weight will need temps to be 0 C or colder to meet accel-go at 06C.

For an MU2 M model, the book says a normal takeoff at max weight will take 3800 ft at 0 C, and this is NOT accel-go which would be longer. The MU2 book is very pessimistic, though, over the real airplane capability.

Turboprop landing will be okay, but the takeoff is the limiting factor on using the airport.

In short, some jets CAN beat some turboprops on runway usage when you fly them to the same requirement. Turboprops appear to be better because they are allowed to operate where you may die if an engine fails. This isn't true for jets.

If I lived near 06C, I'd be reasonably comfortable basing my plane there due to the runway length. KDPA is a close by alternate if any of the runway conditions at 06C are not to your liking. The main issue with 06C is the lack of any IAPs. That would be far more limiting than the runway.

Mike C.

Hmmm. I must be crazy, every day endangering my fiends and family. If only I bought a a Jet as old as me. I don't think you can make that blanket statement. Especially not single owner pilot stats in legacy jets. That is a small sub fraction of biz jets and the record is far from perfect. Compare apples to apples. Modern light jets to modern SETP's. Few of them beat the Pilatus, and none beat the Piper GX000, the GX000 being the avionics installed since 2009. There are more GX000 Piper turbines flying (GX000 Meridian/M500/M600) than Phenom 100's, Mustangs, SF50's and Eclipse jets. All of them have suffered at least one fatal on the ground or in the air. The Piper GX000 to date has 0 fatals. Could be one today or tomorrow, people and machines aren't perfect. But there is no significant delta there.

Safety record of the V. 28 hull losses and 44 fatalities.

Low probability statistics are fun, you can cherry pick anything you want to support any conclusion.

As far as I know, there are 0 fatals with Garmin TXi panel equipped Citation Vs, too.

The twin engine jet design is intrinsically safer than the turboprop. Whether the pilot cancels that advantage is another matter.

If you knew an engine would fail on takeoff, would you fly a Meridian or a Citation?

No contest.

If an SETP was safer, airliners would be built that way. They are not.

Mike C.

14-16 million hours in the TBM, PC12, Piper turbine fleet. To my knowledge no engine fatals in the PC12 or Piper’s. A couple in TBMs, but both of those had pilot contributions to the outcome. Not a true problem with the engine. So the 2 engine thing sounds great, but that is not how pilots kill themselves in turbines.

Low probability statistics are fun, you can cherry pick anything you want to support any conclusion.

Low probability statistics are fun, you can cherry pick anything you want to support any conclusion.


Mike C.

We would be interested in rates, but these numbers are hard to find. But newer Piper turbines fly a lot of hours. Same with pretty much all new airframes. People that spend a lot of money on a plane want to get use out of it. And the relative cost of Jet A is not a huge concern at that price point. Our 2019 has right at 1500 hours on it. But we are on the high end for sure. But we are not the only 400 hour per year M600. Right now at 0930 mountain time there are 46 (funny) PA46 variants in the air. Searching PA46, P46T, M600. These planes fly a lot, and a lot in weather so there is a good bit of exposure.

N2445F, 2/13/2022, at KOJC.

Clearly a glass machine:

Clearly a dead pilot:

NTSB:

"The unknown emergency that warranted a return to the airport and the airspeed decay which resulted in an aerodynamic stall."

In other words, loss of thrust right after liftoff.

Sorting for fatal Piper turbine "46" accidents produces 27 hits. I only looked at the first one and it was this one. Anyone who reads your posts and concludes the PA46 is somehow immune to fatal accidents is being sorely misled.

Mike C.

I've started looking at the M600s quite a bit as well. It seems like you can get into a relatively new one around the $2.5M price point and they "should" cost a lot less per hour, especially the non-Florida missions from KUMP.

Completely different starting point and capabilities than the CJ or 501, I get it. On a positive note, the engagement and helpfulness of the people on here has been fantastic. I was able to explain to my wife that plane people are like boat people (crusiers, not speed or watersports) in that they love to talk about and show other people their equipment and are very helpful.

It has helped me settle out one point for sure, as I know I don't want to have a future plane in charter. I have done that with big boats before and it just isn't worth it.

Thanks all.

There have been several changes since the first M600 (2016) was certified and one big change was serial #81 has the G3000NG which is still the latest version and is capable of installation of the new GWX8000 radar as well as other updates