Why a -52? A -42 is loafing in this plane...

What if they raise the pressurization differential and the certified ceiling? A -52 would make a lot of sense if their goal is to enable comfortable flight up to FL 350.

A couple feet longer would give nose baggage and wider third row seat. Combined with a bigger engine it would be a worthy TBM competitor at a lower price point.

Added power is already destabilizing, and moving the prop forward would be more so. Added length behind the wing would restore stability but change the aerodynamics between the wing and tail. With that much change, I expect you'd have to re-certify it as a new airplane, making it more expensive. Tough to compete against the SJ-50 if it's priced higher.

What if they raise the pressurization differential and the certified ceiling? A -52 would make a lot of sense if their goal is to enable comfortable flight up to FL 350.

Would a higher diff be possible without major structural augmentation? In other words, is the PA46 pressure vessel "de-rated" to 5.5psi currently?

Added power is already destabilizing, and moving the prop forward would be more so. Added length behind the wing would restore stability but change the aerodynamics between the wing and tail. With that much change, I expect you'd have to re-certify it as a new airplane, making it more expensive. Tough to compete against the SJ-50 if it's priced higher.

It was for the MU2. It went from 5 PSI to 6 PSI with no structural changes. But then, the MU2 is grossly overbuilt. For example, there is about 2000 lbs more aluminum in an MU2 than a 421, and the 421 is bigger.

I think the Citation went from 8.7 PSI (550) to 8.9 PSI (560) without changes, but that's a small step.


Maybe. I suspect not, the PA46 line seems not to be overbuilt by much since weight is a major issue to control. The PA46 was also built in the age of computers where structural optimizations could be made closer to the requirement.

Mike C.

I read in a twin cessna book that they put the 340 in a tank and pressurized it to something like 15 psi to test it. Not sure what the margins or regs are, but it seems like 6.0 would be doable and all that would be needed at 30/31.

It is a new certificate: PA-46-701TP.

The M600 came on it's own new certificate when they when they changed the wing. Maybe your talking about a whole new model designation?

Not sure when the FAA says you need to start new, but when you look at the Boeing 737 and the Cessna Citation 525 line, they aren't your grandfather's plane being built. Seems like you can stretch/shrink, rewing, reengine and update avionics without a new model.

FADEC -52, probably derated to same 600 HP is my guess. The -52 is to keep commonality with the KA 260, which I assume will also soon be announcing a FADEC version.

No real changes to size, speed, etc.

I’m suspecting no significant change in fuselage or pressurization differential. Also, not likely fadec as the engine is a -52A. The fadec models are E models. I’m guessing 700 hp, with a slightly more forward engine to correct the aft cg issues with the M600. This will likely be a 290 Ktas plane. It may come Rvsm from the factory to FL300. The current M600 is non RVSM without an STC. This plane has been testing for a few years now, which makes me think the fuselage has not changed significantly, or at all, from the M600. Someone mentioned the vision jet as competition to the TBM. I disagree. The vision jet is significantly lacking in range, useful load, and runway performance. It’s also slower.

You’re probably using about three clicks of left rudder in cruise, but that is barely deflected. So little that you wouldn’t even notice it watching it in flight. If you look at where your rudder pedals are in cruise, they’re pretty lined up evenly. If you went 50% rudder, you would roll that plane over on its top, or break the tail off, both of which would be kind of exciting.

Chuck,You are correct the rudder pedals are close in cruise.I hope the new version is a 320 KTS cruise aircraft.

I’ll be surprised to see 320kts out of the M600, I just don’t think that airframe was designed for those speeds. I know the TBM’s do it, but they are built like tanks.