Ok, I just downloaded TBM profile for ForeFlight, and after a little fiddling I can see Piaggio goes further. TBM definitely does not benefit from the thirsty PT6 being in the 20s. Also, what is a reasonable reserve for the TBM? When I tell FF to use 45 mins, range goes to heck because that is something like 45+ gal reserve, which seems roughly right. The FF default reserve is 33 gal, which seems… skinny… Not sure where they came up with 33 gal.

Ok, I just downloaded TBM profile for ForeFlight, and after a little fiddling I can see Piaggio goes further. TBM definitely does not benefit from the thirsty PT6 being in the 20s. Also, what is a reasonable reserve for the TBM? When I tell FF to use 45 mins, range goes to heck because that is something like 45+ gal reserve, which seems roughly right. The FF default reserve is 33 gal, which seems… skinny… Not sure where they came up with 33 gal.

The issue is that most Citation pilots keep the plane going fast at high thrust when they descend prematurely. This is very inefficient.

If you back off, you can significantly improve the efficiency. This means lower altitude costs more time than it does range.

For my plane, at FL250:

417 KTAS, 1767 pph, 23.6 nm/100 lbs

269 KTAS, 801 pph, 33.7 nm/100 lbs

Compare to max cruise at FL390:

411 KTAS, 1195 pph, 34.4 nm/100 lbs

So FL390 fast cruise is really not a lot less efficiency than FL250 max range, about the same distance for the fuel. If you are into a headwind at FL390, and it is a little bit less at FL250, FL250 might be more range.

The pilot thus has the option of choosing time or range as the tradeoff. Most don't choose time and then are surprised how much fuel it takes to shove the airplane through thick air at high indicated airspeeds.

A pilot can also slow down at high altitude cruise to improve range, but not as much, as the spread of long range cruise to max cruise is much narrower in thin air.

Mike C.

Yeah, after some noodling with the flight planner I came to that conclusion too, at least that the Piaggio isn’t at a big disadvantage relative to the TBM for lower altitude range.


Yeah, engines being identical made me realize TBM wouldn’t have an advantage lower. The Mits had such an advantage because the TPE engines don’t lose efficiency at lower altitudes as much as the PT6s.

Having owned a TBM-930 for 5 years, here's my observations:
- 1620NM ground distance is the longest I've flown (SCIP to SCIR)
- flying more than 1000NM, you're looking at LRC, which is 250 kts, not 315
- you really don't want to spend 6,5 hours in a 9800ft cabin

Wondering if anyone could share who they are using for Insurance (the underwriter)

I'm with USAIG right now, but I'm curious what others are seeing.

I had W Brown the first 2 years. But this year, IAT was a new entry and offered same coverage for 22% less.

I had W Brown the first 2 years. But this year, IAT was a new entry and offered same coverage for 22% less.

Just returned from my trip to Orcas, and it worked just fine. Just my wife and I so payload was small. Had a weekend stop KBFI, I fueled there for the eventual trip home (KORS has no JetA). Landed with 2100 lbs of fuel, total wt about 10,900. Arrival was with south winds 10g14 kts or so. Landing rwy 16 was easy and rollout was short (was down to taxi speed with almost 1000' remaining using only reverse and little brakes). Had a great stay with some friends. Takeoff this morning was winds calm, departed VFR on rwy 34. Off runway at about A3 - ground roll right around 2000', maybe a touch less. Made it home to KHWD with an hour's reserve (about 650 lbs).

Piaggio runway use is not bad. It's not quite as good as the MU2 was, but it's not bad. And it's awesome once you're at FL350 just truckin' along.

Jon — what speeds did you use for this short runway?

Per the POH table. Conditions were as shown. Takeoff weight was about 10900 so I used Vr of about 103-104.

Have any of you overhauled a brake in the last twelve months or so? If so, what did it cost. I'm trying to understand what inflation has done to that expense which the last time I checked was $85k or so for both wheels and about $55k for Parker Hannifin.

Also, I'm being told that the Parker Hannifin brakes don't perform "as well" so I'm trying to understand how they compare in actual performance to the carbon ceramics (especially given that we don't use brakes very much in typical operation).

Thanks.

So, the answer is Avial is now $83k exchange PER WHEEL on the ceramic brakes. That's doubled in the last few years. Park Hannifin steel is about half. ICJS is building a list of who wants those. I'm on it.