As the Internet gets faster and collaboration tools get better, it is very hard to explain why one needs to travel. Nonetheless, some of my friends have decided that we need to be able to get around by airplane in the winter and do so on our schedule. This means we need an airplane that can climb through ice-filled clouds into dry clear air. The TBM 850 is one candidate and we flew one today out of Hanscom with the regional sales guy, Ken Dono. [links: the plane in general; the plane we flew]
Weather was clear with winds gusting to 20 knots and an airmet for moderate turbulence below 8000′. I buckled into the four-point harness in the left seat with Ken on the right. Pre-start checklist involves setting up diverse switches to appropriate settings and giving the emergency oxygen system a try. The start procedure is typical of a non-FADEC turbine engine. You hold down the start switch and monitor the temperature to make sure that the engine doesn’t get too hot. Once the RPMs are in the green, you let go of the start switch.
I was able to taxi out to Runway 29 without embarrassing myself. The torque gauge lags the throttle a bit and, in attempting to advance to 100% torque, I pushed the engine up over the redline to 105% (oops). We rotated at 80 knots, climbed at 110, and, after retracting the flaps, pitched for 120 knots. We did most of our climb up to 16,500′ at 140 knots, achieving a cruise climb rate of 1500-2000′ per minute. Managing the rudder trim was a bit of a challenge through the climb out and level-off.
I did some turns at 30 degrees of bank and then reconfigured the plane for landing and did some maneuvering at 95 knots with full flaps. The plane is very docile and easy to handle. We did an emergency descent at 6000 fpm, the appropriate action to take in event of a pressurization failure. Ken kept having to tell me to “push down more” because it seemed wrong to nose the plane so far over (the red line is at 266 knots).
My friend Julian took over at the controls for the trip back towards Hanscom. Swapping pilots in the tight cabin is awkward, but doable. Julian is halfway through his instrument rating, a relative beginner pilot, but he was able to bring the plane in for a smooth landing with a bit of coaching. Thanks to some reverse pitch on the propeller, we made the very first turnoff from Runway 29 at Hanscom, Taxiway Golf. I think it is about 1800′ from the runway threshold. This is a plane that is as fast as some turbojets and yet can land at almost any airport in the U.S.
How about interior comfort? The noise levels at a 260 knot, 16,500′ cruise were 91-92 dBA in front and 88-89 dBA in back, i.e., comparable to, but not superior than, the quieter piston airplanes. The front seats are comfortable, slightly cramped, and offer fair visibility. The rear seats are comfortable for two, but would have been cramped for four tall adults. The rear seats have limited visibility through small windows that are much lower than eye-level (i.e., much worse than a window seat on a 737) and are afflicted with a fair amount of yaw (“tail-wagging”) and turbulence. The plane carries about four hours of fuel, plus a reserve, and has… no bathroom or “relief tube” (don’t ask, but most of the higher-end piston airplanes have them; remember how Tycho Brahe died). It would be tough to imagine a rich person paying for a ride in the back of this airplane.
How does the airplane compare to the new Very Light Jets (VLJs)? The TBM user interface is squarely in the mold of airplanes that have been with us since World War II. Every time a new system is added to the plane, some new switches, dials, knobs, warning lights, and test switches for the warning lights are added to the panel (dashboard). There are about seven switches that turn on different anti-icing subsystems. You’d think that this would be a three-position switch: “no ice is possible” (everything off), “ice is a theoretical possibility” (pitot heat on to both tubes), “I am picking up ice” (everything on). But nothing like this level of integration is present in the TBM. The VLJs, by contrast, present most of their information on three big LCD screens, very similar to the two big LCD screens on simple piston airplanes being delivered today. They don’t need a grid of 50 warning lights and associated test switches. If you can see a big LCD screen, any warnings that you need to see will appear as text on the screen. The integration on the Eclipse jet is so high that it is probably going to be simpler to fly than the TBM.
What is the competition for the TBM?
- Pilatus PC-12: longer range, slower cruise speed, much larger cabin, similar hourly costs
- King Air: two engines, 6000 out there flying, can replace all the avionics in an older one with a Garmin G1000 and Garmin autopilot for about $225,000, slow cruise speed, limited range, higher hourly costs due to two engines spinning towards overhaul
- the VLJs: starting at $1.5 million for the Eclipse, potentially much cheaper than the TBM and maybe a lot quieter inside, but also very cramped
The TBM does seem to be the champ for a plane that a low-time owner can fly by himself to reasonably short runways.
Related: Pilatus PC-12 quick review
Phil,
It seems to me like the VLJ may still be the way to go for you/friends. It will be interesting to to see how they play out in the charter business.
I recently obtained a quote from a nationally-know charter company for private jet service (in an eight passenger jet) for a non-stop, round trip flight from Lynchburg,VA (LYH) to St. Martin (SXM) for the first week of December. The quote was roughly $46,000. My problem was that I didn’t need an eight passenger plane since there were only four of us going.
The VLJ would have been perfect for that sort of thing and presumably at a much lower seat cost.
Phil,
Nice write up.
Given the flying experience of the group considering ownership with you, what are the ramifications of insurance availability and cost on your decision?
I suspect one advantage the TBM and the other single turboprops have over the Eclipse is a much more flexiable load carrying capablity. I’ve heard different rumors about the Eclipse, but I’m pretty certain it could not carry four FAA standard people very far, nor could the four carry much in the way of baggage.
I’m also curious what you think about the Piper Meridian? The new ones cost right at $2 million and are more automated than the TBM. Is the Avidyne system a deal killer for you?
John: Insurance is about 1% of hull value for owner-flown and maybe half that for crew-flown. At my level of experience, the single/multi distinction isn’t huge. Anyone without any instrument rating and, say, 500 hours, would simply fly with an instructor.
Jim: The Meridian is okay, but has very little payload or range compared to the TBM.
Wow! Hey Phil. Let’s not get carried away with “what if” I doubt you or anyone you know has ever been in a certified VLJ, and speculation, is of course dangerous as you might well imagine.
So let’s talk facts: The TBM has been around for many years and over 365 have been produced to date. The new TBM 850 is positioned as the ultimate “Personal Aircraft”. Match its tested airframe and systems like an air cycle machine and a Freon air-conditioner for passenger comfort, speed of 320 kts, fast block times, easy to fly controls, low insurance rates, easy transition and you have an exceptional flying machine.
You mention comparisons as the King Air, Pilatus PC 12. Well they all have Pratt turbo props (some more than others) but that is where the similarity should end,
The bottom line is yes, the TBM 850 may cost a bit more than the anticipated VLJ variants but, after weighing all the issues, it’s probably well worth it.
Help me out here Phil, I thought (from reading about it) that the 850 has an automatic torque management system that limits the engine output to 700 hp as long as take off flaps are selected and until the flap switch is raised to a 4th “cruise” detent where the full 850 hp become available, when in this postion the pilot must be careful not to overtorque or overheat the engine. Did you take off with the flap switch in this position? Or do those flying magazine guys have it wrong?
You do not take off in this position ( full 850 pwr) flaps must be raised before you can lift the flap switch over a detent that will engage the full 850hp. At which point you become the torque limiter !
How hard would it be, in your opinion, for an 850-hour instrument rated pilot to transition to the TBM 850? What would the insurers require? How many hours with an instructor, and so forth. I currently own a 2006 T206, which I am flying at a run rate of about 200 hours a year.
I live in the New York area and fly out of White Plains. How realistic, in your opinion, is it to expect that I would be able to put the aircraft on Part 135 to defer at least some of the cost?
Nice review of the aircraft, by the way.
Hi Rob,
I currently fly a TBM 700, not much different than the 850 really. Inso far as experince I found the initial transition from a Bonanza to the TBM relativley easy. The most difficult part to me was’smoothly’ incorporating the systems ( auto-p, nav ect…) into my flying. Simply put ,getting the AP to integrate with the GPS/VOR/OBS on approaches. Fortunatly my V-35 had the same GPS ( Garmin) so the learning curve on that item was short. Simcom to my knowledge is the only flt. safety currently doing TBM sims. This in my hummble opinion is VITAL! Carlos M. would be my choice for simcom training!
The TBM is easy to fly, it handles very nicely in all modes of flt. Take offs are a rush, and there is a fair amount of P factor even with the rudder trim..but nothing to worry about as long as you feed in the torque in a progressive fashion and not ham handle it. Gear must be raise promptly to avoid blowing thru the VLe speed. Once airborne its a no brainer, set your pwr settings when above 20K and your set. Decents are the same, just pop your inertial seperator prior to 200knts. The TBM is not known for its greaser landings. No trialing link gear, oleo struts here make for a firm arrival. Landings took awhile to get to my level of satisfaction. YOU WILL bounce it in a few times…but the plane handles it very very well…she tends to ‘flat bounce’ not abruptly but firmly.
I have never felt ‘challenged’ when landing in this fashion…just demoralized ! This is a passing transition…and you will crack the code of smooth landings…which is to cross the numbers full flaps,gear down, at as close to 85knts as possible. Carrying exra speed is an evil reserved for cross winds only. Also I try and land with one leg first and quickly the other ( regardless of wind conditions) …tends to disapate enough energy to avoid any sutle bounce left in the old girl.
Cross winds are relativlety easy…provided you hit the brakes firmly and thrust reverse promptly to kill lift and get the weight on the wheels…the large obtuse rudder can act like a sail and on windy occasions YOU can feel a slight weather vane effect. Its a terrific plane, best on the market for T props.
interesting stuff for us, as we narrow down our search for our first corporate aircraft. mission 2-5 passengers + pro pilot on 200 – 800nm trips. That is where our branches are, and the ski areas, too. What I am trying to get a handle on are the mission numbers for the A vs. B vs. C2 vs. 850. I have seen 850nm with 6+baggage, 225gal fuel at 283kts cruise or 1,005 @237kts. Does that look right for 700B? Does it change much for the others?
No t sure on the numbers for the b and c model. I fly the a model, I have taken off max’d out with full fuel, 6 avg. weight passengers and minimal luggage ( brief cases / over nite bags ) 200-1400 msl on warm days and the plane handles it well. I certainly would want a long runway at higher elevations.
Thanks, BK. I had a similar problem transitioning to the G1000 system with respect to the autopilot and approach setup. On my 206, the KAP-140 is independent of the G1000 system and goes offline when a different nav mode is selected. If I’m not vigilant to reengage, the aircraft doesn’t intercept and flies through the final approach course. (In the New York area, this is a sure-fire recipe for pissing off ATC.)
Aways enjoy your perspective Phil. Given the upgrade to glass and some of the other improvements, I wonder if your take on the new TBM 850 would change. It certainly has the range you wish the Mustang could have although it’s likely too noisy in comparison. BTW, does the TBM 850 require Prist at the flight levels on one of those frosty days we regularly experience up here in Canada?
Greg: I’m not an expert, but I think that all of the PT-6 airplanes require Prist. Am I overwhelmed that the TBM now has a glass cockpit just like a … 2003 Cirrus? Not really. The plane is about the same price as the Cessna Mustang, which makes the Mustang a much better value. The TBM is a specialty plane, great for short fields and low-time pilots.
hello…as a low time pilot the 850 interests me along with the 700. I am interested in your opinion. You said the 850 is a specialty plane for short fields and low time pilots and the mustang is a better value. Does the 850 not have 1000nm capabilities with a full cabin and luggage at 320kph.. It seems the mustang is greatly limited in range and much more cramped. Also ive heard the mustang has had some problems being cleared by atc to top cruise altitudes due to slower jet speed. Thanks…
Scott: It has been awhile since I looked at the numbers on the TBM. I’m pretty sure that the cabin on the Mustang is larger than the TBM’s. The Eclipse is “much more cramped”. The TBM range numbers are straight FAA range, with a 45-minute reserve. The Mustang range numbers are NBAA range, which includes an approach, flying to an alternate 100 n.m. away, and then flying for another 45 minutes. The Mustang has better performance after suffering from a single engine failure…
thanks for your answer…as i stated i am a low time pilot. I am half way to my private. I have a time line of two years before purchase. Do you have any suggestions on where i could look to get estimates on annual operating costs and hourly cost information. I currently am looking towards older larger cabin class twins and high performance singles. The problem with the vlj category that ive found is that you have to have an atp certificate to even begin the expensive training process. I will also be the first to state that with what will be my limited airtime i have no business in a jet. The planes that are in my consideration at this point are the cessna 414 ram and 421, cessna conquests and the tbms. I live in tulsa and my real need is a plane that can make 1200 mile trips in 4 hours or so with room for four people. One stop for fuel is acceptable, speed is more important as is confort if room for six is needed. Please let me know if you have any other aircraft to consider. Again i appreciate your taking the time to respond.
Scott: You definitely do not need an ATP to begin jet training. A Private-Instrument-Multi is sufficient and perhaps 300 hours of good piston training. The military transitions pilots to jets with fairly low amounts of time, but they are serious about their training.
The old twin Cessnas will be harder to manage than a jet like the Mustang or Phenom 100. They are 30+ years old, extremely complex, stuff is constantly breaking, and you need to be a hero to manage an engine failure (identify-verify-feather and make sure that you touch only the right power lever (out of 6)). With an engine failure in a jet you just keep flying until you’re at a safe altitude and then get out the checklist. (I have an ATP and 3000 hours and would not consider myself safe in a Cessna 421 unless I flew it every day and did some engine failure training every 6 weeks.)
Conklin and Decker, http://www.conklindd.com/, is a reliable source for operating costs.
In the $1 million (used) price range, an older TBM sounds like a pretty good choice for your mission. If you can stretch to $2-3 million, the Cessna Mustang and Embraer Phenom 100 are much more comfortable due to the lack of interior noise, reduced vibration, and security of knowing that there is a backup engine. You’ll hire a captain at $500/day until you and your insurance company are comfortable with you flying single pilot. (Actually the insurance company will probably want you to fly dual in the TBM for the first 50 hours as well.)
thanks again…i guess i was confused about the requirements. I know what you mean about the twins. I have been given the same advice previously. Would you say this is true of the conquest ii as well. I basically still have no real idea what im in for. What do you expect me to encounter from the insurance companies moving into the tbms. At what hour range is this jump feasible to be considered. Also would there be a smart intermediary step to look at. Thanks again
Scott: I believe that the ancient Conquests used Garrett engines, which are direct-drive and don’t autofeather, unlike the free-turbine PT-6 engines on the King Air. So they wouldn’t be as easy to manage in the event of an engine failure. Also, an out-of-production airplane like a Conquest is tough to maintain and tough to re-sell. If you want an ancient twin turboprop, why not get a King Air? (I have only about one hour of King Air time and one hour of TBM time, but I can tell you that the King Air is more of a handful for a beginner.)
A guy at our local airport transitioned from small simple piston airplanes into a TBM when he had about 300 hours, so it can be done. He probably needed 50 hours of dual and to pay $50,000 per year for insurance (his TBM was brand new, so that wasn’t too bad as a percentage of hull value), but he did it and flew the plane happily back and forth to the Bahamas.
I don’t think that there is an intermediate step that makes sense. If you want to be a long-term TBM pilot, you might as well get started ASAP and fly it with an instructor until you and your insurance company are comfortable.
hello again..i appreciate all of your information it has proven helpful. we are currently looking towards pilatus. Do you have any advice on where to look for annual operating costs. We had a company do a projected cost. At 150 hours they came up with 176500. Granted 37500 was for a pilot. We really are looking more towards 100 hours. All i have read is that they are the most economical of planes in this class. However i was not prepared for that figure. Do you have any advice or input. Thanks. Total fixed came to 101,700.