TBM 850 intro flight
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.
Mark
November 11, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
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.
JohnO
November 11, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
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?
Jim Howard
November 12, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
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?
philg
November 12, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
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.
Tom
November 20, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
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.
Paul S.
November 21, 2006 @ 9:20 am
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?
BK
November 23, 2006 @ 10:22 am
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 !
Rob K.
December 28, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
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.
BK
January 5, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
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.
Hod Fowler
January 8, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
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?
BK
January 14, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
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.
Rob K.
January 17, 2007 @ 10:33 am
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.)