TBM900 - the perfect airplane

It’s always relevant making fun of the terribly bad climb performance of Peter’s non-turbo aircraft, but this one caught my attention too…

JasonC wrote:

I thought they would have moved to the G3000 by now.

I have a grand total of 1 hr G3000 time in a Cessna M2, and to my surprise I actually wasn’t blown away by the G3000 at all.

The head-down time on the touchpads was really annoying, and the touchpads themselves & constant mode changes just seemed confusing. The main PFD/MFD’s took a bit of getting used to as they’re much more configurable than the G1000.

I’m sure it’ll all become fantastic and familiar after some hours of use. And I’m sure the hardware itself is greatly improved.

But somehow a keypad G1000 with large 15" MFD feels more than adequate. I certainly didn’t feel the jump in improvement from G1000 to G3000 was anywhere near the improvement from 6-pack to G1000, not even close…

JasonC wrote:

So you can spend more time climbing at 6fpm to reach the absolute, maximum altitude in your normally aspirated aircraft?

21 is turbocharged.

JasonC wrote:

Actually I am very surprised that the TBM900 has stuck with G1000. I thought they would have moved to the G3000 by now.

Well, G1000 is a fairly new thing in the TBM world. I wasn’t really surprised, it was more of a let down. Perhaps it will arrive as a sort of mid-life update. Another curiosity is Piper going to 12 inch MFD instead of 15 inch while keeping 10 inch PFDs. I know they changed a few bits around but I would have expected them to stick with the 15 inch unit.

Hodja wrote:

I certainly didn’t feel the jump in improvement from G1000 to G3000 was anywhere near the improvement from 6-pack to G1000, not even close…

That is to be expected. I would certainly like the higher flexibility in arranging information. I don’t care much for wide PFDs. I would prefer to split the wide display and have something useful there (sort of like the G500 arrangement).

Other than tradiotional avionics including MFDs, the fully integrated suites including PFD need to have special software for each airframe (it’s not all configuration) and an individual certification.

Going classic to glass, there was probably a clear business case for doing it (both by getting more sales and from a higher unit price, although over time it becomes more and more a precondition for any sale)

Going from G1000 to G3000 – will only happen when customers really demand it, and with a smaller leap from the g1000 it will take some time.

So unfortunately regulation is holding back innovation?

Cobalt wrote:

Other than tradiotional avionics including MFDs, the fully integrated suites including PFD need to have special software for each airframe (it’s not all configuration) and an individual certification.

The engine and airframe interface unit should be the same, unless I’m mistaken (it should be GEA 71; the same should go for ADC, AHRS, nav/comm, transponder, satellite link, autopilot, etc.). Of course the reward is smaller, however, having the latest and greatest, so to speak, is desirable (I don’t really care for touchscreens, but still). G1000 has been on the market for more than ten years. I expect it will take them some time, just as adoption of G1000 took time. At least they skipped the Entegra.

Some more information on the April 5th unveiling

RobertL18C wrote:

Put another way the Garrett must be doing something interesting in the thermodynamics department to have a superior SFC on two engines to the PT6 single?

The cost to operate one PT6 large block (like TBM, PC12) is about the same to operate two TPE331 small block (-1 to -12). This is due to much better SFC for the TPE331 (typically 20% better than PT6), and due to the vastly lower HSI/OH life cycle costs. Generally, you can overhaul two TPE331 for the price of one large block PT6, and the TPE331 overhaul interval is 5000+ hours, the PT6 is 3500 hours.

The TPE331 twin flies as cheaply as the large block PT6 single.

At FL280, my airplane, MU2 M model with -10, does 290 KTAS at 65 GPH total (measured), TBM850 does 308 KTAS at 60 GPH (per POH). So there is a slight edge in fuel mileage for the TBM850 but not nearly as much as you would imagine for the much heavier and larger airplane the MU2 is.

Mike C.