I agree with Cobalt. I have flown an 850 (1.5hrs with a factory instructor) and there was nothing difficult about it provided one understands the systems, but that issue exists in complex SEPs too (but there it is often disregarded).
The approach speeds are similar to a TB20… maybe another 5-10kt.
Re costs, operating on Part 91 is the way to go. Very few TBM owners do that; instead writing a blsnk cheque to a company to do the entire MM. I was hangared in one such company for 10 years.
I agree with Cobalt – I cant see why this is very much different than flying a complex twin (in other words not a 42) and there are quite a few people doing so on this number of hours.
I suspect the key is a history of plenty of hours in fast complex types. Once you are accustom to the speed and have the abiity to understand more complex systems this takes a long time to forget.
.. .. but I also suspect that if you intend to regularly make use of the aircraft in poor weather with low minima then currency becomes a great deal more important as instrument currency is more demanding whatever the type. Of course the systems and autopilot are so good this provides a very effective crutch, which in itself is only a danger when the day comes that you need to hand fly the aircraft :-]
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I cant see why this is very much different than flying a complex twin (in other words not a 42)
And what’s the difference between flying a complex twin (I assume you mean something like Seneca) and DA42? I haven’t noticed any and it seems to me that TBM would be more demanding.
In addition to Jason’s comment, SET have by definition much more torque than your SEP, P-51s etc excepted. CRM might focus on loss of control following go around, or LoC following yaw damper failure/trim runaway, plus the usual high altitude threats. These are not theoretical as a review of SET accidents would confirm.
To answer the question, 60 hours p.a. feels on the low side for IR currency, especially for all the system failure scenarios (trim runaway, automatics, AHRS, PFL under IMC, FCU failure, etc). I would also consider hanging up my MEP headset if I was only flying 60 hours p.a. – although some twins are sufficiently benign that this may be regarded as too conservative.
There is another TBM thread here, with some good detailed posts further down.
It appears that most/all owners use the “do absolutely everything in the MM” maintenance because it preserves the value best. They pay heavily for it, and a lot of the work is a waste of time and money.
But if you buy a plane which has already had most of the depreciation come off, that is less important.
There is definitely an issue with maintaining a TBM away from a “big” firm. You absolutely need a proper facility, starting with a hangar and all the kit. A TB20 can be done in a rented hangar somewhere, and other servicing can be done in the open, picking nice days. A TBM is a “huge” plane in terms of floor space taken.
Is there an issue with a turbine engine in a shared aircraft?
I mean that, from what I’ve read, it’s very easy to do serious amounts of damage to a turbine engine very quickly, if operated by a pilot that doesn’t know what they are doing or are out of currently. And once damage is done, that a turbine is very expensive to repair.
The Silver Eagle of a friend of mine (group-owned) suffered such case last summer. One of the shareholders produced a hot start. Even worse, this happened pretty much at the wost place immaginable – Helgoland EDXH.
Just to give you an idea: installing and uninstalling the turbine alone cost in the order of 30k. The total bill came to about ten times that…
The aircraft was “tech” for more than half a year…
Emir wrote:
And what’s the difference between flying a complex twin (I assume you mean something like Seneca) and DA42? I haven’t noticed any and it seems to me that TBM would be more demanding.
I think as with any aircraft its a matter of the complexity of the systems and the speed. Speed is an easy one – as the speed increases there is a point until you are accustom to the additional speed where you get behind the aircraft – we all know that.
There is so little difference between the speed of these various types as not to matter, given the en route speed is less of a factor than the approach speeds.
The systems are just a distraction – but the more of a distraction they become the less time you have to cope with other things – obvious really. So when you fly a DA42 around the circuit there is almost nothing happening – its all pretty much automatic, compared to a Seneca or other conventional twin, where there are a few more levers to play with, maybe some cowl flaps, some non synchronised props., fuel leaning etc. Even things like icing in the DA42, it is basically on or not, (I know you might want to select high flow) whereas with many twins you may want the boots, or the props., or the screen.
I did my initial twin rating on a conventional twin and found the 42 very straight forward – I think if I had I done it the other way around, it would have been more difficult, which was certainly the view and experience of my instructor.
boscomantico wrote:
The Silver Eagle of a friend of mine (group-owned) suffered such case last summer. One of the shareholders produced a hot start. Even worse, this happened pretty much at the wost place immaginable – Helgoland EDXH.
It is certainly the case that while turbine engines are actually simpler to start and operate than pistons, over-temping or over-torquing them can at best lead to expensive inspections and at worst a lot more. A Meridian in the US had a lot of its power turbine exit via the exhaust through use of the manual override on the ground. Repair was pretty close to $500k from memory.
It would not be an engine you want in a group with anything other than careful members. At least with data logging it will be fairly easy to see who did it.
I don’t think the full story is coming out above, because I have just phoned up Haywards – UK’s biggest GA insurer – and they gave me a rough price of GBP 11k for a $1M hull cover, and this includes hot starts because they treat that as a “pilot error”.
So maybe some people want to save a few bob on their insurance? On a TP Cessna SEP conversion the saving would likely be pretty damn small.
OTOH one guy I have flown with, who flies PT6s a lot, says you have to be pretty “slow” to do a hot start on a PT6…
Just to give you an idea: installing and uninstalling the turbine alone cost in the order of 30k. The total bill came to about ten times that…
What would be the breakdown of that €300k?
BTW I don’t think the TBM700 has temperature recording.
I recall one TBM850 owner complaining to me that his plane had it and it was costing him money in extra inspections 
