Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

TBM cheaper to run than ME pistons?

Probably.

According to this cost breakdown, the TBM 850 has an DOC of about $486/hr for 200hrs per year. That’s pretty close to what it would cost to fly a high end twin here in the US per hour. If you factor in the European possibility that the Avtur is cheaper than Avgas, it’s even more in favor.

Then they add insurance costs etc that seem excessive to say the least – I bet you could get full hull for less than $5K. And why any owner pilot would have to pay himself salary and add that to operating costs, as in their example, is beyond me. Bottom line is, if the purchase price is not part of the equation, this will cost $486/hr to fly. If you are US reg and part 91, you can also ignore overhaul times and the price would be even less. Get the engine on the MORE program and you can see 7000hrs out of it.

Link

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 05 Apr 17:10

Full hull insurance for less than $5K?
How is that possible if I pay €3600 for a hull value of € 230 K? (SR22)

Perhaps not that low, but certainly lower than $30K. Does one need full hull value?

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 05 Apr 21:07

With an airplane like that? Well, if you have money to spare and don’t care if you loose a 1.5 million $ airframe without any kind of insurance cover, maybe. Otherwise, I’d regard operating an airplane like that without full cover financial suicide.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

The table is wrong. No way the general maintenance is going to be 7 USD per hour. The Excel sheet below contains some more realistic numbers and that is for a very new plane. I think for a private owner the fuel efficiency of the TBM does not count and is more than offset by maintenance and the rather high purchase price. The same seems to apply to the PC12.

What I don’t get is why changing the engine to a turbine makes the general airframe maintenance so much more expensive. Why do these turbine planes have expensive gear overhauls while piston planes of similar size don’t ?

In fact this is what sets the Jetprop apart from all the competition. The maintenance manual was written for a piston plane and did not get changed with the turbine installation so regular maintenance is very cheap compared to other turbine planes.

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ

Insurance for a $1M TBM (a 700 with half life engine – about the lowest worth considering) would be about €15-20k. Of that, the majority is the hull cover.

One could maintain a TBM on pure part 91 but few European firms will do it. I am rather very familiar with one busy TBM/KA maintenance outfit and they told me they would not do it because they are in business to make money, and replacing the various lifed parts (with a ~25% margin) is a big part of that.

Socata’s TBM MM is full of lifed parts, but not in ch. 4. They lifed them just for the fun of it. For example there is a pointless removal and clutch torque check of all the autopilot servos at every Annual which needs a lot of dismantling just to get access. The torque check is done by the pilot at every preflight anyway.

So it would probably come back to the old GA chestnut of having to have your own hangar where you can do work. Such facilities do exist and I know of one hangar with two bizjets and a resident A&P/IA, in the south east.

And you would need to be a “pro-active owner” which at least 99% of TBM owners very obviously are not. They just take it in for a service and pay whatever the bill comes to. Reckon on €40k/year in maintenance just to have the plane sitting there, if you do that.

Many people with the big piston twins (e.g. 421) concluded they could run a TBM for the same money. Obviously the capital outlay is the main difference and the figures compare only if you ignore that. But you have to ignore that, otherwise you would invest every penny you have in financial instruments and die without having done anything interesting.

You can buy a shagged but flying 421C for 1/10 of a TBM and the raw mission capability is not that different.

In Europe, April 2016 onwards (as things currently stand) you will need the HPA rating to fly a TBM of any reg if the “operator” is EU based (yes the old argument again, never resolved which is how the N-reg screwers in Cologne like it). I have some notes here under Pilot Qualifications. Methods of compliance include a pass in any ICAO ATPL exams (the single FAA ATP exam would do but I am not sure if that can be done anymore without some expensive sim time – we had a thread on it lately; not conclusive).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

For example there is a pointless removal and clutch torque check of all the autopilot servos at every Annual which needs a lot of dismantling just to get access. The torque check is done by the pilot at every preflight anyway.

This is valid now for all new installs, SEP and MEP as well, seems to be demanded from EASA or FAA. Have found some way off, which where for sure where not checked during the pre-flight. I think this is quite often skipped. Some where quite low, but others where quite hard, to a point where we where just able to hold the trim with two persons as we couldn’t belief it was that far off. It was for sure unable to counteract with two persons, or too hold it for a single pilot.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Have found some way off, which where for sure where not checked during the pre-flight. I think this is quite often skipped. Some where quite low, but others where quite hard, to a point where we where just able to hold the trim with two persons as we couldn’t belief it was that far off. It was for sure unable to counteract with two persons, or too hold it for a single pilot.

Doesn’t this discussion lead to the argument that a pilot should disengage his/her brain, not read the handbook, do no preflight checks, and instead his aircraft is mandatorily dismantled by a CAMO before every flight?

This is valid now for all new installs, SEP and MEP as well, seems to be demanded from EASA or FAA

Do you mean Jesse that the autopilots now come with an AFMS which contains an insert which goes into Chapter 4 of the aircraft MM and which thus is an airworthiness condition that the servos are removed annually?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Doesn’t this discussion lead to the argument that a pilot should disengage his/her brain, not read the handbook, do no preflight checks, and instead his aircraft is mandatorily dismantled by a CAMO before every flight?

I don’t think so. Pilots should understand why this test, and even more, the pre-flight test is important, and why it should not be neglected.

A CAMO doesn’t perform ANY maintenance, they control the maintenance, and make sure all maintenance gets done. It is not mandatory to go with a CAMO if you don’t want to.

Do you mean Jesse that the autopilots now come with an AFMS which contains an insert which goes into Chapter 4 of the aircraft MM and which thus is an airworthiness condition that the servos are removed annually?

No, no AFMS is only a supplement for the flight manual, not for the maintenance manual. After a modification additional requements (if applicable) are in the ICA (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) and should be added to the AMP (Aircraft Maintenance Program).

On Cessna restart series, Diamond, new Mooneys inspection of the clutch torque is part of the standard maintenance schedule, which will be the basis for you aircraft maintenance program.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

It sounds like it is mandatory on EASA-reg, but not being in the Airworthiness limitations section of the MM it is not mandatory under Part 91 (N-reg).

My point was that provided the pilot does the preflight checks, the Annual servo removal and clutch checks are superfluous but add a few thousand € to the Annual (on a TBM) which can easily cost €20k if the full Socata MM is done.

Even the TB20 has ~100 pages of stuff to be done. Most maintenance companies tick all the boxes but do only the bits they like to do, but the diligent ones will replace all lifed items because on EASA-reg they have to. The ones who like to make money will replace them on N-regs too, without discussing with the owner whether he wants good parts thrown out.

I do agree (I know from talking to them and from flying with them) that most pilots don’t do these autopilot preflight checks – which only take a few seconds – but that’s because they don’t read the POH. I think loading them up with these extra costs is the wrong way to go about it. There is so much on a plane which should be checked on a preflight, starting with checking there is some fuel in the tanks

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
40 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top