Changing Citation for TBM850?

[Pace]

One of the owners I fly for dropped a bombshell. He is considering changing his Citation 2 for a TBM 850.

Should I jump for joy? What are the negatives on such a change?

I presume he is looking at cutting his running costs

Pace

[S-Works]

Cheaper to run, probably about as fast and significantly cheaper to operate!!

I suspect that it is an all round winner for them. The TBM is lovely to fly, like a sports car.

[S.F.L.Y]

That's a fantastic plane to fly, much more fun!

[Pace]

Bose

Would you be happy with it night IFR in mid winter? any restrictions in Europe operating private night IFR?
How many airports will not allow singles?

I know the TBM competitor the Pilatus is a single also and used a lot but wonder whether he would be better considering a Cessna Mustang? or even CJ1?

At the end of the day its a semi detached house with one engine ;)
Anyone know who is the dealer for them now and maintenance unit? used to be one at Biggin?

Pace

[S-Works]

Pace,

Yes I would, I came from the Malibu and then Jetprop world before going Multi Turboprop but would go to a TBM850 in a heartbeat. I was lucky enough to fly quite a few legs a couple of months ago and was incredibly impressed with the performance and handling. 320kts, 1500nm range, ceiling is over 30k and will go in and out of your back yard. I seem to recall fuel burn was about 250lph with a sustained climb rate of about 2500fpm.

It really is a star performer and for someone needing it for European Ops I would imagine compared to a jet it is is a fraction of the operating costs for near jet performance.

[WSUshox]

How many people do you usually fly, and how far? Will you still be able to carry on as "Business as usual"? If so then why not? If you are going to have to fuel stop or drop pax, then think hard about that. If the owner winds up not being happy, you wont be happy.

[ab33t]

I was looking at the costing in Business Jet and it works out about 70% cheaper compared to a Citation 2 . The only problem may be with the number of persons being transported .

[Pace]

My last trip was IFR FL360 over water, bad ice down in the clouds and a cloudbase at destination of overcast 200 feet distance 600 nm with over 300 nm over the sea.

2 PAX although he has had the aircraft full in the past.

My concern is the single turbine for the flying we do which is in most weather day and night.

My preference would be a Mustang purely for the second engine if he wants to go low cost.

Be interesting to see a running cost comparison between the Mustang and TBM850?
I imagine that with both he will be retricted on weight and range maybe worse with the Mustang.

Pace

[HS125]

Personally, IF I was going to make that kind of change I'd go for the PC12.

Having flown one, it's nearly as fast as a TBM and so much more practical. It's also built VERY tough (think in terms of a HS125) and thoroughly enjoyable.

I can see the points about being a single engine and what Aeroncaman says is quite valid. That said however, I believe the last PC12 to ditch floated for 7 hours. They also have a 'turn back' procedure on the course that allows one to return to the airfield of departure in case of EFATO from an amazingly low altitude.

I also note that you can touch down at a VERY low speed (especially when you don't care if you can use the aircraft again) and the engine is mounted well forward and on a kind of space frame..... Not that I'd like to test my theory I imagine a reasonable frontal impact would be survivable.

These sorts of aircraft are often flown over mountainous areas, but I also note that most of these areas contain an abundance of valleys that have roads at the bottom.

If it's foggy on the ground when it happens I'd say you were stuffed, I think it's just a case of deciding what is sensible and what isn't.

One thing I would commend is to look carefully at the options list and make sure any boxes relating to dual systems (gens, hyd pumps etc) are ticked, and a reasonable FMS like a Global GNS or Universal makes uploading the flightplans a lot faster, although they are rare on this type of aircraft.

Jeff

[Pace]

Aeroncaman

I must admit whatever statistics people claim on a dark night, over a low cloudbase, fog banks, heavy seas, rough terrain, it very reassuring to have two units purring away.

How do these new generation single turbines deal with ice on long glides from high altitude and with pressurisation?

Think I will try and stear him towards a Mustang or CJ1

Pace

[WSUshox]

Mustang and CJ1 are very nice, if he continually wants to fill the seats in the Citation II he won't be able to fly that many pax in the mustang or CJ1. The used marked is definitly a buyers choice right now. A CJ2+ (still under warranty would be the way I would go). A straight CJ2 would also be an option. There are deals to be had out there. PC12 is nice, but it is still 4.5 million for a Single-engine.

[340drvr]

Or a King Air.

[S.F.L.Y]

The TBM is a very reliable machine, but gives good gliding performances and will maintain slow depressurization rate in case of engine failure. You anyway have quick access gazeous oxygen masks. Best glide speed is around 110 kts with a gliding ratio of 12 (if my memory is good). In comparison with the mustang it's more economical and offers more payload/range/speed (AKA productivity index) with same avionics (G1000).

Now if you're really concerned by the single engine issue the Avanti could be an excellent option as it's much faster and roomier than the mustang with competitive DOC.

In other words, the TBM and the Mustang are in one category, each with advantages and inconveniences. The Avanti would be competing with the CJs (speed and much bigger cabin, lower DOCs).

It would be interesting to know the average range and payloads you have to fly as it would to make a difference.

[hum]

Twin Commander Aircraft LLC (http://www.twincommander.com/performance.html)

[Midland Transport]

I really think your employer needs to think carefully about what he is proposing. If he is forced to downgrade from a CJ2 to a TBM850 and he has the same expectation of the aircraft as a business tool he needs to think again. I would never suggest to take customers or key employees on a Night IFR Trip to say Geneva or Milan in a single engine aircraft no matter how reliable it is . If the cost issue is the real driver which it must be I would suggest a King Air similar payload, comfort, range but clearly slower at the higher levels. I have flown in a PC12 very nice aircraft but aquisition costs are high. I was recently due to fly in a brand new TBM850 in the US. The weather was poor at the departure airfield and the flight was over the Rockies in the day to San Jose where the cloud base was 200ft. The very experienced pilot was not happy to fly due to the "single engine risk" I suggest you compile a report on your personal feelings re the proposed changes expressing your professional opinion of the propsed change. He may need a reality check on what the limitations would be of such a change.

[silverknapper]

Tbm is an awesome machine and I dont think I personally would have an issue flying it. As Midland says though there could be duty of care implications towards any employees.
The biggest downside of the TBM I feel is the price. For something with one engine, and essentially light aircraft avionics why does it cost upwards of what a C90gti comes in at, with double the number of engines and serious avionics? Up until now it didn't even have the glass cockpit.
Perhaps the King air 90 or 200 would be better suited. Certainly if you plan on carrying more than two or three pax they knock spots off a Mustang for range/payload etc.

[plugster]

Selling a Cj2 (as any aircraft)in these times isn't a very sensible decision I assume....

[S.F.L.Y]

Selling a Cj2 (as any aircraft)in these times isn't a very sensible decision I assume....

I understood that this aircraft isn't very recent and had to go for heavy maintenance. With the current pre-owned inventory it will anyway loose a lot of value even if sold in the future because many more recent aircraft will be available. It's fine to invest maintenance in this aircraft if the owner gives up on making money out of it. Selling it today doesn't mean loosing, it all depend on the paid price, achieved utilization and financing. Only the owner knows how much this aircraft would really cost him by selling at current market value. Getting a brand new aircraft for that money isn't stupid. Manufacturers are offering very attractive deals for new buyers.

Today's brand new TBMs will depreciate less than current pre-owned ones, provide full warranty and would be much cheaper to operate than a CJ2. To me this can be a very sensible decision.

Now in regard to the single engine issue, I believe this is more of a personal decision than anything else as statistics and ICAO annex 6 are clear about it. You always can add an engine, a co-pilot or a rotor to an helicopter, you'll never be 100% safe anywhere. I prefer to be in a very reliable (and brand new) single engine aircraft than in an old and not necessarily reliable one (the risks we are facing are not limited to an engine failure).

[WSUshox]

The original poster stated this was a Citation II not a CJ2. Makes a difference for re-sale.

[plugster]

My apologies

[BoeingMEL]

...if PACE's boss has been seduced by a snake-oil salesman? On many occasions during the last 35 years I've come across similar situations... very often after an existing owner has received a very persuasive proposal from an aircraft sales-exec.... usually with plenty of emphasis on the (claimed) benefits. My bet is that any savings enjoyed by replacing the C2 with a new or newish turbine single would not be that significant. Also, if I had to cross the North Sea or Med with pax I'd choose even an aging C2 over ANY single!
Just my opinion of course! Cheers bm:rolleyes:

[S.F.L.Y]

BoeingMEL, how many modern SET aircraft fatal accidents could have been avoided by adding a second engine?

According to Robert Breiling's 2007 report:

Single engine turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 2.03
Twin turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 2.13

Single engine turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 0.72
Twin turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 0.75

These numbers have been extracted from 53,000,000 cumulative flight hours of US & Canadian registered aircraft.

I'm sure this owner will appreciate if you can provide him with a better option allowing:

- To have decent performances
- Reasonable DOC
- No maintenance hassle/good reliability (eventually full warranty)
- To keep value for the next years without investing in heavy maintenance
- Barely fitting in a budget which can be covered by the selling price of his current aircraft
- N suffer from the heavy depreciation linked to the high inventory of pre-owned aircraft

[His dudeness]

Single engine turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 2.03
Twin turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 2.13

Single engine turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 0.72
Twin turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 0.75

I guess the first figures are for piston aircraft?

how many modern SET aircraft fatal accidents could have been avoided by adding a second engine?

Don´t you ask the question the wrong way round? How many twin incidents would have been sure forced landings with possible tragic consequences in a SET?
Are these statistics 1 to 1 comparisons? Have the SET´s done the same work in the same weather, day/night time etc?

A close relative of mine was a commercial pilot for 44 years. Only engine failure suffered in flight was in a PT6 powered twin. Said relative had 100% of the endured engine failures in a TP, what if that would have been a SET at Night over the alps? Despite thousands of hours in Super Cubs, C172/182/206´s, Navajo, Chieftains, Barons etcetc., the most serious thing happened in a twin TP.

If I´d be the paying part, I´d think of it as a taxi car, either with all the electronic goodies, safety features, air condition and what have you -aka a mercedes - against a VW beetle. I´d chose mercedes even at higher cost.

I know I´m oldfashioned, whilst I´d prefer a SET over any MEP or SEP, I surely wouldn´t want to fly it if I could have a twin jet. Cheaper to operate, yes, safer NO. You get what you pay for. Just my opinion of course.

[S.F.L.Y]

All figures are for turbine engines.

If ICAO is fine with SET IFR commercial operations it's probably because safety records are good enough. Do you think a 1987 twin jet is more reliable than a 2009 single turboprop? Engines are not failing out of the blue and today's trend monitoring systems, historical data analytical tools and chip detectors are many ways to prevent flying in risky conditions. This isn't necessarily the case for all multi-turbines... This matter deserves detailed analysis as old stories aren't making it all.

Anyway nobody said it's safer. I'm just saying it's not that risky and most accidents are involving other factors than engine failures. People are more scared to fly a commercial airliner because a man can set his underpants on fire in the lavatories than because pitots tubes can destroy an airbus...

[His dudeness]

Well, that engine failure happened because of the high pressure fuel pump shaft failing. No trend monitoring, oil analyses or chip detection would have helped saving that engine. Maybe food for thought?

As I said, just my opinion and I´m sorry that I keep on repeating old stories.

[S.F.L.Y]

SET IFR commercial operations are possible, if it is so unsafe, do you not think that it wouldn't be allowed?

Of course if an engine fails in a single engine you go down, just like when the fuel or the pitots freeze in a large twin-jet full of automatism. You can't just say that a single engine aircraft is more dangerous than a twin without comparing a lot of other issues (aircraft specific or not). If you are to face an engine failure you're for sure safer in an MU2 than in a TBM, but what about icing? Engine failures are not the main cause of accidents, does twin protect more than single against the other causes? That's the key to get the real risk evaluation and the final decision is very personal. If everyone was thinking like you no SET aircraft would be flying...

[BoeingMEL]

many thanks for the statistics.... which I don't question or dispute. My post simply reflected my experience and preference..that's all! Cheers bm (ex Beech turbo-prop and ATS sales-demo pilot)

[S.F.L.Y]

I didn't know about the MU2 engine-out behavior while I was referring to it's problems with ice. A twin is surely safer than a single should you have to face an engine failure. Now if the issue you are facing isn't engine related (which is the case in most accidents), a specific single model might sometimes be safer than a specific twin...

In any case, I hope Pace will let us know about the final outcome :}

[Pace]

In any case, I hope Pace will let us know about the final outcome

At present it is now looking like both! retaining the Citation 2 and adding either the CJ1 or TBM but cannot go into the reasons and nothing is done till the fat lady sings ;)

Pace

[WSUshox]

What are your typical missions? Distance and pax load?

[S.F.L.Y]

At present it is now looking like both! retaining the Citation 2 and adding either the CJ1 or TBM

If keeping the Citation 2 a turboprop (TBM, PC12 or Avanti) would probably make more sense than a CJ1 if the goal is to extend missions versatility and cost reduction options.

[JetBrokers Europe]

My business partner is on his 4th TBM and would happily talk to you about its capabilities.

He has a pretty broad experience of jets and turboprops so he could probably give you a reasonable insight.

Let me know if that would be of any interest.

All the best

Tim

[email protected]

[ce500td]

I currently fly a CE510 single pilot. One of my trips the owner had the airplane full. One of the problems with the Mustang is weight. With five Paxs and yourself your limited to about 1800 to 1900 pound of fuel and around 300 to 400 pounds of baggage. On a hot day the performance is not that great. The good point is at 41000 feet the fuel flow is about 230 pounds per hour per side. The airplane has a ture airspeed of 321 kts, and the G1000 is great. It is not a cross country airplane.
The owner I Fly for is looking at a CJ2+.

[S.F.L.Y]

On a hot day the performance is not that great. The good point is at 41000 feet the fuel flow is about 230 pounds per hour per side. The airplane has a ture airspeed of 321 kts, and the G1000 is great.The TBM 850 IS performing in hot conditions (flat rated up to 52 C). It also flies up to 320 kts, burns 70 Gallons per hour and has a G1000. Now look at the Mx costs...

[BoeingMEL]

... but the 'stang was never really intended to be a crowd-carrier. Mainly aimed at the owner-pilot. I flew an early one and I think c.1100 miles with 2-up and full fuel does the job pretty well. bm

[proceeding outbound]

CE500td: I admitt that I dont know a lot about the Mustang but what performance are you referring to - take-off, climb, runway length requirements or single engine performance. If you are talking about the latter I'm sure its a whole lot better than a TBM which does not have any engine out performance for obvious reasons.

SFLY: I think your statistics on single verses twin, although possibly correct dont paint the whole picture. Multi engine aircraft dispatch every day, every hour into all sorts of weather. I have flown both and often wouldnt go on the single when the weather was bad but I would have no hesitation on a multi. I'm sure if I hunted around for long enough (but I couldnt be bothered) I would find figures that dispute your figures, it depends on where, how and who you ask. If your figures were accepted as a fact then all aviation authorities around the world would allow S/E commercial ops but they dont.

An example of how facts can be total BS:
In a previous post you used the example of a B777 that had an accident at LHR = fact. What you didnt point out was that the vast majority of B777's fly 10 - 15 hours per day, every day of their life. Most turbo prop singles dont do that in a week or even a month. One accident (no fatalities) in millions of hours is almost meaningless.

Many business men I have flown insist on two engines and two pilots, often for insurance reasons.

You continually go on about the PT6's flat rating up to 52 degrees - none of the airliners I have flown have that impressive flat rating but still manage just fine. Yes there is a need to balance payload against high temperatures but so what!

To me the most important thing is, when an engine fails on my multi;
The electrics still work
The anti-icing still works
The pressurization still works
The hydraulics still works
And I can fly to a suitable airfield for landing.

I think Pace has good reason to be concerned. Give me two or more engines anytime, even if it does cost a little more.:ok:

[ce500td]

On the Mustang I was referring to take off performance.

On a hot day like coming out of Las Vegas in the summer at 112 degree (F).

With obstacle clearance. Legally the Mustang should be only able take off with about 7400 MGTOW. That's not a lot. Depending on your destination that's like 1 1/2 passengers with very little bags.

Also climbing from say 37000 feet to 41000 feet I have to advise ATC my rate of climb will only be 300 FPM. Good fuel burn, but it takes forever to get there.

Your wright the Mustang was designed for the owner/operator.

[S.F.L.Y]

You continually go on about the PT6's flat rating up to 52 degrees - none of the airliners I have flown have that impressive flat rating but still manage just fine. Yes there is a need to balance payload against high temperatures but so what!


You can't compare airliners with light corporate aircrafts. While most turbofans have "low" flat ratings (around 25C), this is only of concern when you need full power. As you may know airliners adapt the takeoff thrust with the actual needs in order to lower maintenance costs and as a result are rarely facing situation where the flat rating is a factor. Light corporate aircrafts on the contrary have performances based on the use of full takeoff power, meaning their book performances will definitely be affected by high temperatures. This results in longer takeoff runs, lower rates of climb, slower cruise speed, increased fuel burns, increased maintenance costs (running max ITT) and reduced engine out perfs.

Variable aircraft operating costs are based on maintenance and fuel consumption. Operating beyond the flat rating limit is basically increasing both maintenance & fuel consumption while overall performances are reduced. These are factors were the selection of the appropriate tool can make a significant difference. Commercial ISA data in brochures isn't always reflecting what you get.

[proceeding outbound]

Why not, you do (B777)!

Sorry, I dont agree. The PW617's used in most of these VLJ's have an Thrust Reserve of sorts - much like most airliners.

Yes, high temperatures can mean longer take-off runs, lower ROC etc or reduced paylaod but those are the same compromises as the airline world.

Obviously C500td has experience with the Mustang in hot and high conditions but if that is where you plan to operate from the owner bought the wrong aircraft for the job.

SFLY, as you said - the brochure may quote ISA figures but I doubt people are foolish enough to believe they would get ISA performance in Vegas on a hot day. All the figures are in the book if one looks so there should be no surprises (including fuel burn and maintenance costs). If you sign the cheque without doing the research you deserve what you get.

That said, if the Mustang is used what it was designed for I'm sure it's a fantastic tool. I would still rather be flying the Mustang at night in IMC over the mountains than in a TBM 850.

[S.F.L.Y]

he PW617's used in most of these VLJ's have an Thrust Reserve of sorts - much like most airliners.

What do you exactly call a thrust reserve? Airliners are designed to give good takeoff performances with de-rated thrust while VLJs are designed to takeoff using full thrust.

You're right to mention that these aircraft needs to be operated within specific conditions but obviously some buyers were not properly informed...

[proceeding outbound]

ATR = Automatic Thrust Reserve increases thrust automatically in case of an engine failure - can be used for 10 minutes. These engines also have FADEC control so operating limits are never exceeded.

The word "reserve" indicates that not every take-off is maximum thrust.

"not properly informed... " = not properly researched. When you splash out $3 000 000 you read more than just a sales brochure or at least I would.

You think VLJ's are rubbish, I dont, you think turbine singles are great for commercial ops, I dont - enough said.

[S.F.L.Y]

ATR = Automatic Thrust Reserve increases thrust automatically in case of an engine failure - The word "reserve" indicates that not every take-off is maximum thrust

Of course since not every takeoff is performed with one engine out...
Flat rating values are referring to normal operations (not ATR) meaning that thrust is actually limited by a 25C OAT. The FADEC protects you from exceeding the limits, it doesn't mean that operating at the limits is good for the engines.

During previous exhibitions in Dubai not a single VLJ manufacturer had any available information about performances above ISA temps when requested.

[S.F.L.Y]

Maybe you didnt say please.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Most probably :ok:

Anyway it doesn't require a lot of judgement to understand why a husky dog won't win a camel race while it doesn't mean huskies can't perform....

[ironb]

I looked very closely at Mustangs and TBMs. I picked the TBM. I've been flying the G1000 TBM for about a month now. It's an incredible machine. I can get in and out of airports with 3000ft runways, no problem. I can make the first turn off almost anytime after landing. As my TBM flight instructor said, with two engines, you have twice the risk of losing an engine! (I thought that was funny).

You can be a sloppy pilot, come in high and hot, into a 5000 foot runway, and have no issues landing (not suggesting you do that though). I've done things in my TBM that I could not have done in any comparable airplane I was looking at: Mustang, Eclipse, or Meridian. It took around 20 hours of dual to become competent in the TBM (and I'm a 700 hour pilot w/ zero prior turbine time). There's no way I would have gotten that in the Mustang or Eclipse. She cruises at 53-55gph, 28000ft, 310kts TAS with easy. Can decend like a bat out of hell if you need to. She has no problem doing 1300-1400nm trips. VMO is 266. Get under 178kts, drop the gear, drop the flaps, pull back the throttle, and she stops on a dime. Thurst reverse after touchdown, and you're making the first turn off just after the thousand foot markers!

The closest thing that's comparable, IMHO, is a PC-12. But the PC-12 is 40+ kts slower and it's wingspan is huge - wouldn't fit in my hangar so I didnt get serious about it. But it's also $1M more. Now if you need a bathroom, want to carry more PAX, and need some more range, then a PC-12 might not be a bad choice. For me, I love my TBM.

The only thing I wish I would have done differently is buy the TBM sooner!

But, all seriousness, I think you will really enjoy flying the TBM 850. I havent flown a CJII, so I cant compare them, but the TBM 850 is a very nice airplane.

[illusion]

The Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia has had three (3) engine failures on their PC12 fleet this year. Appears to be associated with a gearbox overhaul problem.

One should consider the implications of one engine as it is no use being the richest man in the cemetery.

AO-2010-006 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-006.aspx)

[johns7022]

It's the blind leading the broke in your flight dept.

[Liftboy]

dear all,

i'm looking for a comparision chart (real operating costs) between the TBM850/PC12/C510

any idea?

regards,

liftboy