Changing Citation for TBM850?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changing Citation for TBM850?
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
Should I jump for joy? What are the negatives on such a change?
I presume he is looking at cutting his running costs
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I suspect that it is an all round winner for them. The TBM is lovely to fly, like a sports car.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Pace; 13th Jan 2010 at 13:27.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: On the move
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC12?
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: worcestershire
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selling a Cj2 (as any aircraft)in these times isn't a very sensible decision I assume....
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).