Cessna Mustang vs. TBM 850

Flying Lizard

Flying Lizard

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
40
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Display Name
Display name:
Flying_Lizard
They basically do the same mission, but the Mustang flies in blue skies at FL410, with an extra engine. While TBM drivers in the mid 20s are looking up at towering Cu all summer ...knowing they'll need to be a hotter than a Shuttle pilot if that single pony up front poops.

Yet these two birds are constantly on Controller for about the same price. I just don't get it. What am I missing?
 
The TBM is almost the same speed at half the operating expense. The Mustang is a great bird for owner operators, though extremely range limited with more than 2 pax.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
The TBM is almost the same speed at half the operating expense. .
Click to expand...
Perfectly valid points but I always had a nagging impression that TBM was seriously overpriced per pound of hardware you were getting. For a turboprop I thought Piper Mirage would be a better deal, at least at better price-point.
 
olasek said:
Perfectly valid points but I always had a nagging impression that TBM was seriously overpriced per pound of hardware you were getting. For a turboprop I thought Piper Mirage would be a better deal, at least at better price-point.
Click to expand...

The TBM carries more and is faster than the Meridian.

The TBM is pricey compared with the PC12 which offers a potty, carries a lot more and is only slightly slower.

Compared with a jet, there are also differences in maintenance and training regimens.

A singlle engine, even a TP can be flown on annual inspections. A twin-jet has to be maintained according to the manufacturers phase inspection program.

A TBM is a single-engine land. A Jet requires an ATP level checkriide to obtain a type rating.
 
weilke said:
The TBM carries more and is faster than the Meridian.

The TBM is pricey compared with the PC12 which offers a potty, carries a lot more and is only slightly slower.

Compared with a jet, there are also differences in maintenance and training regimens.

A singlle engine, even a TP can be flown on annual inspections. A twin-jet has to be maintained according to the manufacturers phase inspection program.

A TBM is a single-engine land. A Jet requires an ATP level checkriide to obtain a type rating.
Click to expand...

Your analysis is dead on. I was within two hours of buying a new TBM850 before deciding on a 510 two years ago. My typical mission profile is flying over water quite a bit and I wanted the safety of two engines. With the 850, you really have to be on top of power management in 850-mode so it made pilot work load higher than the 510. The 510 had its "challenges" as well, particularly with the trash bag potty and the G-1000 (not enough capability for a jet, IMO). It lasted 2 years and I upgraded.
 
Lucky said:
The 510 had its "challenges" as well, particularly with the trash bag potty and the G-1000 (not enough capability for a jet, IMO). It lasted 2 years and I upgraded.
Click to expand...

Lucky you. What did you upgrade to ?
 
Yea, I have a Single Pilot rating but when the family is on on board, I have a SIC. Ha, Europe has it's own set of problems and cruse range is only about 1900nm. I go to the Caribbean and, on occasion, South America.
 
Lucky said:
Yea, I have a Single Pilot rating but when the family is on on board, I have a SIC. Ha, Europe has it's own set of problems and cruse range is only about 1900nm. I go to the Caribbean and, on occasion, South America.
Click to expand...

Not in one hop, stop in iceland or something. Probably pricey though
 
weilke said:
Not in one hop, stop in iceland or something. Probably pricey though
Click to expand...

Yup. That wouldn't be a problem. When I need to go to Europe, I hitch a ride in one of our corporate aircraft.
 
Lucky said:
Yup. That wouldn't be a problem. When I need to go to Europe, I hitch a ride in one of our corporate aircraft.
Click to expand...

Nice.

I can't wait (!) to fly, 16 hours or so, to Australia. In coach.

Oh well, my Bonanza is as jet as I am likely ever to get... :D
 
SCCutler said:
Nice.

I can't wait (!) to fly, 16 hours or so, to Australia. In coach.:D
Click to expand...

It could be worse. We did Atl-NYC-Anchorage-Seoul-Auckland in about a 36 hour window a few years ago.
 
Two questions:

Lucky said:
Yea, I have a Single Pilot rating but when the family is on on board, I have a SIC. Ha, Europe has it's own set of problems and cruse range is only about 1900nm. I go to the Caribbean and, on occasion, South America.
Click to expand...

Are you adopting?

Lucky said:
Yup. That wouldn't be a problem. When I need to go to Europe, I hitch a ride in one of our corporate aircraft.
Click to expand...

And.. Are you hiring?

:wink2:
 
Lucky said:
Your analysis is dead on. I was within two hours of buying a new TBM850 before deciding on a 510 two years ago. My typical mission profile is flying over water quite a bit and I wanted the safety of two engines. With the 850, you really have to be on top of power management in 850-mode so it made pilot work load higher than the 510. The 510 had its "challenges" as well, particularly with the trash bag potty and the G-1000 (not enough capability for a jet, IMO). It lasted 2 years and I upgraded.
Click to expand...

Someone at my last airport had an older KA90 for years. Bought a TBM850. In under a year he had a CJ3 to replace it, and sold the KA and TBM.

I like the TBM on paper - speed, efficiency, low operational costs, etc. But it's power to weight is worse than the 310, and there's only one spinny thing up front.
 
weilke said:
The TBM carries more and is faster than the Meridian.

The TBM is pricey compared with the PC12 which offers a potty, carries a lot more and is only slightly slower.

Compared with a jet, there are also differences in maintenance and training regimens.

A singlle engine, even a TP can be flown on annual inspections. A twin-jet has to be maintained according to the manufacturers phase inspection program.

A TBM is a single-engine land. A Jet requires an ATP level checkriide to obtain a type rating.
Click to expand...

Is the type rating (and maybe the insurance company's training requirement) for a jet much more demanding than a turbo-prop? I'd expect anybody flying a TBM (with all the training required) would be up to ATP standards.

Is the maintenance of a jet (i.e. phase inspections) a lot more work for the owner-pilot to keep up with?

Thanks!
 
If the operating cost of the 850 is 1/2 of the Mustang, that's pretty compelling.

How many engine failures have there been in TBMs though? It seems that most people treat turbine singles with _much_ less fear of engine failures than piston singles.
 
When I weighed a jet v. the King Air I now fly, that was a consideration. I would need a type rating (not that big a deal) but insurance would also require recurrent training every six months. It's not just the cost of that training, it's the time it takes to get it done. It just wasn't worth it to me. I have commercial/instrument rating, but didn't see a need to get the ATP. I have flown to ATP standards in recurrent training, but have never done the formal training and applied for it. When you get a type rating, it is also an ATP ride is what I was told. The jet adds cost, different maintenance and more time staying current.
I was going to chime in, but this was covered very well. One also has to look at the planes: the TBM is a six seat plane with no potty. The Mustang was to compete with my plane--the C90 King Air which has eight seats, a potty and some other creature comforts in a cabin class plane. Think sedan v. suburban. The C90 has a payload of over 900 pounds with full fuel and an STC is available to increase that. I can't do that in a Mustang. More like a Citation II SP if I wish to fly it myself.

Best,

Dave
 
I feel like I am always following Dave's comments, but here goes. I could have bought a Citation I or II S/P for what I paid or less, when I bought my Conquest I. The up front looked good, but the operating costs of older jets are what drives the prices down, second and third run engines cost more than the value of the airplane to overhaul. The fuel burn is more, a lot more than more modern jets, CJ's etc, you can figure 200 gallons the first hour in a Citation II.:yikes: And 160 per hour in cruise at 350 knots depending on altitudes. If I had the mission to support a $2-4 million dollar airplane, it would be a newer CJ of some type. :D
My type rating ride wasn't all that much different from any recurrent training ride I had taken, I just had to do a couple landings in the airplane.
Jets are simpler to fly, one lever per engine, but that doesn't mean they are easy, just not complicated.;)
A friend texted me yesterday, he was looking at a Citation I for $275K with mid-time engines and good cosmetics, so the old ones are CHEAP, but not necessarily affordable. :D
Dave Siciliano said:
When I weighed a jet v. the King Air I now fly, that was a consideration. I would need a type rating (not that big a deal) but insurance would also require recurrent training every six months. It's not just the cost of that training, it's the time it takes to get it done. It just wasn't worth it to me. I have commercial/instrument rating, but didn't see a need to get the ATP. I have flown to ATP standards in recurrent training, but have never done the formal training and applied for it. When you get a type rating, it is also an ATP ride is what I was told. The jet adds cost, different maintenance and more time staying current.
I was going to chime in, but this was covered very well. One also has to look at the planes: the TBM is a six seat plane with no potty. The Mustang was to compete with my plane--the C90 King Air which has eight seats, a potty and some other creature comforts in a cabin class plane. Think sedan v. suburban. The C90 has a payload of over 900 pounds with full fuel and an STC is available to increase that. I can't do that in a Mustang. More like a Citation II SP if I wish to fly it myself.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
If someone donated an old jet to Cloud Nine, we would sell it rather than fly it. And this is from the guy who just flew 40 hours in 5 days in the 310.

Now if someone donated a TBM, I might reconsider my opinions on singles.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
When you get a type rating, it is also an ATP ride is what I was told.
Click to expand...

It's only to ATP standards, you don't need to have an ATP or upgrade to it. Plenty of jet drivers with just PPL's.
 
stratobee said:
It's only to ATP standards, you don't need to have an ATP or upgrade to it. Plenty of jet drivers with just PPL's.
Click to expand...

Hush, my sim instructor always remembered me as his "private pilot" recurrent! :D I thought I was the only one!! :dunno::D
 
There are some PPL's with type ratings, but insurance companies aren't all that fond of them, including me. I would say 90% of the folks getting a type rating have commercial or ATP certificates, maybe more. I only met one other guy that flew a Citation that was a private pilot, and he had a paid captain that flew with him. So, it's not a rule, but it is the norm. ;)
Dave Siciliano said:
Thanks. Guess I was mixing up with Eclipse program were type rating and ATP are together.

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Wait...a G1000 is not capable enough for the mustang?? It works great to me. In my opinion learning to fly the mustang was a lot easier than the King Air. You just have to remember its easier to over speed and its temp and weight sensitive. The hair dryers on the back only do so much but I like having two of them. Just like buying any airplane, you have to figure out what your goals and finances are and find a plane to fit.
 
dans2992 said:
If the operating cost of the 850 is 1/2 of the Mustang, that's pretty compelling.

How many engine failures have there been in TBMs though? It seems that most people treat turbine singles with _much_ less fear of engine failures than piston singles.
Click to expand...

Not many. One has landed in the 'Sea of Ochotsk' on a round the world attempt after the fuel control unit crapped out. The occupants were picked up by a russian freighter.

I looked at the accident stats for single engine turboprops a couple of years ago. Two things stood out:
- most of the single-engine TP accidents were in Caravans and related to weather. A reflection of the flying this type does. A couple of engine failures, some fatal.
- most of the accidents in Meridians were due to pilots doing dumb sheet.

Given the altitudes at which TBMs and Pilatus operate, most engine failures if they happen in cruise over the continental US end with a landing at an airport. So looking at the NTSB reports is not going to give you the whole picture.

The number of deadly accidents in TBMs due to engine failures is going to be lower than the number of VMC rollovers in King Airs and Mu2s.

Maybe 3 years ago, there was a situation that may have allowed me to buy a TP or jet in a shared ownership setup. Spoke to an insurance broker. He told me that getting insurance for a TBM would be no problem, a PC12 would be no problem, a Meridian would be a big-problem and a CJ would be impossible. At that time, the TBM and PC12 had a very good safety record, in the meantime the Butte, MT crash and the banker in NJ who iced up and a couple of others have changed the equation somewhat.
 
weilke said:
At that time, the TBM and PC12 had a very good safety record, in the meantime the Butte, MT crash and the banker in NJ who iced up and a couple of others have changed the equation somewhat.
Click to expand...

I was reading up on that NJ crash recently when Alex brought it up, and that got me looking at the TBMs some more for curiosity. The some 40 lb/sqft wing loading I found very high. I wonder how it stalls, my guess would be fairly sharply.

Also of interest is that the power/weight ratio on the 700C2 at gross is worse than the 310. Even the 850 is only about equal to the 310 (this is with 300 HP 520s instead of 260 HP 470s, which impacts it some).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Also of interest is that the power/weight ratio on the 700C2 at gross is worse than the 310. Even the 850 is only about equal to the 310 (this is with 300 HP 520s instead of 260 HP 470s, which impacts it some).
Click to expand...

Isn't this somewhat apples to oranges since the TBM is pressurized? Would a more accurate comparison be the C340??
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Isn't this somewhat apples to oranges since the TBM is pressurized? Would a more accurate comparison be the C340??
Click to expand...

I was just comparing it to the 310 since that's what I know the numbers on. The point is more that you've got a very capable aircraft that needs good climb rate, but it doesn't have as good of a power/weight ratio (which governs a good part of that climb rate) as a piston twin.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I was reading up on that NJ crash recently when Alex brought it up, and that got me looking at the TBMs some more for curiosity. The some 40 lb/sqft wing loading I found very high. I wonder how it stalls, my guess would be fairly sharply.
Click to expand...

I was told that it stalls rather briskly and that the strategy for the power-on stall is: don't stall.

Also of interest is that the power/weight ratio on the 700C2 at gross is worse than the 310. Even the 850 is only about equal to the 310 (this is with 300 HP 520s instead of 260 HP 470s, which impacts it some).
Click to expand...

Even though the power to weight is lower, it travels some 80kts faster than a 310.

Difference is probably that your '300hp engines' are not designed to make that kind of power with a 100% duty cycle. Iirc the 700hp engine on the TBM is flat rated from a core that makes 1200hp in other applications.
 
weilke said:
I was told that it stalls rather briskly and that the strategy for the power-on stall is: don't stall.
Click to expand...

Sounds right. Somewhat surprises me that VGs haven't caught on for them given that.

Even though the power to weight is lower, it travels some 80kts faster than a 310.

Difference is probably that your '300hp engines' are not designed to make that kind of power with a 100% duty cycle. Iirc the 700hp engine on the TBM is flat rated from a core that makes 1200hp in other applications.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true, but I could probably do surprisingly well against it in a climb to 6,000 ft, which was more my point. If I'm getting a turbine, I want a better power/weight ratio than I can get with a piston.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I was just comparing it to the 310 since that's what I know the numbers on. The point is more that you've got a very capable aircraft that needs good climb rate, but it doesn't have as good of a power/weight ratio (which governs a good part of that climb rate) as a piston twin.
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at but your 310 doesn't have the extra added weight of a pressurization system. That's why I said that the C340 or even the Aerostar might be a better comparison.

From what I understand, the TBM has torque issues with the airframe which limits the 850 to 700HP for take off. Perhaps that's that's the most powerful engine you can fit without a major redesign??
 
A second TBM suspected of icing up crashed in France killing 6 people just 2 days ago. RIP. There was one less than a year ago in New Jersey that broke up. Now, if I was a media person I'd make all kinds of statements based on this, but the reality is it was just probably bad luck in conjunction with severe weather. Still, something to consider.

http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20131119-6-died-plane-crash-france-usa
 
Last edited:
Tristar said:
Wait...a G1000 is not capable enough for the mustang?? It works great to me. In my opinion learning to fly the mustang was a lot easier than the King Air. You just have to remember its easier to over speed and its temp and weight sensitive. The hair dryers on the back only do so much but I like having two of them. Just like buying any airplane, you have to figure out what your goals and finances are and find a plane to fit.
Click to expand...

It's missing a couple of nice features for a jet (building custom holding patterns, easy radial to radial input, etc) but overall it seems to be a great system.
 
SCCutler said:
Nice.

I can't wait (!) to fly, 16 hours or so, to Australia. In coach.

Oh well, my Bonanza is as jet as I am likely ever to get... :D
Click to expand...

Your Bonanza is awesome and there are a lot of cool places you can go:yes: that I cannot.
 
PBristolJr said:
Two questions:



Are you adopting?



And.. Are you hiring?

:wink2:
Click to expand...

1. Nope, not this week. I'll let you know though.:)

2. We're a small shop with (2) G-550's and 8 pilots. Perhaps we'll add aircraft and crew next year.
 
Flying Lizard said:
Is the type rating (and maybe the insurance company's training requirement) for a jet much more demanding than a turbo-prop? I'd expect anybody flying a TBM (with all the training required) would be up to ATP standards.
Click to expand...

I can only pass along my experiences. I had a Meridian once and it was mostly moving from one single engine to another along with some training. This was several years ago. No big deal. The Insurance company was pretty easy to deal with but I had a commercial and a lot of hours. The 510/CJ4 were totally different. The insurance company required 40 hours of in-aircraft instruction in make and model and initial FSI training before they would write the policy plus yearly recurrent. This is pretty expensive. All of the training and check ride are to ATP standards.

Flying Lizard said:
Is the maintenance of a jet (i.e. phase inspections) a lot more work for the owner-pilot to keep up with?
Click to expand...

I think most people just farm this out to Cessna. They keep track and provide the notifications. I'm sure there are other places that provide the same service.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top