My 'milk run' is a 45min flight into an airport surrounded by hills (locals call them 'mountains'). Much the flight is altitude limited by overlying airspace. If I could swing it financially, I would love to have RR250 reliability for those evening departures.
Turbine Bonanza
- Thread starter Challenged
- Start date
david.h
Pre-takeoff checklist
Really? I totally thought it had the Mooney tail. But it was still designed as a piston and became the TBM.[/QUOTE said:
ktup-flyer
En-Route
Rockymountain
Pre-takeoff checklist
Somebody beat me to it, but yes the TBM design began life as a piston. The Meridian shares few parts in common with the piston Mirage and was designed as a turbine from the beginning. Piper thought about bolting a PT6 on the front of the Mirage, but in the end as an OEM felt the plane needed more robustness for the challenging mission of a turbine. The Jet prop does pretty well using the philosophy of bolting a PT6 on the Malibu Mirage, a testament to how well built the piston PA46 is. Even with a much lighter engine the Meridian empty weight is 300 lbs more, which is all structure, and the gross weight is about 800 lbs more.
To say the Meridian is not a great plane, though, is nonsense. Compared to what? It is the least expensive currently available factory certified turbine to acquire and to operate. Will handle most any weather, and has a pretty flexible range and payload. It is also about the most automated and simple to fly single pilot turbine. You can get planes with more speed, more range, more payload but the closest competition is at least 800K more.
To say the Meridian is not a great plane, though, is nonsense. Compared to what? It is the least expensive currently available factory certified turbine to acquire and to operate. Will handle most any weather, and has a pretty flexible range and payload. It is also about the most automated and simple to fly single pilot turbine. You can get planes with more speed, more range, more payload but the closest competition is at least 800K more.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
Indeed. The new Meridian...err...M600 is the first to incorporate Garmin's emergency autoland. I'm sure the TBM 940 will see it soon enough, but the Meridian...err...M600 beat them to it.
Of course, the JetProp is actually faster than the Meridian ;-)
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
In 1983-84 Beech flew a prototype Model 38P turbine Bonanza, first with a Garrett engine, then a PT-6.
Ed Phillips' book (Beechcraft - Pursuit of Perfection) says it was strictly a proof-of-concept project, but former Beech exec Larry Ball had a different take (They Called Me Mr. Bonanza, p. 245):
Ed Phillips' book (Beechcraft - Pursuit of Perfection) says it was strictly a proof-of-concept project, but former Beech exec Larry Ball had a different take (They Called Me Mr. Bonanza, p. 245):
I think I know what happened with this project even though I had been gone from the factory for some time. This product started out under Hedrick. In my opinion, Engineering, Procurement, Accounting, Cost Control, all told Frank what they thought he wanted to hear. Along comes the new president, Linden Blue. A good-looking, likeable guy -- they are dying to tell him what they think he wants to hear. That's how the price went from $495,000 to $935,000. The orders on hand disappeared, one of them was ours.
Jon Weiswasser
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2019
- Messages
- 126
- Display Name
Display name:
J Weiswasser
And I will add this... I transitioned from an RV-8 with about 1800TT of which maybe 200h was retract time. No prior FL experience, no turbine experience. The transition was a breeze. Over the last two years, Ive logged 500h in it and can honestly say the acquisition was a life changer for me (us).
It would be a life changer for my bank account.
P.S. I can’t help but say your last name in German (with the w’s sounding like v’s).
Jon Weiswasser
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2019
- Messages
- 126
- Display Name
Display name:
J Weiswasser
Ha!! You're not the first..It would be a life changer for my bank account.
P.S. I can’t help but say your last name in German (with the w’s sounding like v’s).
As far as the Meridian, it's not as bad as you might think. With four people, the direct costs are close to a coach ticket (not exact, but close). For example, I went RT to Chicago last week from NJ. Spent $1100 in direct costs (fuel, hangar, GPU). Obviously, add in insurance, hangar, maintenance, etc and that goes up but not by as much as you'd think. And, compared to a new Cirrus or a A36T, the acquisition costs of some of the used ones on the market are comparable and maybe even less. The reliability of the PT6 is a big plus as well.
I post a lot of my adventures in the Meridian on my channel (link below) if you're interested.
There would never be 4 people in my area capable of feeding a Meridian. I would be on my own. Downside of living in a small metro area that keeps losing jobs to Texas and other places. And I have watched 3 or 4 of your videos. Do the Eagles ever use a cellist?
the p210 silver eagle offers more bang for the buck than anything close to its specs .. I don’t even know of a plane that can match its specs... certainly not for the dollars
210-215 KTAS cruise
53 knot stall with de-ice boots (43 with STOL kit)
2500fpm climb
4000-5000fpm descent
Can take off in 700’
Land in less than 500’
Generous useful load
5+ hr fuel plus reserves
Fits in a normal hangar
$250-300/hr operation costs (incl fuel, engine reserve, insurance, maintenance, hangar.. all in)
An engine with a failure rate of 1 failure per 1,000,000 hrs (vs 1 to 800 hrs on a piston)
3.35 psi pressurization... perfect for its engine Performance (sweet spot is 16-21k’)
25-28 gph (block to block depending on altitude)
a brand new build is $1.3m..(brand new interior, paint, avionics suite etc) used can be had for less...
what other plane can do that?
what other plane can even come close to that capability ?
if it doesn’t have the reliability of a turbine or the comfort/safety of pressurization (as a comparison)... its a no go...
I like the m600 and TBM too... but they are double to triple in price used...as well as other specs don’t compare..
210-215 KTAS cruise
53 knot stall with de-ice boots (43 with STOL kit)
2500fpm climb
4000-5000fpm descent
Can take off in 700’
Land in less than 500’
Generous useful load
5+ hr fuel plus reserves
Fits in a normal hangar
$250-300/hr operation costs (incl fuel, engine reserve, insurance, maintenance, hangar.. all in)
An engine with a failure rate of 1 failure per 1,000,000 hrs (vs 1 to 800 hrs on a piston)
3.35 psi pressurization... perfect for its engine Performance (sweet spot is 16-21k’)
25-28 gph (block to block depending on altitude)
a brand new build is $1.3m..(brand new interior, paint, avionics suite etc) used can be had for less...
what other plane can do that?
what other plane can even come close to that capability ?
if it doesn’t have the reliability of a turbine or the comfort/safety of pressurization (as a comparison)... its a no go...
I like the m600 and TBM too... but they are double to triple in price used...as well as other specs don’t compare..
Last edited:
A Tur-Bo
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I guess it depends on priorities and mission.. that's a fairly slow KTAS and is easily matched or beat by SR22T, many Mooneys, TTx, etc.
If being able to take off and land in under 1,000 ft is a priority and a 25+ gph draw for 210 knots is acceptable then this is a good plane for that mission
BUT, I feel like most people who are spending $1M+ have a different mission profile, one that, even if the TBM is out of their price range, can be easily met by the M600, and many others
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
nice turban....
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
zeee-eeeeeeesh.....
Most people have top speed goggles on.. that is all they hear...
Safety.. the safety built into the reliability and performance is far beyond any piston plane.. and an sr22t which I like.. is not even close.. no turbine, no pressurization
And an m600 is a great plane, so is a tbm.. they are double to quadruple the cost
Last edited:
schmookeeg
En-Route
I thought piston engine MTBF was more in the 20,000 hour range. Where is this number coming from?
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
for someone who's not interested in short field performance the prospect of burning 30 gallons an hour to go 200 knots is not going to appeal, you can buy a beautiful Mooney for **well** below $1,000,000 that's going to go faster on far less gas
I'm dubious for the failure of one in every eight hundred hours, do you have a source for that?
It's definitely an absolute monster of an airplane, but it's got its market..
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
This official document shows about 1:7,700 hrs (13:100,000) for piston failure rate: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5769864/ar-2013-107-final-report.pdf and https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.c...gating-the-risk-of-engine-failure-in-singles/
That's a pretty good failure rate. Also, just like a 99% effective contraceptive does NOT mean that after 100 tries you'll have one baby, this stat also does not mean that everyone who flies to 8,000 hrs will have an engine failure
Many piston failures are also the result of sloppy flying and maintenance, inappropriate carb heat usage, etc. A turbine is safer, and less prone to dumb user mistakes, but turbines can, and do fail. Spending over $1M to go 200 knots on 30 gallons an hour doesn't really make sense, unless your mission calls for insane runway performance and the ability to lose 5,000 ft/min
And, if the question is crossing the gulf of Mexico and your choice is a twin piston or single turbine, an unofficial poll here a few months ago revealed that most people will take the piston twin..
That's a pretty good failure rate. Also, just like a 99% effective contraceptive does NOT mean that after 100 tries you'll have one baby, this stat also does not mean that everyone who flies to 8,000 hrs will have an engine failure
Many piston failures are also the result of sloppy flying and maintenance, inappropriate carb heat usage, etc. A turbine is safer, and less prone to dumb user mistakes, but turbines can, and do fail. Spending over $1M to go 200 knots on 30 gallons an hour doesn't really make sense, unless your mission calls for insane runway performance and the ability to lose 5,000 ft/min
And, if the question is crossing the gulf of Mexico and your choice is a twin piston or single turbine, an unofficial poll here a few months ago revealed that most people will take the piston twin..
schmookeeg
En-Route
Haha, if you average my wrong number and his, you get pretty close to the truth there
I never thought of rapid descent as an 'ability' -- are there planes incapable of descending that fast?
Last time I practiced an emergency descent, I pegged my VSI at -6000 so no idea what my descent rate was. My eardrums can attest that it was "brisk"
I never thought of rapid descent as an 'ability' -- are there planes incapable of descending that fast?
Last time I practiced an emergency descent, I pegged my VSI at -6000 so no idea what my descent rate was. My eardrums can attest that it was "brisk"
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
BuT wHaT aBoUT sHoCk cOoLiNg?!?!Haha, if you average my wrong number and his, you get pretty close to the truth there
I never thought of rapid descent as an 'ability' -- are there planes incapable of descending that fast?
Last time I practiced an emergency descent, I pegged my VSI at -6000 so no idea what my descent rate was. My eardrums can attest that it was "brisk"
jk.. I can leave power in and hit about 700 fpm staying in the low end of the yellow arc (above 10K).. pull to 25, 20, 15, 12 inches you can comfortably get around 1,300 to 1,700 fpm.. if you need more than that slow up first, drop flaps, and slip the hell out of it and the VSI will break off
Don't get me wrong, turbines are inherently manlier than opposed pistons (radials still manlier though) but the Frankenplanes where they're bolted to piston designs has a limited use case envelope
Realistic (sorta) wet dream list:
Aerostar
DA62
Yak18T (thanks PoA)
MU2
TBM
Fantasy:
Antonov An22 Antei
failure rates (not catastrophic failure, think dispatch rates and unscheduled Mx diversions) I stated are for big bore high hp pistons only...300+ hp...relevant to the conversation, your numbers include low performance engines...small engines are irrelevant to comparisons ...
Maybe the da-62 engines are really reliable (I have no idea) , but there is zero chance I am paying $1m for an unpressurized plane ...and it’s performance envelope pales in comparison...
There are many fine planes at different budget levels... and if you are considering spending $750k-$1m , one would be wise to open ones eyes.. to the entire performance, safety and comfort envelope.. not simply cruise speed and gph...
As for the reliability of a single turbine vs dual hp piston... facts have nothing to do with agreement reality or straw polls
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
It's a monster of a plane.. for sure. It's like an aeronautical Ford Raptor.. but 167 kias Vne.. I just can't get past that, sorry
One thing that has limited the viability of some conversions and why production aircraft are heavier is flutter. Flutter is primarily a TAS issue. Most production aircraft set VNE as a IAS because the aircraft does not have the performance to get high enough that TAS becomes a factor. Switch a aircraft to a turbine and now flutter can become a real issue when you are flying in the flight levels. Many conversion companies do little or no flutter testing.
Groundpounder
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,951
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Display Name
Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
If I had the coin to buy a brand new SR22, I'd much rather spend it on something pressurized and turbine. I'd probably get a King Air 90, TBH, but the Turbine 210 would be pretty nice as well.