Turbo Prop Question

[JoshJ]

Whats your thoughts on a single engine turbo prop (Meridian or TBM) when 80% of the flights will only be 200-300 miles? The other 20% of the flights will be 1000+ miles.

I curently have a Saratoga, but may need to upgrade for business.

I have absolutly no interest in a twin, piston or turbin.

Josh

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

no different than the Toga, realy. Mine is a turbo....and I fly it that way.

 

[RudyP]

If you can swing it financially, I don't see why you wouldn't. TBM can go quite a bit further (nonstop for those 1000+ mile trips) and can carry more.

 

[JoshJ]

The shorter trips are my concern. By the time you get to an efficent cruising altitude its time to start back down. I guess I'm looking for real world experience from any turbin owners that do shorter trips.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

are you concerned with the high cycles? vs. flight hours?

Yup....that will be a lil more costly....and the HSI will come quicker.

 

[ktup-flyer]

Steveo1Kinevo (youtube) flies an 850 for some medical company. You can ask him.

 

[Ted]

1:1 hour:cycle ratio is pretty much the average you see on most of these things anyway. At 200-300 nm you're basically there for your average flight, with the 1000 nm trips making the difference. 1 hour legs are what most people want to be able to get somewhere, do business, and get home for dinner. I see no issues.

The TBM is a hot rod. Very fast, very high performance, and very high MX costs. A Meridian will be cheaper and a nicer interior from a passenger perspective. Hopefully Andrew will chime in, he's been enjoying his.

Also don't forget to consider a JetProp (Malibu converted to a turboprop).

 

[Scott@KTYR]

Whats your thoughts on a single engine turbo prop (Meridian or TBM) when 80% of the flights will only be 200-300 miles? The other 20% of the flights will be 1000+ miles.

I curently have a Saratoga, but may need to upgrade for business.

I have absolutly no interest in a twin, piston or turbin.

Josh

I have a Toga and was thinks of doing the same thing this year until I looked at my flying hours from last year. I had the same 80% - 20% hours as you. I decided to keep my Toga and on the longer flights just take the extra travel time to enjoy the ride.

Oh and if I did the switch I would have gone with a TBM. Great plane.

 

[3393RP]

The shorter trips are my concern. By the time you get to an efficient cruising altitude its time to start back down. I guess I'm looking for real world experience from any turbine owners that do shorter trips.

I know a guy with a 182 and a Meridian. He says that by the time the Meridian is up, running, and taxiing he can be forty miles away in the 182.

He owns several retirement homes in the midwest, he uses the Cessna for the 100-300 mile trips, the Meridian for anything longer.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I know a guy with a 182 and a Meridian. He says that by the time the Meridian is up, running, and taxiing he can be forty miles away in the 182.

He owns several retirement homes in the midwest, he uses the Cessna for the 100-300 mile trips, the Meridian for anything longer.

He must not know what he's doing then, because a PT6 doesn't take that long to get running.

 

[JoshJ]

are you concerned with the high cycles? vs. flight hours?

Yup....that will be a lil more costly....and the HSI will come quicker.

Very good point that I never considered.

Thanks

 

[James331]

As someone who works a turboprop for a living, mainly on short <1hr hops, I you can afford it, it's a no brainer.

Much lower failure rate, much smoother, beta and reverse, real FIKI ability with bleed air, real heat and AC, real pressurization due to bleed air.

Also check out the turbine 210.

 

[James331]

I know a guy with a 182 and a Meridian. He says that by the time the Meridian is up, running, and taxiing he can be forty miles away in the 182.

He owns several retirement homes in the midwest, he uses the Cessna for the 100-300 mile trips, the Meridian for anything longer.

No.

Especially when it's cold, the turbine is light it and go.

To let my IO520 warm up, run up and roll, I could match or beat that time in the turbo prop, the only reason I can straight up blow it out of the water is I have many other systems checks I have to do (not PT6 related).

Now on the 208B I flew, straight up no way, I'll be rolling before a 182 unless he doesn't do a runup or let his plane warm up.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I know a guy with a 182 and a Meridian. He says that by the time the Meridian is up, running, and taxiing he can be forty miles away in the 182.
.

 

[Theboys]

The meridian or Tbm would climb so much faster it's really not that big of deal for short trips. Still more efficient to climb high and then decend than stay low. Ten minutes to flight levels. Pressurization will ruin you fast. If you can afford it why not.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

I know a guy with a 182 and a Meridian. He says that by the time the Meridian is up, running, and taxiing he can be forty miles away in the 182.

He owns several retirement homes in the midwest, he uses the Cessna for the 100-300 mile trips, the Meridian for anything longer.

I disagree. The quickest ive been from startup to departure in a PT-6 was 3 minutes.

If you do that in a piston, youre doing it wrong.

 

[Kristin]

I disagree. The quickest ive been from startup to departure in a PT-6 was 3 minutes.

If you do that in a piston, youre doing it wrong.

I would agree, but it was probably referring to the avionics that were taking that long to boot up.

 

[Henning]

Whats your thoughts on a single engine turbo prop (Meridian or TBM) when 80% of the flights will only be 200-300 miles? The other 20% of the flights will be 1000+ miles.

I curently have a Saratoga, but may need to upgrade for business.

I have absolutly no interest in a twin, piston or turbin.

Josh

Thing that sucks about the turbine for the short trips is cycle expense. If you are getting a cycle every hour or two, you are in for a costly operation. Depending on the engine type and where it falls in with the upgrade market discards, there are some potential ways to mitigate those costs buying mid time/cycle replacements; that doesn't always work out though.

I always have said, "turbines need a job". Now if your business use will justify the cost at these elevated levels, then I think a TBM is a very nifty choice indeed. It will not be significantly more difficult to operate.

 

[Abram]

I owned a Saratoga II TC for a few years and transitioned to a Meridian in 2007 or so. At the time I purchased the Meridian, my mission was primarily flights between 150 and 300 miles, although I did longer flights occasionally.

What I discovered is that with the increased capability in my equipment, pressurization, FIKI and the ability to get over most weather, my mission dramatically changed. I started using the airplane for more of my travel, including missions over 1,000 miles.

The Meridian is a great airplane for the owner that is looking for flexibility in missions. It can handle longer flights but you won't get crushed on short flights. The Meridian really wants to fly in the mid to high 20s, but for short flights, I would usually fly in the high teens. There is a fuel penalty for being that low, but it is not that bad, especially as compared to the TBM.

Several people have mentioned the TBM as an alternative to the Meridian and JetProp, but there is a quantum leap in acquisition and operating costs and the airplane, which is outstanding, is not nearly as efficient as the PA46 turbines.

If you have the ability and the desire, you will really enjoy transitioning to a turbine. The pressurization is a game-changer and you will find that the performance will allow you to use your airplane for much more than you previously did.

Good luck with the research. Let me know if I can answer any questions for you.

Abram Finkelstein
EA50
N48KY

 

[drotto]

Again if money is no object, the new Piper M600 looks like it is going to be an incredible plane.

 

[JoshJ]

I owned a Saratoga II TC for a few years and transitioned to a Meridian in 2007 or so. At the time I purchased the Meridian, my mission was primarily flights between 150 and 300 miles, although I did longer flights occasionally.

What I discovered is that with the increased capability in my equipment, pressurization, FIKI and the ability to get over most weather, my mission dramatically changed. I started using the airplane for more of my travel, including missions over 1,000 miles.

The Meridian is a great airplane for the owner that is looking for flexibility in missions. It can handle longer flights but you won't get crushed on short flights. The Meridian really wants to fly in the mid to high 20s, but for short flights, I would usually fly in the high teens. There is a fuel penalty for being that low, but it is not that bad, especially as compared to the TBM.

Several people have mentioned the TBM as an alternative to the Meridian and JetProp, but there is a quantum leap in acquisition and operating costs and the airplane, which is outstanding, is not nearly as efficient as the PA46 turbines.

If you have the ability and the desire, you will really enjoy transitioning to a turbine. The pressurization is a game-changer and you will find that the performance will allow you to use your airplane for much more than you previously did.

Good luck with the research. Let me know if I can answer any questions for you.

Abram Finkelstein
EA50
N48KY

Very good info. I think you read my mind.

What I am after is a more capable airplane than the Saratoga, but my concern was overkill for the short trips.

 

[Henning]

Very good info. I think you read my mind.

What I am after is a more capable airplane than the Saratoga, but my concern was overkill for the short trips.

Well if you need the extra GW and HP, it's hard to avoid the expense of a turbine unless you get a twin or a classic with a radial. Saratoga is about as capable as you get on 300hp. Now, if there was an STC to hang a IO-720 on a PA-32....

 

[N747JB]

Very good info. I think you read my mind.

What I am after is a more capable airplane than the Saratoga, but my concern was overkill for the short trips.

I fly twins, but the same concept applies. I went from a 421B to a 425, same cabin, basically piston to turbine. I fly a lot of shorter trips, primarily from Atlanta to Destin, it's about 250 miles or 1.2 hours on average. The cost is roughly 20% more for fuel, travel time is a little less, maybe 10 minutes. Depending on where you are flying, you may or may not get a decent climb out, around Atlanta ATC will keep you low for a while, usually 20-30 miles, that's a killer on fuel burn. Coming out of Destin it's a pretty quick clearance to FL190 for the ride back, but down to 11,000 about 60 southwest of ATL.
If money isn't a huge factor, you will like turning Jet-A into noise!
My fuel cost is about $75.00 higher each way in the 425 vs the 421, about 20 more gallons, but fuel is cheaper per gallon.

 

[Ted]

Now, if there was an STC to hang a IO-720 on a PA-32....

...you would be able to combine terrible reliability with turbine fuel burn!

 

[N747JB]

...you would be able to combine terrible reliability with turbine fuel burn!

All the bad points with none of the good ones!

 

[Henning]

...you would be able to combine terrible reliability with turbine fuel burn!

Actually fuel burn wasn't bad considering the power. I worked a Brave with one and it was pretty efficient. Work them 30° LOP and they are still making good power and the cylinders stay cool.

 

[Abram]

Very good info. I think you read my mind.

What I am after is a more capable airplane than the Saratoga, but my concern was overkill for the short trips.

I'm glad that helped. One of the deciding factors for me was when I took the family on a trip from FL to NC in the Saratoga. It became a long trip with a fuel stop and, as cool as it was, I knew that the wife and kids would not do that on a regular basis. In the Meridian, it was a really easy non-stop trip with less noise, more comfort and above the rough air.

With respect to fuel burn, someone else made a great point: You burn more fuel but for less time. In addition, the cost of the fuel is substantially lower, so the overall cost of the trip fuel may be closer than you think.

Every time I upgrade I wonder if I have achieved overkill. Each time, my mission grows with the capabilities of the airplane.

Abram Finkelstein
EA50
N48KY

 

[Scott@KTYR]

Have you ever converted the fuel burn to gal. per mile traveled?
Saratoga vs. Turbo prop

I'm glad that helped. One of the deciding factors for me was when I took the family on a trip from FL to NC in the Saratoga. It became a long trip with a fuel stop and, as cool as it was, I knew that the wife and kids would not do that on a regular basis. In the Meridian, it was a really easy non-stop trip with less noise, more comfort and above the rough air.

With respect to fuel burn, someone else made a great point: You burn more fuel but for less time. In addition, the cost of the fuel is substantially lower, so the overall cost of the trip fuel may be closer than you think.

Every time I upgrade I wonder if I have achieved overkill. Each time, my mission grows with the capabilities of the airplane.

Abram Finkelstein
EA50
N48KY

 

[narchee]

Have you ever converted the fuel burn to gal. per mile traveled?
Saratoga vs. Turbo prop

A better comparison is to compare a meridian to a malibu. Same basic airframe.

35 gph Jet A at 260 knots

vs

19 gph AvGas at 210 knots

The piston version is more efficient.

 

[James331]

A better comparison is to compare a meridian to a malibu. Same basic airframe.

35 gph Jet A at 260 knots

vs

19 gph AvGas at 210 knots

The piston version is more efficient.

Diffrent missions.

If you need the turbo prop the piston is useless.

 

[Scott@KTYR]

A better comparison is to compare a meridian to a malibu. Same basic airframe.

35 gph Jet A at 260 knots

vs

19 gph AvGas at 210 knots

The piston version is more efficient.

Thanks but I was trying to get a cost per mile comparison between the pilot’s trip Between NC and Fla. in a Toga and a Meridian. I have a Toga and was thinking of an upgrade to a Turbo prop. I had previously decided not to make the change but with all this great info. I may look at it again.

 

[Henning]

Diffrent missions.

If you need the turbo prop the piston is useless.

Exactly, and if a piston fits the mission, the turbo prop is going to be expensive and inefficient.

Get what you need for the flying you're going to be doing. The gentleman who brought up expanded missions as a result of expanded capabilities has a good point as well. If you have the budget to use the more capable plane for more rolls, you will.

 

[Challenged]

In order to be truly happy, it sounds like we all need 4 or 5 airplanes.

 

[Henning]

In order to be truly happy, it sounds like we all need 4 or 5 airplanes.

At least 3, I could cover all my missions with 3, but I could do it better with 6.

 

[drotto]

Have you considered going multi?

Biggest issue with most of the Piper M class line is the useful load is marginal at best. There is a a Malibu I sat in a few days ago. Yes it has Great features; fiki, pressurized, 213k, fl25, great cabin, etc, but the useful load was around 1150. As anything more than a four seater and even then leaving 40 gallons out of the plane, it is very limited. If you are wiling to give up the pressurization the Matrix from a hauling standpoint is a better plane. The Saratoga I have been flying has a useful load of 1300.

But I digress, this is about turboprops.

 

[James331]

You really want to go there :wink2:

Here's your AC list, pick your mission

A185F, fun backcountry plane

PC12/47 Spectre, few state X/C, still land at any GA strip

C208B Supervan, like the 185 but fun for the whole family

F104 For a man needing a real X/C machine.

7AC for the pattern king.

 

[Abram]

Have you ever converted the fuel burn to gal. per mile traveled?
Saratoga vs. Turbo prop

I never did the analysis between the Saratoga and the Meridian, so I don't have good numbers to give you.

However, I have compared the fuel burn between the Meridian and the Eclipse and find that I burn about the same total fuel in the Eclipse going from KFXE to KHKY as I did in the Meridian. The point is that the increased speed and corresponding shorter flight does have a material impact.

Abram Finkelstein
EA50
N48KY

 

[Wingsofglass]

I went from a Cirrus to a Meridian. Let me just say that the cost differential between the two is substantial and fuel has almost nothing to do with it. In my opinion it's worth every penny to fly a pressurized, FIKI turboprop if you can afford it. I'd much rather fly the Meridian on a 250nm trip than the Cirrus. The checklist is longer in the Meridian but there is no time difference in getting to the hold short line between the two planes.

 

[Ted]

If I could afford a Meridian, I'd buy a 441 Conquest.

But if I could afford either, I would be buying and flying one.

 

[JoshJ]

Well if you need the extra GW and HP, it's hard to avoid the expense of a turbine unless you get a twin or a classic with a radial. Saratoga is about as capable as you get on 300hp. Now, if there was an STC to hang a IO-720 on a PA-32....

Take the front barrage area out and it would fit

By capable I was meaning. Icing, high altitude, etc