I don't think it will do all those things at the same time. It will go 330 knots at FL280, but not while only burning 37gph. This chart: TBM 900 - Outstanding Performer - Mission Profiles Shows it going for 2 hours and burning 119 gallons... average of almost 60 gallons per hour. In fact, everything on the TBM website references 60 gallons per hour (and I think that's at around 290 knots). http://www.tbm.aero/index.php/tbm-900/ownership-experience/cost-of-ownership Interestingly, the Turbo Commander I'm flying now will also go 290 knots on about 65 gallons per hour, with a larger cabin. And two engines...
The Breitling stats seem rather on point to me. Don't get me wrong, PC12's and TBM's are both great planes and their short field performance is of great utility. But I prefer two fans when climbing through thunderstorms. There's a reason they look sexy.
"Seem"???? They're totally wrong. I've never climbed through a thunderstorm before. I don't know anyone that does this.
My PC12 doesn't burn 60 per hour unless climbing but yes on short hops the efficiency isn't really there. Of course short hops in a twin TP or jet are even worse. The point with the TBM is it can do 1700NM without refueling. So right there you just beat most jets all the way to mid size. "Two Engines" is a liability. I wouldn't brag about the safety record of the Turbo Commander. Turbo Commander owners love their airplanes though. I'm not knocking them. We all love our airplanes. I do lot's of long flights in the PC12. Cost to coast and the ski resorts beck to the East Coast. 6+ Pax and bags on board. Most midsize jets can't do this without stopping to re-fuel. If they have to stop and I don't ... my plane is faster. I took off from KASE the other day with a full boat back to KOPF. I was the only plane that took off all day because of tail winds on 15. I had some friends flying commercial .. They drove to Denver and took off the next morning. No jets could take off.
We disagree on the two engine thing, for sure. Unfortunately, you are right-- Commanders have not had a good last 12 months. Engines had nothing to do with any of those accidents, however.
My buddy killed himself in his Turbine Commander last summer in Charleston, SC. It was a clear VFR day and he was doing training with his instructor. The verdict is not final yet but my money is on engine failure. There are no statistics anywhere supporting 2 engines being safer than 1 especially in regards to twin turbo prop vs. single turbo prop. It's an emotional decision. 1 is safer than 2. There's less to go wrong. Nothing with 2 engines has had a good last 12 months. 3 fatal Premier crashes in the last year for starters. Lot's of small and large jet crashes in the last year
You fly out of the southeast and have never had to "thread the needle"? Perhaps your operations allow you to sit in the hotel while the weather passes, which is smart and I'm not discrediting that decision, but you're not utilizing your aircraft to its potential. Many other operations don't have that luxury and therefore prefer two fans. You made a comment regarding the stats not speaking to engine failure. I assume you are suggesting that one is more likely to incur an engine failure in a twin. Which is true, but is not as inherently dangerous in a fuselage mounted twin jet as compared to a propeller driven twin. The asymmetric thrust is almost a non-issue and there is generally plenty of power to continue flight/climb. I've done countless V1 cuts in the simulator and several in real planes. Prop verse jet have a totally different set of performance parameters in this circumstance. But I digress, my initial point wasn't that twin fans were superior due not due to EIO events (which they are), but that there is a significant benefit when flying along in nasty weather at FL350 to being able to push the throttles forward and climb at better than 2,000FPM up to FL450.
No one is disputing a single engine turboprops superior short field performance. That and fuel efficiency is where they shine. I think one may be in my near future for those very reasons.
I agree with your assessment. A twin jet is safer than a "twin" turbo prop. But that's not the case with a single turbo prop. As for the benefits of a jet over a single TP. Yes, the jet can fly higher and faster but it also has to carry more fuel and therefore fewer PAX. I can take off and land in conditions a jet cannot..... Such as Aspen. I can fly farther without refueling. So who is really faster? I've flown coast to coast, Canada to Argentina. Never had an issue with weather or T storms. Never had to cancel a flight. So far..... WX has been a non factor. I also believe there's a big difference in performance and safety from a mid size jet compared to a VLJ. You can't just group all jets into the same category.
Here's a misson for you since you're in Northern California..... KAPC (Napa County Airport 6000' runway) to Atlanta. 6 PAX, Bags, 12 cases of wine. No wind. What jet (any jet) can do this non stop? I've done it a few times now in the PC12 "no wind" in 6:45. Yes, it's a long flight but I didn't have to stop for gas.
Falcon 50 could do that without breaking a sweat. Sovereign could also do it easily. Let's not even get into the Falcon 900EX/G450/Global 5000 category, all of which could do it with 6 more people, and golf bags. CJ4 might even be able to do it, but I don't know that much about the CJ series.
Why do you think engine failure had anything to do with that accident? I'm really curious about that one-- the other ones were pretty obvious, but that one, based on what has been released by the NTSB, is a real head-scratcher for me.
Yes. In fact, I think I've gone from APC to the east coast in a Falcon 50, although I'd have to check my logbook to be sure.
With how much weight on board? How much runway did you use? I know a Falcon 50 will fly coast to coast but I don't know of one that can do it from a 6000k' runway with full PAX too.
Really? They were at 12,000 feet and pretty much did a descending spiral into the ground. According to the NTSB, both engines appeared to be operating (based on the post accident teardown report). Untitled Page So what is your explanation for the accident?
I don't have any Falcon 50 performance data here at work, but we used to be based at an airport with a 6600 foot runway, and we'd go to Hawaii from there. You can fill the seats and fill the tanks in a 50 and still carry 2,500 pounds of payload, if I remember correctly. 6,000 feet of runway wouldn't be limiting it at all, especially at sea level. And at sea level, the Sovereign would be even better. It had amazing runway performance.
I'm not seeing where they made that determination. I really don't want to speculate on this crash. I shouldn't have brought it up. Let's let it go. Let the guys do their jobs.
I need more details from you. My math says otherwise. I've done a lot of math on the subject. The longest runway at Napa is 5930'.
The one airplane I do have performance data for is my old pal, the Learjet 35. And it can come out of there at 18,300 pounds (max takeoff weight) as long as it's 80 degrees or less. That is plenty of fuel to make Atlanta with that payload, although you'd probably have to put the wine in people's laps to make it all fit.
I'm just curious why you said that. And, I am really curious as to what happened in this accident. This is what the NTSB said:
I don't have to put the wine in peoples laps in the PC12. Does the Lear 35 have a Lav? I'm also not a fan of old airplanes. Can Lear 35's even be updated anymore? This really isn't a legitimate option. I wouldn't take a Lear 35 if it were free. What's the fuel burn on that old dog?
Then what do you believe? The only thing left is "magic" or the wing fell off. An engine can be rotating but not producing thrust. Like I said.... Too much speculation. I shouldn't have brought it up.
Again, agreed. That is a mission the PC12 performs very well. Do you typically make these flights during daylight? I for one would be a little uneasy crossing the Rockies with low IMC below me at night on one engine. Lots of nearest airport checks for me. But, I must be a worry wart as I do that in a twin turbofan when travelling at night too. We're beating a dead horse and derailing the original topic. S.E. Turboprops are a great alternative for efficient travel into and out of short fields, and VLJ's are not just about sex appeal. We both win! The debate has been in good fun. Safe travels to all.
