Piper M700 Fury

[PostTenebrasLux]

When I see most any of those single-engine turboprops, my initial thought is that would be cool to own. Kind of one of those lottery-win daydreams for me....

But almost every time those daydreams never last long. My very next thought is almost always, I'm not so sure I'd want one...even if I could afford it...and even if I had the time to maintain the proficiency such a bird would demand.

Yeah, they'd be great for greatly increasing the travel radius..... getting away for the weekend means a lot more choices....

but that's sorta like flying an airliner, up so high and all....

I like flying in large part for the sake of flying. Watching things pass beneath the plane.... the lower and slower it is, the more fun it often is to me.... except there is a tradeoff because travel is the mission.

Even for a lottery win dream, there's a line there somewhere and I can't seem to figure out where. Low and slow Aeronca Champ vs something much faster and more capable of getting in places in weather....

If I win a big enough lottery I’m buying both!

Well not necessarily this plane and a Champ but a traveling machine and a low n slow puddle hopper.

Then I woke up…

 

[PostTenebrasLux]

That's why if you win the lottery, you'd need at least two airplanes. One for travel, and one for low and slow.

Should have read the thread and realized how old it was!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Note that IMO, M700 pricing is getting up there, maybe close to TBM money. Without more imorovements, Piper may be getting a bit ahead of their skis IMO.

The site I took the cabin cross sections from had the M700 at $4.30 million and the TBM 960 at $4.72 million for 2024, so only a $420,000 difference now... So I definitely agree!

I do feel like the M700 really takes aim at the TBMs as opposed to fitting in nicely right below them.

Well, for the lack of anything else, data. The Piper M’s have had an enviable safety record. Specifically zero fatals in an M600 or M700. M denotes the Piper’s turbines that were delivered with full envelope, protection and automatic auto pilot engagement. those aircraft started around 2015.

FWIW, the TBM 910, 940 and 960 have that same system, and there's been one fatal. Interestingly, it appears that the pilot was having a lot of trouble with the automation and may have been over-relying on it; I'm not sure how the envelope protection didn't save him unless he was so panicked that he had a death grip on the yoke with the AP DISC held down. But, that sort of thing can happen in M series just as easily. https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/194007/pdf

Piper has produced 442 M series turboprops, Daher has produced 365 of the aforementioned models. With only one fatal, I'm not sure there's enough data for conclusions to be drawn.

I think there’s only been one M500 fatal, and that was just a couple of weeks ago, and it looks like a suicide. But I’ve really rung out all of those aircraft, and tried to simulate a panicked out of control pilot trying to kill the aircraft. And when it’s had enough, it will announce the auto pilot is engaging, and return the aircraft to straight level flight. Couple that with a very reliable engine, very docile flight characteristics, ESP, full envelope, protection, very high levels of automation, redundant systems, and automatic auto throttle engagement to prevent stalls, really hard to kill it.

Again, all that same stuff is on the TBM... Along with automatic deice and other things. They're both designed for the owner flown market, and both are very well (and almost identically) equipped for safety.

The TBM’s have given up a lot of forgiving features to obtain performance.

Such as?

The fatal record of the G1000 G3000 series TBM has not been good. Not a fault of the TBM’s, but those planes are less forgiving and just require more pilot.

Again, the ones with the envelope protection that have been produced in a similar timeframe as the M series have only one fatal as mentioned above.

Also, there have only been 3 other fatals of "G1000 G3000 series" TBMs: One badly botched landing and go-around stall-spin, one pressurization issue leading to hypoxia and unconsciousness, and one engine failure after fuel was unported by flying uncoordinated for the entire cruise flight. The airplane definitely shared some fault on the pressurization one (which killed the then-president of TBMOPA) and that system (and associated checklists) has been fixed. The other two would have likely happened if you put the same pilot in any similar airplane.

There's plenty of earlier TBM accidents and plenty of earlier Meridian accidents as well. It's what happens when you put owner-pilots into high performance turbine aircraft. The safety systems surely help somewhat, but they're obviously not foolproof (as demonstrated by the 960 crash). In fact, one of those envelope protection systems and a tired FO conspired to try to kill me one night...

Anyway, all that is to say that I don't think the data supports the conclusion that the TBM is inherently more dangerous than the M series. Especially with the latest models, there's not that much difference between them any more.

 

[Rockymountain]

Sounds like you are pretty familiar with the TBM record. But maybe missed some. There have been 3 TBM 900 series fatals and 5 TBM 850 series fatals, not sure how many were G1000's but I think most. Here is what I have for the TBM9's and what ASN has. So the GX000 record in the TBM series has been a little spotty. Similar flight hours to the Piper M GX000's, but 4+ times the fatals.

TBM 900, PP-LIG, 2 fatal 2/1/2016 Santa Catarina spatial D?
N960LP 3/30/2024
C-FFYM 10/10/2021 injured severely
TBM 960 N960LP, 2 fatal, 3/30/2024 Truckee, LOC
TBM 940 N6924G Ashland OR, go around LOC non fatal
TBM 900, N900KN, 9/5/2014, port Antonio Jamaica, 2 fatal, pressurization issue
TBM 940, D-FSAM, 7/28/25, ditched Switzerland. 1 injured.

 

[midwestpa24]

Sounds like you are pretty familiar with the TBM record. But maybe missed some. There have been 3 TBM 900 series fatals and 5 TBM 850 series fatals, not sure how many were G1000's but I think most. Here is what I have for the TBM9's and what ASN has. So the GX000 record in the TBM series has been a little spotty. Similar flight hours to the Piper M GX000's, but 4+ times the fatals.

TBM 900, PP-LIG, 2 fatal 2/1/2016 Santa Catarina spatial D?
N960LP 3/30/2024
C-FFYM 10/10/2021 injured severely
TBM 960 N960LP, 2 fatal, 3/30/2024 Truckee, LOC
TBM 940 N6924G Ashland OR, go around LOC non fatal
TBM 900, N900KN, 9/5/2014, port Antonio Jamaica, 2 fatal, pressurization issue
TBM 940, D-FSAM, 7/28/25, ditched Switzerland. 1 injured.

View attachment 143439

Correlation or causation?

In how many of those accidents did the airplane fail the pilot, or the pilot fail the airplane? Plus working with such small sample sizes, is it a statistically significant deviation (a big term I learned in college 20 years ago but have no idea how to calculate anymore!)?

 

[Rockymountain]

All good questions. Moreso in turboprops than many aircraft, because of their high reliability, when there is a failure it is usually the pilot. I do believe for reasons I mentioned above, the TBM requires more pilot. From the ground up it was built for speed. The Piper has always been built for the owner pilot, thus has more forgiving handling and more automation. For instance in the first TBM900 fatal, where the pilot accidentally or intentionally turned off the pressurization related to an erroneous CAS message, the plane depressurized with fatal consequences. This does not happen in a Piper M. If the pilot intentionally or unintentionally depressurizes the aircraft there are numerous protections. From the multiple cabin pressure sensors (3 in the M700, I believe), to an emergency pressurization circuit that automatically kicks in if the cabin pressurization drops below 12,000 feet cabin, to the dump valves that are energized with a solenoid to prevent pressure from escaping if the cabin altitude exceeds 14,000. So in the Piper M, had they turned off the pressurization, the cabin would have only bled down to 12,000 feet, which would have saved their lives. There are a lot of things like this built into Pipers. Alarms that will go off if you try to put in flaps beyond authorized limits in icing conditions, heats that turn off on the ground to prevent damage if you forget to turn them off on the ground, an inertial separator that is always on, so you don't forget to turn it on on the ground, IMC and Ice which protects the engine continuously even if the pilot has a brain F***. Tanks that will auto balance with the computer, so never any tank switching, and if you happen to fly in a constant slip like the pilot of a fatal TBM did, unporting the fuel from one of the tanks, In the Piper M, the tanks will auto balance, and you will get a CAS message about being out of trim. A lot of automation and protection built in. It is the easiest turbine to transition into and fly. The TBM is a great plane, but definitely more complex and less forgiving.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Sounds like you are pretty familiar with the TBM record. But maybe missed some.

I did not include foreign accidents for either type, since the data is often spotty or missing... And I was looking at NTSB reports. Looks like you're using aviation-safety.net but I can't find a way to search on type (the type index doesn't have anything for the TBM)?

and 5 TBM 850 series fatals, not sure how many were G1000's but I think most. Here is what I have for the TBM9's and what ASN has. So the GX000 record in the TBM series has been a little spotty. Similar flight hours to the Piper M GX000's, but 4+ times the fatals.

Where are you getting flight hour data?

TBM 900, PP-LIG, 2 fatal 2/1/2016 Santa Catarina spatial D?

This is a great example of "not enough data to conclude anything at all."

N960LP 3/30/2024
TBM 960 N960LP, 2 fatal, 3/30/2024 Truckee, LOC

You listed that one twice... That's the 960 I referenced as well. I don't know how they managed to get around the protections other than a death grip on the yoke that included the AP DISC or simply overpowered the servos. Would have been fine if he just let go. Also, this same pilot in the same scenario in an M series would not have fared any better.

TBM 900, N900KN, 9/5/2014, port Antonio Jamaica, 2 fatal, pressurization issue

This is the one I referenced as well.

In addition to the foreign fatal, I was only looking at fatal accidents since that's what you'd mentioned before.

I do believe for reasons I mentioned above, the TBM requires more pilot. From the ground up it was built for speed. The Piper has always been built for the owner pilot, thus has more forgiving handling and more automation.

I do not accept these as true. The TBM was also built for the owner pilot. It flies like a big Mooney, which makes sense since it started its life as the Mooney 301.

For instance in the first TBM900 fatal, where the pilot accidentally or intentionally turned off the pressurization related to an erroneous CAS message, the plane depressurized with fatal consequences.

The CAS message was not erroneous, and the pilot did not turn off the pressurization. A sensor showed an overheat and shut off bleed air. I'm not sure what the first CAS message would be in that scenario because they fixed this issue before I started flying TBMs, but the suspicion is that the pilot did not clear the Master Caution/Master Warning when it happened so when the CABIN PRESSURE CAS message came up, there was no new Master Warning and he didn't notice it. And since it was a slow depressurization, he may have already gotten stupid before the warning even came up. The fact that there was traffic below him and ATC only cleared him down to 250 also contributed, as that was the last instruction he was together enough to follow. Had he gotten an immediate descent to 10,000, or if he had declared an emergency in the first place, he'd likely be fine.

This does not happen in a Piper M.

It doesn't happen in a new TBM either. If CABIN PRESSURE is annunciated, the pilot has 15 seconds to respond and do the emergency descent on their own. Otherwise, the plane will take over and initiate a descent to 15,000. If the pilot doesn't respond further within two minutes, the autoland function is activated and takes the plane to the ground.

So in the Piper M, had they turned off the pressurization, the cabin would have only bled down to 12,000 feet, which would have saved their lives.

That is, if none of those systems malfunctioned... And I believe the new Pipers likely have the exact same Garmin software for dealing with a cabin pressure emergency that the TBMs do, so again, this wouldn't happen in a newer plane.

There are a lot of things like this built into Pipers.

Lots built into the TBM as well, including some of the very same ones you mention. Automatic fuel tank switching, turning things off on the ground, etc.

Inertial separator isn't going to kill anyone, it's just going to cost money if you screw it up a lot. It also allows for cooler temps and increased performance. Six of one, half a dozen of the other if you ask me.

 

[Clip4]

Is it really worth 3.9 million just to have 5k feet higher ceiling, 150 more kts, and 1200 more useful load than the Comanche 250?
That breaks out to:
$26,000 per knot
$7,800 per foot of altitude
$3,250 per pound of useful load

I guess if you want to show off. I think I will spend my money elsewhere.

You forgot a turbine v piston engine, pressurization, AC, FIKI, ALS, WX radar, and avionincs.

 

[dans2992]

You forgot a turbine v piston engine, pressurization, AC, FIKI, ALS, WX radar, and avionincs.

The Comanche gets pretty anemic up that high though, as a non-turbo.

Pressurization, FIKI, and speed also make missions possible that otherwise might not be.

Most of us don’t fly because it “makes financial sense”, we fly because we love it and are passionate about aviation, mostly.

 

[Rockymountain]

Automatic fuel tank switching, turning things off on the ground, etc.

Inertial separator isn't going to kill anyone

You have well made points. I would just point out that in depressurization, that the Piper doesn’t require the pilot to descend, or respond to any CAS messages, although you should. The aircraft automatically maintains pressurization through the emergency, bleed air circuit, and if necessary, closing the outflow valves with electric servos. That occurs even if the bleeds are turned off by the pilot, or never turned on. But if for some reason, the emergency systems didn’t work, it would also automatically descend.

On the inertial separator, the fatal icing TBM accident out of MMU, the pilot reported that they were getting some kind of rattle before the plane lost control. Something I’ve always wondered if that was a compressor stall he was hearing, or the compressor section getting chewed up by ice so it may have been involved. There’s only so much ice in engine can ingest before it starts having problems. Otherwise, nobody really knows what that rattle was that the pilot described.

But the TBM is a fine plane. The POH, normal and emergency procedures are more complicated than the Piper M. I am no expert, have flown the TBM in the simulator, but looking forward to actually flying one in the real world. But friends of mine that have flown both agree that it is a more complex plane to fly. Complexity requires more pilot, and complexity just makes more ways to screw up. But when a pilot screws up, it’s always the pilot‘s fault.

 

[Kelvin]

Wayne Bower used to ask...how much time CAN you afford to save?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

On the inertial separator, the fatal icing TBM accident out of MMU, the pilot reported that they were getting some kind of rattle before the plane lost control. Something I’ve always wondered if that was a compressor stall he was hearing, or the compressor section getting chewed up by ice so it may have been involved. There’s only so much ice in engine can ingest before it starts having problems. Otherwise, nobody really knows what that rattle was that the pilot described.

Who knows. That was a bad accident all around. Three jets in the area reported severe icing, and the pilot of one later told the investigators it was the worst he'd ever seen in 35 years of flying. And while they say that they couldn't determine the seating positions of the occupants, there was at least some evidence that the pilot was actually in the right seat and put his buddy in the left seat, despite not being a CFI... And the icing controls are behind the left side of the left yoke, so they may or may not have had the separator or any of the other icing equipment properly activated at the right times.

It wouldn't surprise me if the "rattle" was the stick shaker, given the speeds reported at about that time.

 

[Rockymountain]

It wouldn't surprise me if the "rattle" was the stick shaker, given the speeds reported at about that time.

I don't believe this model had a stick shaker. But, yeah, not sure what to make of the rattle.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't believe this model had a stick shaker. But, yeah, not sure what to make of the rattle.

Hm... All the ones I've flown had it (back to 2009 models), but after further review it wasn't available until roughly 100 S/Ns after the accident airplane, and wasn't standard equipment until 2016.

Could have been stall buffet too I suppose...