TBM twin survey

I thought they're rumored to have been working on a twin for a couple of years now. What happened?
 
Y'know, with ANY twin turboprop - You've gotta somehow distinguish yourself from the King Air somehow. If you can't make something about it compelling enough to buy yours instead of a King Air, then why would anybody buy your (unproven) product?

Beech really nailed it with the King Air. There's a reason it's the de facto standard twin turboprop.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Y'know, with ANY twin turboprop - You've gotta somehow distinguish yourself from the King Air somehow. If you can't make something about it compelling enough to buy yours instead of a King Air, then why would anybody buy your (unproven) product?

Beech really nailed it with the King Air. There's a reason it's the de facto standard twin turboprop.
Click to expand...
For a smaller turboprop twin the size of a TBM I think the way to distinguish it from the King Air, especially the 90, is to make it a fair amount faster.
 
Everskyward said:
For a smaller turboprop twin the size of a TBM I think the way to distinguish it from the King Air, especially the 90, is to make it a fair amount faster.
Click to expand...

Maybe somebody should just hang some turbines on a Duke.
 
wabower said:
Dunno. There appears to be a strong market for such a plane, so just thought I would mention it before somebody else thinks about doing it. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Like the guy who made this one? ;)

RoyalTurbine008.jpg
 
vontresc said:
So why did the "Morons at Lycoming" run the intakes through the oil pan, Ted???
Click to expand...

Actually, they didn't. The TIO-541 (and TIGO-541) both have top-mounted intakes. The guy who made that video obviously has never seen a Duke or P-Navajo engine. ;)

tio541.jpg
 
LearDriver said:
That has already been done.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Wayne knows that... It's his dry sense of humor at work. ;)

It's too bad the Duke is such a hog - I think it's one of the best-looking airplanes out there! I'd sure love to have one, if I could afford the gas and keep it out of the shop...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Actually, they didn't. The TIO-541 (and TIGO-541) both have top-mounted intakes. The guy who made that video obviously has never seen a Duke or P-Navajo engine. ;)
Click to expand...

He used to own one (along with an assortment of Barons and helicopters).
 
weilke said:
He used to own one (along with an assortment of Barons and helicopters).
Click to expand...

Ok, and the intake on the Duke still doesn't go through the oil sump.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It's too bad the Duke is such a hog - I think it's one of the best-looking airplanes out there! I'd sure love to have one, if I could afford the gas and keep it out of the shop...
Click to expand...

I agree the Duke is a cool-looking airplane. It's just one of those planes that makes me wonder why Beechcraft bothered. Those engines in the 56TC Baron made for a nice little hot rod. In the Duke, you ended up with a pig. TIGOs would've been better if you insisted on staying with pistons. 425-450 hp instead of 380 would've woken the thing up.

Of course then the tails would still fall off. ;)
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Ok, and the intake on the Duke still doesn't go through the oil sump.
Click to expand...

Did I say say that ?

He may be fuzzy on the details, owning the Duke must have been quite a traumatic experience.
 
And if a frog had wings . . . ?

flyingcheesehead said:
I'm sure Wayne knows that... It's his dry sense of humor at work. ;)

It's too bad the Duke is such a hog - I think it's one of the best-looking airplanes out there! I'd sure love to have one, if I could afford the gas and keep it out of the shop...
Click to expand...
 
Funny -- looks like a request for contact information for potential buyers, not a survey!

It would have to have a larger cabin than the 850 to make it attractive IMHO. If you're gonna be burnin' 2x the fuel, better get something more out of it than a great climb rate and a little more cruise. Heck, the 850 already does 300kts.

I'm really interested in what Cessna is cooking up with their rumored Tprop. Their entry could really shake things up.
 
It looks to me like someone is just phishing for your contact information and it wouldn't shock me to find out that this web page has nothing to do with the aircraft company in question.
 
Beech is working on one too. Like midgets on an elevator, all getting their their nose in somebody else's business.
flyersfan31 said:
Funny -- looks like a request for contact information for potential buyers, not a survey!

It would have to have a larger cabin than the 850 to make it attractive IMHO. If you're gonna be burnin' 2x the fuel, better get something more out of it than a great climb rate and a little more cruise. Heck, the 850 already does 300kts.

I'm really interested in what Cessna is cooking up with their rumored Tprop. Their entry could really shake things up.
Click to expand...
 
I keep coming back to a Baron sized plane with turbines. The TBM is much closer in size to my 58P. TBM could be looking at a six place Baron size plane with much less drag and lighter than a KA. As Indigo says, faster. Hopefully, 1,200 mile range with IFR reserves.

That's just not out there today.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I keep coming back to a Baron sized plane with turbines. The TBM is much closer in size to my 58P. TBM could be looking at a six place Baron size plane with much less drag and lighter than a KA. As Indigo says, faster. Hopefully, 1,200 mile range with IFR reserves.

That's just not out there today.
Click to expand...

And at that point, they'd have a compelling product. :yes:

However, they'd also have to make sure that they were somehow distinguished against something like the Cirrus jet. That's got a nice sized cabin and is faster than a King Air as well... And with one jet vs. two turboprops, the turboprop efficiency isn't going to save them, I don't think. ?
 
A Baron-sized airplane is not compelling. At least, to me it's not. One ride in a PA46 airframe and you'd agree.

Hmmmmmmm......this actually sounds alot like a, yes, can it be, a Cheyenne!!!!
 
Hard to see how the airplane size can remain small and still hold enough fuel to accomplish that range requirement. The singles can do it, but not the twins. Converting the piston twins is prohibitively expensive due to the cost of the engines and the extra tankage necessary to make them usable. Maybe that's why older King Air 90's continue to sell reasonably well and command decent prices. They aren't perfect, but they fill the niche as well as anything else the manufacturers have come up with, and provide a much more comfortable ride to the passengers than any of their competitors to date.

Dave Siciliano said:
I keep coming back to a Baron sized plane with turbines. The TBM is much closer in size to my 58P. TBM could be looking at a six place Baron size plane with much less drag and lighter than a KA. As Indigo says, faster. Hopefully, 1,200 mile range with IFR reserves.

That's just not out there today.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
flyersfan31 said:
A Baron-sized airplane is not compelling. At least, to me it's not. One ride in a PA46 airframe and you'd agree.
Click to expand...

As much as I enjoyed my ride in your PA46, I have to disagree. For your mission, the PA46 is great. For my mission, it would be useless. You can fit more stuff in an Aztec, 310, or Baron due to the configuration and door differences. For this discussion, let's ignore the merits of single vs. twin and just assume you either need one or the other.

Dave, likewise, is thinking about his mission. The P-Baron is a good fit for his mission. As far as piston vs. turbine, I think it really comes down to a question of power. The piston engines produce power more efficiently, but have a hard time producing high power with acceptable TBOs. Hmm...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
As much as I enjoyed my ride in your PA46, I have to disagree. For your mission, the PA46 is great. For my mission, it would be useless. You can fit more stuff in an Aztec, 310, or Baron due to the configuration and door differences. For this discussion, let's ignore the merits of single vs. twin and just assume you either need one or the other.

Dave, likewise, is thinking about his mission. The P-Baron is a good fit for his mission. As far as piston vs. turbine, I think it really comes down to a question of power. The piston engines produce power more efficiently, but have a hard time producing high power with acceptable TBOs. Hmm...
Click to expand...

A Baron???? How can you fit more in a Baron? It has a smaller cabin in all dimensions. Plus, that taper in back? No way, man. A T-Baron would be a waste of engineering.
 
flyersfan31 said:
A Baron???? How can you fit more in a Baron? It has a smaller cabin in all dimensions. Plus, that taper in back? No way, man. A T-Baron would be a waste of engineering.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have rephrased, having no experience with packing Barons. But Aztecs and 310s you betcha.

Although my mom has threatened to disown me for not having an airstair door, for me it is a detriment. You would never have been able to fit what I fit in the Aztec today in the Matrix and make it up front. Even in the Navajo you can't fit any more dogs than in the Aztec, same reason.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Sorry, I should have rephrased, having no experience with packing Barons. But Aztecs and 310s you betcha.

Although my mom has threatened to disown me for not having an airstair door, for me it is a detriment. You would never have been able to fit what I fit in the Aztec today in the Matrix and make it up front. Even in the Navajo you can't fit any more dogs than in the Aztec, same reason.
Click to expand...

A pilot door is key. Some Navajos have them. One more in the plus column for the Navajo!!:wink2:

I do wish I had my own door.
 
flyersfan31 said:
A pilot door is key. Some Navajos have them. One more in the plus column for the Navajo!!:wink2:
Click to expand...

Correct. And if I had a crew door for a Navajo, 340... 421. :D

That would be the ultimate dog hauler. That said. I've done the calculations and it would be more expensive $/mile/dog. Doesn't keep me from lusting after a 340, though.

I do wish I had my own door.
Click to expand...

I actually even wish that I had my own door on my side.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I do wish I had my own door.
Click to expand...
Heck, even a King Air doesn't have a crew door. I think it would be hard to design one in propeller twins because of the position of the engines. The Aero Commanders have them but the wing and engines sit further back.

I agree with Dave S that there is no new, smaller, turboprop twin out there. There was the Cheyenne and the Conquest but they have been out of production for awhile. If it is faster and cheaper than the King Air 90 then it might have a chance. The question is how many people will pay the large premium for two engines over one when the could buy a TBM or other single-engine turboprop. I think that some people (me if I had the money for something like this) would prefer smaller and faster over larger and slower, or even larger and the same speed. But then I can't imagine any reason that I would need to haul any more than 2 or 3 plus myself. There must be other people out there like that.
 
B-58's and A-36's are pretty efficient to load. The big double doors are nice and I'd think they would be very adaptable to hauling your crates. Not that there's anything wrong with the crates you're currently using to haul them. :tongue:

Ted DuPuis said:
Sorry, I should have rephrased, having no experience with packing Barons. But Aztecs and 310s you betcha.

Although my mom has threatened to disown me for not having an airstair door, for me it is a detriment. You would never have been able to fit what I fit in the Aztec today in the Matrix and make it up front. Even in the Navajo you can't fit any more dogs than in the Aztec, same reason.
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
Heck, even a King Air doesn't have a crew door. I think it would be hard to design one in propeller twins because of the position of the engines. The Aero Commanders have them but the wing and engines sit further back.
Click to expand...

The Aero Commander is a nifty plane. If I were to go turbine, that would probably be my top pick.

I agree with Dave S that there is no new, smaller, turboprop twin out there. There was the Cheyenne and the Conquest but they have been out of production for awhile. If it is faster and cheaper than the King Air 90 then it might have a chance. The question is how many people will pay the large premium for two engines over one when the could buy a TBM or other single-engine turboprop. I think that some people (me if I had the money for something like this) would prefer smaller and faster over larger and slower, or even larger and the same speed. But then I can't imagine any reason that I would need to haul any more than 2 or 3 plus myself. There must be other people out there like that.
Click to expand...

I want the size I want, regardless of engine(s). For me, the question of single vs. twin isn't much of a question, and I think for a lot of people that's the case. Either they want the redundancy, especially for flights over water and wilderness areas. Perhaps if I was flying a TBM or Pilatus single it would be different, but those are well out of my price range. And if I could afford one of those, I'd still want a twin. But then again, I just like twins.

wabower said:
B-58's and A-36's are pretty efficient to load. The big double doors are nice and I'd think they would be very adaptable to hauling your crates. Not that there's anything wrong with the crates you're currently using to haul them. :tongue:
Click to expand...

I like my crates! :rofl:

The guy whose shop I use has a B-58 and loves it. When I've poked around inside it there's no question that the Aztec hauls significantly more. It's probably comparable to the 310. When I was toying around with the idea of a P-Baron, the big problem with it was the fact that its rear door is too small to get the crates in. Fortunately, the 310 has a very wide door, albeit not particularly tall. Its crate loading strategy is different than the Aztec, but has proven very effective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top