TBM850 vs. VLJs

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
I re-read the recent AOPA article about the TBM850 and how it has the potential to be a VLJ killer [my words]. The first time, I didn't buy it, but with the second read-through, I started to see it making sense. I won't repeat the details found within the article (you really should read it first), but I will say that it looks like the advantages of the TBM850 over VLJs are lower fuel burn, greater range, possibly able to use shorter runways, and all of this while getting near-same cruise speeds (maybe 320 KTAS). The only disadvantage I can see is that it looks like the TBM850 does not come with provision for a potty while some VLJs do.
 
Most people in the market for a 850 or VLJ have got plenty of dough and I suspect that the status of having a Jet will sway many. propellors are for those itty bitty airplanes, they will say. After the first jet airliners came out, no one wanted to ride on props, even turboprops. Cant argue that the 850 is probably a better fit for what many will want, lets hope they can market it that way.
 
I might be way off base here but is it not true that the VLJ would have a lower operating cost over time because of the TBO? What about cabin noise and vibration?

Of course no one i know fly's because its cost efficient :D
 
Eclipse has it right in one respect. Look at their current crop of ads: "Let's take the jet."

That says it all.

Besides, while the TBM 850 is almost as fast and will make better block times on some routes, such as due to altitude restrictions on the jets that will have them making a fuel stop, the jet is faster. And speed sells.

But I do agree that the TBM and the PC-12 are a better fit for the missions most of the VLJ buyers will be flying. But they're not jets.
 
How is the engine-out performance of the TBM?
A lot of owners like the idea of having two.
 
spiderweb said:
I re-read the recent AOPA article about the TBM850 and how it has the potential to be a VLJ killer [my words]. The first time, I didn't buy it, but with the second read-through, I started to see it making sense. I won't repeat the details found within the article (you really should read it first), but I will say that it looks like the advantages of the TBM850 over VLJs are lower fuel burn, greater range, possibly able to use shorter runways, and all of this while getting near-same cruise speeds (maybe 320 KTAS). The only disadvantage I can see is that it looks like the TBM850 does not come with provision for a potty while some VLJs do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but... the TBM costs nearly TWICE AS MUCH (2.8M) as the Jet (1.45M)! And the Eclipse has WAY better pilot automation, true-glass cockpit, etc.

I was, frankly, surprised that the Eclipse has "boots" rather than some other anti-icing method.
 
TBM and Eclipse are really different aircraft with different missions. The Eclipse will fit in a much smaller hanger and is about Baron size; the TBM is much larger--one was parked behind me when I was in the Baron the other day. Two engines v. a single. Much different price point and even people that can spend $1.5 MM may not be able to spend 2.5 in acquisition cost.
Different insurance considerations.

The King Air fits a lot of missions better than a jet; especially if making short flights or into short fields, but, my sister-in-laws' company just purchased a new Ratheon jet anyway. Seems the owners like to take longer personal trips!!

Best,

Dave
 
Darrell111 said:
I might be way off base here but is it not true that the VLJ would have a lower operating cost over time because of the TBO? What about cabin noise and vibration?

Of course no one i know fly's because its cost efficient :D
Click to expand...

I have no numbers in front of me, but I'd imagine the fuel burn would be greater with the 2 engines. Not to mention you have 2 engines to overhaul at TBO.

I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance was a killer on both machines.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Eclipse has it right in one respect. Look at their current crop of ads: "Let's take the jet."

That says it all.

Besides, while the TBM 850 is almost as fast and will make better block times on some routes, such as due to altitude restrictions on the jets that will have them making a fuel stop, the jet is faster. And speed sells.

But I do agree that the TBM and the PC-12 are a better fit for the missions most of the VLJ buyers will be flying. But they're not jets.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying, but I think I would lean towards the TBM 850. I like the company, the proven technology, and the solid look and feel. (I've actually only seen a 700, but they should be relatively similar.)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
How is the engine-out performance of the TBM?
A lot of owners like the idea of having two.
Click to expand...
Don't know, but it is a turbine, so it would concern me about as much as flying single engine in a VLJ.
 
Another thing--I thought the TBM 850 was much bigger, but the cabin on the Eclipse, for example, is wider. The TBM just looks so much more classier to me, though. I think if I wanted a jet (and had money--hello, I am a musician!), I would buy an older Citation I SP.
 
This is what killed the Williams engine on the original Eclipse prototype, performance was unacceptable trying to use bleed air de-ice. Eclipse went with P&W instead, jacked up the price, and backed off the original numbers accordingly.

Imho, the 850 is going to sell to customers that don't want to be the early adopters. I would suspect the difference in lifetime operating & maintenance costs will more than make up the difference in acquistion costs. And the 850 probably won't be as concerned with bird or FOD ingestion flying into the hinterlands.

But, hey, I'm glad to see my Microsoft purchase dollars going to an aviation project.

Troy Whistman said:
Yeah, but... the TBM costs nearly TWICE AS MUCH (2.8M) as the Jet (1.45M)! And the Eclipse has WAY better pilot automation, true-glass cockpit, etc.

I was, frankly, surprised that the Eclipse has "boots" rather than some other anti-icing method.
Click to expand...
 
Ken Ibold said:
Eclipse has it right in one respect. Look at their current crop of ads: "Let's take the jet."

That says it all.
Click to expand...
"Let's take the jet." Yes, as long as it's just you and me and a small dog. Too small. The Eclipse is way, way, way too small for me (as if).

I liked the looks of the D-Jet, but I'd take a TBM over any of them right now. A bird in the hand.

Chip
 
The problem remains that a rehabbed C500 still compares favorably in load, comfort, and overall cost to a 1.34M DJet.
 
Steve said:
This is what killed the Williams engine on the original Eclipse prototype, performance was unacceptable trying to use bleed air de-ice.
Click to expand...
A guy I know was an engineer there at the time. He says it's no coincidence the chief test pilot "left" the company a week before the Williams flight. As I'm told, the internal discussion was that it was unsafe to fly the airplane with the engines in the state they were in, but that Eclipse needed to get it in the air for business plan purposes. Something along the lines of "If you won't fly it we'll find someone who will." I'm also told that post-flight teardown of the engines made it clear the flight was only barely a success in that the engine was on the verge of coming apart internally. Maybe I'm just spreading misinformation, but the person who relayed this story to me appeared to be trying to give the straight poop, judging from the rest of the conversations we've had.
 
I bet insurance would be cheaper on the 850 too.

Besides that, i still think the best bang for your buck would be a PC-12, it just has fantastic numbers!
 
There's a decent article in a past issue of Air & Space Mag on the Williams engine development ala Eclipse jet. Basically the state of the art of engine production couldn't match the design requirements, too complex for the size/output.
 
Im excited about the Honda jet :) Looks like a nice bird
 
bbchien said:
The problem remains that a rehabbed C500 still compares favorably in load, comfort, and overall cost to a 1.34M DJet.
Click to expand...
I would agree. If I ever got to the level where I could consider it (someone gave me 10 million so I could live off the interest), I would first have to get my multi rating, and fly it to ATP standards. Next, I would get the C550 books and study until I could spew out the contents in my sleep. Then it would be off to flight safety for me for a week for the type rating, and five days every six months refresher and IPC. I'd also want to commit to flying at least 250 hours per year or flying with a copilot.

LOL--If I were Yo-Yo Ma, I'd have botht the NEED and MONEY to do this, but not the TIME!
 
which is why you need to become Yo Yo's pilot!
 
Ken Ibold said:
A guy I know was an engineer there at the time. He says it's no coincidence the chief test pilot "left" the company a week before the Williams flight. As I'm told, the internal discussion was that it was unsafe to fly the airplane with the engines in the state they were in, but that Eclipse needed to get it in the air for business plan purposes. Something along the lines of "If you won't fly it we'll find someone who will." I'm also told that post-flight teardown of the engines made it clear the flight was only barely a success in that the engine was on the verge of coming apart internally. Maybe I'm just spreading misinformation, but the person who relayed this story to me appeared to be trying to give the straight poop, judging from the rest of the conversations we've had.
Click to expand...

I thought that they only flew it once because every time the engines were started, the starter/generators got burned out and they had to replace the engines? Not very cost effective. :hairraise:
 
spiderweb said:
LOL--If I were Yo-Yo Ma, I'd have botht the NEED and MONEY to do this, but not the TIME!
Click to expand...
"If you've got the money, I've got the time!" thanks to Gilbert and Sullivan....
 
At operation Rain Check yesterday, the Center guys were talking about the problems they are having separating traffic and who gets priority. Obviously, someone with a slower speed and climb trying to get out in front of faster traffic will probably be waiting on the ground for a bit. They pointed out how they will probably create another altitude for arriving VLJs on the STARs. Now there is a jet, turbo and recip altitude when arriving or parallel arrival routes. Some VLJs really aren't faster than some turbos. The straight wing Citation is kinna like that now. It will be interesting.

Best,

Dave
 
I was thinking about this the other day. I hope, though, that an extra altitude "layer" is what the controller has to consider--not the pilot. At class-B BWI everything goes very smoothly, but I'm not aware what altitude systems they use in VMC. I do know they usually like me at 2,000 before entering the terminal airspace.
 
Ben:

Where its most congested is low and mid 30s. The point was made that slower traffic may be an issue there. Thus, there is some concern in some corridors that VLJs at that level may be an issue. At DFW, there are some paralled approaches; between these and altitude separation, there should be room here. Some places wont be able to handle this as well.

Sorry for the lack of some punctuation; cant do apostophe or slash or firefox takes things down to the bottom left corner---again.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Ben:

Where its most congested is low and mid 30s. The point was made that slower traffic may be an issue there. Thus, there is some concern in some corridors that VLJs at that level may be an issue. At DFW, there are some paralled approaches; between these and altitude separation, there should be room here. Some places wont be able to handle this as well.
Click to expand...

I see. I would think that the VLJs might be put in the same class as the fast turboprops, just as you say.
 
spiderweb said:
I see. I would think that the VLJs might be put in the same class as the fast turboprops, just as you say.
Click to expand...

Who knows, I'm just reporting, but there is a lot of dicussion about this at Center and TRACON. Another thing thrown out was how fast some turbines are like the one with the slick Italian name :p. Center says they just point the nose down on approach and 'come on down'!

Diversity of speed of all these aircraft is quite the challenge for Center and TRACON folks; course, below 10,000, everyone is to be below 250 IAS. Climb out is much different: many jets making the full indicated airspeed and climbing 3,000 fpm or better. We have Love Field here also and departures are kept low there (in a tunnel) until they get farter out.

Very interesting!!

Best,

Dave
 
I saw a TBM700 today.

WOW

Sitting on the ramp when I was walking out to the plane. Just firing up as I landed. It was out of site in a hurry.
 
Hi folks! I'm from Brazil and it's my first post on this forum.
I really do think that the TBM850 is quite expensive, 100k less than a pilatus wich is more confortable, witch one i've heard that will be improved, after they finish the PC-21 they attention will be back to PC-12 to improve it.
Also he's 100k less expensive than the C90-GT. Even with less performance I agree with Dave Taylor, I like the idea of having two engines!
But my real point is: Want a VLJ real killer?
So let's go... RAYTHEON MUST TO START THE ALL NEW KING AIR.
Who agree with me? Let's take de B200 for an example, what he doesn't do today? Take off with full PAX on board and fly out for a 1500nm mission. (Brazil and USA are really large countries), he must be lighter with a state-of-art fuselage like Premier I, he could have an automatic governator like de PC-12 even with auto-throttle, why not? I love an APU idea, like the ATR APU maybe, (works with engine started but he has a prop-brake), counter-rotating engines, High speed cruise like Piaggio Avanti. And the difference about it and a VLG? Can operate in a hot-high airport, can operante on grass, gravel, small runways, etc...
He's gonna cost more than a eclipse of course... But try to take off with an eclipse for a mission like this, full PAX and fuel, from a high and hot gravel surface airport flying out for 1500nm!
I hope that someone agree with me!
Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Juquinha,

Welcome to POA. Glad you found us.

I had a chance to sit in a TBM850 the other day. The TBM has always been my dream airplane so I was really glad to get inside one. The pilot is an old friend of mine who is planning to trade a TBM ride for a ride in the Extra. Can't wait.

What I discovered is that I don't fit in the TBM850. It's just too damn small. Not nearly enough headroom. Too bad, I was just about to put a deposit down on one. :no:

Here are a couple of pics of the TBM. You can bet I'll post something when I get to fly it. :goofy:
 
Last edited:
Thanks chip!!! I really enjoyed those TBM pictures, the only problem that I see is that the TBM are too small... he could fit 2 more pax with more space for everyone!
In time! I'll be posting soon pictures and videos about brazilian civil aviation!
Thanks!
 
A friend of my brokers these. He said the number one reason he loses sales is lack of a potty <g>. Corp folks on trips don't want to be embarrassed about getting the urge in the air. Another defining factor is the second engine. Potty alone moves to Pilatus; second engine and potty goes to the King Air. Interesting.

I'm still vacillating:

the Eclipse won't do what my P-Baron will--that is, carry four folks and stuff to either coast from Dallas non-stop. That means I may very well beat one to the coast only truing out at 215 because of the up, down and re-fuel time on the Eclipse.

The 550 Citation is still an old airframe--no matter what you add to it--old.

The D-jet doesn't sound like it will do what the P-Baron will either--we'll see.

The Mustang will do it, but now it's 2.5MM. Outta the question.

Piper is doing what they've always done; great on marketing; short on other stuff <g>

Guess I'll wait and see what develops. Mr. P-Baron is treating me well and there is no need to move right away <g>

I'm still waiting to see what all these air taxi operators do with an Eclipse with a two person crew and two pacs if under 500 miles. Over 800 miles, they either make a stop for fuel or carry one pac and stuff. Gonna be interesting.

Best,

Dave
 
Ben:

There's a guy here that flies a TBM out of Dallas Executive (south of down town). When he approaches D/FW from the north, they have him down to 8 to 10,000 70 miles north of Dallas. No unlimited climb on departure: he does step up climbs.

They have all these airliners and Bizjets going out on DPs. There guys are indicating 200/then 250, then 300 as they climb 3,000 feet per minute. They go out low and fast, and if you're on a satellite airport in their path, you're going to wait until they are clear. If they're not headed out over you, no problemo. The FW Center guys here tell me the Eclipse would get a step up departure to stay out of the way of faster movers.

If all the airliners are on the jet routes at low to mid 30s doing .8 mach; where do you think they will put an Eclipse at maybe 370? Who gets priority?

Where more people go direct, less of an issue. Northeast; west coast; good luck.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
the Eclipse won't do what my P-Baron will--that is, carry four folks and stuff to either coast from Dallas non-stop. That means I may very well beat one to the coast only truing out at 215 because of the up, down and re-fuel time on the Eclipse.

The 550 Citation is still an old airframe--no matter what you add to it--old.
Click to expand...
The Djet is simply a 240 knot Seneca II. Same Range, similar (actually, less) payload.

The C550 may be old, but 300 knots, nice cabin, 2 burners, potty, pretty decent range...better than the Beech 400.

When you add in capital costs, the C550 is HARD to BEAT.
 
bbchien said:
The Djet is simply a 240 knot Seneca II. Same Range, similar (actually, less) payload.

The C550 may be old, but 300 knots, nice cabin, 2 burners, potty, pretty decent range...better than the Beech 400.

When you add in capital costs, the C550 is HARD to BEAT.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's hard for me to leave the P-Baron for 240 knots; I'm truing out at 215 to 220 now. All I see is a bit more climb rate. What's the range and payload?

The C550 web site confused the heck out of me, and I really didn't want to begin the drill with a salesman! The marketing hype all talked about a VLJ for under 1MM. Then, I started playing with one their make-your-plane boards and the only way I could get near a mil. was with higher time air frame and engines, second rate avionics and a few other things I didn't like. Cabin, payload and range looked good. Guess I'd have to see what you're putting on the plane. The plane, the way I would want it, looked more like $1.5 to 1.6 Mil. to me and that put me in a plane with a 10,000 airframe. Just didn't get me too excited.

Maybe I'm just not seeing it the way you are.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Yea, it's hard for me to leave the P-Baron for 240 knots; I'm truing out at 215 to 220 now. All I see is a bit more climb rate. What's the range and payload?
Click to expand...
1140nm and 750 pounds.
The C550 web site confused the heck out of me, and I really didn't want to begin the drill with a salesman! The marketing hype all talked about a VLJ for under 1MM. Then, I started playing with one their make-your-plane boards and the only way I could get near a mil. was with higher time air frame and engines, second rate avionics and a few other things I didn't like. Cabin, payload and range looked good. Guess I'd have to see what you're putting on the plane. The plane, the way I would want it, looked more like $1.5 to 1.6 Mil. to me and that put me in a plane with a 10,000 airframe. Just didn't get me too excited.

Maybe I'm just not seeing it the way you are.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
With a C500 it works out to about 1.2 M. 320 knots, 1000 pounds, 1100 nm. But you can sell it out for what you put in, minus engine time.
 
bbchien said:
1140nm and 750 pounds.With a C500 it works out to about 1.2 M. 320 knots, 1000 pounds, 1100 nm. But you can sell it out for what you put in, minus engine time.
Click to expand...

Maybe we could chat sometime. I find the web site very confusing and really hate to get caught up in a sales pitch.

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top