I’m an ex-airline pilot (F50/F70/F100/E175/E190). If I had the choice, I’d also buy a turbo-prop instead of a jet. It’s better on fuel, especially at low level, requires less runway, has a lower approach speeds, weighs less and is more forgiving when you bugger it up. This was a sensible move.
@@spiller212 Yes you can. But it’s (well it should be) all about functionality and utility. Saving seconds here and there and having to mess about trying to get climbs and “directs” is not part of the fun. Beside, on short journeys a quick turbo prop will beat almost any jet which means we are talking about longer trips. So how far do you want to fly without being able to have a piss. Also, remember you can also forget about having a beer or two and curry or a kebab on the way home from the pub the night before.
For those who haven't won the lottery... A Cessna 182 is a pretty good alternative. I flew my 182rg with 2 axis autopilot and a storm scope for many years. IFR training is mandatory regardless of your insurance requirements. You will find yourself in unusual weather at some point and need the skills. I found myself in a low fog bank off the coast of FL at the end of the runway and had to execute a 180 safely. I'm still here!
I agree with most of what you say but I will never understand "pilot" saying that you need an IFR rating to be proficiency enough to do a 180 safely in IMC without AP. It's a basic maneuver you should have learned to pass a PPL. Have you learned something?
You both may have a point and I do not see a disagreement there other than one upmanship, however, being a former test pilot their is nothing non proficient about lacking an IFR rating but if you have the training you will be glad when you need it. and the other point you dont learn shit with a PPL which is a non proficent rating and that accomplishment should be understood at that stage, secondly a 180 turn at 300 feet off the step to avoid a collision with only a loss of 50 feet of altitude boardering higher DL at 3000' is proficiency, that will not be taught in any PPL lesson of heard of but I am 75 and still enjoy when I can. This video was great and going to look into this TBM and this instructor, just maybe an old dog can still learn few new tricks. Be safe, and have fun...its a beautiful passion of mine. Cheers
For short range its good, but long range it has outdated aerodynamic since its a flying brick; something like a last gen Cirrus might be a better thing depending on mission
TBMs are nice, but I do love my Piper Malibu for a fraction of the acquisition and operating costs. I can haul six in pressurized comfort in the flight levels doing 225 knots on 16 gph. Non-stop range over 1700 nm and a useful load of 1400 lbs. I have the Continental 550C conversion. Wonderful engine.
I've heard the service ceiling for the Malibu isn't that of a turbine, nor is the take off performance with high density altitude. I wonder how the TBM compares to the Mirage and the Pilatus.
I've heard the service ceiling for the Malibu isn't that of a turbine, nor is the take off performance with high density altitude. I wonder how the TBM compares to the Mirage and the Pilatus.
@@fudogwhisperer3590 the Malibu was certified to 25000. I fly most long-distance legs at that altitude. The PA-46 Jetprop FL270. The TBM goes to FL310. My experience has been that if you can’t top convective weather by FL250 it’s unlikely that FL310 is going to be that much better. What FL250 to FL310 gives you is clear air to see and avoid the cumulonimbus buildups. Unless you have a jet capable of FL450, there is practically no difference between FL250 and FL310. With regard to takeoff performance there is no denying that a turboprop has considerably more power than a piston, but I’ve never had a problem with the twin-turbo Malibu and I’ve flown it many times in the high-altitude west. Although the Malibu won’t have the same climb performance as the TBM, I can tell you that my Malibu will climb 1300 fpm fully loaded on a hot day all the way into the mid to high teens and then about 700-1000 all the way to FL250 and my CHTs never get above 360 degrees. For the money, the PA-46 is hard to beat. A good used one will run you $600K to $1.1M whereas a used TBM is considerably north of that. I can run my Malibu for about $350/hr. I know the TBM hourly rate is higher. Again, I love the TBM; it is a fantastic aircraft. Just providing an alternate perspective for those that may want similar performance on a much lower budget. Fly safe . . .
I can really relate to this. I'm always tired of my piston engine planes taking too long to get places, and my jets aren't versatile enough to land at my remote ranches. These are problems we all face though, right guys?
I used to share in that struggle. Then I bought a 747-400 Combi so that I can use it to go long range to a 8,000' runway, and then if my destination is a shorter runway (it usually is), I unload my TBM 850 out of the back of the 747 and fly it there. I know I have an old model TBM but I didn't want to buy a brand new one and then modify the wings to fold up so I can get it into my 747. Like my 30 year-old 747 that I bought out of the desert, the TBM is not a new one either, but it gets the job done! I don't mind "slumming it" with my old airplanes. And it leaves me more money to buy Ferraris.
@@StratMatt777 I used to own an a380 as I had a huge cigar collection and golfed internationally on the weekends but always struggle to find a runway for the 380. I had to settle for the tbm 700 too as I didn’t want to have to sell my cigar collection just to put a few accessories to attach it to my a380. I get to keep my cigars and my Ferraris too now.
Maybe I’m missing something but didn’t he list the drawbacks in this video? 1) total expenditure 2) less capable in inclement weather 3) short field performance
No TR on the Honda. And the first gen lands squirrelly. Other than that, they're a home run. My company manages & flies a bunch of them. They'll land & stop in 1500' empty, even without TR, so idk where this short field complaint comes from
Why was I even sent a link to this video? I drive a 2004 Buick LeSabre, I barely make enough money to keep up with inflation, and rising rent on my shitty apartment, and I am recommended this tragic story.
Yup. Here I am with my Piper Tom and Cessna 152 doing short trip oilfield delivery thinking I was doing real well 😂 Im adding a carbon cub for deliveries where I don’t have a real strip. Already got a pilot for it, she’s probably the most natural vfr pilot Ive ever met. I currently have her doing her commercial training while I wait for delivery of the cub. She’s small, and keeping weight down is important. It’s crazy how many times these companies hire us to drop off small, cheap, but necessary items, and sometimes people.
I worked as an A&P for a 135 operation in Fairbanks AK for over 13 years, you take that TBM into any of the gravel strips we use to operate from without highly modified flaps, and the rocks coming off the main tires will destroy them, the rocks that miss the flaps, will make the deice boots on the horizontal stabilizers look like a chess board from patching all the holes, then the rocks coming off the nose tire will clean the antennas off the belly of that aircraft like a finely honed shaving razor, plus put dents on the main landing gear struts, so eventually the seals wont hold. It's obvious you don't have that much experience operating on remote Alaskan air strips
You say the TBM can land on rough runways etc. have a look at the PC12 of the Royal Flying Doctor Service here in Australia. They land on rough airstrips for aeromedical stuff. Give me a PC12 anyday
@@Iwishiwasflying Theres a big difference in off airport and something like the gravel; strips of Alaska, the Royal Flying Doctors don't operate on gravel strips
@@Agwings1960 maybe do some research on where the RFDS actually fly and land. They land in gravel, powdered dirt and every other possible combo. Australia has one of the toughest climates and countrysides.
@@Iwishiwasflying all the videos I’ve seen with the Royal flying doctors is that they’re mostly operating on dirt with a few rocks scattered about which is completely different than a real 100% gravel runway, the terrain in Australia doesn’t require that you use gravel for a runway, but the permafrost in Alaska does, it’s very obvious that you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about
All airplanes are used in a commercial context, ie, "dry leased" and I expect to conform them to air charter. My rule of airplanes is that they have to pay for themselves, and if they don't can't, I trade out of them. The planes I have are to, in future, service guests and logistics to Alaska. Meanwhile they used predominately for instruction/training.
@@adventuresofalphapop I see your point about the aircraft being for commercial use, which sounds like an awesome way to own planes. Just a bit hard for me to process owning assets of that high value - yet a turboprop would be my dream. Thanks for your great video!
Yeah, and he understands the learning process is a lifelong thing. I wouldn't be afraid to fly with him❤, even if he only started 6 years ago, it seems he has put his time into it.
Can't argue with anything he said. The TBM just fits, and the next best thing from that is a cessna twin or even a beechcraft twin if you can find one, but the step up from the TBM would be the Pilatus PC-24 and aint nobody got cash for that.
TBM outperforms the piper in every aspect lol. The meridians/M-class are less expensive by a good margin tho. Not saying they’re bad, but the TBM is just so much better.
My goal is to one day own a used Piper M600. Pretty fast, but way more affordable to operate than a jet. He makes a very good point. While a turboprop isn't quite as fast as a jet, it's pretty darn fast and unless you're traveling cross country, the speed difference isn't worth the additional costs.
To add to what you said, I had to do a lot of flying between cities with my job. Basically, 1 hour flights. The airline changed from older 737 to Bombardier Q400. I found it much more pleasant than on the jet. more legroom and the flight itself was only about 20 minutes slower, but the startup was faster and It was easier and faster to get into and out of the cramped Boeing and had better leg room.
If I still needed a small plane a TBM would be on my short list. I flew T182R and then a Cessna 340. The twin was nice and climbed fast, but was still limited. Also, a piston twin requires constant training to be sure you are up on your procedures. A move to a single turbine would have been my next move. But, with the internet there were less and less need to travel for business, so ...
I assume most biz flyers write the trip off? Now just find lots of reasons to fly. Tell them your Wi-Fi is broken. And of course the cable guy didn't show up, Again!
Just a quick note. In the flight levels you must have and file an instrument rating and go IFR. Additionally above FL250(IIRC) you need an additional sign off for the reduced minimum altitude areas and specific equipment requirements. I’m sure the TBM has the gear but where you’ll be flying those requirements rule so be ready or stick to a pressurized piston in the teens. Turbine fuel cost below the flight levels goes way up even for a turboprop.
Even TBMs are very expensive to operate compared to pistons. How about the Diamond DA62? Its really efficient and modern and a 7 seater…. Maybe not as fast at 192knots but still pretty quick and so much cheaper…
DA62 is not pressurised. That's a big drawback, escpecially if you have paying passengers or children onboard. Plus the safety of a twin engine piston plane is less than a single engine turboprop, especially on takeoff if you lose an engine. The only safety advantage I see is long trips over water.
Man, I love the TBM 930. I fly it all of the time in microsoft flight simulator and enjoy it more than the jets in the simulator, because I can land it about anywhere. That's from someone who has never flown a real plane, but really want to. I've been thinking about going to flight school the past two years, but don't want to fly for the big airlines, but more rural hard to get places and this plane just has got me obsessed. It's a damn fine bird for sure, and I would love to fly one someday. They are a good chunk of change to buy though.
A friend at a local airpark has a TBM. I've seen him land in less distance than my Piper Archer. Totally amazing, and beautiful, airplane. However, they are crazy expensive! They are only for people who have 18 wheelers full of money.
Great video with many interesting points... Just curious, wouldn't a Pilatus PC-12 be more appropriate for the missions you seem to have? Better short field performance, can land on un-improved strips, and can haul much more! I guess operating costs are higher than a TBM but still significantly less than a light jet. It seems like the drawback here is cruise speed...
That's what I was thinking. I think he said he flies alone or with few passengers most of the time so useful load and size isn't as big of a deal. And I have no experience but since it's a Swiss jet it might have some crazy maintenance schedule that only makes sense for the 135 guys
@@Chris11249 I mean the PC-12 is a turboprop. You might be thinking of the PC-24, which is indeed a jet! As far as I know, maintenance for a PC-12 is not significantly different from other turboprops in its class... But as you said, if useful load is not a concern, than I guess a TBM makes more sense. But again, what do I know, I've never owned an aircraft!
I’m a big jet driver and I love this guy’s real down to Earth commentary about Turbo-Props.. “Beta is an amazing thing”. “ it can even go in reverse.!” 😅
Cool looking turboprop. I just like the 2 engine idea. And the Cirrus having a safety parachute is a pretty cool idea. Pilots are great people, and excellent role mosdels. They know how to get things done right the first time.
At altitude the HondaJet is great, approaching the ground it's a wingtip ground strike waiting to happen... Lots of common sense practical advice given in this video.
You need a certain amount of hours just to fly it in IMC or the insurance will not cover you. This happened to a friend of mine that I work on his airplane on the weekends. I'm the only A&P IA around and I'm at his airport so I help him fly his TBM because he isn't IFR rated
Well-spoken and well-reasoned arguments in favor of the TBM. I'm guessing that your regular or largest fraction of your flying environment is better served by a turboprop-powered aircraft. 323 KTAS is "FAIRLY" close to 400 KTAS. What about the comparable range? What about the time-to-climb to assigned altitude, vertical airspeed in the climb, and true airspeed in the climb? PT-6 powered aircraft sometimes lose time in the climb, and thus their range is shortened.
WOW!!! That's so cool! I know in the sim I play the TBM a LOT. As well as the Vision. Lately it's been the Diamond T-62. I love this video! Keeps my passion going towards getting that license one day.
Good choice for short field missions. I prefer my Eclipse 500 with two engines instead of one, and ability to fly FL410 above the weather. Similar operating costs to the TBM but much safer. However, I do need a longer runway, especially if wet, so it wouldn't be the best choice for you.
Well I'm glad he's happy with the TBM but I disagree with a number of his reasons why the TBM is superior to a single pilot jet. I was an instructor in the Eclipse 550/500. The Eclipse is faster than the TBM and can do pretty much anything the TBM can do except it only lands on paved runways. The Eclipse is even cheaper to operate than the TBM and I would argue easier to fly. I did a comparison between the TBM and the Eclipse years ago and one of the big differences that people don't realize is the redundancy of systems, two engines being a big one! How many pitot static systems does a TBM have? If the primary pitch trim jams or fails is there a secondary system? TBMs are great but there are other options. That TBM should be flown with the same "proficiency" as the jets he disparaged. That being said if he's happy and safe in the TBM then fly the wings off of it and have fun!
I agree with turbine over small jet for all your reasons. Why, though, since you are so thorough on the turbine, did you pick a free turbine like the pt6 compared to a single shaft. Single shafts provide even more efficiency and they have a near instantaneous response to input. Wouldn't an engine like a honeywell tpe variant give you more of the exact things you are looking for? Maybe it's splitting hairs, but you would likely go faster and/or further on the same fuel with a single shaft engine. Overall great video and very intelligent presentation and complete. You sound like you would also be a good business person to work with.
I'll gladly charter a turboprop over a jet. Price matters, and as he pointed out the speeds aren't that dramatically slower. My office hasn't flown commercial since May 2020. Not missing the airlines at all.
On the public side, this has more to do with brokers than with customers...if you ask a broker what you should fly, they want you one CJ3 or something bigger. Different brokers have different reasons, without ascribing financial motivations (bigger planes mean more money) many brokers are only now starting to appricate the value and versatility of both light jets and turboprops. Corportate flight departments often charter turboprops and/or have one in their fleet.
@@nythawkfpv with jet prices to go with it. When a client sees that we chartered a turboprop for far less than what it would have cost to fly the airlines, they're pretty happy and we're glad to avoid the airlines.
This must be for comparison. the smaller brother of the PC 12....does this TBM have better stall capabilities ? Whats the range and hourly consumption compared with the PC 12 NGx ? No toilet option, what about star link these days in moving situations ?
The Honda Jet is really the best Light Jet on the market. But for me, the most annoying thing besides the costs (well, I'm only flying these things, not owning them) is the limited Payload/Range capability. With the TBM you can set Long Range Cruise and still fly over 6 hours with 3 people on board. That's "Wow..."
I agree with the comparison between Jets and Turbines except this "flying to proficiency" nonsense. You want to fly EVERY aircraft as proficient as you can. I would argue that a jet is easier to fly than a turbine. No yaw input from a big prop, no max torque to watch, your Honda Jet has 2 engine vs. one on the TBM that's added safety. But I agree that a TBM is a fantastic aircraft.
Hum, unimproved fields, check. Short landing distance , check, reverse in flight, check. Reverse backing up on ground, check. 430 knots check. Dual HUDs, check. Powered Lift, check. I’ll take the C-17 instead. Little higher operating costs though
Why a TBM versus a Beechcraft King Air 360ER? Twin engines would seem to provide an extra envelope of safety, lower cost to operate, yet provide the seating for passengers or more cargo?
Did you consider the Pilatus plane? If yes, what were the cons or drawbacks that precluded you from buying it? It seems to be a very reliable and popular plane.
Even more expensive than the TBM. If you don't need the space you're just drilling a larger hole in the air. Honeywell Navigation Suite is somewhat exotic. Not very popular in GA.
You probably never encountered this due to having many flight-hours already upon getting the TBM, but theres a RUclips where a guy with a Kodiak had huge trouble as a new pilot getting insured. Did your insurance carrier mandate you have an Instrument Rating to pilot the TBM? (even if you had one) Did the insurer restrict who could fly? (e.g."No VFR Copilot," "Rated Copilot," "Solo Only," etc.) Some of us might also like to hear what your insurance rates are like on the TBM. BTW, I keep telling "Jimmys World" 'forget about jets, go for turboprop..." But thanks much, and good choice!
@@816928 You just burn more gas down low; probably not a huge consideration if you have the $ to buy a TBM. But yeah, for most people it's a deal breaker. I'd think insurance would be hard to come by without an instrument rating in that a/c.
@@dieselyeti If all you do is fly westbound than I guess you can buy this aircraft with only a PPL. The whole point of the turbine is to take advantage of favorable winds and to get above weather. Good luck insuring it but hey, if you are dumb enough to buy this aircraft with only a PPL you are probably dumb enough to fly it without insurance and unskilled enough to eventually total it out or kill yourself.
Sir, I don't have anywhere near enough money to buy a TBM let alone a C172. In my opinion a new pilot with a PPL has no business owning/operating an aircraft like this without another more experienced pilot. I cannot speak to insurance but if I were in charge of underwriting there is NO WAY I WOULD INSURE A PILOT WITH JUST A PPL. Just because you can afford this aircraft doesn't mean you should buy it. That is what the industry calls a credit card captain. Why do you think they call the Bonanza the "doctor killer". An aircraft which is much easier to handle by the way. For those thinking of doing something this foolish, please don't!
Personally, I would stick to a CJ1, burns 300 litres per hour (700lbs per hour), FL410, designed for single pilot flying. Yes the short field performance isn't as good as a TBM but your fuel burn is similar with a much higher TAS as well as redundancy of a second engine.
Excellent video! What others turbo-prop beside the TBM have you considered? Would a Epic E-1000 also be a good alternative for those single pilot mission needing to be fast, with good payload and needing to land on short airfields?
I've seen some planes being flown full time in Alaska and I think the Best aircraft for their various places they need to land is the Otter what is your opinion on that planes capability compared to this one in your video?
I’m an ex-airline pilot (F50/F70/F100/E175/E190). If I had the choice, I’d also buy a turbo-prop instead of a jet. It’s better on fuel, especially at low level, requires less runway, has a lower approach speeds, weighs less and is more forgiving when you bugger it up. This was a sensible move.
but when you consider the price delta between an SF50 and a TBM960, you can buy a lot of maintenance and gas for that jet ;)
@@spiller212 Yes you can. But it’s (well it should be) all about functionality and utility. Saving seconds here and there and having to mess about trying to get climbs and “directs” is not part of the fun. Beside, on short journeys a quick turbo prop will beat almost any jet which means we are talking about longer trips. So how far do you want to fly without being able to have a piss. Also, remember you can also forget about having a beer or two and curry or a kebab on the way home from the pub the night before.
@@Trevor_Austin i just pee in a pop bottle, is that wrong?
@@FourthWayRanch It works for me!!
@@Trevor_Austin But then you still have a prop plane instead of a jet.
This guy is what an enthusiast should be. Whether its sneakers, cars, etc its great listening to people talk about what they love
Can’t argue it’s not about having what you want but more so wanting what you have. I was busting chops but is a good video.
@@Dennco2000 The worst thing in life is having what you want and love and not having time to use it or even take care of it.
@@daszieher precisly ✅
He's just *(air)plane* crazy, and I like that about him.
This is one of the better interviews; this man is honest, articulate, and has thought this through. I love his no-nonsense presentation.
with the first 10 seconds, i knew exactly why he went from Jet to Turbo prop. Alaska.
For those who haven't won the lottery... A Cessna 182 is a pretty good alternative. I flew my 182rg with 2 axis autopilot and a storm scope for many years. IFR training is mandatory regardless of your insurance requirements. You will find yourself in unusual weather at some point and need the skills. I found myself in a low fog bank off the coast of FL at the end of the runway and had to execute a 180 safely. I'm still here!
I agree with most of what you say but I will never understand "pilot" saying that you need an IFR rating to be proficiency enough to do a 180 safely in IMC without AP. It's a basic maneuver you should have learned to pass a PPL. Have you learned something?
I said IFR training, not rating.@@laurentsamson8927
You both may have a point and I do not see a disagreement there other than one upmanship, however, being a former test pilot their is nothing non proficient about lacking an IFR rating but if you have the training you will be glad when you need it. and the other point you dont learn shit with a PPL which is a non proficent rating and that accomplishment should be understood at that stage, secondly a 180 turn at 300 feet off the step to avoid a collision with only a loss of 50 feet of altitude boardering higher DL at 3000' is proficiency, that will not be taught in any PPL lesson of heard of but I am 75 and still enjoy when I can. This video was great and going to look into this TBM and this instructor, just maybe an old dog can still learn few new tricks. Be safe, and have fun...its a beautiful passion of mine. Cheers
For short range its good, but long range it has outdated aerodynamic since its a flying brick; something like a last gen Cirrus might be a better thing depending on mission
@@laurentsamson8927 it is basic maneuver if you are proficient in IMC. Otherwise disorientation and panic kicks in and you are in death spiral.
Great video! This man has very good problems to have!
Yes, sir...definitely a nice problem to have
TBMs are nice, but I do love my Piper Malibu for a fraction of the acquisition and operating costs. I can haul six in pressurized comfort in the flight levels doing 225 knots on 16 gph. Non-stop range over 1700 nm and a useful load of 1400 lbs. I have the Continental 550C conversion. Wonderful engine.
I've heard the service ceiling for the Malibu isn't that of a turbine, nor is the take off performance with high density altitude. I wonder how the TBM compares to the Mirage and the Pilatus.
I've heard the service ceiling for the Malibu isn't that of a turbine, nor is the take off performance with high density altitude. I wonder how the TBM compares to the Mirage and the Pilatus.
@@fudogwhisperer3590 the Malibu was certified to 25000. I fly most long-distance legs at that altitude. The PA-46 Jetprop FL270. The TBM goes to FL310. My experience has been that if you can’t top convective weather by FL250 it’s unlikely that FL310 is going to be that much better. What FL250 to FL310 gives you is clear air to see and avoid the cumulonimbus buildups. Unless you have a jet capable of FL450, there is practically no difference between FL250 and FL310. With regard to takeoff performance there is no denying that a turboprop has considerably more power than a piston, but I’ve never had a problem with the twin-turbo Malibu and I’ve flown it many times in the high-altitude west. Although the Malibu won’t have the same climb performance as the TBM, I can tell you that my Malibu will climb 1300 fpm fully loaded on a hot day all the way into the mid to high teens and then about 700-1000 all the way to FL250 and my CHTs never get above 360 degrees. For the money, the PA-46 is hard to beat. A good used one will run you $600K to $1.1M whereas a used TBM is considerably north of that. I can run my Malibu for about $350/hr. I know the TBM hourly rate is higher. Again, I love the TBM; it is a fantastic aircraft. Just providing an alternate perspective for those that may want similar performance on a much lower budget. Fly safe . . .
@@fudogwhisperer3590 Pilatus is bigger, slower, longer range and costs more to operate.
@@malibujack4852 thank you so much for that valuable insight
I traded my Honda Civic for a riding lawn mower. I'm making a RUclips video about the process.
Lol
At least you can ride in more style
@@sumtingwong8768 Maybe. Until I get pulled over and the police smell grass.
@@tripodcatz5532
You missed the chance to say WEED
I think my mower listed for more than a civic.
Me at 50: searching online for info on damaged balljoints and lower arms for my car .... these guys at 40: talking bout why they changed jets
It’s funny he mentions it. I had a race with my mate in his jet just the other day. He beat me but boy did we have fun and laugh and laugh.
Tom Cruise?
I can really relate to this. I'm always tired of my piston engine planes taking too long to get places, and my jets aren't versatile enough to land at my remote ranches. These are problems we all face though, right guys?
Don't you just hate having first world problems? 😂
If I had a Nickel for every time I can't land in Monterey for the Barrett Jackson auction just because my Honda Elite needs more runway.
Gets old.
I used to share in that struggle. Then I bought a 747-400 Combi so that I can use it to go long range to a 8,000' runway, and then if my destination is a shorter runway (it usually is), I unload my TBM 850 out of the back of the 747 and fly it there. I know I have an old model TBM but I didn't want to buy a brand new one and then modify the wings to fold up so I can get it into my 747. Like my 30 year-old 747 that I bought out of the desert, the TBM is not a new one either, but it gets the job done! I don't mind "slumming it" with my old airplanes. And it leaves me more money to buy Ferraris.
@@StratMatt777
I used to own an a380 as I had a huge cigar collection and golfed internationally on the weekends but always struggle to find a runway for the 380. I had to settle for the tbm 700 too as I didn’t want to have to sell my cigar collection just to put a few accessories to attach it to my a380. I get to keep my cigars and my Ferraris too now.
@@maddawg4417 I have a similar story, but not involving cigars.The struggle IS real..
Was hoping to hear why he bought the Honda Jet and Cirrus Vision to begin with and what were the drawbacks of these aircrafts specifically.
Maybe I’m missing something but didn’t he list the drawbacks in this video?
1) total expenditure
2) less capable in inclement weather
3) short field performance
And specifically also too expensive to train in regularly to maintain proficiency.
No TR on the Honda. And the first gen lands squirrelly. Other than that, they're a home run. My company manages & flies a bunch of them.
They'll land & stop in 1500' empty, even without TR, so idk where this short field complaint comes from
@@BIGJOESXR Mostly unimproved strips. Landing HondaJet on a muddy short field. Bad idea, just from potential FOD. He talked about it in the video.
@@helicopterdriver fair enough. But I wouldn't be landing a tbm in the mud either. I'd go for the 206.
Why was I even sent a link to this video?
I drive a 2004 Buick LeSabre, I barely make enough money to keep up with inflation, and rising rent on my shitty apartment, and I am recommended this tragic story.
Inspiration, maybe?
Love this guy! The TBM is amazing. Can’t wait to fly one and I agree with everything he said. He’s spot on!
Yup. Here I am with my Piper Tom and Cessna 152 doing short trip oilfield delivery thinking I was doing real well 😂
Im adding a carbon cub for deliveries where I don’t have a real strip. Already got a pilot for it, she’s probably the most natural vfr pilot Ive ever met. I currently have her doing her commercial training while I wait for delivery of the cub. She’s small, and keeping weight down is important. It’s crazy how many times these companies hire us to drop off small, cheap, but necessary items, and sometimes people.
A very close family friend had a similar experience. He used to own a King Air 300, went to a CJ1 and settled in a TBM
2:22 “it can even go in reverse so you can actually back out of a tight spot don’t act like you haven’t ever wanted to do that, I know I have” 😂😂
I love flying the TBM in flight simulator, If one day I become successful enough to own one I will absolutely do it
I worked as an A&P for a 135 operation in Fairbanks AK for over 13 years, you take that TBM into any of the gravel strips we use to operate from without highly modified flaps, and the rocks coming off the main tires will destroy them, the rocks that miss the flaps, will make the deice boots on the horizontal stabilizers look like a chess board from patching all the holes, then the rocks coming off the nose tire will clean the antennas off the belly of that aircraft like a finely honed shaving razor, plus put dents on the main landing gear struts, so eventually the seals wont hold. It's obvious you don't have that much experience operating on remote Alaskan air strips
PC-12 will be his next video :)
You say the TBM can land on rough runways etc. have a look at the PC12 of the Royal Flying Doctor Service here in Australia. They land on rough airstrips for aeromedical stuff. Give me a PC12 anyday
@@Iwishiwasflying Theres a big difference in off airport and something like the gravel; strips of Alaska, the Royal Flying Doctors don't operate on gravel strips
@@Agwings1960 maybe do some research on where the RFDS actually fly and land. They land in gravel, powdered dirt and every other possible combo. Australia has one of the toughest climates and countrysides.
@@Iwishiwasflying all the videos I’ve seen with the Royal flying doctors is that they’re mostly operating on dirt with a few rocks scattered about which is completely different than a real 100% gravel runway, the terrain in Australia doesn’t require that you use gravel for a runway, but the permafrost in Alaska does, it’s very obvious that you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about
For only $1 million annually, you can own the same group of aircraft this gentlemen has. Pretty small group of people fit into that category.
All airplanes are used in a commercial context, ie, "dry leased" and I expect to conform them to air charter. My rule of airplanes is that they have to pay for themselves, and if they don't can't, I trade out of them. The planes I have are to, in future, service guests and logistics to Alaska. Meanwhile they used predominately for instruction/training.
@@adventuresofalphapop I see your point about the aircraft being for commercial use, which sounds like an awesome way to own planes. Just a bit hard for me to process owning assets of that high value - yet a turboprop would be my dream. Thanks for your great video!
But when your in that category, that’s your world.
yup about 1% of the population....
56.1 Million millionaires in the world. I'm not convinced the market is small. :)
Yeah, and he understands the learning process is a lifelong thing. I wouldn't be afraid to fly with him❤, even if he only started 6 years ago, it seems he has put his time into it.
Given that he "retired", he probably had nothing but time to put into it.
53-year pro-pilot with five jet-type ratings. Corporate & airline background, now flying a 960. Comments are spot on.
Can't argue with anything he said. The TBM just fits, and the next best thing from that is a cessna twin or even a beechcraft twin if you can find one, but the step up from the TBM would be the Pilatus PC-24 and aint nobody got cash for that.
I agree with everything that he said, but, the price of this thing's crazy. Maybe consider doing a video of the m500m 600 Piper vs tbm
TBM outperforms the piper in every aspect lol.
The meridians/M-class are less expensive by a good margin tho.
Not saying they’re bad, but the TBM is just so much better.
I actually plan to do a comparison with the turboprops starting with the Piper M500
Is the Beechcraft Denali an option?
@@lollipopjuggs the Deb does not have pressurized cabin
@@lollipopjuggs wait, you said Denali .... That may compete well
Comparing a "jet to a turbine"? Last I checked, one is a jet and one is a turboprop. They are both turbines.
This video is a 100% reflection of my reality in my aviation journey - spot on - excellent video
I love this guy. Living the American dream!!!!
Fck America and sealing oil to fund your life. Snakes the lot of you
My goal is to one day own a used Piper M600. Pretty fast, but way more affordable to operate than a jet. He makes a very good point. While a turboprop isn't quite as fast as a jet, it's pretty darn fast and unless you're traveling cross country, the speed difference isn't worth the additional costs.
To add to what you said, I had to do a lot of flying between cities with my job. Basically, 1 hour flights. The airline changed from older 737 to Bombardier Q400. I found it much more pleasant than on the jet. more legroom and the flight itself was only about 20 minutes slower, but the startup was faster and It was easier and faster to get into and out of the cramped Boeing and had better leg room.
If I still needed a small plane a TBM would be on my short list. I flew T182R and then a Cessna 340. The twin was nice and climbed fast, but was still limited. Also, a piston twin requires constant training to be sure you are up on your procedures. A move to a single turbine would have been my next move. But, with the internet there were less and less need to travel for business, so ...
I assume most biz flyers write the trip off?
Now just find lots of reasons to fly. Tell them your Wi-Fi is broken. And of course the cable guy didn't show up, Again!
HaHa… it seems this guys solution on deciding between which two planes to buy is……. Buy them both. Good for him.
It’s a cute plane. Enjoy. However, I’d go for a twatter. Slow, reliable, fixed gear, rough field Sledge Hammer!
He wasn’t lying when he said he collects aircraft.🙂
Just a quick note. In the flight levels you must have and file an instrument rating and go IFR. Additionally above FL250(IIRC) you need an additional sign off for the reduced minimum altitude areas and specific equipment requirements. I’m sure the TBM has the gear but where you’ll be flying those requirements rule so be ready or stick to a pressurized piston in the teens. Turbine fuel cost below the flight levels goes way up even for a turboprop.
Even TBMs are very expensive to operate compared to pistons. How about the Diamond DA62? Its really efficient and modern and a 7 seater…. Maybe not as fast at 192knots but still pretty quick and so much cheaper…
The DA52 has a much lower useful load and is much more cramped.
(And unpressurised)
@@nythawkfpv I agree. But it is so much cheaper and its not too cramped. It can easily take 7 people. Turbo props are expensive for most people.
@@jay_b.. i thought you can easily fit 4 people in, but the 3 seats at the back could really only fit children and smaller women
well, if your gonna keep going down the pole like that why not just get a 182? Even cheaper to buy/operate....
DA62 is not pressurised. That's a big drawback, escpecially if you have paying passengers or children onboard. Plus the safety of a twin engine piston plane is less than a single engine turboprop, especially on takeoff if you lose an engine. The only safety advantage I see is long trips over water.
Love this guy! TBMs are sweet aircraft.
I work for DAHER in Tarbes, thanks a lot Sir !
If he said "rural missions " one more time, I thought I'd hurl!
Man, I love the TBM 930. I fly it all of the time in microsoft flight simulator and enjoy it more than the jets in the simulator, because I can land it about anywhere. That's from someone who has never flown a real plane, but really want to. I've been thinking about going to flight school the past two years, but don't want to fly for the big airlines, but more rural hard to get places and this plane just has got me obsessed. It's a damn fine bird for sure, and I would love to fly one someday. They are a good chunk of change to buy though.
I love this guy- If I could I would sign up in a minute with him....
Because you respect yourself as an aviator? But seriously it’s hard to argue with a PT6
A friend at a local airpark has a TBM. I've seen him land in less distance than my Piper Archer. Totally amazing, and beautiful, airplane. However, they are crazy expensive! They are only for people who have 18 wheelers full of money.
If your archer had beta you too could land short 😂
@@arthurbrumagem3844 Beta is nice, but I'd rather have money.
Amazing guy, only real benefit of jet over tbm is ability to get high over the weather
Great video with many interesting points... Just curious, wouldn't a Pilatus PC-12 be more appropriate for the missions you seem to have? Better short field performance, can land on un-improved strips, and can haul much more! I guess operating costs are higher than a TBM but still significantly less than a light jet. It seems like the drawback here is cruise speed...
That's what I was thinking. I think he said he flies alone or with few passengers most of the time so useful load and size isn't as big of a deal. And I have no experience but since it's a Swiss jet it might have some crazy maintenance schedule that only makes sense for the 135 guys
@@Chris11249 I mean the PC-12 is a turboprop. You might be thinking of the PC-24, which is indeed a jet! As far as I know, maintenance for a PC-12 is not significantly different from other turboprops in its class... But as you said, if useful load is not a concern, than I guess a TBM makes more sense. But again, what do I know, I've never owned an aircraft!
Big discount for the endorsement from TBM?
@@seththomas3194 Yes, can't forget such an obvious thing I guess right?
PC-12 is expensive and bigger costing like private jets
I’m a big jet driver and I love this guy’s real down to Earth commentary about Turbo-Props.. “Beta is an amazing thing”. “ it can even go in reverse.!” 😅
Would be interesting for you to review a PC-24… best of both worlds!
Cool looking turboprop. I just like the 2 engine idea. And the Cirrus having a safety parachute is a pretty cool idea. Pilots are great people, and excellent role mosdels. They know how to get things done right the first time.
I'm $urprised these newer personal aircraft Don't have that safety chute implemented by now. Nothing good replace that countermeasure.
At altitude the HondaJet is great, approaching the ground it's a wingtip ground strike waiting to happen... Lots of common sense practical advice given in this video.
The way he explains the TBM and what it has and how it performs almost sounds like some IT smuck like me can learn to fly it 😏
I never clicked on a video as fast as I did for this video
Any chance you want to adopt a 47 year old Firefighter who’s getting his PPL?😂😂 Great Video, Thank you!
I am not a pilot, just a fan of G.A. and that was absolutely superb nuts and bolts answer. Thanks.
Im flyin my Potensic Atom& Holystone drones & love it,love to get one of these.
You need a certain amount of hours just to fly it in IMC or the insurance will not cover you. This happened to a friend of mine that I work on his airplane on the weekends. I'm the only A&P IA around and I'm at his airport so I help him fly his TBM because he isn't IFR rated
I'm surprised he could get coverage in a TBM at all without an instrument rating.
I’d love a TBM, epic or a Honda jet but I’d rather have a home with a roof to live under. Where do people get their money to afford these things?
Well-spoken and well-reasoned arguments in favor of the TBM.
I'm guessing that your regular or largest fraction of your flying environment is better served by a turboprop-powered aircraft.
323 KTAS is "FAIRLY" close to 400 KTAS. What about the comparable range? What about the time-to-climb to assigned altitude, vertical airspeed in the climb, and true airspeed in the climb?
PT-6 powered aircraft sometimes lose time in the climb, and thus their range is shortened.
WOW!!! That's so cool! I know in the sim I play the TBM a LOT. As well as the Vision. Lately it's been the Diamond T-62. I love this video! Keeps my passion going towards getting that license one day.
The pc24 would be a great plane to look into too. I assume that will be more costly to operate since its a jet.
I would love to own a TBM.
Good choice for short field missions. I prefer my Eclipse 500 with two engines instead of one, and ability to fly FL410 above the weather. Similar operating costs to the TBM but much safer. However, I do need a longer runway, especially if wet, so it wouldn't be the best choice for you.
Well I'm glad he's happy with the TBM but I disagree with a number of his reasons why the TBM is superior to a single pilot jet. I was an instructor in the Eclipse 550/500. The Eclipse is faster than the TBM and can do pretty much anything the TBM can do except it only lands on paved runways. The Eclipse is even cheaper to operate than the TBM and I would argue easier to fly.
I did a comparison between the TBM and the Eclipse years ago and one of the big differences that people don't realize is the redundancy of systems, two engines being a big one! How many pitot static systems does a TBM have? If the primary pitch trim jams or fails is there a secondary system?
TBMs are great but there are other options.
That TBM should be flown with the same "proficiency" as the jets he disparaged. That being said if he's happy and safe in the TBM then fly the wings off of it and have fun!
Love this format Mojo
Someone needs to build a VTOL propjet for this individual.
I agree with turbine over small jet for all your reasons.
Why, though, since you are so thorough on the turbine, did you pick a free turbine like the pt6 compared to a single shaft. Single shafts provide even more efficiency and they have a near instantaneous response to input. Wouldn't an engine like a honeywell tpe variant give you more of the exact things you are looking for? Maybe it's splitting hairs, but you would likely go faster and/or further on the same fuel with a single shaft engine.
Overall great video and very intelligent presentation and complete. You sound like you would also be a good business person to work with.
Even if turboprops are better than some light jets, people chartering would probably go for the light jet just cause it’s a jet
I'll gladly charter a turboprop over a jet. Price matters, and as he pointed out the speeds aren't that dramatically slower. My office hasn't flown commercial since May 2020. Not missing the airlines at all.
@@grayrabbit2211 Cmon mate, it’s a fucking jet 😂
On the public side, this has more to do with brokers than with customers...if you ask a broker what you should fly, they want you one CJ3 or something bigger. Different brokers have different reasons, without ascribing financial motivations (bigger planes mean more money) many brokers are only now starting to appricate the value and versatility of both light jets and turboprops. Corportate flight departments often charter turboprops and/or have one in their fleet.
@@nythawkfpv with jet prices to go with it. When a client sees that we chartered a turboprop for far less than what it would have cost to fly the airlines, they're pretty happy and we're glad to avoid the airlines.
PC12's and King Airs are very popular charter aircraft. Depends on the mission and destination.
The 960 gives you 90% of the performance of a jet, and lands like a Cherokee.
Hi Greg from South Africa 🇿🇦. I would love to tap into your experience and knowledge. Keep it coming bud 👍
This must be for comparison. the smaller brother of the PC 12....does this TBM have better stall capabilities ? Whats the range and hourly consumption compared with the PC 12 NGx ? No toilet option, what about star link these days in moving situations ?
At first glance in the thumbnail for this video I thought there was an iguana sun bathing on top of the plane. Anyone else?
I enjoyed the video; I believe he meant to say turboprops. I'm surprise he didn't mention the PC12
Speed. You won't see 300+knots in a PC-12
Im sure he thought about it but i dont think he needs the space
@@rmshivo yes, I prefer the TBM myself. But the PC 12 will carry more and Landon rougher strips
@@kevinbarry71 Cost for cost, the PC-12 is better value for money IMHO but of course he doesn't care about the money...
@@rmshivo You won't find a roomy cabin in a TBM.
The Honda Jet is really the best Light Jet on the market. But for me, the most annoying thing besides the costs (well, I'm only flying these things, not owning them) is the limited Payload/Range capability. With the TBM you can set Long Range Cruise and still fly over 6 hours with 3 people on board. That's "Wow..."
Pardon me sir, May I suggest the Honda Echelon.
I’ve got yachts, jets, palaces, race horses, Picassos, and a harem. Oh woe with me.
1:27…..you don’t have a financial problem
Going from a plane to a Tunnel Boring Machine is a bit of an adjustment
Great video, fantastic interview honest, great enthusiastic Guy
Minor thing, but obviously a jet engine is a turbine.
A TBM might not require a type rating, but you do have to get type-specific training at a school before you can get insured.
I agree with the comparison between Jets and Turbines except this "flying to proficiency" nonsense. You want to fly EVERY aircraft as proficient as you can. I would argue that a jet is easier to fly than a turbine. No yaw input from a big prop, no max torque to watch, your Honda Jet has 2 engine vs. one on the TBM that's added safety. But I agree that a TBM is a fantastic aircraft.
Hum, unimproved fields, check. Short landing distance , check, reverse in flight, check. Reverse backing up on ground, check. 430 knots check. Dual HUDs, check. Powered Lift, check. I’ll take the C-17 instead. Little higher operating costs though
Why a TBM versus a Beechcraft King Air 360ER? Twin engines would seem to provide an extra envelope of safety, lower cost to operate, yet provide the seating for passengers or more cargo?
Then you need a PC12. King Air= type rating. King Air runs two engines, so double everything maintenance. K100 is another option though not as fast.
Did you consider the Pilatus plane? If yes, what were the cons or drawbacks that precluded you from buying it? It seems to be a very reliable and popular plane.
Even more expensive than the TBM. If you don't need the space you're just drilling a larger hole in the air. Honeywell Navigation Suite is somewhat exotic. Not very popular in GA.
@340Captain are you saying the pc12 or the honeywell isn't popular in GA? Cause saying the 12 isn't popular is crazy talk lol.
@@bagels377
You should trade your TBM for an Epic GX E1000
No way no how that TBM is as fast as a VLJ like the Honda Jet.
TBM is a great turboprop plane. I just hate that it doesnt have a bathroom on board. The Beechcraft Denali does thought.
I’m a fly fishing bum. Alaska is definetely in my bucket list.
Curious why not a King Air like a 90, great short field and an extra engine.
does he have a lot of rural missions? he never mentioned it
Man, I was hoping for a TBM Avenger!
Interesting. All the planes he's owned I've seen at my local airport at one time or another.
Sounds as if there's room in your mission collection for a Piper M600 or a Kodiak 900.
You probably never encountered this due to having many flight-hours already upon getting the TBM, but theres a RUclips where a guy with a Kodiak had huge trouble as a new pilot getting insured. Did your insurance carrier mandate you have an Instrument Rating to pilot the TBM? (even if you had one) Did the insurer restrict who could fly? (e.g."No VFR Copilot," "Rated Copilot," "Solo Only," etc.) Some of us might also like to hear what your insurance rates are like on the TBM.
BTW, I keep telling "Jimmys World" 'forget about jets, go for turboprop..." But thanks much, and good choice!
This aircraft makes zero sense to own without an instrument rating. You could not fly it above 17500 without that rating.
@@816928 You just burn more gas down low; probably not a huge consideration if you have the $ to buy a TBM. But yeah, for most people it's a deal breaker. I'd think insurance would be hard to come by without an instrument rating in that a/c.
@@dieselyeti If all you do is fly westbound than I guess you can buy this aircraft with only a PPL. The whole point of the turbine is to take advantage of favorable winds and to get above weather. Good luck insuring it but hey, if you are dumb enough to buy this aircraft with only a PPL you are probably dumb enough to fly it without insurance and unskilled enough to eventually total it out or kill yourself.
Sir, I don't have anywhere near enough money to buy a TBM let alone a C172. In my opinion a new pilot with a PPL has no business owning/operating an aircraft like this without another more experienced pilot. I cannot speak to insurance but if I were in charge of underwriting there is NO WAY I WOULD INSURE A PILOT WITH JUST A PPL. Just because you can afford this aircraft doesn't mean you should buy it. That is what the industry calls a credit card captain. Why do you think they call the Bonanza the "doctor killer". An aircraft which is much easier to handle by the way. For those thinking of doing something this foolish, please don't!
@@816928agreed
Personally, I would stick to a CJ1, burns 300 litres per hour (700lbs per hour), FL410, designed for single pilot flying. Yes the short field performance isn't as good as a TBM but your fuel burn is similar with a much higher TAS as well as redundancy of a second engine.
This and a Pilatus is my dream plane. Big emphasis on dream. 😂
Good night
"turbines" - he means turboprops
Would trade for a pilatus in a heartbeat
You need to chat with your neighbor Matt.
Excellent video! What others turbo-prop beside the TBM have you considered? Would a Epic E-1000 also be a good alternative for those single pilot mission needing to be fast, with good payload and needing to land on short airfields?
Eye Opening!
I've seen some planes being flown full time in Alaska and I think the Best aircraft for their various places they need to land is the Otter what is your opinion on that planes capability compared to this one in your video?
You really should take at look at a Pilatus PC24...
why not a PC24??? seems perfect
Love the TBM...would rather fly a Premier if someone else is paying for it....haha.