pros and cons?

 

thanks

 

I have both so here we go

 

TBM 850 Cons lower frames and somewhat lo res displays g1000s with a boring cockpit surrounding them and boring looking night lighting.pros faster

 

PT46 pros great VC with awesome night lighting.

Cons slower and reaches VNE very quickly at low altitudes so you either have to throttle way back or climb like a bat outta hell.

 

I like both planes a lot but the G1000 in the TBM really turns me off. If you willing to go with a piston powered bird look at their PA46 Malibu it has the best VC I've ever seen. You might want to take a look at the king air's as well I have the C90 and B200 both are great.

One more pro for the PT46.  You can replace the default GPS with RXP 430 and 530 gauges and integrate them nicely with the G500 displays (especially with Bert Pieke's modded 500).  This makes for a best of both worlds scenario.  If you want the capability of the RXP stuff in TBM (to help with limitations in the 1000 implementation) you'll need to use one as a popup.

 

Note, these are implementation issues of the simulation.  All things being equal, IRL the TBM with its speed and design from scratch as a turbo-prop make it an arguably better plane.  As David mentions, in the PT46, you need to get high fast and be careful with speeds on descent due to airframe limitations.  And even at altitude, it's not a screamer.  But the sim version is strangely appealing and fun to fly, in part because you do have to "watch it" so closely.

 

BTW, I have the PT46, but with some reluctance passed on the TBM due to the limitations of the G1000 implementation.

 

Scott

Brian, if it has to be a turbine, then I'd recommend the TBM over the PA46T.   The latter has very unconvincing, jittery flight handling characteristics IMHO.

 

If you're willing to forego your turbine engine for a lovely Lycoming TIO-540-AE2A 350hp piston, then the Carenado Malibu PA46-350P is far superior to the PA46T or TBM.

...I'd recommend the TBM over the PA46T. The latter has very unconvincing, jittery flight handling characteristics....the Carenado Malibu PA46-350P is far superior to the PA46T or TBM.

Interesting observation considering that the PA46T and the 350P have a 99% identical flight model (apart from engine of course) 

Overall flight performance:  TBM

 

Open, spacious cockpit:  TBM

 

Modern avionics: TBM

 

Lots of stuff to look at in the cockpit:  PropJet

 

I do indeed use the RXP GNS530 as a popup navigation device in the TBM,

and I've cleaned up the G1000 a bit, to use it as a "moving map" device, but

with all that done, I really like the "feel" in the TBM cockpit, whereas I find the

PropJet cockpit claustrophobic..

Cockpit screenshots:

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting observation considering that the PA46T and the 350P have a 99% identical flight model (apart from engine of course) 

 

 

In "flight performance",  I meant, more power, and fewer speed restrictions..

 

Interesting observation considering that the PA46T and the 350P have a 99% identical flight model (apart from engine of course) 

 

 

Hi Bernt,

 

Then I guess it's down to  the engine parameters then. :wink:

 

Or I suspect more to do with FSX's core turbo-prop limitations.    The fact remains that the PA46-350P is a lovely, convincing aircraft in FS, whereas the PA46T just feels peaky, over-powered in some parts of the envelope, underpowered in others.   Just not convincing.   All subjective of course.

I personally never fly my Carenado TBM850 after purchasing the Wilco version. 

 

Read my review in the Member Reviews section for more information. I know that Wilco has a bad rep for some, but I think the new "Elite" series TMB850 is very nice.

   The fact remains that the PA46-350P is a lovely, convincing aircraft in FS, whereas the PA46T just feels peaky, over-powered in some parts of the envelope, underpowered in others.  

That's not an FSX problem but a problem with the real PA46T. (Neither one I  would consider underpowered) 

 It's simply the wrong engine in a piston PA46 airframe.(e.g. the way too low V_MO) and the reason why the Mirage is a much more 'convincing' plane

mmmm.. well I have the C90 and the Carenado B200 - love them both..

 

I think maybe I'll pass and pick up the B1900D   and I'm waiting for the Phenom 100.... man I can hardly wait for that little jet.

 

 

btw, what is the cruise in knots INDICATED on the TBM ?  at say 16000

FWIW, I agree with Dave that the piston Malibu is an under-rated plane and very nice.  We disagree on the turbine version, however.  FSX' turbo-prop does have its limitations, but within those limitations, I find the JetProp quite convincing.  The RW plane is a quirky thing to begin with - as dktheone describes, it's an engine stuffed into an airframe that was never quite intended to handle it.  But it's some of those quirks and limitations that make it interesting to fly.

 

Don't misunderstand... it's far from one of my favorites, but I still find it oddly appealing.  In the past I've referred to it as a bit of a guilty pleasure.

 

Scott

The JetProp has a pretty convincing flight model IMO. The very steep climb angle, low VNE etc. are traits of the real-world converted airplane as well. The FS model even simulates the prop working as an air-brake when you pull the throttle back and leave the prop lever forward. I think it's a unique, fun and challenging aircraft. The climb rate is amazing compared to the piston version.

 

I have the TBM 850 but haven't flown it much. I agree with David, the TBM cockpit feels a bit boring and sterile. It all comes down to personal preference.

 

Do keep in mind that the TBM 850 is much faster and carries more. It's also a much bigger airplane and needs more runway (you can squeeze in the PA46T in almost anywhere a C172 can land).