I posted this on the MMOPA forum last night and thought my Beech brethren might enjoy the read:

I demo’d an M600 with Pat Belokas of Western Aircraft today and thought some of you might like to read my perspective on it compared to my Avidyne Meridian.

First off, Pat was awesome. He was very informative, accommodating of my requests, professional and a pleasure to talk airplanes with. I felt very comfortable with him as both a demo pilot and salesman. I wouldn’t hesitate to do business with him and hope to do so in the future.

Now for the good stuff.

To set the stage, after demo’ing the M600 I immediately hopped in my Avidyne Meridian fueled with a near identical load to the M600 but with about 150#s less payload (but also 10* warmer), and flew almost an identical flight profile for a same day, same conditions, apples to apples comparison. I’ll try to compare and contrast the things that were profound to me.

The airplane we demo’d was a 2018 with a bright royal blue over white paint scheme, 5-bladed Hartzell prop and only 40 hours. I now get why Chuck has referred to the wing as beautiful. It is fantastic looking. Smooth, tapered, curves in all the right places. It really is a pretty wing. Personally, I think the PA46 is a great looking airplane, especially the turbines, so it is no surprise that I found myself smitten with the M600's looks. Some talk about the ramp presence a large King Air or Pilatus has, but for me, I don’t want my plane to look like a big people hauling Suburban or Sprinter van. I want my plane to look like my Porsche or Corvette. Small, sleek, fast. My sports car of the sky. The M600 looks that part.

We departed the sea level airport KSCK late morning with temps in the mid to upper 70’s and standard pressure. We were at about Meridian gross weight for our takeoff. A rolling start with power at 1500#’s of torque yielded a takeoff roll just a smidge shorter than the Meridian, but whereas the Meridian and it’s 1250#s of takeoff torque setting gently lifted off the runway, the M600....well I guess the best way to describe it JUMPED off the tarmac. Shortly after rotation we crossed taxiway J which is approximately 1900’ down the runway and I’d say at this point the M600 was easily twice, maybe three times, the estimated 30 or so feet in altitude I typically achieve with 20* flaps in the Meridian, today being no exception. It was quite a first impression. From there on out the M600 climbed from an initial rate of 2,000fpm to about 1,000fpm as we reached FL280. The climb was unrestricted with temps about ISA+10 and took about 18 minutes. Comparatively, the Meridian had a step climb due to traffic so I can’t directly compare the time to climb, but it started with about a 1500fpm climb and shrunk the delta until it matched the M600’s 1,000fpm at FL280. In cruise the M600 was about 10kts faster with a little more fuel burn and when slowed to equal the Meridian’s speed she showed about an equivalent fuel flow.

At altitude Pat demonstrated the range depicted by the range rings on the PFD. He simulated a full load of fuel and the rings stretched all the way to the East Coast. This was without the help of winds as they were 20kts directly off our 3 o’clock. I don't know if my back or butt could ever accommodate such a long leg, but it’s great to have the option, or just to be able to tanker fuel around, fly around storms, etc. Wonderful utility.

After descending to VFR altitudes at nearly 250kts TAS, Pat showed me around the envelope protection features of the autopilot. It was really cool watching the aircraft recover from an unusual attitude with the push of a button, and feel the resistance/correction in a steep bank angle. When explaining these features to my wife, namely the stall protection, she skeptically quipped “you mean like Boeing’s MCAS?”. But she liked the sound of the blue level button. I too am a little concerned about an inadvertent nose push at the wrong time, but hopefully Garmin has built a computer logic that can be trusted. Clearly the SF50 is having issues with its recent AD and I've seen similar reports of issues with the STEC3100 so this technology may not be infallible yet.

We landed at KRNO and taxi’d back for a very typical leg of mine, KRNO to KSCK, VFR, direct at 16,500. The M600 completed this flight in 35 minutes and the Meridian in 40. The cruise speeds at this altitude were the same on both airframes at 243kts. After analyzing the FlightAware track logs I attribute 4 minutes of the shorter duration in the M600 to it’s higher VMO and speed picked up in the descent. The other 1 minute was in the climb. This was from an altitude of 16,500, so from FL280 the M600 should yield a time saving of about 7 minutes over the Meridian just due to the higher descent speed alone.

Thus far I’ve avoided a comparison between the avionics because, I’m sure I just barely scratched the surface of what the G3000 has to offer, but my initial impression (which very likely may be wrong) is that it doesn’t really do a lot more functionally than my current setup (Avidyne, GTN650’s and iPad), but it definitely does it with much better graphics, and pretty intuitive commands.

I saved the best for last. The biggest and most impressive difference to me is the stability. It is odd in that it feels and flies very similar to the Meridian, just more planted. Much more planted. It’s not something that is quantifiable like the airspeed, flight time, or climb rate, but it is definitely noticeable in a back to back comparison. My Meridian is more prone to roll movements in turbulence, and I often get a Dutch roll effect that I didn’t experience at all in the M600.

I will say, I suspect that half of the performance gains are due to the 5-blade prop. I base that mainly on Hartzell’s claims, which I haven’t seen refuted. The startup may have been slightly smoother than my Meridian but not dramatically so. It also may have been slightly quieter, than my Meridian but not markedly so. I get more of a rushing or whooshing sound in my Meridian, but I don’t think that’s the prop, but I could be wrong.

Of course the single biggest selling point of the M600 is the increased useful load, which as my kids grow, is becoming more and more important to me.

All in all these are two great airplanes and neither fails to satisfy my mission (for now). I hope this PIREP is helpful to some.

Thanks for the great pirep, Carl. But I had to pause at this point:
Published range of the M600 from KSCK is well short of anywhere on the East Coast. Ah, but with a "full load of fuel" while already at alitude, maybe. Of course, short of aerial refueling there's no way to do that.

Published range of the M600 from KSCK is well short of anywhere on the East Coast. Ah, but with a "full load of fuel" while already at alitude, maybe. Of course, short of aerial refueling there's no way to do that.

Published range of the M600 from KSCK is well short of anywhere on the East Coast. Ah, but with a "full load of fuel" while already at alitude, maybe. Of course, short of aerial refueling there's no way to do that.

Another interesting factoid on the M600. At normal cruise you can get 1 nm per pound of fuel, and can by pulling the power lever back increase that to 1.2 nm per lb of fuel. So as long as you don't mind gliding, you can do an easy calculation by taking lbs of fuel onboard and multiplying by 1 to 1.2 and you get range

In the last picture in cruise over eastern UT, still had 1630 lbs onboard, so at least 1630 nm of range to glide... Most of us prefer to land under power though, so I like to see 300 lbs FOD, fuel over destination. As low as 250 with good weather and plentiful landing options, and probably closer to 350 if there is weather and or anticipating bad ATC handling like going into the NE. That is with an experienced P46/M600 pilot. When new to the aircraft, would bump those numbers up another 50 lbs or so as a buffer.

I have to go to work, but there are very few real world flights that I do, anywhere in the lower 48, that the airlines could beat me door to door. Counting ground transport, security, the fact that I live 45 min from the commercial airport vs 15 min to my own airport, most destinations having a better located GA airport. The M600 has replaced the airlines for me. Usually quicker, almost always more convenient, definitely more comfortable and dignified, and dare I say more reliable.

The only 2 business trips that I have missed have been when my plane was in the shop, and my commercial flights were delayed or canceled. Had a third one canceled a couple of weeks ago. Was an easy trip for me to Grand Junction, but the commercial connection for my business associate routed through Denver so his flight was canceled due to some stupid winter storm. Would have loved to go pick him up in Texas, and take him to GJT, but his company prohibits GA travel. Oh well.

We decided to get the RVSM STC on our M600. Thought it would be nice to have in those rare times when you need a little extra range or need to top some nasty weather. So I used it 3 times in 2 flights mainly to improve visibility in a couple of these spring storms that made the news spawning tornados. And once to get out of light icing at FL270, that was too cold to ice at FL290. On the trip home, I was able to cross a soft spot in a squall line going back home at FL300 mostly visual. Sure I could have done it at FL260 or 280 using radar, I am confortable using the radar, but there is something a little comforting seeing blue above. Not a game changer, but really nice to have. The process was interesting. I took the King Schools course to get me endorsement for RVSM. The plane spent a day and a half at AMI aviation in Sanford FL. There they did leak checks, 3D mapping and measurement of the redundant critical static systems, and then RVSM testing (on the ground). Got a nice book and a certification suitable for framing. We did the trip from Ogden UT to Orlando 1721 actual nm, non-stop, even with a headwind for the first several hundred nm.



The RVSM critical area with markers as part of the cert to identify the RVSM critical area.



Crossing a soft spot in a large frontal driven line of storms at FL300 on the way back home. 262-265 KTAS burning 240 pph (35.8 gph). Best part with crazy jet fuel prices my average fuel cost for the entire almost 4000 nm trip was under $2 per gallon. That means fuel cost in cruise of about $70/hour

The radar is set to pick up any upward building CB's from the undercast, just to be safe.



So, that extra 2000 feet is not game changer, but I think a nice tool to keep in the quiver of this already amazing aircraft. The RVSM slightly improves weather safety, and pushes the max range on this bird to 2000 nm, with a modest tailwind.

Careful Chuck. That's almost right where I was in the clouds when I got hit. Swinging radar down and left to right. Nothing. Then well a bump and lets say a lot of downtime and a big bill for me and insurance.

FL 310 is one more tool and comes in real handy in winter on those western trips due to the mountains. Good move to upgrade, really good.. Truly nice fuel flows. Your TBM 850/910/930 at 310 would have been approx 46-47 GPH FF and 305-320KTAS depending on model. Others can correct my FF.

I would like to hear more about the damage, wow. Yes, I had nexrad, nexrad lightning, real time radar and the GWX 75 is a real deal radar. As well as storm scope. But you do need to make sure that your radar sweep is covering the freezing level which depending on where that is, and your speed, you’ll need to adjust your tilt.

Per the TBM 900 POH, normal cruise at ISA and 30,000 feet, the TBM will burn 56.9 gallons per hour. So 62% more fuel to go 17% faster. But that is physics. . May even be worse than that, because I was in and out of the cloud tops. In the TBM would the IS have to be open, adversely affecting performance?

What would be the fuel burn comparison if the tbm slowed to m600 speed?

Probably the same. If you bring a bonanza back to C172 speeds (power) the fuel burn is identical.

Great plane Chuck, always thought they are a great looking plane.

What was the STC worth? Also what’s with the stall heat off?

Andrew

Just slightly more

TBM700C2 (ISA) mid-weight:

30K 271 KTAS 41.2 gph (intermediate cruise)
30K 242 KTAS 35.2 gph (long range cruise)

What was cabin altitude at FL300?