I have a lot of experience with these planes and have some quick thoughts:

(1) Build quality of TBM and PC-12 are vastly better than Piper. And some Piper's seem to break apart midair. Step function difference in quality. VNE also speaks to this (eg, 266 KIAS in TBM).

(2) TBM is so much more fun to fly than a PC-12. TBM has tight controls and feels like a sports car. And it's faster. For me, flying a PC-12 feels like being a soccer mom driving a minivan. TBM also performs much better up high, which is nice when topping weather (i.e., the speed difference at FL300 is greater than the published max speed differences). TBMs have a pilot door, which is fantastic for pilots. TBM also has a much more comfortable pilot seat. If you care about your experience as a pilot, you must fly both aircraft before buying a PC-12. TBM also has a slightly better service ceiling, FL310 vs FL300, which is really a 2,000' difference (half the time).

(3) PC-12 wins the race if you want to haul tons of people and stuff and don't mind the extra wingspan and associated turbulence. But PC-12s bounce around like a sailboat, so they are bad if your px are turbulence scared. Recent PC-12s can legally operate without Prist, which is a big benefit in Europe. Also, the bathroom. PC-12 also has better range than TBM. If going PC-12, I'd personally want a PC-12 with Garmin avionics as the Honeywell stuff is crap. I suspect the most recent PC-12 fatality will be related to Honeywell equipment. However, I think you can't get both Garmin and "Pristless" in a PC-12.

Both PC-12 and TBM are excellent short field performers, but PC-12 is better and can also do grass/unimproved runways much better. TBM prop swings very close to the ground.

Ed, you say the PC12 is bad in turbulence: how would you say the PC12 compares to the TBM? I have a little time flying the latter. TBM is a very stiff ride and has twitchy tail when getting into light bumps. If the PC12 is worse, that's saying something. Vne may be 266, but unless the air is glass, I won't subject people to a bumpy ride and twitchy tail at high IAS. This is in 9xx planes with winglets.

I have about 500hrs in the TBM 850, and I would not describe it as sporty. it is very heavy on the controls, especially in roll. It's a suburban, albeit more nimble than the PC12, it's still a suburban (maybe like a Lambo Urus).. it is definitely NOT an Aerostar.

in spite of that, it is still a pilot's airplane. it is honest and predictable. stalls are predicatble, and the speed regime is nuts. it'll cruise at 315, and approach at 87. the pilot door is a MUST. it has lots of power, and climbs great. Handles ice very well, and has easy to understand systems (garmin avionics). switches are well laid-out.

the cons:
it does have a very stiff ride, and very stiff landing gear. it has a dutch roll in turbulence that annoys the rear seat. the cabin is really only good for 2 adults, not because of weight, but because of knees bumping. it takes a long time to make greaser landings. it requires prist, always. many parts are Daher proprietary and cost a fortune. the scheduled maintenance is very expensive. gear actuators for example, are ~$10k each, (due every 10 yrs), and parts are scarce.

if you're buying it for the pilot, and you have a lot of cash, get the TBM. if you're buying for the guys in back, get the PC12. Personally, I'd only buy a PC12 with garmin, due to the Honeywell quality issues and the cost of HAPP.

If you are really comparing PC12 to the TBM the Piper offering is not the Meridian, it is the M600. More real world range than the TBM, less than the PC12, higher Vmo than the PC12 less than the TBM but Vmo and maneuvering speed are rounding error in the M600 and TBM 251/153 and 266/157. The cabin in the M600 is a couple inches wider than the TBM and the distance between the seats in the opposing seats is farther than a TBM or Mustang, so unless carrying basketball players no knee knocking. There are speed and useful load advantages to the TBM which are nice, but you pay a lot of money for that. If you need the speed the M700 negates most of the speed advantage, but is sold out for some time. Several years of ownership and the cost delta becomes staggering.

All of my TBM time is in the 900. The TBM is stiff, but the Pilatus yaws and rolls way more. While the planes have similar wing loading, the Pilatus is more often flown further below MTOW (so bumpier) and there's more distance between the wing and the people, so turbulent forces are amplified more at the seat. The PC-12 more reminds me of a Kodiak in that regard. The TBM is really only dreadful single pilot with low tanks. I flew mine out of SQL, where winds are often 20g30 at sunset, perpendicular to the runway, and you really had to manhandle it down under those conditions. Unless I had twitchy passengers, I found flying arrivals at 250 KIAS was fine, even into gusty places like Salt Lake, Vegas or Jackson. (Now I fly a Piaggio, which stays dead nuts on altitude and course like a freight train in turbulence; stated wing loading is 2x, but it's even better than that because of the two wings, so you don't yaw around a single wing. If you want a smooth ride, nothing beats the Piaggio... not even real jets, like the P300.)

The TBM does have "shopping cart" landing gear. But even as a 600-hr pilot flying the TBM for the first time, I found greasing the landings to be easy. You're going SO SLOWLY and the heavy controls allow for very accurate, minor corrections. For <$2k you can also add a landing height call out system to the TBM ("4 feet, 2 feet, 1 foot...") which helps a lot of people grease the landings, I think.

Is Prist required for all new 9XX TBMs? I understand it's not. Also for the M600/700 I understand.

Prist is required for the M600/700. Has a pretty good fuel heater, better than the Meridian, but doubt there is any reason for Piper to go through the trouble of getting certified no Prist. Except for international flights it is a non-issue, many places are premixed anyway.But carrying and adding Prist, esp when it is cold and rainy or snowy outside is a pain. Not sure what they did in the PC12NGX to get rid of the need for Prist?

I always thought it was nuts. with all the heat energy available, to not figure out a way to keep the fuel at a higher temp.

Not sure what the very latest certification standards on the new birds are, but for most turboprops Prist is required. I don't know quite why compared to turbojets, since really the shape of the "fan" is the biggest difference.

Maybe the newest PC12 with the FADEC engines got certified without it. Just a SWAG.

it's a questions of whether or not it was designed with a fuel/oil heat exchanger. I thought the PC12 had one, the TBM does not. I doubt the 9XX does since it's still under the TBM7 type certificate.

I believe most jets have them.

It does have a fuel heater, but it is after the main fuel filter which is not heated.

From comments by Daher, on the 960 they made changes to the fuel filter and fuel pump to do away with the PRIST requirement.

Daher rep: "This improvement requires some changes on the fuel system ... You basically have to remove any fine mesh filters and make your pump tolerant to bigger particles. The PRIST free is made possible also thanks to some engine key characteristics that were not present on the A66D"

My MU2 and my Piaggio both have fuel/oil heat exchangers, but both require Prist.

My MU2 and my Piaggio both have fuel/oil heat exchangers, but both require Prist.

My MU2 and my Piaggio both have fuel/oil heat exchangers, but both require Prist.

One difference between models on the use of Prist is whether there is an airframe fuel filter and whether it is allowed to ice up and go into bypass.

For example, PT-6 engine models require an airframe fuel filter and starting in 80's, I think, a fuel filter bypass indication was required by the FAR's. It is difficult to state in the limitations and procedures that a bypass indication is acceptable.

If a larger airplane has single point refueling, Prist may not always be available from the refueling equpment. The Cessna 650 had an onboard Prist tank and metering system. It was a disaster.

Another issue is biocidal properties. ISTR the makers of Prist disclaiming biocidal protection due to some EPA requirement or similar issue.