As someone who has flown both and is going to TBM school to get checked out in June I can say that both are exceptional aircraft. We were going to buy an epic LT but the fact that it was a kit plane dissuaded us. We ended up getting a premier 1 which is an amazing aircraft. Unfortunately textron killed the line making it too expensive to maintain. I have flown the TBM 850 not 940 but they are essentially identical in cruise flight. The interior of the TBM is larger in the rear and has a large automatic door. It is very easy to open and close. The epic is a combination door/air stairs and is not automatic. Moving up tot he cockpit the TBM is more difficult to get into the front seats. The aircraft I’m flying does not have the optional pilot door so getting situated is more difficult. Once in the cockpit is where the differences are very big. Startup for the TBM is harder than the epic. With the epic you just turn the masters on, hit the starter and once and hits a percent, introduce power. The TBM is similar but there is more management of the prop and temp. You also cannot turn the AC on until the Batt drops below 50 AMPs which is annoying. The epic is simpler: start the engine and turn everything on. Less rules in the LT to remember. The E1000/ production version may have more things on the checklist but the LT was simpler. The TBM also has an inert separator and more pretaxi items than the LT, but it’s all meant to increase safety and longevity of the engine. Takeoff is basically the same between the aircraft. I don’t recall the exact procedure for the epic but the TBM is hold the brakes and then advance throttle to 40% torque, release and advance to 100% torque. Rotate at 85 which is similar to the epic. The biggest difference is the torque limiter. The TBM 900 series doesn’t have the limiter so full power is available on takeoff. The 850 has the limiter: takeoff power is limited to 750 SHP. After takeoff, when flaps are confirmed up and torque is near and under 100% you can move the flaps to the 850 setting (above full flaps). When you select this mode the aircraft will stop limiting the power so you can gain the additional thermal HP. This allows you to gain the 20~30 kits TAS the 850 advertises. The epic does everything in Ng% like a jet, it is simpler and the composite hull makes it a slipperier aircraft. I’ll be putting a lot of hours in the TBM soon but as a pilot the epic is a little faster, and requires less engine management. The TBM is a bit more of a passenger aircraft than the epic and has a nicer club cabin with the push button door actuator. The TBM is a heavier airframe and is even heavier than the citation mustang. It requires a lot of trim and is notorious for prop strikes. My CFI has me landing with full pitch up trim, this is due to the aggressive flaps and the heavy PT-6 up front. But once you get the hang of it landing is very, very easy in the TBM. No matter how great you are at landing the TBM the epic will always land better. It sits higher so less of a chance of a prop strike (none really because there is more than enough clearance) and the trailing link gear makes landing the epic so easy an inexperienced pilot could probably grease it on the runway and seem like a pro. So what’s my verdict? I would personally take an epic over the TBM; the epic airframe is revolutionary to turboprops like cirrus is for piston singles. In 10-15 years they’ll be the logical jumping point after high performance piston singles. The epic has better performance overall compared to the TBM. Cursing at 350 kits for a prop is great. The TBM does a great job too for an all metal airframe but composite is the future. Both handle very well and avionics are comparable. The TBM has radar in the wing pod which is really cool but nobody really uses radar anymore with NEXRAD and satellite weather available to almost every pilot. Sure it can help squeak you through a cell a little more effectively but if having the radar will make a difference between life and death for you, then you probably shouldn’t be the decision maker for your flights. My biggest concern moving forward for epic is the fact that it’s certified version is “untested”, that is there isn’t a fleet out there for them to draw experience from. Something will break on this newly certified aircraft and hopefully it will be something minor and not result in loss of life, but nothing is ever designed without flaws. Both are exceptional aircraft if you have the honor and the income to afford to own and/or fly them.
The fact it was a kit plane dissuaded you, that sounded like an outdated mentality going back to the 1960s. Are you sure you have enough flexibility and learning ability to cope with today's avionics??
@@tonylam9548 not sure what “kit plane” has to do with avionics or “learning ability”. Do you understand what is involved in purchasing or building a kit plane? Are you also aware of how the FAA classifies them? For one, you are not buying a product with a fixed price. You are buying parts, and the total may end up being much higher. This makes it harder to finance your 1-2 million dollar purchase. To be legal you need to build 50% of the aircraft yourself. The factory does the build, but you need to participate in 50% of the build, which means a lot of flights to bend Oregon. And if you can’t make it out it can delay construction. Most owners that built them would spend 1-2 years before they could fly their airplane. The epic is also considered experimental, which means you cannot use it for charter to defer costs among some other limitations. It didn’t have the most advanced avionics: garmin has to certify the g1000 and g3000 in the type aircraft so you could get the kit plane version of the g1000 (g900 if I recall) but it doesn’t have all the integration. They are also harder and more expensive to insure and can be very difficult finding a carrier. I love the LT, but these are the reasons we didn’t go that route and had we, we would’ve lost our money as they went bankrupt soon after. Now they have certified versions available but going the kit route was taking a huge risk. Good thing we didn’t take it because the timing back then was bad and it would’ve been years before it was resolved and our airplane was completed. The TBM has a steeper learning curve than the epic from my experience with both, but it is an amazing aircraft. There is also much better training available (at least when we considered the epic) as t hey didn’t have simulator training. All training had to be done in the aircraft. I can tell you from all my time at simcom and flight safety that simulator training is superior in turboprops and jets because they are procedure trainers for all those additional systems and abnormal/emergency procedures. So choosing a certified aircraft over a kit plane is not antiquated thinking, it’s based on economics and practicality. I didn’t have the time to spend and I was only one of the decision makers and the one who is a pilot. The TBM is slower and aluminum but has many more years of experience behind it. There is no yellow arc when flying the TBM due to its solid construction. The tbm could be in the utility category but it is in normal. The epic has more cabin diameter, is sleeker, more spacious. And it’s 30 knots faster. I love the epic. But the premier was a better deal at the time and now the TBM fits the mission better and is far more cost effective
I've flown both and now I've been in an Epic for a year and a half and 380 hours I'll promise nothing compares. I've also indicated 337 true which is more than they advertise.
TBM 940 first flight was in 2019, 1988 was the 700, 1000 units is the number of all the TBMs sold after 1988, the 940 was less than 100. Epic E1000 was certified in 2019.
The data for the Epic 1000 is not at all correct - this is the fastest single turbine on the Market (May 2021) its Certified by the FAA - 4,000 f/m climb and cruise at 325 KTAS 45 g/h and much more range than the TBM - can fly right across the USA. Its much lighter and can carry 6 people!
This is pretty much a TBM promotional piece. The Epic climbs at 4,000 from far out climbing the more expensive TBM. Epic is the superior aircraft here.
It definitely is superior as far as specs. If you have idiot money go get an epic. If you are smart you would never invest millions in an epic. The company has one niche product and financially is inferior to TBM. I am not sure about insurance but my hunch is that it would be very difficult to get covered in an epic and would be far more expensive than the TBM. If Epic goes T.U. than you have no product support. It is a stupid gamble imho.
@dougcampbell740 there are currently 2 companies underwriting epic. If you are an owner/operator with low experience, you can forget about it. If there are only 2 companies taking on that risk, where do you think the premiums live? Somewhere near the stratosphere I should think.
Your data and the “E1000” aircraft images are out of date. The aircraft images are of Epic LT, the experimental kit predecessor. Most of data is from pre-certification manufacturer estimates. The E1000 is discontinued and the $3.25M price is as well. The certified aircraft is the E1000GX, new retail starts at $3.75M. The GX has several important updates, including a Hartzell 5-blade composite prop and Garmin digital flight management.
@@LESPAUL44mag They have delivered 7 certified, last I heard. Supply chain has been deeply affected by COVID-19, in addition to final production line FAA certification had a 6 month delay due to pandemic. They have deposits for 76 orders, again last I heard. We’re number 52, hoping for delivery in 23. It’s a much roomier aircraft than 930. We flew to Bend factory in friends 930 so we could compare the 2. The cabin height is a full foot taller, wider as well. The cockpit is enormous compared to TBM. I would struggle to fit in older TBM, since the 850 added a cockpit door access improved dramatically. I’m 6’2”. For comparison, the TBM cockpit is similar in size to our 340A. The E1000GX is designed to accommodate up to 6’8” pilots. Point-point, the E1000GX is noticeably faster at similar fuel burn than 930. This is primarily due to far faster roc. The advantages of the TBM is its known and proven airframe and systems durability and its global serviceability. It also employs the G3000 suite which is a bit easier workload menus than the G1000 found in E1000GX. If either were full fadec, that would have been a far clearer final choice. While we await our position in Epic order que, I’m still considering the Denali and PC12 NGX. Those are about 40% higher operating costs, at least preliminary performance on uncertified Denali. If operating costs were comparable, I’d choose either of those 2, due to their full fadec systems. I’m still hopeful Epic will update the current PT6-67 to the full fadec x-series PT6-67E found in PC12 NGX. That would likely also result in updated G3000. An E1000GX w/full fadec and G3000 would be a formidable package 👍
@@MichaelM-to4sg Awesome thanks for the input I can tell you've done your research. I am relatively new to aviation, but my dad has gotten me into it and once I finish my CPA license I will probably take lessons. He is actually under contract with a Piper Chieftain Panther as of now. Hoping that works out. His dream is to have a King Air 200 (blackhawk) or maybe a Conquest II when he retires. I mentioned the PC-12 to him as it is lower operating costs with the single engine and he may consider. I've always wanted to fly in the TBM it is such an attractive looking plane an a beast on cruise speed. Nothing really came close to it from my understanding until the Epic plane came out. Wasn't the Epic the LT kit plane for a while until this 1000GX model came out? It seems it took several years for the certification, but I'm glad it's finally being produced. As for the Cessna Denali it looks like a nice plane, but pretty much a direct copy of the PC-12 just with a GE engine instead of the PT-6 I believe. Also the base price seem both just under $5 million so quite frankly I don't know if Cessna is going to have a Chance at taking potential or current customers from a Pilatus.
@@MichaelM-to4sg Here's a question for you since you seem to know what you're talking about. For most propeller (piston or turboprop) driven planes they seem to be measured in horsepower just like land vehicles. From what I understand there is drivetrain loss somewhat like in a car. At least with a turboprop I see Shaft Horsepower and Thermodynamic Horsepower. From what I understand Thermodynamic is the total power the engine produces at the compressor whereas the Shaft HP is what eventually makes it to the Prop. So similar to a car where the Crank HP is roughly 15-20% higher than the Brake or Wheel HP. I know it's apple to oranges, but just trying to understand it since I'm a numbers guy lol. Also I've seen Equivalent Shaft HP which I think is similar to Thermodynamic, but it measures the SHP and thrust produced by the exhaust gas (so yes the thrust part excludes piston aircraft). This might make absolutely no sense, but with my limited knowledge I hope I was able to convey what my question is. Thanks.
You have no pilot experience? I’m doubtful you’ll be insurable piloting the E1000GX. You’ll need 500 hrs in right seat w/qualified pilot before you’ll be insurable for solo. I would suggest training in SR22, Cherokee, Bonanza or similar for min 300 hrs. Then consider ME such as Baron or C340 for minimum 250hrs. Get your IFR along the way. At that point you could consider flight training for SE TP performance aircraft as insurable pilot
@@MichaelM-to4sg I was wondering if someone could get a license and star flying a turboprop. It seems things don't work quit that way. Thanks for the info.
@@keltondeoliveira Honestly, go on a demo flight one time in a tp. I’ve got several thousand hours flight time in MU2 and there are times when shit happens so fast that I find myself flying behind for a brief period. An inexperienced pilot, even w/lots of SIM time, cannot recover once they get behind activity. The first minute you’re in traffic at 300ktas navigating among 500ktas commercial aircraft and 170ktas private aircraft w/ATC in your ear, mistakes are inevitable. Then there’s terrain, weather, uncontrolled airspace... Do yourself and your family a big favor and start walking w/small single piston non-retractable gear. Then gradually develop skills to multi-engine, high performance, retracting gear and instrument flight. Once all of those are truly mastered in all weather and traffic, a high performance tp like the Epic or TBM can be a consideration.
@@keltondeoliveira Retractable gear aircraft requires additional endorsement. It’s easiest to start w/simplest aircraft. If your goal is to advance into modern SE TP aircraft such as Epic or TBM, starting your training in full glass cockpit like SR20 or SR22 is a great choice. Cirrus certified train program is pretty comprehensive and very well structured. Spend min 200hrs in these, including your ifr is solid foundation before a me w/retractable high performance aircraft. Once you reach 500hrs between Cirrus and hp aircraft, you’ll at least qualify for initial training in the TP Best of luck and have fun 👍
It is quite obvious that the producer of this comparison favors the TBM 940. Where we the interior shots of the Epic 1000? I think I can easily sacrifice 5 gallons of fuel an hour to get to altitude to fly at 34,000 feet and fly 30 mph faster. US ingenuity is very difficult to beat. I also wonder if the Epic had a 5 blade hartsell what the performance characteristics will be? Just saying.
I think there are 2 insurance companies that will insure an epic currently. They are a very small company so the smart money would buy the TBM every single time. Product support is going to be much better. I hope Epic can make it, but it is too early to tell as of yet. Hell, Piper would be a better bet at this point. It is a sexy bird though.
I have flown a TBM 900 and have been in the Epic at Oshkosh and if it was up to me, I'd take the Epic. The TBM 940's only real advantage is the Garmin G3000, which enables the TBM to have the autothrottle and now optional autoland. I'm not necessarily sure why that's not possible with a G1000, but honestly I think most owners of both planes can hypothetically live without either of them unless they're using their planes to move their families. I would say though as someone who regularly flies two G1000 equipped airplanes (a 1980s 200 series King Air with a G1000 Nxi retrofit for work and a 09 G36 Bonanza I fractionally own with a friend of mine who is an instrument rated private pilot) that someone moving from something like a Cirrus to a turboprop will have an easier time learning the avionics side of thing with the Epic than you will will the TBM. Maybe the TBM is a bit more roomy for passengers, but neither airplane is really all that roomy and those looking for more room in a turboprop are either looking at a King Air, a Pilatus, or are skipping the turboprops and going to small jets. The Epic to me, in both design, looks, and performance fulfills the mission one of my all time favorite airplanes (and one the all time biggest business aviation failures), the Beechcraft Starship. The Epic takes the promise of an all composite turbo prop that the Starship brought and brings it up into the modern age. In terms of raw performance the Epic simply can't be beat. Also like the still flying Starships the Epic should last way longer given its composite construction. I would absolutely love to own one, though I don't think I'm finding any amount needed in the cushions to find one XD
The TBM has far more "real advantages" than the Epic. If you have stupid money and don't mind blowing it on a cool airplane, go get an epic. The smart money would choose the TBM every time. TBM has a proven platform, an established safety record, easy to find insurance coverage, product support is light years ahead of Epic, financial stability is much stronger than Epic... A smart business owner who is not an AV geek would probably go with TBM. Far less risk for the TBM.
Why does it say the E1000 is only a 4-5 passenger but the TBM is 4-6? The E1000 cabin is MUCH bigger than the TBM. Also, the TBM 940 will burn 65 gph and the E1000 about 66 gph.
“Much bigger” is an over reach. It’s noticeably taller cabin, the width and length is dimensionally greater but it’s not that noticeable. The E1000GX is a 5 passenger aircraft. You could remove the forward left cabin seat from L-track for large dog crates, otherwise it’s fixed at 5. My guess is the 4-5 comes from possibility of 2 pilot crew. TBM offers several cabin configurations, including a convertible lav in 940 & 930 predecessor. One such configuration has bench seat in left aft of cabin offering 5 seatbelt places in cabin, resulting in total of 6 passenger capability...albeit tight. Those fuel burn numbers are at Max cruise. In Econo-cruise (65%), which we commonly use, fuel burn is between 39gph for TBM to 42 for E1000GX
@@samtatenumber1 It is no longer Daher-Socata, effective 2019. Since Daher acquired EADS-Socata 12 years ago, they have aggressively expanded their airframe business, now building airframes and subassemblies for Airbus, Gulfstream, Dessault and Boeing. May be others but those are the ones I’m personally aware. In 2015 the privately held company partnered with 3 investment banks to expand operations into Asia and North America, the last remaining member of the Daher family left his position on Board of Directors. A year later, maybe 2, the acquired US aircraft manufacturer Quest Aviation and introduced the new TBM900/930. In 2019 the Socata name was dropped, the TBM940/910 were introduced and the Quest name was dropped. The new TBM’s and the updated Kodiak 100 series III were all under the Daher Aviation corporate umbrella. The TBM was originally developed and certified by EADS-Socata as joint engineering venture w/Mooney, whom EADS-Socata had acquired in early 80’s. The TBM project had been started by Mooney as a utility purpose SETP, a competitor to the 208 Caravan. If you know the history of Mooney and his desire for speed, that seemed like a very non-Mooney design. Fortunately the French looked at project and basically developed a SETP Mooney, the fastest single prop certified plane in the sky👍
@@MichaelM-to4sg hey thanks, i didn't know any of that. especially about all the TBM Mooney history. And i didn't know about the socata name drop. I thought I knew a bit about mooney, but never had i heard that EADS Socata had it.
@@samtatenumber1 I’m a retired ME/AE, spent a lot of years working in that industry which is sort of musical chairs industry. Out of college I went to Rohr, which was an aerospace engineering think tank, they were acquired by General Dynamics, which I hated and quit 8 months after acquisition. Finished my MS as I got recruited to Garrett AirResearch which went through 2 acquisitions in my 30 years there. I guess you could say I’ve been there, done that with many of these companies 😂😂😂
They both have 1 pilot and 5 passenger capacity. Epic E1000GX is certified and is not only less $$ but time to altitude is better, and has a higher useful load. ALSO…the Epic has swing-arm landing gear for rougher landing strips that the TBM can’t handle. Epic E1000GX all the way.
The TBM940 and the Epic E1000 are exceptional single-engine turboprop aircraft. But it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison to compare an aircraft certified in 1988 and has gone through several model changes (TBM9*0) with the testbed uncertified aircraft (Epic E1000). The recently certified Epic single-engine turboprop is the E1000GX, not the E1000. The comparisons in this video should be updated to the specifications of the E1000GX, For instance, two updates needed in comparison of the latest model of the TBM 940 to the current Epic E1000GX would be first, the Epic E1000GX has a five-blade propeller. Another is the E1000GX seats six.
The EPIC looks like a pre-fabricated plane. Much cheaper, but oops...where is the quality? OK to show off... Both have two different types of clientele.
As someone who has flown both and is going to TBM school to get checked out in June I can say that both are exceptional aircraft. We were going to buy an epic LT but the fact that it was a kit plane dissuaded us. We ended up getting a premier 1 which is an amazing aircraft. Unfortunately textron killed the line making it too expensive to maintain.
I have flown the TBM 850 not 940 but they are essentially identical in cruise flight. The interior of the TBM is larger in the rear and has a large automatic door. It is very easy to open and close. The epic is a combination door/air stairs and is not automatic. Moving up tot he cockpit the TBM is more difficult to get into the front seats. The aircraft I’m flying does not have the optional pilot door so getting situated is more difficult. Once in the cockpit is where the differences are very big. Startup for the TBM is harder than the epic. With the epic you just turn the masters on, hit the starter and once and hits a percent, introduce power. The TBM is similar but there is more management of the prop and temp. You also cannot turn the AC on until the Batt drops below 50 AMPs which is annoying. The epic is simpler: start the engine and turn everything on. Less rules in the LT to remember. The E1000/ production version may have more things on the checklist but the LT was simpler. The TBM also has an inert separator and more pretaxi items than the LT, but it’s all meant to increase safety and longevity of the engine. Takeoff is basically the same between the aircraft. I don’t recall the exact procedure for the epic but the TBM is hold the brakes and then advance throttle to 40% torque, release and advance to 100% torque. Rotate at 85 which is similar to the epic. The biggest difference is the torque limiter. The TBM 900 series doesn’t have the limiter so full power is available on takeoff. The 850 has the limiter: takeoff power is limited to 750 SHP. After takeoff, when flaps are confirmed up and torque is near and under 100% you can move the flaps to the 850 setting (above full flaps). When you select this mode the aircraft will stop limiting the power so you can gain the additional thermal HP. This allows you to gain the 20~30 kits TAS the 850 advertises. The epic does everything in Ng% like a jet, it is simpler and the composite hull makes it a slipperier aircraft. I’ll be putting a lot of hours in the TBM soon but as a pilot the epic is a little faster, and requires less engine management. The TBM is a bit more of a passenger aircraft than the epic and has a nicer club cabin with the push button door actuator. The TBM is a heavier airframe and is even heavier than the citation mustang. It requires a lot of trim and is notorious for prop strikes. My CFI has me landing with full pitch up trim, this is due to the aggressive flaps and the heavy PT-6 up front. But once you get the hang of it landing is very, very easy in the TBM. No matter how great you are at landing the TBM the epic will always land better. It sits higher so less of a chance of a prop strike (none really because there is more than enough clearance) and the trailing link gear makes landing the epic so easy an inexperienced pilot could probably grease it on the runway and seem like a pro.
So what’s my verdict? I would personally take an epic over the TBM; the epic airframe is revolutionary to turboprops like cirrus is for piston singles. In 10-15 years they’ll be the logical jumping point after high performance piston singles. The epic has better performance overall compared to the TBM. Cursing at 350 kits for a prop is great. The TBM does a great job too for an all metal airframe but composite is the future. Both handle very well and avionics are comparable. The TBM has radar in the wing pod which is really cool but nobody really uses radar anymore with NEXRAD and satellite weather available to almost every pilot. Sure it can help squeak you through a cell a little more effectively but if having the radar will make a difference between life and death for you, then you probably shouldn’t be the decision maker for your flights. My biggest concern moving forward for epic is the fact that it’s certified version is “untested”, that is there isn’t a fleet out there for them to draw experience from. Something will break on this newly certified aircraft and hopefully it will be something minor and not result in loss of life, but nothing is ever designed without flaws. Both are exceptional aircraft if you have the honor and the income to afford to own and/or fly them.
Thank you Mr.William, I really appreciate your comment its knowledgeable and helpful🤝👍🙏
great comment!
Thanks
The fact it was a kit plane dissuaded you, that sounded like an outdated mentality going back to the 1960s. Are you sure you have enough flexibility and learning ability to cope with today's avionics??
@@tonylam9548 not sure what “kit plane” has to do with avionics or “learning ability”. Do you understand what is involved in purchasing or building a kit plane? Are you also aware of how the FAA classifies them?
For one, you are not buying a product with a fixed price. You are buying parts, and the total may end up being much higher. This makes it harder to finance your 1-2 million dollar purchase.
To be legal you need to build 50% of the aircraft yourself. The factory does the build, but you need to participate in 50% of the build, which means a lot of flights to bend Oregon. And if you can’t make it out it can delay construction. Most owners that built them would spend 1-2 years before they could fly their airplane.
The epic is also considered experimental, which means you cannot use it for charter to defer costs among some other limitations.
It didn’t have the most advanced avionics: garmin has to certify the g1000 and g3000 in the type aircraft so you could get the kit plane version of the g1000 (g900 if I recall) but it doesn’t have all the integration.
They are also harder and more expensive to insure and can be very difficult finding a carrier.
I love the LT, but these are the reasons we didn’t go that route and had we, we would’ve lost our money as they went bankrupt soon after. Now they have certified versions available but going the kit route was taking a huge risk. Good thing we didn’t take it because the timing back then was bad and it would’ve been years before it was resolved and our airplane was completed.
The TBM has a steeper learning curve than the epic from my experience with both, but it is an amazing aircraft. There is also much better training available (at least when we considered the epic) as t hey didn’t have simulator training. All training had to be done in the aircraft. I can tell you from all my time at simcom and flight safety that simulator training is superior in turboprops and jets because they are procedure trainers for all those additional systems and abnormal/emergency procedures.
So choosing a certified aircraft over a kit plane is not antiquated thinking, it’s based on economics and practicality. I didn’t have the time to spend and I was only one of the decision makers and the one who is a pilot.
The TBM is slower and aluminum but has many more years of experience behind it. There is no yellow arc when flying the TBM due to its solid construction. The tbm could be in the utility category but it is in normal. The epic has more cabin diameter, is sleeker, more spacious. And it’s 30 knots faster. I love the epic. But the premier was a better deal at the time and now the TBM fits the mission better and is far more cost effective
I've flown both and now I've been in an Epic for a year and a half and 380 hours I'll promise nothing compares. I've also indicated 337 true which is more than they advertise.
TBM 940 first flight was in 2019, 1988 was the 700, 1000 units is the number of all the TBMs sold after 1988, the 940 was less than 100. Epic E1000 was certified in 2019.
But they started making the LTs more than years ago. A bud of mine flew on one
The Epic is my favorite, by far 🎉
The data for the Epic 1000 is not at all correct - this is the fastest single turbine on the Market (May 2021) its Certified by the FAA - 4,000 f/m climb and cruise at 325 KTAS 45 g/h and much more range than the TBM - can fly right across the USA. Its much lighter and can carry 6 people!
This is pretty much a TBM promotional piece.
The Epic climbs at 4,000 from far out climbing the more expensive TBM.
Epic is the superior aircraft here.
It definitely is superior as far as specs. If you have idiot money go get an epic. If you are smart you would never invest millions in an epic. The company has one niche product and financially is inferior to TBM. I am not sure about insurance but my hunch is that it would be very difficult to get covered in an epic and would be far more expensive than the TBM. If Epic goes T.U. than you have no product support. It is a stupid gamble imho.
@@816928 The difference in insurance costs is an interesting question you raised. I'd like to know the answer to that one.
@dougcampbell740 there are currently 2 companies underwriting epic. If you are an owner/operator with low experience, you can forget about it. If there are only 2 companies taking on that risk, where do you think the premiums live? Somewhere near the stratosphere I should think.
I like the Epic and the climb rate is exceptional .
Your data and the “E1000” aircraft images are out of date. The aircraft images are of Epic LT, the experimental kit predecessor. Most of data is from pre-certification manufacturer estimates. The E1000 is discontinued and the $3.25M price is as well. The certified aircraft is the E1000GX, new retail starts at $3.75M. The GX has several important updates, including a Hartzell 5-blade composite prop and Garmin digital flight management.
Cool. Have they sold any of them yet? Still seems like a significant money saver over the TBM
@@LESPAUL44mag They have delivered 7 certified, last I heard. Supply chain has been deeply affected by COVID-19, in addition to final production line FAA certification had a 6 month delay due to pandemic. They have deposits for 76 orders, again last I heard. We’re number 52, hoping for delivery in 23.
It’s a much roomier aircraft than 930. We flew to Bend factory in friends 930 so we could compare the 2. The cabin height is a full foot taller, wider as well. The cockpit is enormous compared to TBM. I would struggle to fit in older TBM, since the 850 added a cockpit door access improved dramatically. I’m 6’2”. For comparison, the TBM cockpit is similar in size to our 340A. The E1000GX is designed to accommodate up to 6’8” pilots. Point-point, the E1000GX is noticeably faster at similar fuel burn than 930. This is primarily due to far faster roc. The advantages of the TBM is its known and proven airframe and systems durability and its global serviceability. It also employs the G3000 suite which is a bit easier workload menus than the G1000 found in E1000GX.
If either were full fadec, that would have been a far clearer final choice. While we await our position in Epic order que, I’m still considering the Denali and PC12 NGX. Those are about 40% higher operating costs, at least preliminary performance on uncertified Denali. If operating costs were comparable, I’d choose either of those 2, due to their full fadec systems. I’m still hopeful Epic will update the current PT6-67 to the full fadec x-series PT6-67E found in PC12 NGX. That would likely also result in updated G3000. An E1000GX w/full fadec and G3000 would be a formidable package 👍
@@MichaelM-to4sg Awesome thanks for the input I can tell you've done your research. I am relatively new to aviation, but my dad has gotten me into it and once I finish my CPA license I will probably take lessons. He is actually under contract with a Piper Chieftain Panther as of now. Hoping that works out. His dream is to have a King Air 200 (blackhawk) or maybe a Conquest II when he retires. I mentioned the PC-12 to him as it is lower operating costs with the single engine and he may consider.
I've always wanted to fly in the TBM it is such an attractive looking plane an a beast on cruise speed. Nothing really came close to it from my understanding until the Epic plane came out. Wasn't the Epic the LT kit plane for a while until this 1000GX model came out? It seems it took several years for the certification, but I'm glad it's finally being produced. As for the Cessna Denali it looks like a nice plane, but pretty much a direct copy of the PC-12 just with a GE engine instead of the PT-6 I believe. Also the base price seem both just under $5 million so quite frankly I don't know if Cessna is going to have a Chance at taking potential or current customers from a Pilatus.
@@MichaelM-to4sg Here's a question for you since you seem to know what you're talking about. For most propeller (piston or turboprop) driven planes they seem to be measured in horsepower just like land vehicles. From what I understand there is drivetrain loss somewhat like in a car. At least with a turboprop I see Shaft Horsepower and Thermodynamic Horsepower. From what I understand Thermodynamic is the total power the engine produces at the compressor whereas the Shaft HP is what eventually makes it to the Prop. So similar to a car where the Crank HP is roughly 15-20% higher than the Brake or Wheel HP. I know it's apple to oranges, but just trying to understand it since I'm a numbers guy lol. Also I've seen Equivalent Shaft HP which I think is similar to Thermodynamic, but it measures the SHP and thrust produced by the exhaust gas (so yes the thrust part excludes piston aircraft). This might make absolutely no sense, but with my limited knowledge I hope I was able to convey what my question is. Thanks.
I didn't watch all of this, but didn't see this spec: cabin volume in the TBM is only 123 cubic feet; Epic 184.
I own Epic serial number K20 and taking delivery of K43 soon I can promise you the cabin room is the best!!!
Let me add Epic also has a five blade configuration as well...
I've never seen a TMB... anxiously awaiting videos... :rolleyes:
I'm buying an Epic E1000 getting a pilots license and will travel the world with it.
You have no pilot experience? I’m doubtful you’ll be insurable piloting the E1000GX. You’ll need 500 hrs in right seat w/qualified pilot before you’ll be insurable for solo.
I would suggest training in SR22, Cherokee, Bonanza or similar for min 300 hrs. Then consider ME such as Baron or C340 for minimum 250hrs. Get your IFR along the way. At that point you could consider flight training for SE TP performance aircraft as insurable pilot
@@MichaelM-to4sg I was wondering if someone could get a license and star flying a turboprop. It seems things don't work quit that way. Thanks for the info.
@@keltondeoliveira Honestly, go on a demo flight one time in a tp. I’ve got several thousand hours flight time in MU2 and there are times when shit happens so fast that I find myself flying behind for a brief period. An inexperienced pilot, even w/lots of SIM time, cannot recover once they get behind activity.
The first minute you’re in traffic at 300ktas navigating among 500ktas commercial aircraft and 170ktas private aircraft w/ATC in your ear, mistakes are inevitable. Then there’s terrain, weather, uncontrolled airspace... Do yourself and your family a big favor and start walking w/small single piston non-retractable gear. Then gradually develop skills to multi-engine, high performance, retracting gear and instrument flight. Once all of those are truly mastered in all weather and traffic, a high performance tp like the Epic or TBM can be a consideration.
@@MichaelM-to4sg So I should start with non-retractable gear? What about a JMB VL3? Has retractable gear but it is slower than a SR22.
@@keltondeoliveira Retractable gear aircraft requires additional endorsement. It’s easiest to start w/simplest aircraft.
If your goal is to advance into modern SE TP aircraft such as Epic or TBM, starting your training in full glass cockpit like SR20 or SR22 is a great choice. Cirrus certified train program is pretty comprehensive and very well structured. Spend min 200hrs in these, including your ifr is solid foundation before a me w/retractable high performance aircraft. Once you reach 500hrs between Cirrus and hp aircraft, you’ll at least qualify for initial training in the TP
Best of luck and have fun 👍
It is quite obvious that the producer of this comparison favors the TBM 940. Where we the interior shots of the Epic 1000? I think I can easily sacrifice 5 gallons of fuel an hour to get to altitude to fly at 34,000 feet and fly 30 mph faster. US ingenuity is very difficult to beat. I also wonder if the Epic had a 5 blade hartsell what the performance characteristics will be? Just saying.
I think there are 2 insurance companies that will insure an epic currently. They are a very small company so the smart money would buy the TBM every single time. Product support is going to be much better. I hope Epic can make it, but it is too early to tell as of yet. Hell, Piper would be a better bet at this point. It is a sexy bird though.
What would happen if you put the 5 blade from the TBM on the Epic 1000 would it make it faster???
My layman's guess is the 5 blade will perform better at the thinner air high up. Capable of same thrust at less RPM. But cost more.
both are so competible, they are just so good!
As informações não estão traduzidas em português???
Sentimos muito por isso..
I have flown a TBM 900 and have been in the Epic at Oshkosh and if it was up to me, I'd take the Epic. The TBM 940's only real advantage is the Garmin G3000, which enables the TBM to have the autothrottle and now optional autoland. I'm not necessarily sure why that's not possible with a G1000, but honestly I think most owners of both planes can hypothetically live without either of them unless they're using their planes to move their families. I would say though as someone who regularly flies two G1000 equipped airplanes (a 1980s 200 series King Air with a G1000 Nxi retrofit for work and a 09 G36 Bonanza I fractionally own with a friend of mine who is an instrument rated private pilot) that someone moving from something like a Cirrus to a turboprop will have an easier time learning the avionics side of thing with the Epic than you will will the TBM. Maybe the TBM is a bit more roomy for passengers, but neither airplane is really all that roomy and those looking for more room in a turboprop are either looking at a King Air, a Pilatus, or are skipping the turboprops and going to small jets.
The Epic to me, in both design, looks, and performance fulfills the mission one of my all time favorite airplanes (and one the all time biggest business aviation failures), the Beechcraft Starship. The Epic takes the promise of an all composite turbo prop that the Starship brought and brings it up into the modern age. In terms of raw performance the Epic simply can't be beat. Also like the still flying Starships the Epic should last way longer given its composite construction. I would absolutely love to own one, though I don't think I'm finding any amount needed in the cushions to find one XD
The TBM has far more "real advantages" than the Epic. If you have stupid money and don't mind blowing it on a cool airplane, go get an epic. The smart money would choose the TBM every time. TBM has a proven platform, an established safety record, easy to find insurance coverage, product support is light years ahead of Epic, financial stability is much stronger than Epic... A smart business owner who is not an AV geek would probably go with TBM. Far less risk for the TBM.
Nice music for this comparo. Cheers.
Why does it say the E1000 is only a 4-5 passenger but the TBM is 4-6? The E1000 cabin is MUCH bigger than the TBM.
Also, the TBM 940 will burn 65 gph and the E1000 about 66 gph.
“Much bigger” is an over reach. It’s noticeably taller cabin, the width and length is dimensionally greater but it’s not that noticeable.
The E1000GX is a 5 passenger aircraft. You could remove the forward left cabin seat from L-track for large dog crates, otherwise it’s fixed at 5. My guess is the 4-5 comes from possibility of 2 pilot crew.
TBM offers several cabin configurations, including a convertible lav in 940 & 930 predecessor. One such configuration has bench seat in left aft of cabin offering 5 seatbelt places in cabin, resulting in total of 6 passenger capability...albeit tight.
Those fuel burn numbers are at Max cruise. In Econo-cruise (65%), which we commonly use, fuel burn is between 39gph for TBM to 42 for E1000GX
What is TMB? Is TMB by Socata or new series by Daher? 🤔
Are you being sarcastic?
socata daher is the company, they joined together, and TBM is their model line. the 940 is the newest model
@@samtatenumber1 It is no longer Daher-Socata, effective 2019. Since Daher acquired EADS-Socata 12 years ago, they have aggressively expanded their airframe business, now building airframes and subassemblies for Airbus, Gulfstream, Dessault and Boeing. May be others but those are the ones I’m personally aware. In 2015 the privately held company partnered with 3 investment banks to expand operations into Asia and North America, the last remaining member of the Daher family left his position on Board of Directors. A year later, maybe 2, the acquired US aircraft manufacturer Quest Aviation and introduced the new TBM900/930. In 2019 the Socata name was dropped, the TBM940/910 were introduced and the Quest name was dropped. The new TBM’s and the updated Kodiak 100 series III were all under the Daher Aviation corporate umbrella.
The TBM was originally developed and certified by EADS-Socata as joint engineering venture w/Mooney, whom EADS-Socata had acquired in early 80’s. The TBM project had been started by Mooney as a utility purpose SETP, a competitor to the 208 Caravan. If you know the history of Mooney and his desire for speed, that seemed like a very non-Mooney design. Fortunately the French looked at project and basically developed a SETP Mooney, the fastest single prop certified plane in the sky👍
@@MichaelM-to4sg hey thanks, i didn't know any of that. especially about all the TBM Mooney history. And i didn't know about the socata name drop. I thought I knew a bit about mooney, but never had i heard that EADS Socata had it.
@@samtatenumber1 I’m a retired ME/AE, spent a lot of years working in that industry which is sort of musical chairs industry. Out of college I went to Rohr, which was an aerospace engineering think tank, they were acquired by General Dynamics, which I hated and quit 8 months after acquisition. Finished my MS as I got recruited to Garrett AirResearch which went through 2 acquisitions in my 30 years there. I guess you could say I’ve been there, done that with many of these companies 😂😂😂
EPIC.
Well, as an Arrow pilot, I can only say the Epic has prettier lines/shape. A beautiful aircraft.
What's a TMB 940?
I love the aerodynamic design of the Epic with its sleek nose down to the tail...
I'm cool with any aircraft as long as I get to my destination that is
Pilatus PC-12NGX and Cessna Denali are my pics!
They both have 1 pilot and 5 passenger capacity. Epic E1000GX is certified and is not only less $$ but time to altitude is better, and has a higher useful load. ALSO…the Epic has swing-arm landing gear for rougher landing strips that the TBM can’t handle.
Epic E1000GX all the way.
Epic
Where do you live
TBM hands down!
Epic!
Using the wrong name in the video assures confidence in the analysis.
Pilatus PC12 is the best!!!
Completely unrelated mission profile
That's like comparing a Corvette to a Suburban.
@@tomboard1 exactly, the Pilatus is the Suburban.
Pilatus is nice, but after seeing a Epic up close I like the Epic design....
@@MichaelM-to4sg What's your point?! Each aircraft's mission is to haul people from point A to point B and they all do that!
Epic E1000
Epic E1000💪💪💪👍
Pilatus PC12 hands down.
The TBM940 and the Epic E1000 are exceptional single-engine turboprop aircraft. But it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison to compare an aircraft certified in 1988 and has gone through several model changes (TBM9*0) with the testbed uncertified aircraft (Epic E1000). The recently certified Epic single-engine turboprop is the E1000GX, not the E1000. The comparisons in this video should be updated to the specifications of the E1000GX,
For instance, two updates needed in comparison of the latest model of the TBM 940 to the current Epic E1000GX would be first, the Epic E1000GX has a five-blade propeller. Another is the E1000GX seats six.
TBM please
I think you should have both.
❤❤❤
I prefer a gyroplane. Less fuel, great STOL, much better visibility. And a bit cheaper. 😉
An apple in the orange bin...
The stated cruise speed for both airplanes is way off. They both can cruise at around 330 knots.
The EPIC looks like a pre-fabricated plane. Much cheaper, but oops...where is the quality? OK to show off... Both have two different types of clientele.
One is fake the other is real. TBM is the only choice.
I've been flying an Epic E1000 GX for two yearsnow and I promise you it's as real as it gets!!!
Already old data….
Lame. Good music
Epic