Better Aircraft - Epic E1000 vs TBM 940

[@23aviatorguy]

The useful load is another important spec. that we would like to know about, keep up the good work

[@leonardokrozendijk5944]

TBM series are well known planes, but still all the features of the Epic 1000 makes it a very interesting option and is at least $1.25 million cheaper , and offering the same features and benefits of the TBM940

[@robertfowler217]

No one has talked about the trailing link landing gear on the Epic over none on the TBM

[@TheIdontcarewhat]

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the E1000 to the TBM 910 as they have the same avionics package, specifically the GARMIN G1000 Nxi?

[@randyordonez9879]

How about the cost for each plane?

[@anthonyinnocente417]

The epic obviously does not go to its service ceiling in 9 minutes. The 4000 ft per minute is the initial climb rate, in which it then starts to decrease because of thinner air as it gets to higher altitudes. The TBM probably has a similar initial climb rate, however, the 18 minutes that you mentioned, accounts for the decrease engine performance caused by that thin air. Therefore making the vertical climb speed comparison between the two planes invalid.

[@davidferris9392]

I would not kick either one out of bed, that's for sure. I would choose the TBM solely on strength and longevity of the company as the performance of the two are so close. I didn't hear the UL numbers but I will assume they are also similar. I do favor the ramp appeal of the TBM to the Epic. Thanks for the video.

[@marlintheaviator]

I also just uploaded a Epic E1000 vs Piper M600/SLS kzbin.info/www/bejne/goCVg5Seg8qCg5o

[@MichaelM-to4sg]

My home airport is BDU where TBM’s, KA’s and PC12’s are commonplace but I’ve yet to see an Epic LT there. We however spend a lot of time at TRK and PWT where Epic LT’s are relatively commonplace, though much fewer than TBM’s, PC12’s and Sea Otters. To my eye, the Epic has a great, unmistakable ramp appeal. Maybe because of rarity, whenever an LT, MU2 or Sea Otter shows up, every pilot and most patrons stop and stare, many times you’ll see small gatherings around those aircraft. That never happens w/my 340A nor my friends TBM930.

[@89turbomk3]

The tbm is only around 1 - 1.3 million more, I guess if money wasn’t taken into consideration yea I would pick tbm over the epic1000. Lol

[@jameswatkins309]

I enjoy the comparison videos. The TBM940 vs the Pilatus NGX12 - TBM940 vs the E1000. Would like to see how the Piper M600 compares with these comparable turbo prop aircraft.

[@marlintheaviator]

I’m on it!

[@rogerblackwood8815]

I would guess the reduced range of the Epic is due to the motor running at 1250 instead of the 850shp of the TBM? That would also mean higher fuel burn and maintenance costs? All they got for the extra 400shp is 3 knots and 2000 higher ceiling, not a good trade in my opinion?

[@MichaelM-to4sg]

Not the same motor. The Epic roc is dramatically better than than TBM. The HSI and TBO are identical. Fuel burn is slightly greater in E1000, both in climb and long range cruise. Long range cruise, E1000 is 10kts faster. E1000 has 300lb payload advantage at full fuel. TBM wins in max range by 200nm, in part due to 30usg larger capacity. Service ceiling of E1000 is 3000’ higher, not 2000’. May not seem like a lot but in RVSM, every bit counts to avoid big jets as well as weather.

[@bmunson76]

You also get a 4000 FPM climb rate with that extra 400hp. That's pretty significant

[@rogerblackwood8815]

@@bmunson76 These numbers look good in the brochure, but in the real world how many SID's call for 4000fpm? With the TBM you get a well proven product with customer support all over, with the Eclipse not so much? There's a guy with a TBM 930, no auto throttle, in our hangar and most of his flying is limited by ATC not the aircraft performance. We are in the middle of England and he flies to the French Alps and Scotland often, his sector times are amazing for a single pilot machine operating out of a 1000m runaway! That is what these aircraft are about? One last point, I think the TBM looks much better too, obviously each to their own though! There might be a reason the Eclipse never achieved the heights of success the TBM did?

[@Airborne-operator]

There is no way the E1000 will maintain 4000 fpm up to 34000 feet altitude. It may start off like that but by FL300 I guarantee you wont be doing more than 1000 FPM

[@citysoundfm]

Exactly. Very misleading. The initial sea level climb rate is only at sea level. Also, because the TBM flat rate’s the engines, it’s climb rate will be held more constant all the way up unlike the epic.

[@pole-star2118]

Exactly. I finally found info somewhere that stated it climbs to 34,000 feet in 18 minutes. So doing the math the Epic 1000 climb rate is 1,888 feet per minute and the TBM 940 is 1,687

[@jackkoleros7107]

34,000 ft ceiling? Wow....

[@marlintheaviator]

Yes! That’s very impressive

[@robertluis6654]

I think the climb data is from the start. I am not sure of how the climb rate changes as it gains altitude. Also, cabin space? Useful load? Thanks

[@herbsoto6495]

What would happen if you put five bladed prop from the TBM on Epix 1,000 would it make it faster???

[@glennbaseballfan4757]

The 940 is about $1.25 million more than the Epic. Dollar value it’s a no brainer. Epic E1000

[@pe66o]

@MarlinTheAviator Does the Epic 1000 has a weather radar? I don't see a pod on the wing like in the TBM. Great Video👍

[@almerindaromeira8352]

I still find it very interesting that the E1000 has a PT6 but the chinese cousin the CAIGA Primus 150 has a GE H85. Nice video! I like the honesty, if you don't have data you acknowledge that. Some other guys like to guess.

[@marlintheaviator]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed the video!

[@pilotdrewco]

The epic burns 47 gallons at 320 knots at FL340

[@fifi23o5]

3 kts faster with 350 more hp. Seems to me TBM is aerodinamically more efficient. Fuel flow comparison would be quite useful.

[@citysoundfm]

It’s very misleading. I’m an engineer and a CFI/CFII (credentials…as I am not a fan boy). The engines are essentially the same but the TBM has what’s called a ‘flat rating’. All engines lose power as their climb due to the less dense air. What TBM did, they reduced the rating of the engines at sea level and hold that rating constant all the way up to high-altitude. The epic maybe be higher rated but it drops off significantly at altitude. They are both making about the same power at altitude making them similar in performance.

[@joeshenekji511]

If the Epic had a Parachute system they would oversell the TBM

[@marlintheaviator]

Who do you think will sell more without it?

[@joeshenekji511]

MarlinTheAviator I think the TBM 940. It has auto throttle, Garmin 3000 and auto land. Like I said, if the Epic would add all of the above plus a Parachute system. They would over take the competition.

[@marlintheaviator]

I could agree with that

[@philippedesegovia4298]

@@marlintheaviator Yes. What would be the price tag then?

[@naughtyUphillboy]

Parachute not really.....not on TBM 940/930.............PT-6 engine on TBM is derated to nearly 50% of thermal capacity ................no engine failure during flight in like 20 years on tbm..................only one or two engine shut down that too due too poor maintenance of engine.........TBM airframe is very very strong.................no mechanical or AIRFRAME FAILURE ON TBM

[@chgofirefighter]

Both equally beautiful aircrafts, Epic 1000 is cheaper so the Epic for the win…

[@CyrilDeretz]

The Epic doesn't climb at 4000ft/min up to the ceiling... it is a max climb rate. It takes 15min for E1000 to climb to the ceiling. The max climb rate of the TBM940 is much higher than 1200ft/min. This how fake information is divulged...

[@bigc208]

Indeed. The TBM’s initial climb rate is much higher than what’s stated here. The Epic 1000’s 4000ft per minute is copied straight out of the promotional brochure. They used initial climb rate. It’s actually 2266fpm average climb speed to 34000ft. Still very respectable. TBM has an average climb speed of 1722fpm to 31000ft. Those numbers are a lot closer together than 4000fpm vs 1700fpm. The Epic is about 1 million cheaper but you’ll get most of that back when you sell the TBM compared to the Epic, time will tell. If I had the extra money for the TBM I would get that.

[@123OGNIAN]

A plane with no toilet is a death trap !

[@MichaelM-to4sg]

940 offer one. That said, I’ve flown for nearly 50 years now, never owned an aircraft w/potty. Carry a pee bottle, unless you have an intestinal disorder, nothing more is required

[@oblonghas]

just make sure you have taken care of business that day

[@citysoundfm]

Funny, MOST airplanes DONT have a potty (and they don’t kill anyone)

[@renoguy25]

@@MichaelM-to4sg Do the pax agree to that statement as well ?

[@MrVancev]

One big advantage the Epic has in payload 1100 with full fuel the tbm isnt even close to that. YOu could load up 6 adults drop some fuel in the Epic and fly 900 to 1000 miles easy. The payload could be a big advantage.

[@aeb6868]

I read the Epic website and I am confused. How can you load 6 adults, 200 lbs and full fuel? Each adult would have to be no more than 150 lbs each. I don't know too many adults that weight. Also, a recent sun n fun interview says the cost of the E 1000 gx is $3.8. That doesn't include the additional cost for the radar pod, G3000 or safe return. Who is flying at FL340 without onboard radar?

[@tanaykalita9454]

I think no one here notice that tbm full fuel is 290 gallon and epic has 260 that's why epic has shown more payload in full fuel. Tbm also has more range

[@ckryegrass11]

The E1000 has a better useful load than the TBM 940 or the PC-12. The Epic E1000 is 1100 pounds useful load when full of fuel, PC-12 988 pounds with full fuel, and the TBM 940 is 891 pounds with full fuel.

[@tanaykalita9454]

Epic full fuel is 260 gallon as compared to 290 for tbm if u reduce it then the tbm has same payload as epic

[@ashsmitty2244]

300 extra hp or so gives only a 3 KT difference? Seems like the TBM has better aerodynamics Imho.

[@kalynstalinski8375]

More power doesn’t always translate to more speed, but definitely more climb performance and useful load, both of which are markedly better in the epic.

[@bigflyingjon]

The PT6 turboprop engines have a Thermodynamic rating (The power the engine could make at Sea Level) and a flat rated max HP the engine is limited to due to airframe and gearbox limitations. Both have the same Thermodynamic rating of 1825 HP but the PT6-67A is limited to 1200 max HP, the PT6A-66D of the TBM is limited to 850 HP. The Epic stops making 1200 HP around 14-18,000 feet depending upon temperature and airspeed and has about the same HP from 25,000 feet up as available power continues to reduce with the air getting thinner. One big point is the Avionics difference along with Auto-Throttle, "HomeSafe" and other features the G3000 and many TBM unique options that reduce pilot workload. The 940 and now 960 offer a number of features and upgrades at a significant cost that are unavailable on the 910. These are important to some and not worth it to others, hence there is a long waiting list for all three of these aircraft.

[@jonesjones6694]

A Chinese Prat on the Epic, no thank you! Prat engines must be made in Canada..

[@jeffbergstrom]

From this it seems the Epic barely edges out the TBM in speed and in all other respects the TBM has it beat (particularly in its avionics suite). The Epic needs to be a lot less costly to be the plane of choice in this category (the TBM is very expensive).

[@marlintheaviator]

I agree

[@MichaelM-to4sg]

Epic is much faster in real world, primarily due to its incredible roc. Barring traffic issues at urban airspace, you find yourself at cruising flight level in nearly half the time of TBM. The cabin and cockpit room is vastly superior to TBM. In TBM favor you have an extensive history of safety in airframe and reasonably well established global support infrastructure. The G3000 is an awesome suite and includes auto-throttle and Auto-land but it’s not full fadec. The G1000NXI in E1000 is an easy and intuitive interface, only lacking functionally the auto-land and auto-throttle. Sure, I’d prefer the G3000 as some menus are less buried but I’d much prefer either or both aircraft be upgraded to full fadec X-Series PT6, as introduced in PC12 NGX. The epic is nearly 30% less $$; $4.4M vs $3.25M

[@fifi23o5]

@@MichaelM-to4sg Faster yes, but not that much. TBM climbs 18 min to 31.000 ft, Epic 15 min to 34.000. Max speed 3 kts faster on 350 HP more. Fuel flow comparison would be useful. Price, we'll see. 3.25 M is price from 2017 when production didn't even begin, we all know how price predictions can be a bit of a stretch (remember SkyCatcher or Icon?), TBM's price is real world.

[@MichaelM-to4sg]

@@fifi23o5 I’m comparing ‘real world’ numbers, not oe published numbers. We flew up to Bend in friends TBM930 to test fly the E1000 18 months ago. Because it was an LT, it’s ceiling was FL310. Climbing out of BDN, relatively warm late morning 1-2kn winds from west, w/minimal traffic we reached flight level in just under 12 minutes. Late that afternoon w/similar light traffic and slightly lower temperatures, 10-12kn winds out of west we climbed to FL280 for flight home to TRK. Climb was just over 19 minutes. The TBM & E1000 are both fantastic aircraft, each w/their own strengths. The TBM has more advanced avionics, better AC and proven airframe. The E1000 offers considerably more cabin space, cockpit room and it is faster a-b, mostly due to its climbing performance. That 40% faster climb to flight level gets it into cruise much faster. We only spent one test flight in LT/E1000, flying out to coast and back. That’s not sufficient time to know it’s fuel flow numbers vs TBM. The published numbers suggest they’re similar and I’d expect that to be case @FL340 vs FL310 for TBM in Eco cruise. Surely the E1000 flow will be 15-20% higher in climb but it’s time in climb is 40% less. The pricing of E1000 was $3M for early depositors, of which I am one. It raised to $3.25M. The new E1000GX is $3.75M, which gets updated 5 blade composite Hartzell prop, the E1000/LT uses alloy 4-blade prop. The GX version also gets modern Garmin digital AP, replacing the S-Tec unit. For parties having existing deposits on E1000 wishing to upgrade to GX, there is an unpublished upgrade credit offered

[@fifi23o5]

@@MichaelM-to4sg Thanks! Well, so far I've only seen theoretical comparisons. Nice to hear from someone who has actually flown it. You're right, both are very nice aircraft, I wouldn't mind owning either one. Higher performance of Epic is not a big surprise since TBM is a benchmark, what actually surprises me most is TBM's efficiency. Composites offer the advantage in aerodinamic design and considering the age, it's quite a surprise their max speed is practically the same despite more powerful engine of Epic.Clear sky!

[@MAGApepe]

epic wins :))

[@greenthumb6875]

Runway takeoff and landing

[@dougcard4311]

A lot of closed minded tbm fan boys here.

[@david22240]

*"Zantheum@^