Narrative:

The flight was conducted on date in aircraft X. The flight was filed IFR (in VMC conditions) from ZZZ to ZZZ1. The aircraft was fresh out of 50 hour inspection. On board was myself in the left pilot's seat weighing; and two passengers weighing 180 lbs; the other passenger weighing 220 lbs. Weight and balance configuration computed this was a safe configuration with the 1000 lbs of fuel onboard.the flight was relatively normal between ZZZ and ZZZ1 with the exception of hitting moderate turbulence for approximately 2 min just outside of ZZZ1.descent into ZZZ1 was normal; and everything about setting up for the visual approach was on track as it should have been. After turning base to final; a normal glidepath was established; and the aircraft slowed to the landing flap configuration speed of 112 kts.; and the landing flaps were selected. A normal glidepath was set aiming at the runway numbers. The aircraft needed approximately 3 degrees of left wing down; and a slight amount of right rudder due to the winds being reported as 220 at 8 kts. The final landing configuration was again checked; and the aircraft was landed approximately 600 ft. Down the runway approximately 3 - 4 ft. Left of centerline. The aircraft made a small bid to the left; and the crosswind controls were relaxed slightly to track the nose down centerline. The nose gear was lowered to the runway as the rudder crosswind correction was shifted to neutral. As the nose gear touched the runway surface the aircraft started a hard-right steer toward the right runway edge. Left rudder and left brake were applied; but the airplane did not correct back to the left. As the airplane continued toward the right side of the runway; more left rudder and left brake was applied; as well as right brake to try to slow the aircraft overall. The aircraft did not respond to any rudder/nosewheel steering inputs and departed the paved surface on the right side; skidding through the unprepared grass area.the aircraft came to a complete stop by high-siding and hitting the left wingtip in the dirt; as well as the propeller. The engine was shutdown using the condition lever; and by pulling the emergency fuel cutoff lever. The battery switch was turned off; and the aft passenger opened the door and both passengers evacuated the aircraft; while I stayed behind to secure the cockpit. No fuel leaks were noted.once the aircraft interior was secure; I exited the aircraft and waited for airport emergency vehicles to arrive. Inspection of the aircraft post-accident showed damage to the left outboard wing; the left main gear strut; the propeller; and a skin wrinkle just forward of the aircraft door. Review of the aircraft path on the runway and through the grass showed no damage to the runway; runway lights; or any runway markings.my research after the runway excursion has revealed that the PA-46 series of aircraft has a long history of this type of scenario and runway excursions. Most have happened to the PA-46-500TP version; and were attributed to a nose gear/motor mount design that piper put out a series of advance directives to fix. While I am still investigating; I have found 5 total of the new M600 that have had runway excursions. My opinion is that the nose gear design is flawed and in some instances; does not fully rotate into position as it extends. Thus causing the nose wheel to be cocked to one side. Upon contact with the runway; the nose gear goes into a caster; thus forcing the aircraft to travel in the direction of the nose gear. There are too many of these incidents and the design needs scrutiny and needs to be changed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA-46 Pilot reported loss of directional control on landing resulting in a runway excursion and a ground strike.

Narrative: The flight was conducted on date in Aircraft X. The flight was filed IFR (in VMC conditions) from ZZZ to ZZZ1. The aircraft was fresh out of 50 hour inspection. On board was myself in the left pilot's seat weighing; and two passengers weighing 180 lbs; the other passenger weighing 220 lbs. Weight and balance configuration computed this was a safe configuration with the 1000 lbs of fuel onboard.The flight was relatively normal between ZZZ and ZZZ1 with the exception of hitting moderate turbulence for approximately 2 min just outside of ZZZ1.Descent into ZZZ1 was normal; and everything about setting up for the visual approach was on track as it should have been. After turning base to final; a normal glidepath was established; and the aircraft slowed to the landing flap configuration speed of 112 kts.; and the landing flaps were selected. A normal glidepath was set aiming at the runway numbers. The aircraft needed approximately 3 degrees of left wing down; and a slight amount of right rudder due to the winds being reported as 220 at 8 kts. The final landing configuration was again checked; and the aircraft was landed approximately 600 ft. down the runway approximately 3 - 4 ft. left of centerline. The aircraft made a small bid to the left; and the crosswind controls were relaxed slightly to track the nose down centerline. The nose gear was lowered to the runway as the rudder crosswind correction was shifted to neutral. As the nose gear touched the runway surface the aircraft started a hard-right steer toward the right runway edge. Left rudder and left brake were applied; but the airplane did not correct back to the left. As the airplane continued toward the right side of the runway; more left rudder and left brake was applied; as well as right brake to try to slow the aircraft overall. The aircraft did not respond to any rudder/nosewheel steering inputs and departed the paved surface on the right side; skidding through the unprepared grass area.The aircraft came to a complete stop by high-siding and hitting the left wingtip in the dirt; as well as the propeller. The engine was shutdown using the condition lever; and by pulling the emergency fuel cutoff lever. The battery switch was turned off; and the aft passenger opened the door and both passengers evacuated the aircraft; while I stayed behind to secure the cockpit. No fuel leaks were noted.Once the aircraft interior was secure; I exited the aircraft and waited for airport emergency vehicles to arrive. Inspection of the aircraft post-accident showed damage to the left outboard wing; the left main gear strut; the propeller; and a skin wrinkle just forward of the aircraft door. Review of the aircraft path on the runway and through the grass showed no damage to the runway; runway lights; or any runway markings.My research after the runway excursion has revealed that the PA-46 series of aircraft has a long history of this type of scenario and runway excursions. Most have happened to the PA-46-500TP version; and were attributed to a nose gear/motor mount design that Piper put out a series of advance directives to fix. While I am still investigating; I have found 5 total of the new M600 that have had runway excursions. My opinion is that the nose gear design is flawed and in some instances; does not fully rotate into position as it extends. Thus causing the nose wheel to be cocked to one side. Upon contact with the runway; the nose gear goes into a caster; thus forcing the aircraft to travel in the direction of the nose gear. There are too many of these incidents and the design needs scrutiny and needs to be changed.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.