UdoR wrote:
I would consider an aircraft having more than a pilot’s payload on full fuel in fact bad designed, because it lowers flexibility
really? what about an airliner? Anything you’re even considering using for commercial use? Most jets? (well probably not most). Getting 1200NM with 6POB even at 230kts, I’d really consider an advantage. having to stop along the way for fuel is a massive PITA, in particular now with all this COVId nonsense…
Getting 1200NM with 6POB even at 230kts, I’d really consider an advantage. having to stop along the way for fuel is a massive PITA, in particular now with all this COVId nonsense…
The sort of plane which will carry 6 POB and some junk, with the 98-99% despatch rate you want, you will need a 421C as a baseline. A TBM can’t. A PC12 can.
A Jetprop is similar to a TB20/21 with TKS: 2-seater with full tanks. Most of the time you need only 2 seats because, in real life, organising 3+ people to want to do the same long trip is too much hassle 
Short trips are easily done with 3-4 people but then you don’t need full tanks.
But a Jetprop will give you a 98-99% despatch rate, similar to a TBM. The TBM is built stronger and should withstand worse wx, but ice will bring down a TBM perfectly well.
Am not sure a 421C has realistic 1200NM range, although a marketing brochure might say so, let alone at 230KTAS. The intimate potty seat with 1970’s orange curtain fabric not the best either.
Airborne_Again wrote:
equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine
Actually this is “funny”.
If you think about it, at least in my book most jets are easier to handle than turboprops but if you have a single jet it is complex and if you have a single turboprop it is not.
E.g.: The Vision Jet’s single jet engine is extremely easy to operate because it has FADEC. And even jets without FADEC lack the “complexity” of a variable prop, they are vastly single lever ops. Also systems wise, the only so far single jet is quite simple to operate.
The Jetprop and other turboprop Engine is quite a bit more demanding to operate, but it is not considered “complex”.
Maybe time to rethink that one.
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
what about an airliner? Anything you’re even considering using for commercial use?
There are airliners like that, most prominently some early A330-200. Fill the tanks and it is over or at MTOW without even one pound of payload over empty. (The ones in my DB are of Swissair heritage: Emtpy around 120 to 122t, MTOW 230t, max fuel with tail tank 110 t. ) On a cold day, you could fit 112-114 tons in that plane easily. Background of that enormeous tanks is that the A330 shares the wing with the -300 series which had a much higher MTOW to start with and in turn with the A340 which has an even larger capacity.
Eventually the A330-200 got upgraded to 233 t MTOW and some even to 238 or 242 t like the A330-300. Some also have yet additional tanks.
Annectote: We had one A330 do a relief flight for earthquake victims in Japan. Those early 330’ties at MZFW of 170 tons could carry 60 tons of fuel, which was just enough for most NATL destinations. We were quite amazed to find out that we could get that plane home in one leg with the practically zero payload it carried.
Am not sure a 421C has realistic 1200NM range, although a marketing brochure might say so, let alone at 230KTAS. The intimate potty seat with 1970’s orange curtain fabric not the best either.
It is a 200kt plane, sure. But it is a good load carrier. I used to know one owner. He eventually bought a KA90 and then fairly quickly got out of aviation altogether…
The Jetprop and other turboprop Engine is quite a bit more demanding to operate, but it is not considered “complex”.
I don’t think so; in the words of a friend who flies PT6s all the time, you have to be a complete muppet to do a hot start. Some other exceedances may not get logged though, in pre-G1000 aircraft 
and TBM850 (G1000) owners would complain about that…
Well, just take the two engine operating regimes next to each other.
Vision Jet: Start/Shut down via a button. Thrust lever is coupled to a FADEC and is pretty foolproof, like most FADEC engines.
PT6: Manual starting, quite possible to overtorque and you have one lever more to use. The OP describes some of the fuel system as fairly complex and you need to manage the engine actively. Yea, you need to be a muppet to fry it but fry it you can.
Even worse with some piston engines.
So the easiest to operate engine form is “punished” by putting it into a cathegory which requires heaven knows what extra work and training? I simply can´t see any compelling reason to do that.
TBM, 6×80kg adults, 30kg of junk, 3 hours fuel + reserve:
Flipping the fuel situation, what would be the range with 4 80kg adults and 2 50kg youngsters?
I consider the above a realistic use of 6 seats
( although for many six seaters, it’s probably quite an infrequent use)
and shows what is available to the pilot, other than the usual 2 or 3 on board.
I feel that owners of 6 seaters mainly choose the airframe for everything else about it,
(Space, capability, performance, systems)
extra seats are a bonus.
GA_Pete wrote:
Flipping the fuel situation, what would be the range with 4 80kg adults and 2 50kg youngsters?
I consider the above a realistic use of 6 seats
That would be also very interesting to see for the Jetprop. However, these are 6 people yet again, so you’d have to calculate another 120 kg for baggage, at least.
GA_Pete wrote:
I feel that owners of 6 seaters mainly choose the airframe for everything else about it,
(Space, capability, performance, systems)
extra seats are a bonus.
Many people who have been looking for 6 seaters actually are looking for a “real” 4 seater, e.g. one which can take 4 people and their airline weight baggage. In most cases, a 6 seater is what will do that nicely.
e.g a Cherokee 6 will do that over any PA28, so do most C210’s over 172s or even 182. I recall some reports here by a 210 owner what he can take.
Then again, like range in most cases, also these load problems are often implied, as that kind of use is rare. Yet, it is an argument for someone who wishes to convince his spouse that it is a family plane after all. In that regard, I fondly recall the guy who created the hashtag #ineedafuckingtransall , if I remember right he was a guy with wife and two daughters who was thinking of buying a plane because his women bust all the limits of airline travel with frustrating frequence.
