I reckon I could probably manage 1/4 of one, but that means finding 3 others who want to be based where I am (I’m spoiled and live 10 mins from the strip).
They say they are no good for ‘burger runns’
I disagree, you just nees to ensure you buy your burgers a little further away 
GA_Pete wrote:
extra seats are a bonus.
Extra seats (the backward facing ones) in any PA46 are so the passengers can put their feet up and stretch out (cant do that in a Sirrus), or for holding the pilots flight bag.
That would be also very interesting to see for the Jetprop.
With the fuel burn you can probably load another 90kg per hour of cruise fuel or 250NM of range left behind for a Jetprop. For a Meridian with a higehr fuel burn it is more like 110kg per hour.
Buckerfan wrote:
Extra seats (the backward facing ones) in any PA46
In 5 years we did 2 trips with 6 persons in the PA46 and 1 or 2 of those must be children or very light and small. As Buckerfan writes the cabin is really for 2 passengers and stuff. But besides persons you can put a lot of other things. I remember 2 rental cars full of stuff from my family for summer holidays, bikes, ski gear, furniture for a trade show, a full size mattress, north atlantic survival gear you can actually put on in flight and more.
It is one of the few planes you can put normal bikes in, without dismantling them.
This is what the Baron 58 (not pressurized) would give at full fuel with 6POB and. Bunch of crap
Mooney_Driver wrote:
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.
Fully agree to that! Plus, you get the additional option of actually flying 5-6 people on quite short distance flights.
And also agree to the general concept that a plane that has a full fuel payload of more than 100kg has just the design fault that the tanks are too small!
Just compare two very same airframes, both with useful load of 500kg and all being exactly the same except the one difference that one of them has a 200l tank and the other one a 550l tank. It is very obvious that the one with the 550l tank is superior although its full fuel payload is “only” about 100kg while the other plane has almost 300kg full fuel payload.
On the JP: Great plane. Would go for a conversion myself if it would fit my mission. At least for the time being, however, I feel better with the piston Malibu.
Many of the perceived limitations come from the fact that it still is an STC on an existing P-46 (piston) type certificate and therefore limitations you can change with reasonable effort are a bit limited.
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
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…
I should have written: Any GA aircraft. I could start with thoughts about mission profile, but in the end you know what is meant. Of course any GA plane is a compromise in its own. If you want the specs you quoted then at least a size of a PC-12 it is. Because a lot of people don’t really want to stay 5 hours in a smaller cabin.
So it all fits nice if you translate payload into fuel. With 1 or 2 POB you can fill up the tanks and go wherever you want and the duration you endure. But with 4 or 5 POB things start to get difficult. No one (except the pilot) will pee into a bottle if the cabin is full of people. So you’ll have to schedule some stop anyhow. But then you don’t need to carry the fuel either.
At least this is my personal experience.
Malibuflyer wrote:
And also agree to the general concept that a plane that has a full fuel payload of more than 100kg has just the design fault that the tanks are too small!
This is an old discussion. I used to be of the opinion that especcially on GA airplanes, where people are less experienced and more risk affine than in CAT, giving people the possibility alone to overload their planes the way it is done all the time was a bad idea. Seeing how many airplanes were regularly overloaded grotesquely just because a lot of PPL’s simply don’t bother with WnB and fill the tanks as they would with their cars, I found and still do find it a rather high risk to make these planes with tanks which don’t allow them to carry the load they were designed to carry. Cessna 172, PA28, e.t.c. the typical puddle jumpers fall into this cathegory and quite a few indeed have rather small fuel tanks.
I have to agree however that particularly in airplanes which are used for personal transport rather than training and joyrides and which are flown by more experienced and disciplined people, your argument is vaild. Where it does get ridiculous however is where full fuel payload goes below the empty weight or leaves only 20-30 kgs like in a few long range equipped Ovations and similar planes. So 100kg (better 150 for 2 crew) makes a lot more sense.
