gallois wrote:
It’s not the first time I have heard of this lack of professionalism by sales teams. Several years ago a French aviation magazine did an article about how they were treated and the lack of information received by many new aircraft sales teams.
The results were staggering when some of these aircraft were costing well over 1 million euros.
At the latest AERO in Friedrichshafen, I looked at a DA40 as a possible buy for my club. The signs and posters showed good “ground roll” figures for take-off and landing. However, I wanted the actual take-off/landing distances to/from 50 ft. When I asked, there was much humming and discussion. After about 15 minutes one of the salespersons found the figures on the web – they didn’t even have a POH at hand. As I feared the landing distance was much too long for our airfield.
Malibuflyer wrote:
If you have 5 hrs flight time (which is about the max. of what the people typically flying with me will tolerate in such a plane), how far does it take you. For the piston Malibu that is about 700NM
What planning TAS would that be?
With the original which could do 9 hours, you mean the Conti 310, right? I heard many times it was the best Malibu of all, but then again not sure about that seeing what problems the original had for the Conti to be swapped for a Lyco in later models….
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What planning TAS would that be?
Our Mirage did very close to 195kt-200kt TAS at FL200. But the climb was slow. With some weight and to pamper the engine in cruise climb it could take close to 30min to reach FL200 at 120kt indicated. On the trans atlatic leg with max fuel the climb direct to FL250 took nearly 45minutes. And the next issue is the wind. 195kt TAS is fast compared to other planes but then you are at FL200 and the wind is a lot stronger up there. 40-50kt wind is not uncommon. So with a headwind you can be down to 150kt GS in cruise and worse in climb.
On the Mirage we never used the full range as nobody wanted to stay in the plane so long. The longest I have ever flown in it was about 6 hours and I needed a rest thereafter.
Almost everybody will need a rest after a 6hr flight 
One is pretty well “done” for the day.
But to say one’s range is bladder limited is IMHO really unsafe, because one day “you” will have one coffee too many, the heater may not be working great, it may be overcast or night outside, and you will be absolutely desperate. So one absolutely must have a solution of some sort. And once you have that, the range is simply what the aircraft is capable of, in the prevailing wind and conditions, and that is where an accurate fuel totaliser comes in.
Anyway, a PA46 should have the “funnel device” under the seat, even if most people don’t want to use it unless they have to because it gets smelly unless rinsed out properly.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Same speed is also not a fair comparison. The original Malibu is clearly “bladder limited”. With the long range tanks (145 gal) you have a “range” of more than 9 hrs which will take you >1900NM.
While I agree that probably nobody would want to spend 8 or 9 hours in a SEP plane, there is more to it than just a bladder limitation IMHO. If one flies to airport with no avgas – a long range means more options – potentially making a trip possible that would otherwise not be possible. Or it could mean beeing able to refuel at places with lower AVGAS prices. Having long range does not mean you have to use it all in one flight. It just provides better options when planning a trip. Even when a fueling stop is available, landing to refuel is a hassel that easily takes one or even two hours with descend, refueling, payment, waiting, climb and all that.
Sebastian_G wrote:
d. 195kt TAS is fast compared to other planes but then you are at FL200 and the wind is a lot stronger up there. 40-50kt wind is not uncommon
Agree today I flew directly from LDLO to EKRK FL180 and there was a 40+Knot headwind the first hour or so. Had the wind continued like that the entire trip I would have refueled somewhere. But even 60-70 Knots is not uncommon at that altitude. Windy.com is a great tool to give early info on windspeed and directions at different levels. But I have found there is often little to gain by going lower because while the wind gets less so does the speed for the same fuel burn. Sometimes the wind shift direction enough that it might help, but mostly its better to stay high despite headwind. That also means better view of clouds, and areas that might need avoiding (together with ADL of course 😊). But is the turbine really that much better in this area? If you do 240 KTAS in PA46T and you have a 70K headwind at FL300 your down to 170GS. That’s a big difference that would really hit the already limited range.
I support Sebastian to 100%.
Consider an older Meridian any day over a new M350.
You fly from annual to annual and you don’t even think about the PT6.
Every Turbine start brings still a smile into my face.
I flew many years a G36TN – a great piston setup and plane,
crossed the Atlantic 5 times with the Bonanza but no comparison to the peace of mind behind a turbine.
I fly the Meridian now for 2 years. I never throttle back. I bought the plane to go fast for my missions.
FL280 brings you close to 258kt 35,5Gal = 7,3NM/Gal @ 1110tq
you can trottle back to 500tq and get 179kt =20,2Gal = 8,9NM/Gal.
Franz
Well, yes, every time this discussion comes up, we need just two threads on the forum
Why am I not flying a Jetprop
How to operate the Jetprop I have just bought
Totally logical really
I am not being ironic actually. They are amazing machines. The only reasons I don’t have a Jetprop already are
Fjkuth wrote:
FL280 brings you close to 258kt 35,5Gal = 7,3NM/Gal @ 1110tq
you can trottle back to 500tq and get 179kt =20,2Gal = 8,9NM/Gal.
Nice info thanks.
Fjkuth wrote:
I support Sebastian to 100%.
Consider an older Meridian any day over a new M350
Older Meridians (year 2001-2005 fx) are actually not that much more expensive in asking prices than a similar aged Mirage and certainly cheaper than a new M350. Around 600KEUR seams to be the starting point. The avionics is old though and one has to accept this or spend $$$ on upgrade. Beeing + 2T means enroute charges in Europe. Can someone shed some light on what the typical enroute IFR charges are on EASA reg for a Meridian? The way I understand it the Meridian is above 2T unless on N reg (where one could get it SUB 2T stc, but would then more or less permanently fly overweight) … The Jetprop on the other hand is below 2T but also has severe loading limitations with full fuel to stay legal.
Can someone shed some light on what the typical enroute IFR charges are on EASA reg for a Meridian?
I remember some calculations and it’s approximately €100 per flight hour.
The way I understand it the Meridian is above 2T unless on N reg (where one could get it SUB 2T stc, but would then more or less permanently fly overweight).
IIRC there’s EASA STC for sub 2T Meridian. Flying overweight on paper and in reality are two different things.
Emir wrote:
Flying overweight on paper and in reality are two different things.
In theory yes. In practice it needs very strong discipline to keep it two different thing – a kind of discipline that people who invest significant effort and money (i.e. the cost of the STC, etc.) just to become criminals (“avoiding” airway fees is as criminal as tax fraud, etc.) might not always have.
It starts with the need to keep all old documentation, a shadow copy of the AFM, etc. with the airplane. In addition, the mindset needs to be extremely strictly “I fly legally overweight but the original weight limits are carved in stone”.
My experience is, that some people after getting used to fly overweight actually start to more blur these lines and care less about W&B at all. The mental step from “it’s just a legal limit” to “a kg more doesn’t matter at all” seems only to be a small one.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
With the original which could do 9 hours, you mean the Conti 310, right?
Yes – but the Conti 550 is not much worse when flown LOP and much cheaper to maintain these days…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
but then again not sure about that seeing what problems the original had for the Conti to be swapped for a Lyco in later models….
Mainly a market driven decision: The original Conti 520 did not really enjoy to be flown ROP and showed significant durability issues when handled wrongly. The Lyco at these days has been much more robust against “pilot abuse” and at a time where AVGAS was basically for free in the US, consumption did not matter really
