I was blown away with the flight I got in the JetProp DLX (-34 variant). When you see 150kts on the ASI and 2000fpm on the VSI you can grasp the sheer power of the airplane. The -34 engine can run to 4000hrs TBO with no HSI and engine programs are 110-120 USD per hour. The hourly cost is very little more than a piston twin but the buy in is a lot more, but less than a new 58 Baron. The owner reports very few maintenance issues over and above general servicing. He tells me he can do 260Ktas at FL260 on 31 USG ph. I’d flown RH in a E90 and 840 Commander which would be more suited to a corporate budget, but I could see how you could manage to own one of these in Europe and operate it privately without winning the Euromillions.
WilliamF wrote:
but I could see how you could manage to own one of these in Europe and operate it privately without winning the Euromillions.
I agree, (but I am biased), I have been flying this one for the past 9 years and it does everything WilliamF says, 265kts @ FL270 on 33USG/hr, no airways charges, in my opinion its one of the best aircraft for getting quickly around Europe and you can take it into grass strips.
However if I did win the euro millions I would go for a Citation Mustang (and keep the Jetprop).
One of the best bangs for the buck for sure.
Flying mine still brings a smile to my face 9 years on. I have yet to find anything comparable that fits my mission profile so well. 
E
Peter wrote:
Maybe the issue lies in the G1000 being used to display engine parameters?
Here is a recent one with Avidyne and digital engine instrumentation.
But probably it wouldn’t be certifiable not to hook up the engine sensors to the G1000 and use a separate panel like this, and it would also be a waste of useability.
So is the S-TEC 55X good? Why did they put that in and not e.g. a DFC90/100?
[ That Jetprop controller.com description is here and here – the advert will disappear soon – Peter ]
Rwy20 wrote:
So is the S-TEC 55X good? Why did they put that in and not e.g. a DFC90/100?
No it isn’t really good. They can use the DFC90 – no idea why they didn’t.
Thank you, Jason. Which points make you prefer the Meridian, as you wrote:
While I am more a Meridian fan, the structural arguments about the Jetprop are not true.
And is that also true if you compare the “bang for the buck” (of course that is always relative…).
I just prefer the better environmental system and a few other areas where a factory plane has an advantage over a conversion. Bang for the buck though Jetprops are hard to beat.
When I have turbine envy and I compare the Jetprop vs the Meridian, the key drawbacks of the Jetprop seem to be linked to smaller margins for error:
- the Meridian is built for simplicity (e.g. no ice door to consider)
- speed control in the Jetprop is a real issue, you can get too fast in the climb
- the lower MTOW of the Jetprop means that you have to make some decisions about where in the enveloppe you are comfortable, with the associated risks (operationally maybe but also for insurance purposes, although I’m not aware of insurance companies using MTOW breaches to avoid payment)
Also if you’re a Mirage owner, doing the conversion yourself makes no sense financially (well, no more sense than buying any aircraft new), and I guess people are nervous about buying second hand an aircraft where you have to rely on the previous owner’s observance of speed limitations to ensure structural safety, even more than on any other certified airplane that I know of.
Jesse wrote:
A G950 would also be possible, though I haven’t seen those on PA46. These don’t come with an AML STC.
Cutter Aviation has an STC to retrofit old Meggitt Meridians with a G950:
http://cutteraviation.com/aircraft-service-avionics-support/avionics-sales-service/garmin-g950-panel-retrofit-upgrade-piper-meridian-pa-46/
AOPA Article: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/may/pilot/the-g950-meridian
Buying such a plane would mean you would never be able to register it under EASA, unless the regulations change, right? How would buying an older Meridian (around 2000-ish) and retrofitting the G950 compare to a Jetprop in terms of price and performance?
Hi guys
We have owned and operated both the Meridian and the Jet Prop as well as a number of Mirages
The only thing lacking on the Mirage is a turbine engine , as a piston airplane it is underpowered
Here are some answers regarding the various Jet Prop questions being posted
1. Piper owns the STC for the G1000 and the autopilot interface in the PA 46 airframe so they will not allow it to be used on the Jet Prop for obvious competitive reasons, this explained to to me by Patrick Carter who is head of sales at Jet Prop
2. Performance
Jet prop take off distance over 50 ft obstacle 1,200 feet , Meridian 2,500 feet at MTOW reason is that the
Jet prop is 800 lb lighter for basically the same horse power at takeoff in fact 60 hp more 560 vs 500
3. Operating costs
Jet prop only requires a 100 hr / annual inspection Meridian requires event 1 and 2 inspections
so almost double the costs on a yearly basis
Jet prop has less fuel burn and no airway fees in Europe
So to sum it up the operating costs for 100 hrs per year are about $ 200 usd per hour less for the jet prop
Negatives , higher work load to start the engine and to fly due to more manual systems, environmental system is basically the same as the Mirage while the Meridian is a more sophisticated system but also more expensive to maintain, due to the larger derated engine the Meridian has much higher thermomdynamic margins so harder to damage by overtemping or overtorque
Both aircraft have the same normal range of 1,000 NM
My summary is that the Jet Prop is a more economical and more useful plane to operate with lower operating costs and unmatchable short field performance
hope this helps explain things
Max
