banner
banner

27 Oct 2025, 08:56 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2025, 14:53 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/15/17
Posts: 1173
Post Likes: +607
Company: Cessna (retired)
I was going to reply to the abovr post but ran into too many quotes. Here is the reply:

Or, if Piper won't share the data, they could develop their own, but that could be a real big deal. I never heard of Cessna sharing data with outside STC developers except in a few cases where it was a cooperative development.


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2025, 15:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/02/15
Posts: 4166
Post Likes: +2889
Location: Fresno, CA (KFCH)
Aircraft: T210M
When I attended MMOPA breakout this was discussed. My reaction also was surprise that Piper could stop this from approval.

_________________
G3X PFD, G3X MFD, G5, GFC500, GTN750xi, GTN650xi, GTX345
Previous: TBM850/T210M/C182P
APS 2004


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2025, 15:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3666
Post Likes: +5417
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
When I attended MMOPA breakout this was discussed. My reaction also was surprise that Piper could stop this from approval.


In its current form, the JP is not strong enough to get any significant gross weight increase. Especially the ones built from the Malibu airframe, and Mirages with the less robust wing spar. Piper looked at converting the Malibu to a turbine, but per a contact at Piper, the plane was not robust enough to handle the extra HP to Piper's expectations. That is where the Meridian came from, which has very few interchangeable parts with a piston PA46, different wing, gear, Nose, empennage, and stronger monocoque construction. Plus all the support systems are more robust and a completely different deice package. Even with a lighter engine the empty weight of Meridian is subsbtantially higher than a Mirage, due to the extra metal.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2025, 15:52 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/13/14
Posts: 9109
Post Likes: +7641
Location: Central Texas (KTPL)
Aircraft: PA-46-310P
Username Protected wrote:
Plus all the support systems are more robust and a completely different deice package.
Still boots and heated windshield. What's different?


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2025, 16:24 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3666
Post Likes: +5417
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
Plus all the support systems are more robust and a completely different deice package.
Still boots and heated windshield. What's different?


The Meridian was certified FIKI after Roselawn under more stringent FIKI regulations, including acknowledging that planes that fly in ice will experience SLD, and simply saying avoid SLD does nothing for the pilot that wanders into SLD. So how do you protect against SLD? Big boots. The boots on the Meridian are at least 3 times bigger than the Mirage. The Boots on the wing are enormous, and the boots on the tail completely protect the slip stream of the horizontal elevator such that looking head on, you won't see any paint above or below the boot. Just boot. The boots are inflated using turbine bleed air, instead of vacuum pumps, and deflated with a venturi instead of vacuum pumps, so no vacuum pumps on a Meridian. The boots on the Meridian are on a timer, so in icing conditions, you just turn them on and forget, as opposed to having to cycle the boots manually whenever you think is appropriate.

Bottom of the Meridian boot. I don't have small hands, I can palm a basketball. But they are several hands wide from bottom to top.

Attachment:
1 (34).jpeg


A TBM boot for comparison. I can almost touch the bottom and top edge of the TBM boot at the same time with one hand.

Attachment:
1 (36).jpeg


Here is the horizontal stab boot

Attachment:
1 (35).jpeg


And a TBM for comparison. Notice you can see the white paint above and below the boot looking straight on.

Attachment:
1 (37).jpeg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2025, 17:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/15/11
Posts: 2606
Post Likes: +1210
Location: Mandan, ND
Aircraft: None currently
I was talking to a Jetprop guy recently and querying him about GW and empty weight. IIRC, there was very little room for payload. Obviously you don’t alway need full fuel, but what I recall that there was little room for pax with fuel to go 500 miles plus reserve.

The guy then commented that he flies with seats full and golf clubs, etc…. This made me raise an eyebrow. It seems to be a Jetprop “thing” to just ignore the Mirage’s GW. ????

How does that work from a sanity perspective? How does it work from a legal/insurance perspective? Seems like insurance would wash their hands pretty quick if there was an accident and it was easy to prove over gross…

More questions than answers…


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2025, 18:50 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8496
Post Likes: +11044
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
I was talking to a Jetprop guy recently and querying him about GW and empty weight. IIRC, there was very little room for payload. Obviously you don’t alway need full fuel, but what I recall that there was little room for pax with fuel to go 500 miles plus reserve.

The guy then commented that he flies with seats full and golf clubs, etc…. This made me raise an eyebrow. It seems to be a Jetprop “thing” to just ignore the Mirage’s GW. ????

How does that work from a sanity perspective? How does it work from a legal/insurance perspective? Seems like insurance would wash their hands pretty quick if there was an accident and it was easy to prove over gross…

More questions than answers…


It's the worst kept secret in turbine aviation, it is fairly common for turbine aircraft to take off over gross. The new King Air 260 has an useful load of just 160lbs with full fuel. The military flies that airframe at 14,000# it is a legal issue, but that seems to be the only concern many folks have.

_________________
We ONLY represent buyers!


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2025, 19:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 3666
Post Likes: +5417
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Tempting because turbines have so much excess power. Overloaded they still outperform a piston. But you are still limited by the strength of the structure, esp if you want margins for a bad day.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2025, 09:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/15/11
Posts: 2606
Post Likes: +1210
Location: Mandan, ND
Aircraft: None currently
Username Protected wrote:
I was talking to a Jetprop guy recently and querying him about GW and empty weight. IIRC, there was very little room for payload. Obviously you don’t alway need full fuel, but what I recall that there was little room for pax with fuel to go 500 miles plus reserve.

The guy then commented that he flies with seats full and golf clubs, etc…. This made me raise an eyebrow. It seems to be a Jetprop “thing” to just ignore the Mirage’s GW. ????

How does that work from a sanity perspective? How does it work from a legal/insurance perspective? Seems like insurance would wash their hands pretty quick if there was an accident and it was easy to prove over gross…

More questions than answers…


It's the worst kept secret in turbine aviation, it is fairly common for turbine aircraft to take off over gross. The new King Air 260 has a useful load of just 160lbs with full fuel. The military flies that airframe at 14,000# it is a legal issue, but that seems to be the only concern many folks have.


Flying a 200 over gross is a paper error (C-12 GW 14k). Flying a Jetprop over gross is a potential structural error.

We know the Meridian is a stronger plane than the Mirage. It seems pretty reckless to fly a Mirage/Jetprop over gross when we know the factory changed the structure when they put a turbine on the PA46…

Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2025, 12:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/23/10
Posts: 909
Post Likes: +726
I believe the issue isn't about power at all and is less about structural (although that could come into play on a hard landing) and is more regulatory and aerodynamical in nature. The regs require a single to stall at 61kts or less. Can't do that over MGTOW in an airplane designed to stall at 61kts at MGTOW.


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2025, 00:50 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6061
Post Likes: +713
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
I flew them all, buy a TBM.

_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.

Marc Bourdon


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 29 May 2025, 21:37 
Offline

 Profile




Joined: 03/04/18
Posts: 1
Location: Lake Havasu Arizona
Aircraft: Jetprop
Jetprop is a fantastic machine for sure. Gross weight is definitely an issue. Most people will tell you that they fly the Jetprop up to about 100 pounds over gross but you had better be careful in doing so if you’re going to encounter turbulence. There’s certainly been quite a few of these aircraft that have penetrated Thunderstorms or other turbulent air and have regretted it. With that said, obviously know the limitations of your Aircraft. You cannot beat the operating cost, and the overall cost per mile in this particular turban.


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 29 May 2025, 22:24 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/01/15
Posts: 1012
Post Likes: +1070
Location: Hayward, CA
Aircraft: D50E
The ones I looked at on Controller have a full fuel payload of 1/3 of a human adult.


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 30 May 2025, 08:53 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/31/17
Posts: 1800
Post Likes: +721
Aircraft: C180
Username Protected wrote:
Jetprop is a fantastic machine for sure. Gross weight is definitely an issue. Most people will tell you that they fly the Jetprop up to about 100 pounds over gross but you had better be careful in doing so if you’re going to encounter turbulence. There’s certainly been quite a few of these aircraft that have penetrated Thunderstorms or other turbulent air and have regretted it. With that said, obviously know the limitations of your Aircraft. You cannot beat the operating cost, and the overall cost per mile in this particular turban.


How long does it take to burn 100 lbs?


Top

 Post subject: Re: jetprop? pro's and con's
PostPosted: 30 May 2025, 09:05 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/11/19
Posts: 27
Post Likes: +11
Aircraft: PA46T
I looked at lots of SETP options and landed on a JetProp.
For me it was the best choice hands down. It is the most efficient and cost effective per mile turboprop available... There are over 320 of them flying around today - there is a reason it is arguably the most successful STC conversion out there.

With any airplane I strongly suggest you talk to real owners with real experience or folks that fly/train in them everyday.

For reference I burn ~16 gph at idle / taxi

~45 gph in climb (1500 - 2000 fpm into the low 20's. 1000 fpm thereafter) Climb fuel burn does go down as you get higher and become temp limited.

~33 gph in cruise. 257 TAS is my average depending on temp and weight will move the +/- 4 kts


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next



Plane AC

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025

.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Plane AC Tile.png.
.8flight logo.jpeg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.v2x.85x100.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.suttoncreativ85x50.jpg.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.AeroMach85x100.png.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.BT Ad.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.Aircraft Associates.85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.LogAirLower85x50.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.