Is that a guess or do you have ANYTHING to support the claim that a king air has 2 to 3 times the moving parts?

Interesting it does not apply to the Denali in your estimation?

Every airplane is a copy of other airplanes that's not a new idea Cessna has with the Denali.

In Particular the systems on airplanes are copies due to the limit creativity allowed by the regulations.

I get the pride in ownership but strip the aluminum off a TP and they all look very similar!

Steve, no fight was intended, so don't get your knickers in a wad.........when I look at a King Air in a hangar in pieces in my mechanic's hangar there are gobs of pieces. My mechanic even notes that. My baron engine cowl for example is way more complex than the Cirrus SR22 cowl for example.

I was not sure what was meant by the Denali statement. It's a paper airplane currently so we don't know what ultimately it will end up being.

It would be an interesting experiment to see the exact parts totals, I'm curious as to where we could get that information.

I'd wager a friendly 20 that the KA has twice the parts as a PC12.

I've got nothing against the commanders or the king airs or the other turbo props, it's just that the pc12 is better

now simmer down......i'm in your neck of the woods in a few weeks and based on your mental state, it looks like I'll have to buying the first round.

Started in 1989 I believe. The other twin engine TP's were designed 20 to 40 years prior to that date. If you review what gets worked on in a King Air vs a PC12 I bet that there are double, if not triple the amount of moving parts.

At the end of the day an airplane today is not much different than an airplane from the 1940's........got wings and engines. Incremental improvements are what set airplanes apart.

James, I'll note the new vs old, I much prefer to purchase used (I did with the PC12) as the depreciation hit was the least. In real dollar terms I bet we are not that different on a per mile basis all in, including any cost of capital.

What fun is that! I don't really argue over sports. So I express my opinions on airplanes.

My debating skills increase dramatically with a beverage, so stop on by.

I would argue the older the plane the less parts it has, not the other way round!

Another "non contributor" (hater).

Why would you click on a thread about going 1500 miles? Premier won't go 600 without a fuel stop. ha.

Gentlemen,

Please take the bickering somewhere else. I'd like to continue to see this thread produce good information without all of that cluttering things up.

Thanks,
Jeff

Thanks for showing up Dad.

Nothing to see folks. Move on please.

By good information you mean misinformation?

In the non experimental category, the only plane that meets the OP requirements is the commander. Think about that....$1m or less, fast and 1500nm east or west. 40years and that's the best option. Says a lot about how hard aircraft design is and how awesome the commander is that in 4 decades it hasn't been bested. Cheers to the commander. Amazing machines!!

I think the commander misses the hangar width limit but I could be wrong.

A Merlin will do the trip all year long but has a 17' tail and is a little pressed on the runways.

Dumbing down pilot abilities was not considered an advancement back when the push was hard.

I was ready to come in and defend Commanders, but see that's already been taken care of..

Grass strip with that runway and range requirement pretty much narrows down the field. There isn't a single plane of the others mentioned that have the same big tire/wheel size. I mean, who here would bring a Conquest, Merlin, Epic or CJ to a grass strip? Be the last thing you do if it has a little rut. Commander - no problem, they love that stuff.

Just like in Detroit where you can't beat cubic inches, there's no substitute for big....tires.

For reference, a short body mu2 will do the trip if u do the aft fuel mod on a solitaire. I am working on getting one of the tanks from a guy in New Mexico and seeing if I can get the FAA to let me duplicate and install. Adds about 40 gallons, with 444 total and pulling back a bit, 1500 is doable on a not crazy windy day assuming VFR at destination.

Probably depends on the airframe. The original Malibu had a finicky hydraulic gear, the new Mirage is a completely different and almost maintenance free system. The Original Malibus had temperamental hydraulic flaps, the Mirages very reliable electrically actuated flaps. The tail of the Meridian is a new design and the empennage was strengthened, again revised with the M600. The wing spar is a different spar from 1999 onward. The M600 has a copetly redesigned wing. The pressurization of the M-series 350/500/600 is computer controlled, a completely different system from the analog. The Meridian has additional overrides of the pressurization system to automatically pressurize the cabin if the primary system fails, not present on any other PA46's, and almost every wiring bundle and sensor has been replaced with more robust and accurate systems. Even the fuel senders on the new M350 is different from the Mirage. So many upgrades in the PA46 evolution, I think you would see the same evolution with Cirrus. The upgrades are so substantial that I would not consider myself adequate to PIC a 1984 Malibu. It shares almost no systems or failure modes with my last 4 PA46's.

Feel free to throw you math up there. How many on board? How many bags etc. 1 pilot and 1 PAX on board is not a legit comparison.

Also, even if what you say is true...... By how much do they beat my time with a stop and at what cost? I burned 2300Lbs on this trip. CJ3 would do it non stop also with the same load 2 hours faster but on 3300Lbs.

aaaah geez Pappa, you allowed out of the house yet?

Erwin lands his bird practically in the dirt.......

I'm a commander fan.........

The positive piece is that if we can all post actual data on our airplanes then folks will be able to make the decisions for themselves..........

Frankly there is not a bad airplane in this land, couple of bad pilots maybe