My observations have been that nearly all JP's have the 150 gal option or 10 gal header tank. I have seen very few with the 20 gal header although I'm sure they exist.

Regarding the Meridians, it also appears as though nearly all have had the GW increase option done. I was unaware that some do not have the option to have that increased done. Can you shed any light on that Charles?

The Jetprop is really a 600nm plane. Looking at controller today there were 3 that had empty weights listed. Their full fuel payloads were 112, 185 & 285. So really a one person plane if you're going 1000nm. The one that came it at 285 was listing a "light weight option"... what is this and can any aircraft get it!

Doug

I don't recall the details - My hazy memory is that the GW involved VG's and maybe some other stuff. Wasn't just paper. Not sure if/how and at what price it remains available.

2001 models were delivered at the original weight and had to be retrofitted at owner expense - not everyone did
2002 models - factory refitted most but not all before delivery, most of the rest retrofitted but not all
2003 and on - higher GW from factory.

To expand a bit...e.g. the 185 full fuel plane - if loaded with 800 lbs of people and stuff - can take on no more than 58 gallons of Jet-A. That plane is a -35, so really it is ~ 100 minutes to empty tanks after t/o. If you have a long taxi, or a long hold

RAS

Had a great experience flying a jet prop this summer in Europe. As mentioned in previous posts, the book weights and flying realities are very different. We flew from Grenada Spain with five on board back to London in mid July in just Over three hours. We had full fuel and plenty to spare back in London. The plane flew beautifully. The only noticeable difference was our reduced rate of climb with five on board. With two on board the plane climbs like a rocket.

Amazing machines. I currently fly a Malibu but plan to upgrade to the JP at some point.

I'm sure they do just fine... until they don't. Seems reasonable that an insurance company would not pay out when they find you were significantly over gross. I could also see the estate of the other people who died coming after the pilots estate.

Am I the only one who worries about this stuff?

Doug

I would just dispute that the Meridian is a piston conversion. Piper looked at doing that basically bolting on a PT6 to a Mirage, and per communication with some of their engineers, they did not feel it was robust enough. The Jetprop is a piston conversion. There are almost no interchangeable parts on a Mirage and a Meridian. The empty weight of a Meridian is 330 lbs more than a comparably equipped Mirage in spite of the engine core weighing 300 lbs less. So that 500+ lbs is all structure. Everything is beefed up. The deice system is clean sheet and more robust as are almost all the other systems. Fully loaded it weighs 1000 lbs more than the Jetprop or early Mirage and has a higher Vmo and Vno than the JP and Mirage. The Jetprop is nice for the right mission, and quite a performer, but it is not as robustly built as the Meridian.

I guess, for the history buffs that the TBM was also a piston conversion. The airframe is based on the Mooney 301 airframe that never really took off. When Mooney fell on hard financial times the airframe was sold to a couple of gents and it formed the basis of the TBM 700 that we all know and love.

I'm sure they do just fine... until they don't. Seems reasonable that an insurance company would not pay out when they find you were significantly over gross. I could also see the estate of the other people who died coming after the pilots estate.

Am I the only one who worries about this stuff?

I don't know all the specifics, but the JetProp was a solution for a problem that I believe was a gross weight issue with European airspace. The JetProp met all the needs to stay under a certain gross weight so that user fees could be avoided. It just so happened to catch on in the rest of the market.

Well engineered, well executed in the conversion. In terms of quality, Rocket products are very respectable.

If your mission profile fits in the 80% capability column of the JetProp, and you like what the airplane is and can do, I don't think you'll be disappointed with it.

The market and the laws of physics have spoken. They sell just fine; they fly just fine; they rarely take off under gross.

Legal? No. Smart? Probably not. Causing problems? Nope.

NB - there’s a wide variation in JP useful load based on aiframe year. Earlier ones have full fuel useful of 300-400 lbs. they’re not all 50lbs

Sounds like the newer King Air 200s...

I looked at 07-08 Meridians but needed more useful load.
TBM 700A not quite justifiable so my choice for now is
Aerostar 702P

Departed Friday on a 600nm trip into about 30knot headwind.
235 gallons plus 700 pounds

Still about 70 pounds under gross...my useful load is 2127 with five seats (weighted after winglets installed) I currently have only 4 seats installed.

two twin turbo 350hp tractor engines do vibrate a bit more than one smooth turbine....

one day....maybe...M600 or TBM850

Aerostar 702P is not settling too much though....so i keep telling myself

Pardon the interruption...carry on

Here is a range payload graph for the Meridian, I think this is IFR no alternate range. I think RP graphs are a pretty good way to reflect versatility and utility. You can see that you can carry a lot, or go pretty far in a Meridian, versatile, but you do compromise at the extremes.

I’d be curious to see an “average available payload without pre-planning fuel load on the last flight” graph

Ie - if you generally land with 3 hours to dry tanks, what can you then load for an hour flight

The “well, i need to add -30 gallons” situation is what annoys people most