The way we run our plane, is we rarely tanker fuel (more fuel than you need just robs performance and efficiency). We always leave the plane defueled for the next flight. The fuel gauges are accurate pretty much to the pound, so we can very accurately load the fuel for the trip. Right now our plane, I think, has 268 lbs of fuel in it, so that leaves over a ton, 2072 lbs, that I can mix any way I want with payload and fuel on the next flight

If you had to do a go around, fly 50nm at 4000 ft, hold 10 minutes and do an approach on 268 lbs, how much would you land with? And would that landing be on an airport?

Setting aside the m600’s ample payload, reasonable flight planning for a meridian could easily have a pilot landing with 750lbs of fuel. What does that offer?

750lb will give you 3 hours of bumming around at 5000ft at 500 ft lb and about 150knot true airspeed. 268lb will give you an hour to play with with one missed back to 5000 if you pull back to 500ftlb. Meridian is a good 600nm low IFR aircraft or 850nm VFR at destination aircraft. At 600nm you've got two hours of reduced power fuel left to sort the weather out if you stay low.

Chuck,
not sure I agree with your comment that the Jetprop is not a robustly built as the meridian and this may be somewhat misleading to some; I train with someone (you know him also) on the design team of of initial PA46 that would support my comment. The jetprop is simply a Malibu or a Mirage airframe, the JP flight envelop is the same as these two airframes. The Mirage, Malibu, and Meridian were all certified to the required standards at the time. Just because something is heavier does not mean it is more robust. +500 Lb to go 6-8 knots faster that the Jetprop says a lot about efficiency. The JP has as not to exceed speed of 172KTS which is the top of the green on the Mirage/Malibu.

There is a lot of beefed up structure on the Meridian. For one, the monocoque construction strength of the wings is dependent on skin thickness. The outboard skin thickness of the Malibu, Mirage, and JP is 0.032 inches. On the Meridian the wing skins are 0.040. You don't want to know what they are on the M600 There is also more metal in the tail section, and the empennage is 33% larger, among others. The gear is heavier, and the electrical system is far more robust. There are almost no interchangeable parts on a Meridian and a Mirage. Even the pax windows have different stock numbers. Vmo in a turbine is more similar to Vno in a piston (top of the green arc). Not Vne. A turbine has to meet gust loads at Vmo which means that the Meridian has to be able to take a certified gust load at 188 KIAS, plus a 50% engineering buffer. That is somewhat similar to Vno in a piston. So the Meridian is certified to be able to handle higher normal operating speeds than the JP or piston. There have been several JP in flight failures, even though the Meridian flies faster, it has not been plagued with structural failures. Neither plane should fail if flown in the envelope, but the envelope (weight/altitude/speed) of the JP is smaller.

I have no experience with the jetprop, but have put about 120 hours in my Meridian since picking it up in April. I sold my '76 A36 in July and couldn't be happier. I love the A36, but there's no comparison.

I worked with a broker/trainer that was an expert on both the jetprop and Meridian with literally thousands of hours in each. He very clearly laid out the pros and cons of both. Being a lower time pilot I went with safety over a cheaper operating cost. But that was strictly my risk profile based on my mission of working/playing during the day and flying in the evening.

Anything under around 700nm I have a pretty good chance to make non-stop. Anything over that and I usually expect to break for the head, food and fuel.

My only disappointment is how much TAS you lose for every 1000 ft drop in altitude below FL280. You pay such a penalty for staying down low the flight profile almost always says go high regardless of the headwinds.

Other than that I love it.

I fly a -21 JP. As most have said spectacular performance at reasonable fuel burns.

Useful load is the Achilles heel. My plane with full fuel has a UL of 189lbs.

Fuel capacity is 151 gallons. If you leave the tips dry you have 131 gallons which gives you around 300 lbs of UL on most planes. That gives you about 3 hours of flight time or, give or take, around 700nm no wind range. If your normal mission is you and one passenger its a great plane.

If your mission is longer doing a fuel stop is not that big of a deal. Stay high till your close, come down fast, refuel and be back to altitude in under an hour.

I have been told that when Rocket was doing the certification work on the JP the flights were all done at 400 lbs over the Malibu / Mirage gross weight limit. When Piper found out they put a ton of pressure on the FAA to not allow the GW increase. Piper prevailed and the JP keep the original GW.

Rocket has an STC for a GW increase pending with the FAA. It should be noted the request has been pending for years and most pundits say it will never be granted.

I loved my Bonanza and Baron but there is absolutely no comparison to operating a pressurized turbine. The JP is not for everyone but if your mission profile is not passenger intensive then you can't go wrong.

As one who flies long trips in my turboprop, this is a bit optimistic. Fuel stops tend to take more time than that, I would say an hour on the ground is not unusual and 45 mins decent. Half hour on the ground would be amazing. An hour for descent/approach/land/taxi/shutdown/fuel/startup/taxi/takeoff/climb would be a record for me. Just doesn’t happen.

If you have a long range mission, get a plane with good range.

Jetprop has a simpler startup procedure and only takes on 100 gals in two tanks with no ladders. I bet it could quick turn 10-15 minutes faster than an mu2

Won’t disagree Jon. Most of my long flights allow use of non metropolitan airports which allows for pretty quick turns. I could spend another $1.5 million and get a TBM 850 and do the trip non stop but choose to keep that money in my pocket and occasionally be inconvenienced by having to make an enroute fuel stop. Im sure others would choose otherwise.

I like the option to go non-stop if weather or time dictates, but sometimes some of the fun of flying GA are the stops along the way. Stopping in a pressurized turbine is much less stress than one would expect using piston think. The Meridian and JP can normally descend at 2000 fpm, and climb back up around 1500 fpm into the flight levels without ever worrying about stressing or shock cooling the engines. The turbine always starts whether it is cold, warm or hot every single time so none of that vapor lock stuff to worry about at fuel stops. They are both great buys, and are the most efficient of the cross country turbines.

The physical act of fueling is rarely the holdup. It’s almost always getting the truck rolling, or waiting for the previous plane to finish, or finding the second line guy, or.... etc. I do agree the MU2 strongpoint is not ease of fueling though.

I almost signed as a partner on a jet prop based in Germany
the range was as described here, the seat was inadequate (I am 6 6) could not fit at all so I went the experimental way. The evo with the higher weight increase can carry now 4 full size adults, 250 pounds and 170 gal/ fuel for 1400 nm range at 270 kts average
with deicers
I don't see anything coming close to that on the certified market
and that is burning 28 gallons /hr
maybe is time to reconsider experimentals.

Is the Evo insurable?

What about a B36TC Rocket conversion?? SETP, but non pressure. Depends on your mission i guess.