Perhaps a 7 blade prop and a new gearbox?

https://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/pro_new.htm

When did the Big Ass Fan company buy MT?

Love it!

What's up with 7 blades?!? Seems counter-intuitive to me. Does not a longer blade span mean higher efficiency? Lift to drag ratio should increase with aspect ratio. Obviously there are other factors at work such as prop diameter limits, noise, and max power that a blade can effectively dissipate. I wouldn't think power would be the limitation, though - there are plenty of large turbines driving few blades. Interesting, MT says on their website the 7 blade prop is designed for subsonic operation (duh), but at 400+knots! Somebody help my brain.

I imagine their is greater efficiency in increase the number of blades. I believe the prop diameter went down when they switched from 4 to 5 blades so that probably decreased the noise as well since the tips of the blade weren't moving as fast?

That is ridiculous.

Ground handlers screws up the 5 blades all the time on the TBMs, imagine 7.
The MT 5 blade on the TBM is shorter and also slower. The 5 blade Hartzell is the same lenght as the 4 blade and the same speed or 1-2 knots faster. It does climb faster and a little bit quiter in the cabin.

Those TPs are quiet with the existing 4 blades. It as nothing to do with sound.

Speed will have to be obtained from aerodynamics and changes to the wing, when it comes to speed you reach the point of diminishing returns when increasing the horsepower. Going from 200 to 220... no big deal... 280 to 300 big damn deal, just look at how much power increase Blackhawk uses to get the same B200 to go a little over twenty knots faster.

Speed is a funny thing, I'm not an engineer but it seems like the faster you go the more dynamic it becomes... 100 mph on the highway, not a big deal, 130 big difference, few production cars will do it. 150 mph I've seen on a motorcycle and can tell you the difference between 130 and 150 is huge... after that every mile per hour is noticeable and harder to obtain. When you look at the Top Fuel Funny Car world it took forever to break 300 mph... and they're using over 10,000 hp to do it.

Maybe there's someone on here that understands the physics and can explain it to us A- students.

Take some time to review this graph. This sums it up well.

The graph is used (in my world of factory automation) to show people how much money can be saved running centrifugal pumps or any type of fan using a variable frequency drive to adjust speed based on demand/requirements.

Many systems are sized for worst case conditions. It's not unusual to have way more flow than needed when a system is new, demand is light, and/or filters are clean. Just a 20% drop in speed is nearly a 50% drop in the power required.

Airplanes going thru the air are similar in behavior.

There's also something to be said about prop blade angle, too, but that's a longer discussion about which I know even less.

Drag is a square of speed. This tells you all you need to know.

Even if they made the pc12 hit 300kts, that would be the ad number. They don’t cruise around at the speeds in the ads. I love the plane but was surprised by how slow it is when I flew it. Flight aware supports this too before anyone posts about their pc12 ripping around at 280kts all day long.

Nothing wrong with the current airplane actually..........carried 8 peoples with 4 trunks (for camps), 4 kiteboards, 12 kites, 3 surfboards and a bunch of clothing non-stop from FL to Maine. Then back to NC and landed on a 3000ft /40ft wide strip.


and I'm agreeing with Sean......the bathroom is genius...……...I'll take back what I very first thought of it...……


Textron will bring the Denali, but people are going to be very, very leery of the engine......

True, but power required is a cube of speed. Pilatus claims 285 for the latest PC-12, with no airframe changes pushing that to 300, 5% faster, would require 16% more power. From the current 1,800 hp (thermodynamic) engine derated to 1,200 hp they'd need to go to a 2,100 thp engine derated to 1,400 hp. Big step.

and over 1,000 NM, that 15 kts saves you all of what... 13 minutes?

Can one of the owners give some real world cruise speed numbers that you see on a regular basis?

Yeah after getting the F%#$ around investing in new technology (Tamaracks) I’d be cautious too.

Lesson learnt.

Andrew

It's more than 15 knots as I never see 285 in my Pilatus. I get 275 in the winter. 265 in the summer.

I'm fine with 265 until I get myself into an 80 knot headwind. Getting 300+ TAS would really help the westbound in winter flying. All other missions 265-275 doesn't bother me at all.