Basic Med Compliant.

I have a friend that fell for that. He went to an event, got all excited and bought a new M600. (he sold the King Air we bought him because he couldn’t keep his medical)

When he told me all I could say is you should have called me first… call your insurance company, hope for the best but I don’t think it will go well.

His insurance company said “hell no.”

Maybe Piper has figured this out, but getting insurance on a $4M airplane as a pilot without a medical is a tall ask.

If it isn’t possible they need to take that out of their sales tool belt.

Insurance companies probably differ.

Here is the entirety of the text in my Piaggio policy requiring a medical. Doesn’t seem to shy away from BasicMed. Granted there are currently no legal operations in a Piaggio under BasicMed, but their boilerplate sure looks to me like they would be ok with it if the law changes.

PILOTS: When in flight the aircraft will be piloted only by the following pilots, provided each has a valid pilot's certificate including a current and valid medical certificate appropriate for the flight and aircraft insured. The term Medical Certificate is defined as any valid First-Class, Second-Class, Third-Class, or BasicMed compliance. All medical certificates must be appropriate for the intended flight and in compliance with the FAA’s Codes of Federal Regulations. Pilots operating under BasicMed must be able to provide documentation that demonstrates complete compliance.

Can somebody tell me the difference between the -42 and the -52? Are they really different engines or is the -52 just a -42 with a higher temp limit?

They are totally different engines!

It's basically a -60A hot section and a -42 gear box.

Mine has exact same wording.

Yeesh. Fury.

Shorter time to climb may help range, too.

The problem with all these bigger-engined TPs is that they address the speed component with more power at higher altitudes but pressurization doesn't follow. KA360 being the (small) exception

Denali is making a good dig with a 7.5 psi cabin. A 6+ hour max range day doesn't seem so bad at 6100' with a big cabin to hang out in.

Yeah, that name: mind your consonants: an extra “r” kinda changes the tone :-)
-dan

What speed do you need to fly to get the big range number? Not sure anyone would fly it that way. Looks like a 300 knot 1,000nm airplane, which is fine for an airplane with no toilet.

What’s the cabin at FL300 and 5.5psi? We’re about 11,000 ft at FL350 at 6.3, which is not great. I live at 5,000 ft but I would consider 7.5 a meaningful improvement to comfort.

The Denali will sell well, although I was not impressed by the fit and finish of the interior at Oshkosh. Maybe it will improve for production. It was nowhere near as nice as the PC24 and seemed cheap in comparison. I know that’s apples and oranges but it almost felt like an aftermarket interior.

Marketing slogan: "Fly furiously in a Piper!"

Mike C.

Chat GPT tells me cabin alt at 30,000 ft is 11,700 ft.

About a 1000 feet off. About 10,700. I usually use the RVSM only for crossing lines of severe weather, and then descend on the other side. Amazing how often you can get glimpses of the towers at 30K where you are pure IMC below. Still a 100% radar operation, but something comforting about seeing blue when you have embedded cells.

If I had that much disposable cash lying around I’d buy one in a heart beat.

The Fury name doesn’t bother me a bit. I didn’t care for the paint job at all though. That I’d want changed.

I am certain that some engineer on here can compute how much the increase in speed should be with 100 more HP.

Assuming no changes in aerodynamic drag, you would expect the speed percentage change to be roughly the cube root of the horsepower percentage change. So -

Old speed x ((700/600)^1/3) = Old speed x 1.053 = New speed

About a 5% increase in speed from the horsepower change.

But they may have made other changes to reduce drag, which would be potentially more significant.