Hey, this was a fun thread to find on a Friday night!

I haven’t been spending much time on BT lately (shame on me). But not long after Charles flew N736WA with Elise, I ended up buying it from her! What a fantastic airplane. We’ve been flying the wings off of it, as one does with a new airplane.

Charles, thank you for reviewing the Fury so thoroughly and so eloquently. This thread is probably the best M700 resource available anywhere.

Silly me, forgot the forum rules. This thread is worthless without pics.

David,

Love to have you share your flying impressions, your performance, etc. Be great to know.

Around 3400'. Here's a calculator that you can play with... 5.5 PSI diff.

https://www.avionictools.com/presscalc.php

Cabin altitude at 17,500 is a non-issue on a P46T. Somewhere between sea-level and 4000, what difference does it really make?

I would be much more concerned about fuel burn at that altitude. This mission for this airplane, or any turbine for that matter, is "climb as high as you can, as fast as you can, and stay there as long as you can".

Cabin altitude at 17,500 is a non-issue on a P46T. Somewhere between sea-level and 4000, what difference does it really make?

I would be much more concerned about fuel burn at that altitude. This mission for this airplane, or any turbine for that matter, is "climb as high as you can, as fast as you can, and stay there as long as you can".

You’re talking less than a hundred pound penalty, on a 500nm leg, flying VFR in the Meridian. That’s peanuts in the turbine world.

Also, VFR if possible, especially in the northeast. Much shorter trip lengths and hassles.

Here is 17,500 feet VFR. 261 KTAS at 345 pph. That would give you over 1000 nm range with reserves. Pretty good performance down low. In the thick air, even pulling back the power lever a little gives much more range. Up to 20% more if you pull back to piston speeds. But why not fly it side open

Edit: Forgot this was an M700 thread. These are M600 data. The M700 can do even better than this.

great review, Piper is really doing some great things! I enjoyed flying the m600

Not to derail the thread... isn't torque measured in LB/FT and NOT FT/LB?
Please be kind, I'm a piston guy, but was looking at the photo and wondering...

I think you are technically correct. Although in the mortal world, I think the terms are used interchangeably. Kind of like aerobatic versus acrobatic.

Perhaps, but this was corrected in the automotive world perhaps a decade ago. Even Wikipedia (not without flaws) points out the terms are not the same.
Point is: shouldn't this be understood and corrected by now?
Like they say: "If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. Details are everything"

Technically wrong but P&W still refers to it as Ft/Lb

From an Engineering/physics/mathematics perspective, it is
ft*lb or lb*ft (multiplication is commutative) as the "/" is a division symbol while "*" is the correct multiplication symbol.
Even further into the weeds would be to differentiate "lbf" from "lbm"...

Superior write-up, Charles !