Piper M700 Fury

When I see most any of those single-engine turboprops, my initial thought is that would be cool to own. Kind of one of those lottery-win daydreams for me....

But almost every time those daydreams never last long. My very next thought is almost always, I'm not so sure I'd want one...even if I could afford it...and even if I had the time to maintain the proficiency such a bird would demand.

Yeah, they'd be great for greatly increasing the travel radius..... getting away for the weekend means a lot more choices....

but that's sorta like flying an airliner, up so high and all....

I like flying in large part for the sake of flying. Watching things pass beneath the plane.... the lower and slower it is, the more fun it often is to me.... except there is a tradeoff because travel is the mission.

Even for a lottery win dream, there's a line there somewhere and I can't seem to figure out where. Low and slow Aeronca Champ vs something much faster and more capable of getting in places in weather....
 
Brad W said:
When I see most any of those single-engine turboprops, my initial thought is that would be cool to own. Kind of one of those lottery-win daydreams for me....

But almost every time those daydreams never last long. My very next thought is almost always, I'm not so sure I'd want one...even if I could afford it...and even if I had the time to maintain the proficiency such a bird would demand.

Yeah, they'd be great for greatly increasing the travel radius..... getting away for the weekend means a lot more choices....

but that's sorta like flying an airliner, up so high and all....

I like flying in large part for the sake of flying. Watching things pass beneath the plane.... the lower and slower it is, the more fun it often is to me.... except there is a tradeoff because travel is the mission.

Even for a lottery win dream, there's a line there somewhere and I can't seem to figure out where. Low and slow Aeronca Champ vs something much faster and more capable of getting in places in weather....
Click to expand...

That's why if you win the lottery, you'd need at least two airplanes. One for travel, and one for low and slow.
 
Brad W said:
When I see most any of those single-engine turboprops, my initial thought is that would be cool to own. Kind of one of those lottery-win daydreams for me....

But almost every time those daydreams never last long. My very next thought is almost always, I'm not so sure I'd want one...even if I could afford it...and even if I had the time to maintain the proficiency such a bird would demand.
Click to expand...
When I win the lottery I want to make sure it's a big enough pot that I can afford the turboprop... AND a pilot or two so I don't have to fly the thing myself. Like, fly me somewhere warmer (or cooler) where I've got one of the fun planes hangared.
 
I don't get it. The 600 has a standard UL of 2400lbs vs 2200lbs for the thirstier -52 in the 700. I would imagine the payload would be a bit less for an average 600mi trip. I think the 600 hit a sweet spot for speed vs UL.
 
The fuel capacity is exactly the same.

Allegedly, they kept MTOW at 6000 lbs so it could “qualify for basic med”, but that sounds a bit lame.

Literally the only difference seems to be +100 HP.
 
Max cruise speed 301 knots? Is this where you would run it typically?
 
PaulS said:
Max cruise speed 301 knots? Is this where you would run it typically?
Click to expand...
Depends who's paying for the fuel!

A plane like this is my lottery plane too. But I'd still have a small single piston for flying around locally and for fun. Once I thought about a fleet of four aircraft, Cessna 210 for local fun, light twin (B58? DA62?) for regional flights, a PC24 for long range, and an R66 to fly to my rural weekend/vacation home. Since being a pilot however, I've tempered my desires to a Cessna 210 or Mooney for local and medium range, and a single turboprop (like this) for everything else, and maybe still an R44 for my weekend home. Now that I'm in this world, I realize how hard the training, proficiency, and especially maintenance is to keep up with, and how complex and expensive some planes are to maintain.
 
Brad W said:
When I see most any of those single-engine turboprops, my initial thought is that would be cool to own. Kind of one of those lottery-win daydreams for me....

But almost every time those daydreams never last long. My very next thought is almost always, I'm not so sure I'd want one...even if I could afford it...and even if I had the time to maintain the proficiency such a bird would demand.

Yeah, they'd be great for greatly increasing the travel radius..... getting away for the weekend means a lot more choices....

but that's sorta like flying an airliner, up so high and all....

I like flying in large part for the sake of flying. Watching things pass beneath the plane.... the lower and slower it is, the more fun it often is to me.... except there is a tradeoff because travel is the mission.

Even for a lottery win dream, there's a line there somewhere and I can't seem to figure out where. Low and slow Aeronca Champ vs something much faster and more capable of getting in places in weather....
Click to expand...
No one says you HAVE to fly it in the Flight Levels. It'll fly at 2K AGL just fine. You may not like the range or fuel consumption at that altitude, but you're a rich lottery-winner and no longer care about fuel costs!
 
The AOPA video helping announce it spent a few minutes showing footage of Cubs and Cherokees, then announced a new multimillion-dollar incremental step above their existing top product. I was expecting something like an Archer with an IO-390 or similar yawn, but the M700 exceeded even my own boringest expectations.
 
Is it really worth 3.9 million just to have 5k feet higher ceiling, 150 more kts, and 1200 more useful load than the Comanche 250?
That breaks out to:
$26,000 per knot
$7,800 per foot of altitude
$3,250 per pound of useful load

I guess if you want to show off. I think I will spend my money elsewhere.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Is it really worth 3.9 million just to have 5k feet higher ceiling, 150 more kts, and 1200 more useful load than the Comanche 250?
That breaks out to:
$26,000 per knot
$7,800 per foot of altitude
$3,250 per pound of useful load

I guess if you want to show off. I think I will spend my money elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Baby steps. You have to upgrade to a Twinkie if you want to climb the Piper make-money-disappear hierarchy. After you make it to a Navajo, you'll be begging for Fury 700 operating costs, lol.
 
dans2992 said:
The fuel capacity is exactly the same.

Allegedly, they kept MTOW at 6000 lbs so it could “qualify for basic med”, but that sounds a bit lame.

Literally the only difference seems to be +100 HP.
Click to expand...
How could this possibly qualify for basic med? Even if you stayed out of the flight levels and throttled back it wouldn't qualify, correct?
 
FORANE said:
How could this possibly qualify for basic med? Even if you stayed out of the flight levels and throttled back it wouldn't qualify, correct?
Click to expand...
From the FAA's web page on Basic Med:

Aircraft Requirements​

  • Any aircraft authorized under federal law to carry not more than 6 occupants
  • Has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more than 6,000 pounds

Operating Requirements​

  • Carries not more than five passengers
  • Operates under VFR or IFR, within the United States, at or below 18,000 feet MSL, not exceeding 250 knots.
  • Flight not operated for compensation or hire

61.113 clarifies that 250 knots is an indicated airspeed. So, yeah, you can go pretty fast in some high-performance equipment as long as it's 6000 pounds or less.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Is it really worth 3.9 million just to have 5k feet higher ceiling, 150 more kts, and 1200 more useful load than the Comanche 250?
That breaks out to:
$26,000 per knot
$7,800 per foot of altitude
$3,250 per pound of useful load

I guess if you want to show off. I think I will spend my money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah but...

1707316122892.png
 
SoonerAviator said:
No one says you HAVE to fly it in the Flight Levels. It'll fly at 2K AGL just fine. You may not like the range or fuel consumption at that altitude, but you're a rich lottery-winner and no longer care about fuel costs!
Click to expand...
ha ha...yeah I have considered that every time I look at these, but then I remember something that occurred to me a long time ago. Every plane seems to have an attitude that starts feeling a little 'off'...a little too low. Probably a combination of speed, visibility, glide performance, landing distance....I'm not exactly sure how to quantify it but it's there.
I've gotta believe that number is on up there in any of these SE turboprops
 
Brad W said:
ha ha...yeah I have considered that every time I look at these, but then I remember something that occurred to me a long time ago. Every plane seems to have an attitude that starts feeling a little 'off'...a little too low. Probably a combination of speed, visibility, glide performance, landing distance....I'm not exactly sure how to quantify it but it's there.
I've gotta believe that number is on up there in any of these SE turboprops
Click to expand...
If you want a single-engine turboprop that does well down low, I suggest the Thrush. Great useful load and probably as fast and efficient at 5000 MSL as the M700.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Is it really worth 3.9 million just to have 5k feet higher ceiling, 150 more kts, and 1200 more useful load than the Comanche 250?
That breaks out to:
$26,000 per knot
$7,800 per foot of altitude
$3,250 per pound of useful load

I guess if you want to show off. I think I will spend my money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

For some that equates to $390,000. For others it is $39,000.00. Possibly another group $3,900.00. And then there is the $390 class... But lets not forget the serious "beep you" money echelon, where this could be no more than $39.00.
 
Brad W said:
ha ha...yeah I have considered that every time I look at these, but then I remember something that occurred to me a long time ago. Every plane seems to have an attitude that starts feeling a little 'off'...a little too low. Probably a combination of speed, visibility, glide performance, landing distance....I'm not exactly sure how to quantify it but it's there.
I've gotta believe that number is on up there in any of these SE turboprops
Click to expand...
I get it. Everyone or everything has something that they do well; something they are particularly fit to accomplish. Economists tell us that everyone should do whatever they are best at doing -- comparative advantage.

Engineering -- of aircraft, of houses, of anything -- is all about making tradeoffs. Its unavoidable.

The designers of this aircraft made certain tradeoffs to optimize performance for a particular mission. The marketing department doesn't say it our loud, but that mission may not be your mission. If this aircraft doesn't make sense to you, it probably does not fit your mission. You're better off find an aircraft that is fit for your mission -- I suppose you could also change your mission to fir the aircraft. If it IS intended for your mission, and the aircraft still doesn't make sense, it might just be a bad design idea.
 
DJTorrente said:
I get it. Everyone or everything has something that they do well; something they are particularly fit to accomplish. Economists tell us that everyone should do whatever they are best at doing -- comparative advantage.

Engineering -- of aircraft, of houses, of anything -- is all about making tradeoffs. Its unavoidable.

The designers of this aircraft made certain tradeoffs to optimize performance for a particular mission. The marketing department doesn't say it our loud, but that mission may not be your mission. If this aircraft doesn't make sense to you, it probably does not fit your mission. You're better off find an aircraft that is fit for your mission -- I suppose you could also change your mission to fir the aircraft. If it IS intended for your mission, and the aircraft still doesn't make sense, it might just be a bad design idea.
Click to expand...

I do kind of wonder why you'd pick the M700 over a TBM 850/930/960. Similar cost, similar payload/pax. TBM is 30kts faster. I'd guess that the avionics are similar-enough to be a wash.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I do kind of wonder why you'd pick the M700 over a TBM 850/930/960. Similar cost, similar payload/pax. TBM is 30kts faster. I'd guess that the avionics are similar-enough to be a wash.
Click to expand...
Piper is claiming $1m cheaper than the TBM..... I believe TBM costs have gone up as well.... also, the TBM has a decently higher fuel burn. Hell, you can buy a used Citation Mustang for less than half this price..... but don't look at the operating costs!
 
dans2992 said:
Piper is claiming $1m cheaper than the TBM..... I believe TBM costs have gone up as well.... also, the TBM has a decently higher fuel burn. Hell, you can buy a used Citation Mustang for less than half this price..... but don't look at the operating costs!
Click to expand...
I'm not privy to the actual sales prices for either, I just saw that they were in the mid $4MM range so it seemed like rounding error choosing the TBM. If there's $1MM difference then I can see there being a value proposition. The PC12 must be in the stratosphere now if the TBM has pushed well into the $5MM range.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I do kind of wonder why you'd pick the M700 over a TBM 850/930/960. Similar cost, similar payload/pax. TBM is 30kts faster. I'd guess that the avionics are similar-enough to be a wash.
Click to expand...
BasicMed. </sarcasm>
 
dans2992 said:
The fuel capacity is exactly the same.

Allegedly, they kept MTOW at 6000 lbs so it could “qualify for basic med”, but that sounds a bit lame.

Literally the only difference seems to be +100 HP.
Click to expand...
Handicapping the plane's payload / passenger abilities for the number of customers who will buy this specifically to fly BM seems silly. You can probably count that number of customers on your fingers and not even need your thumbs. I guess they'd also be "riding dirty" insurance wise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top