T28 wrote:
a plane that can do holds and fit with other traffic when dead-stick would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Haha, you are never sure, a fast and high B747 may marginally fit the bill dead-stick procedure with hold, approach and landing 
Lord Kelvin who is one of the father of thermodynamics said in 1895 “I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.”, he was also super confident that science did come to an end under his watch, just obscured by two tiny clouds, the “clouds” to which Kelvin was referring were:
- The inability to detect the luminous ether (failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment and gave birth to Relativity)
- The black body radiation effect (known as the ultraviolet catastrophe and gave birth to Quantum Physics)
https://www.xaprb.com/blog/flight-is-impossible/
https://www.thoughtco.com/kelvins-clouds-speech-2699230
Heavier than air flying machines don’t fly very long without a source of energy, in that Lord Kevin was extremely right.
But I like how you invoke his scientific authority to deflect from your being wrong.
Yes I am wrong on that one !
There is always a case or two where someone will get it really wrong doing generalisations, for instance, people land gliders dead-stick while fitting with other circuit traffic into pretty big airports on their way when they run out of height without making explicit MAYDAY calls (but for motor-gliders the common practice is to treat engine off as serious emergency to avoid ATC confusion)
Since the P210 has been mentioned in this debate I thought it would be appropriate to add the third musketeer: Extra 400.
Here‘s my take, after 5 years and 600 hours of a costly but incredibly rewarding ownership experience.
- the Extra 400 is much more of a pilot‘s plane than the PA46 – I do not have experience in the P210 to compare.
- the cockpit, once upgraded to 2020 standards is a dream come true. Roomy, comfortable, with excellent visibility for a pressurized cruiser.
- the cabin needs a makeover, but the fundamentals are great, so it is really up to you.
- air conditioning is very primitive ( but works) and heating is a joke. Mine has seat heating added , which saves the show, but in retrospect I should have had the cabin climate control redesigned, even at the cost of a major mod effort. The plane deserves an automobile-style climate control and its i beyond me how such a crude system made its way in a $1 million aircraft back in 2000.
- the engine is amazing, but a mixed bag – with some random issues caused by manufacturing quality and/or incorrect maintenance and operations. Mine does not overheat, all compressions are good, 600 hours after a top overhaul, although:
- I did have 2 engine out events at altitude, one attributed to faulty maintenance (turbo hose disconnect) and one to pilot error ( probable air filter icing in blue skies incorrectly diagnosed as a bis of the previous event). I declared a panpan in both cases which was enough to get full ATC support. I recall a beautiful landing in formation with 3 fire trucks in Clermont Ferrand. Zero paperwork and cost.
- I also had an engine fire (!) but I am only mentioning this for the story to be complete – this is what happens when you own an aircraft that is essentially still a prototype. I was very angry with my German maintenance shop when they told me they knew about the issue after I reported it- their attitude was that they had no duty warning their customers about possible hazards. Easy fix as it turned out.
(PS : I don‘t care about protecting the type‘s reputation, quite the opposite, I think that would be owners must know and only get on board if the challenge is within their capabilities. I also refuse to be held hostage by maintenance companies who fail me.)
- Performance is really good, but subject to the aircraft‘s health condition. Climb rate at MTOW is 1000 fpm, with CHTs around 260-270 F.
Cruise speed is a tad faster than the PA46 on same fuel burn and if you like to play airliner, the Extra 400‘s carbon fiber airframe will happily do 190 KIAS, up to 260 KTAS on an IFR arrival. The all carbon airframe shows no sign of stress and passengers only notice the deck angle.
- The climb and descent performance are game changers: I routinely plan FL200+ under favorable conditions. And whenever unexpected weather gets in the way, climbing from say FL 200 to 250 is a 6-7 minute job. Cabin altitude is 8000 ft at FL250
- I never tried taking it to a grass field and I like to see 800 m of horizontal runway for a MTOW take-off.
- brakes and wheels are undersized in my opinion,
- Useful load is insufficient and unusable fuel is an outrageous 64 L , adding to the issue.
Extra 400s were made between 1997 and 2003, 20 year old systems develop issues, much more so if it‘s a hangar queen.
Preemptive overhaul and systematic replacement has paid off in my case.
Don‘t get an Extra 400 if you think it‘s a bargain.
After all of the costly work upfront, I am still budgeting 25 AMU per year for maintenance including unexpected events and more overhauls.
Chasing spares is a challenge, and your shop will need help. We have an informal user group on whatsapp to share experience.
Having the aircraft N-reg is key to keeping it airworthy. The FAA accommodates so called „owner produced parts“ which makes it possible to manufacture one-off replacements for anything as long as the owner is involved and the part us an exact copy.
All in all a great alternative to the PA46, but only for the techie pilot.
This is no Cirrus… enough hangar queens show what happens if you hand it over to a maintenance shop and say „make it work“. I even know of one plane that was donated to a charity by a desperate owner…
Flyingfish wrote:
Since the P210 has been mentioned in this debate I thought it would be appropriate to add the third musketeer: Extra 400.
Yes, when I consider PA46 the only plane in its class then your right its not totally correct with both the P210 and Extra400 made for same mission profile. But to get involved in these two planes I would consider a different story – this assumption (I have not owned or flown any of the three planes) is based on their production history. The P210 was produced some years around 1980s and Extra400 has seen only been produced in small numbers (27 according to Wiki) with a quite a bit of the fleet written off. So if one is looking for something up to date in this category airplane unfortunatly the PA46 is the only thing that is left. Because of this I wonder why Diamond did not go the extra length to pressurize the DA50 as first thing. Its more costly yes, but because of the lacking pressurization I would never consider it as a replacement for my TB21. I believe many SR22 and other turbo piston owners would think the same.
THY wrote:
Because of this I wonder why Diamond did not go the extra length to pressurize the DA50 as first thing. Its more costly yes, but because of the lacking pressurization I would never consider it as a replacement for my TB21. I believe many SR22 and other turbo piston owners would think the same.
+1
in SEP-land, this single fact ( even disregarding payload) makes a 40YO P210 a much more useful aircraft for travel than new SR22’s or DA50 , with similar performance at same altitudes at similar fuel flows. Since you will usually be flying higher on the pressurized one, performance will usually be better for same fuel flow.
So if you are in for a new aircraft in the category, as the OP states, a PA46 is the only option.
THY wrote:
Yes, when I consider PA46 the only plane in its class then your right its not totally correct with both the P210 and Extra400 made for same mission profile
Thanks @Flyingfish for the excellent summary.
In terms of ownership mindset, it is never a great idea to treat your airplane like a car: ie drop it at the shop, come back when fixed, pay the bill and go.
However I understand not all people are as mechanically inclined, capable or interested as @ Flyingfish or myself so they may not have an option.
From that point of view, if we are to categorize these three aircraft, no doubt PA-46 /M350 is the clear leader, Extra400 is the worst and P210 is in the middle.
N reg used to be quasi-essential from this point of view. Now we have the ELA2 alternative, but I am still remaining N-reg. @Flyingfish, would the EA400 not qualify for ELA2?
THY wrote:
I believe many SR22 and other turbo piston owners would think the same.
yes :-)
Frankly I don’t believe the PA46 can be called a “drop and pick up” airplane either, if only because not all shops know enough about it to maintain it acceptably, and the owner needs to know enough to tell the difference. But it’s in production, has many more flying airframes (even if it’s a small number compared with the SR22) which makes it reasonably attractive for new equipment STCs.
If I had a hangar where maintenance was allowed, I would have a Jetprop now. Or a TBM, as a syndicate of 2 or 3. I have no interest in flying a plane to some far away place to get it maintained; that is a recipe for tearing one’s hair out.
