BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Nov 2025, 02:31

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Nov 2025, 04:15

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

Attachment:

IMG_6640.jpeg

Attachment:

IMG_6638.jpeg

Attachment:

IMG_6642.jpeg

Attachment:

IMG_6646.jpeg

Attachment:

IMG_6636.jpeg

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Nov 2025, 10:02

David,

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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Nov 2025, 10:50

Username Protected wrote:

Anyone know the cabin altitude for a Piper Fury/700 at 17,500 cruising altitude?

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

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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Nov 2025, 21:12

Username Protected wrote:

Yeah that’s assuming it’s linear, I read somewhere it doesn’t max dif unless you are at service ceiling…

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".

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 09:00

Username Protected wrote:

Yeah that’s assuming it’s linear, I read somewhere it doesn’t max dif unless you are at service ceiling…

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".

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Nov 2025, 11:58

Username Protected wrote:

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Nov 2025, 09:09

Username Protected wrote:

For shorter length legs, I find I pick altitude on speed and weather, and getting as high as possible has little advantage.

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

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Nov 2025, 10:15

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.

Attachment:

IMG_7992.jpeg

Piper M700 Pirep