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....
 
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....

That's why if you win the lottery, you'd need at least two airplanes. One for travel, and one for low and slow.
 
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.
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?
 
Max cruise speed 301 knots? Is this where you would run it typically?
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.
 
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....
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.

Yeah but...

1707316122892.png
 
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!
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
 
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
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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!
 
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!
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Had a couple of demo rides in the M700.

When my M600 was finished with its annual, in Boise. I had arranged for the service center to fly the M600 back to my home drome. better than that, they offered to pick me up in a brand new M700, and pick up my plane myself. That seemed like more fun. Had forgotten what a beast this plane was.

Remembering from my last time in an M700, I was ready for the crazy quick time to rotation on auto throttles. The ground roll was short. I didn’t measure it, but once the AT kicks in, it is gauges green, airspeed, alive, cross check, stay on center line and rotate. Happens about that fast, and you are gear up, flaps, up, and looking to not bust the initial altitude. The M700 has the shortest ground roll of any of the high performance cross country turboprops out there.

Like all the M700’s at least the ones that the demo pilot has flown, they all beat book performance, like the M600. We were over 300 knots true at FL240 and FL260, which is not the optimum performance altitudes, but still making the advertising numbers.

The fit and finish has continued to improve. My M600 is starting to look a little 'legacy" in comparison. but the handling is amazing. They changed the rudder from the M600, and it is so light on the rudder inputs even with the 783 ESHP pulling the 5000 lb as loaded airframe on take off. At our take off weight, we had more power to weight than a standard P51 Mustang. The lowest climb rate I saw going up to 25,000 feet was 2100 fpm, and I was not even climbing at Vy was mostly Vy+20 knots. The Vy climb attitude is frankly a little uncomfortably nose up, especially for passengers. And all you see is blue sky.

Coming into Boise, we broke off IFR and went over to a little valley to demonstrate some of the envelope protection. It is really impressive. first did the AP where I leveled off with insufficient power to fly, a common cause of loss of control in TP’s, and any aircraft really. Getting too slow. Unlike common ESP, it can drop the nose to preserve airspeed, but in the case of the M700, you don’t even lose altitude, because the autothrottles comes on and very gently (depending on how fast things are deteriorating) adds power to maintain a healthy margin over stall.

I think there are quite a few planes that do this on AP. But not sure how many do what we did next. I pretended I was an inattentive pilot, hand-flying, no automation, and did the stupid pilot trick of climbing without putting in sufficient power, which resulted in a fast rollback of speed, heading quickly towards stall. Autopilot off. Autothrottle off. The computer sees what is about to happen, and looking at the trend vector announced autothrotte, and before I can really even intervene, has added just the right amount of thrust to preserve the airspeed in the climb preventing the stall.

Quite a bird. Definitely one of Piper's most impressive aircraft in history.

Some random pics including showing 302 Knots true in level flight at 24,000 feet.

IMG_0661.jpegIMG_0663.jpegIMG_0664.jpegIMG_0704.jpegIMG_0672.jpegIMG_0660.jpegIMG_0684.jpeg
 
The M700 is a more docile plane to fly. It flies like a DA40 on serious steroids with that 43 foot wing, and giant Fowler flaps that brings the typical stall speed into the 50’s. Much cheaper to maintain, very few scheduled overhaul times, most things on condition like gear. More efficient. Over 1 mil cheaper to acquire. Which last time I checked, is a fair amount of money, but getting less so ;-). It is approved for grass gravel and dirt, with a higher prop clearance. Has a full time intertial separator, so does not lose engine performance in IMC or icing conditions like the sep in the TBM. Is 2-3 inches wider in the cabin, which makes a difference for some, esp in the back. But a little less tall in the cockpit, which matters for others. Tail is not as tall, so can fit in some hangars that have lower doors. A TBM won’t fit in my hangar due to tail height. So a lot of reasons to consider the Piper over the TBM. I think the Piper is safer, but both are good and safe planes if properly flown.
 
Here for counterpoints only... They're both very nice airplanes and I'd be happy with either one:

The M700 is a more docile plane to fly. It flies like a DA40 on serious steroids
TBM is also a very easy plane to fly.

with that 43 foot wing, and giant Fowler flaps that brings the typical stall speed into the 50’s.
TBM's got flaps so big it has spoilers in addition to ailerons... And a 42+-foot wing.

Much cheaper to maintain,
How so?

Has a full time intertial separator, so does not lose engine performance in IMC or icing conditions like the sep in the TBM.
I would say that you don't have the performance *gain* in clear air that the switchable inertial separator allows for. ;) And the much cooler temps that result as well.

That said, it certainly prevents you from making an expensive mistake by not turning it on when you need it.

Is 2-3 inches wider in the cabin, which makes a difference for some, esp in the back. But a little less tall in the cockpit, which matters for others.
TBM is taller. I'm tall AND wide, and I'm actually surprised the cabin of the M series is that close because the TBM feels a lot bigger to me.

Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 2.45.23 PM.png

I think the Piper is safer, but both are good and safe planes if properly flown.
What makes you think it's safer?

A few other points that make me prefer the TBM: First and foremost, the pilot door. I don't have to squeeze between the front seats (and the pax in them) to get to my seat. FWIW, this wasn't present on early 700s, became an option on later 700s and 850, and is standard on the 9x0s.

The TBM has a better downward view as the placement of the M series pilot's seat is over the wing while the TBM's is pretty much right at the leading edge.

And there's a few other things, like longer range, but both aircraft perform very well.
 
As a high wing guy, I'll admit that you low wing Piper guys have nice purses. :blowingkisses:
I kid I kid.

The prop on that thing is menacing, in a good way.
 
So, the TBM is faster (and better in some ways) but the M600/700 is also cheaper to acquire (assuming we’re talking a late model) and cheaper to operate (lower fuel burn, fewer mandated inspections).

TBM is likely “better”, but you’ll pay for it.

Note that IMO, M700 pricing is getting up there, maybe close to TBM money. Without more imorovements, Piper may be getting a bit ahead of their skis IMO.
 
There is definitely some overlap but still two different classes. A TBM is quite a bit bigger and more expensive. If the M600/700 flies anything like a Malibu it will be a sweet plane to fly. Aside from the power and comfort of the TBM I don't find it enjoyable to fly.
 
What makes you think it's safer?
Well, for the lack of anything else, data. The Piper M’s have had an enviable safety record. Specifically zero fatals in an M600 or M700. M denotes the Piper’s turbines that were delivered with full envelope, protection and automatic auto pilot engagement. those aircraft started around 2015. I think there’s only been one M500 fatal, and that was just a couple of weeks ago, and it looks like a suicide. But I’ve really rung out all of those aircraft, and tried to simulate a panicked out of control pilot trying to kill the aircraft. And when it’s had enough, it will announce the auto pilot is engaging, and return the aircraft to straight level flight. Couple that with a very reliable engine, very docile flight characteristics, ESP, full envelope, protection, very high levels of automation, redundant systems, and automatic auto throttle engagement to prevent stalls, really hard to kill it. I am sure someone will be successful one day, but it is not easy. The TBM’s have given up a lot of forgiving features to obtain performance. Performance and forgiving characteristics are sometimes diametrically opposed. The fatal record of the G1000 G3000 series TBM has not been good. Not a fault of the TBM’s, but those planes are less forgiving and just require more pilot.
 
Back
Top