I didn't know Malibu's were this impressive.

midcap said:
That's me, sans the narrow part. lol

I am 6' tall with a 29" inseam
Click to expand...

I feel your pain, but a little less torso. 5' 11" with 31" inseam. And most jeans are either 30" or 32" and I'm stepping on the back of the cuffs at 32", and looking like I have high waters at 30". Annoying. Just finding jeans with my, ahem, round waist size but short legs, is entertaining in some brands. Ironically, the $9 WalMart jeans fit me "well enough" that I don't have to go shopping in the metrosexual aisle for "designer" jeans. LOL. And I'm a cheapskate anyway, so $9? I get most in 30" and a few in 32" for when I wear the cowboy boots. :)

StevieTimes said:
This post is a rabbit hole of Google.

Wasn't familiar with the Questair until recently, that plane is incredible. 240 knots!!! That's what I thought every plane would be doing by now when I was younger.
109002_800.jpg
Click to expand...

A hangar neighbor has been building one for years. I hope it eventually comes together for him. He used to own a very nice Mooney M-20C that was leased back to a club I was in, and I flew it on a number of trips.

They do have a statistically higher number of ground incidents and accidents, the gear is very narrow and unforgiving of lateral loads upon landing, and landing speed is fast... think "top heavy, narrow gear, and you'd better land it with all lateral motion canceled in a crosswind..."

A few people have balled them up very badly and hurt themselves with bad crosswind technique combined with the high landing speed. Or so I've heard.
 
Theboys said:
Don't know if your asking me, but I actually don't set anything aside for that. Not sure if you would believe cost of my last 3 annuals if I told you. But less than one annual on the Columbia I used to have. However if you add in the recurrent training that does add little more. Wish I could say I don't need the recurrent training, but I can tell you that on each one, I have learned some new trick i didn't know before and i fly the Malibu quite a lot.
Click to expand...

Yep..Sorry I tagged the wrong person I think.

Recurrent training IMO keeps you safe, which is priceless education.

So, it sounds like the Malibu air frame is a really well put together plane if your annuals aren't that bad.
 
midcap said:
So, it sounds like the Malibu air frame is a really well put together plane if your annuals aren't that bad.
Click to expand...

I was listening to LiveATC.net when they crashed that one at Oshkosh in 2015. Was impressed to hear that all 5 passengers walked away, and it's been on my radar ever since. The news of the cockpit is a bit concerning, though. I'm what one might call a "fully growed person". So it might be a little confining.

I got to have some time in a Gulstream G280 sim a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't believe how many contortions were required to get into that seat. I thought my Cherokee was tough to get into!
 
Frogs97 said:
I was listening to LiveATC.net when they crashed that one at Oshkosh in 2015. Was impressed to hear that all 5 passengers walked away, and it's been on my radar ever since. The news of the cockpit is a bit concerning, though. I'm what one might call a "fully growed person". So it might be a little confining.

I got to have some time in a Gulstream G280 sim a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't believe how many contortions were required to get into that seat. I thought my Cherokee was tough to get into!
Click to expand...

I wonder if they are going to have a Malibu at Sun N Fun to take a look at.

I imagine it can't be worse than a 172, and I do fine in that one.
 
The shop at my home airport bought a Malibu at a salvage auction, and managed to get it certified as airworthy again. It was a wing strike that damaged the secondary wing spar. Yes the plane has two of them apparently. A full length primary and a secondary that covers about 2/3 of the span. The shop owner had the guts to fly it damaged with a ferry permit, and said the plane flew just fine. That sounds like sturdy engineering to me.

The end of the story is the original owner, who bent the wing, ended up buying the plane back from the shop, at apparently a lower price than his insurance payout had been when the plane was considered totaled.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
The shop at my home airport bought a Malibu at a salvage auction, and managed to get it certified as airworthy again. It was a wing strike that damaged the secondary wing spar. Yes the plane has two of them apparently. A full length primary and a secondary that covers about 2/3 of the span. The shop owner had the guts to fly it damaged with a ferry permit, and said the plane flew just fine. That sounds like sturdy engineering to me.

The end of the story is the original owner, who bent the wing, ended up buying the plane back from the shop, at apparently a lower price than his insurance payout had been when the plane was considered totaled.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Damn...hell of an airframe.
 
I'm going to sun n fun so if they don't have one there you can come over to plant city and see mine and maybe go for little ride. Only 15 minutes from Lakeland Linder field.
 
Theboys said:
I'm going to sun n fun so if they don't have one there you can come over to plant city and see mine and maybe go for little ride. Only 15 minutes from Lakeland Linder field.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer.

I'll let you know if I can work it in the schedule, my schedule being how long the 3 year old can make it before he's had enough with the day. :D
 
midcap said:
I wonder if they are going to have a Malibu at Sun N Fun to take a look at.

I imagine it can't be worse than a 172, and I do fine in that one.
Click to expand...

MUCH more contortions to get in and out of. I can fit into and fly a 172. I can't get enough legroom to get my knees out of the way to get full yoke movement in the Malibu.
Best you try one on for size - I would probably own one instead of my Aztec if it wasn't for the fit problem.
 
midcap said:
@Rockymountain

if you don't mind me asking.

What's an annual for your Malibu normally run and do you set aside a per hour reserve for Mx?
Click to expand...

I have flown mostly new and usually in warranty PA46's, so my maintenance has been pretty predictable. Usually about 7000-8000/yr. Out of warranty and with increasing age certainly would have more variability. I would say an average yearly range is going to be around 10K-20K. The first couple of years of owning a used aircraft, might bring some surprises, if the previous owner deferred too much. A good pre-buy could save some money there. There are not too many crazy expensive things on a PA46, but the heated windscreen can run almost 30K installed if it burns out, the Conti's or Lyc's are typical big bore turbocharged engines with the typical issues of a high performance engine. Tops, exhaust, turbos. The planes are complex, FIKI, pressurized, turbocharged aircraft, with redundant systems you would expect in a flight-level machine, dual pitot static systems, Dual or triple ADC's and ADHRs, Radar, Auxillary heating units, standard AC... It all adds utility but also adds maintenance. To be fair, doesn't seem too bad when compared to pressurized piston twins and single engine turbines in the same relative utility category. A go almost anywhere, almost any time flight level machine.
 
Rockymountain said:
I have flown mostly new and usually in warranty PA46's, so my maintenance has been pretty predictable. Usually about 7000-8000/yr. Out of warranty and with increasing age certainly would have more variability. I would say an average yearly range is going to be around 10K-20K. The first couple of years of owning a used aircraft, might bring some surprises, if the previous owner deferred too much. A good pre-buy could save some money there. There are not too many crazy expensive things on a PA46, but the heated windscreen can run almost 30K installed if it burns out, the Conti's or Lyc's are typical big bore turbocharged engines with the typical issues of a high performance engine. Tops, exhaust, turbos. The planes are complex, FIKI, pressurized, turbocharged aircraft, with redundant systems you would expect in a flight-level machine, dual pitot static systems, Dual or triple ADC's and ADHRs, Radar, Auxillary heating units, standard AC... It all adds utility but also adds maintenance. To be fair, doesn't seem too bad when compared to pressurized piston twins and single engine turbines in the same relative utility category. A go almost anywhere, almost any time flight level machine.
Click to expand...

That's about what I figured. No where's near turbine costs.

While I am a long ways away in skill from owning a PA-46, that plane surely looks like it would be everything I ever needed in a plane. Plus, it will be used 99% for business so the costs of Mx if offset by taxes.
 
CApilot55 said:
Isn't that the idea of most if not all singles?
Click to expand...

Everyone has to decide for themselves. I went back and forth over the twin versus single debate. One of the problems with twins is that options for modern aircraft are really decreasing in the twin world, while competing singles are being cranked out of the factories. There are still some good twins being made, but the competing singles in that category generally outperform them in most ways. Cirrus versus DA42, Mirage versus DA62/Baron/Seneca, PC12 versus KA90/KA200. When you look at actual and not hypothetical engine failure data, there are a lot of twin drivers that auger in after engine failure, the data on the modern singles are pretty darn good comparatively. Everyone jumps on and says, well that twin driver that augered in must have been an idiot. Either there are a lot of idiots flying twins out there, or there is more to the story. I am reasonably conscientious, and fly a lot, but have come to the conclusion that as a conscientious part-time pilot, I am better off flying a single than a more complex comparable twin. I find twins fun to fly, but I don't ever feel safer in them. Instead of one snake trying to bite me, I have to worry about two snakes trying to do me in. ;)
 
Rockymountain said:
Cirrus versus DA42, Mirage versus DA62... When you look at actual and not hypothetical engine failure data, there are a lot of twin drivers that auger in after engine failure, the data on the modern singles are pretty darn good comparatively.
Click to expand...

Here's the NTSB database. Please find me a twin-engine Diamond fatal.
 
Rockymountain said:
...When you look at actual and not hypothetical engine failure data, there are a lot of twin drivers that auger in after engine failure, the data on the modern singles are pretty darn good comparatively. Everyone jumps on and says, well that twin driver that augered in must have been an idiot. Either there are a lot of idiots flying twins out there, or there is more to the story...
Click to expand...

There's more to the story. There are NO statistics kept of twin engine aircraft that experience an engine failure followed by an uneventful landing.
 
What do the insurance companies want to see for experience when stepping up to a Malibu? And more importantly, what would be a safe and reasonable transition for a pilot with a couple hundred hours in a Warrior?
 
Lando said:
...And more importantly, what would be a safe and reasonable transition for a pilot with a couple hundred hours in a Warrior?
Click to expand...

A Piper Arrow
 
midcap said:
While I am a long ways away in skill from owning a PA-46, that plane surely looks like it would be everything I ever needed in a plane. Plus, it will be used 99% for business so the costs of Mx if offset by taxes.
Click to expand...

I dont believe that the flying part doesn't require any particular skill. It's the decisionmaking part where pilots get in trouble. At 20k and 200kts you have many opportunities to fly yourself into weather you dont want to be in.
 
Lando said:
What do the insurance companies want to see for experience when stepping up to a Malibu? And more importantly, what would be a safe and reasonable transition for a pilot with a couple hundred hours in a Warrior?
Click to expand...

Contact Paul Sanchez on this board. While he seems to specialize on TBMs these days, he has done PA46 transition training and should have a good idea of insurers expectations.
 
My insurance company wasn't too strict other than initial training. I took my ifr in a warrior and think they fly about the same. Just slicker. However I had a Columbia before Malibu so wasn't anything unexpected. The ground steering was the hardest for me and I still don't like it much. Think my first year insurance was around 4000$. Maybe slightly more. I'm down around 3000 now. I would think the speed would be the biggest difference but, when you put gear down and one notch of flaps at 170 indicated you slow down way fast, like 40 to 50 kts indicated in about 10 seconds.
 
weilke said:
I dont believe that the flying part doesn't require any particular skill. It's the decisionmaking part where pilots get in trouble. At 20k and 200kts you have many opportunities to fly yourself into weather you dont want to be in.
Click to expand...

Which is how the Malibu got a bad rap early on. Pilots were using poor judgment and getting themselves into weather they shouldn't be in. Wings started separating, FAA started cracking down with BS restrictions in the belief there was a problem with the airframe. Tests proved the Malibu is pretty darn stout.
 
Velocity173 said:
Which is how the Malibu got a bad rap early on. Pilots were using poor judgment and getting themselves into weather they shouldn't be in. Wings started separating, FAA started cracking down with BS restrictions in the belief there was a problem with the airframe. Tests proved the Malibu is pretty darn stout.
Click to expand...

Like people were trying to outrun T storms or fly through them?
 
midcap said:
Like people were trying to outrun T storms or fly through them?
Click to expand...

Through them / between them at the top of the yellow arc. Rumors of auto pilot failure causing excessive pitch as well.
 
GRG55 said:
MUCH more contortions to get in and out of. I can fit into and fly a 172. I can't get enough legroom to get my knees out of the way to get full yoke movement in the Malibu. Best you try one on for size - I would probably own one instead of my Aztec if it wasn't for the fit problem.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. The Malibu cabin dimensions on spec is about the width & height of a SR22 - larger than either a 172 or Aztec.

Is the bad fit that people experience on the Malibu more about insufficient seat movement and having the doors behind you?
 
They aren't huge but I've had other six place airplanes that were smaller. Mainly it's crawling between seats and figuring out where your legs go to crawl in. Awkward many times. You get used to it though. I fly 5 or 6 hours frequently and I'm never sore other than my butt from sitting.
 
deonb said:
This is interesting. The Malibu cabin dimensions on spec is about the width & height of a SR22 - larger than either a 172 or Aztec.

Is the bad fit that people experience on the Malibu more about insufficient seat movement and having the doors behind you?
Click to expand...

The ingress and egress is completely different from an SR22, or any airplane with doors that allow direct entry to the front seats. Try getting into a Malbu and you'll see what all the commentary on this thread is about. For larger pilots it's a squeeze to get in, and still a squeeze once you are in. Do not understand what Piper was thinking given how much taller and heavier the overall population is compared to the 50s and 60s. My Cherokees had more room for the pilot than the Malibu does.

I notice Daher has introduced a pilots door on the TBM 900.
 
I took an IR student pilot up in the M500 today, has been flying a C172. Other than providing most of the control surface inputs on take off and landing, he flew the entire hour himself, much of it under the hood. He told me that it was easier to fly than a C172, so much more stable, with smoother and more authoritatice controls, although the 1800 fpm climb looking up at nothing but blue sky, and the 85 KIAS approach was a little eye opening for him. Point of the story, the PA46 is very easy to fly. Way more stable and forgiving than many smaller planes. But flying in the flight levels in a most weather aircraft, requires a different skill set which can take years and much formal training to hone.

That transition occurs in stages. The insurance company will want to know upfront that you can remember to put down the gear before you land. Keep ahead of multiple systems in a fast moving plane. So complex and retract time is going to help get insured. Without it, transition time (at least 10 hours flight plus ground school), dual time which may be an additional 10-20 hours with a CFII, and depending on experience, may require another 10-50 hours of mentor time (especially with the turbine variants) and maybe 10 more hours solo before carrying passengers. Can it be done quicker and are some insurance companies less stringent?... Sure. I don't think that quick and adequate are always the same.

The planes aren't hard to fly. Very few VFR fatals in these aircraft. The majority occur in people flying into conditions that they aren't trained and proficient for. So if you do move up, think of it as embarking on a learning journey. I have had one heck of a time traveling the country in my PA46 from Alaska to FL, LA to NY, everywhere in between. Truly a plane that you can pretty easily cross the country East or West in a single day.
 
Rockymountain said:
I took an IR student pilot up in the M500 today, has been flying a C172. Other than providing most of the control surface inputs on take off and landing, he flew the entire hour himself, much of it under the hood. He told me that it was easier to fly than a C172, so much more stable, with smoother and more authoritatice controls, although the 1800 fpm climb looking up at nothing but blue sky, and the 85 KIAS approach was a little eye opening for him. Point of the story, the PA46 is very easy to fly. Way more stable and forgiving than many smaller planes. But flying in the flight levels in a most weather aircraft, requires a different skill set which can take years and much formal training to hone.

That transition occurs in stages. The insurance company will want to know upfront that you can remember to put down the gear before you land. Keep ahead of multiple systems in a fast moving plane. So complex and retract time is going to help get insured. Without it, transition time (at least 10 hours flight plus ground school), dual time which may be an additional 10-20 hours with a CFII, and depending on experience, may require another 10-50 hours of mentor time (especially with the turbine variants) and maybe 10 more hours solo before carrying passengers. Can it be done quicker and are some insurance companies less stringent?... Sure. I don't think that quick and adequate are always the same.

The planes aren't hard to fly. Very few VFR fatals in these aircraft. The majority occur in people flying into conditions that they aren't trained and proficient for. So if you do move up, think of it as embarking on a learning journey. I have had one heck of a time traveling the country in my PA46 from Alaska to FL, LA to NY, everywhere in between. Truly a plane that you can pretty easily cross the country East or West in a single day.
Click to expand...

very good post....that's the plan..I am a big fan of learning to crawl before I can walk.
 
GRG55 said:
I notice Daher has introduced a pilots door on the TBM 900.
Click to expand...

More of a hatch. A hatch designed for skinny French pilots. It was an option on the 850.
 
deonb said:
This is interesting. The Malibu cabin dimensions on spec is about the width & height of a SR22 - larger than either a 172 or Aztec.

Is the bad fit that people experience on the Malibu more about insufficient seat movement and having the doors behind you?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think some if not most of these reports come from people that heard misinformation from someone that knowns someone that sat in a Malibu once and propagated the misinformation. Most cabin class aircraft require a technique to get into place, the Malibu is not unique there. I knew a guy that had ruled out a PA46 because he had heard how tight the cockpit was reported to be. He was 6'3. I had him come out and sit in my Meridian. He was puzzled, it was very comfortable. The cabin is 50 inches wide. That is a little over 2 inches wider than a TBM. He is now in a new M500 (Meridian). I can tell you that before the M2 mods, the Meridian has more cockpit room than a stock CJ1 or M2 up front. It feels absolutely cavernous compared to a C172 or Aztec. The later planes do have some modifications of the cabin and seats that increase room for big and tall pilots, they also have fold flat seats that help. Need to have the seats all the way back, all the way down, and reclined a little for really big pilots. A lot of people over 6 feet and over 200 lbs flying these planes, so in essence, I think people confuse the technique needed to get into place in any cabin class plane, CJ1, M2, PC12, TBM without the pilot door, with the size of the cockpit once in place.

Anyway, if you are really fluffy, want to make it easy, you can drop the seats and roll in. ;)

1 - 1 (26).jpg
 
Rockymountain said:
Honestly, I think some if not most of these reports come from people that heard misinformation from someone that knowns someone that sat in a Malibu once and propagated the misinformation. Most cabin class aircraft require a technique to get into place, the Malibu is not unique there. I knew a guy that had ruled out a PA46 because he had heard how tight the cockpit was reported to be. He was 6'3. I had him come out and sit in my Meridian. He was puzzled, it was very comfortable. The cabin is 50 inches wide. That is a little over 2 inches wider than a TBM. He is now in a new M500 (Meridian). I can tell you that before the M2 mods, the Meridian has more cockpit room than a stock CJ1 or M2 up front. It feels absolutely cavernous compared to a C172 or Aztec. The later planes do have some modifications of the cabin and seats that increase room for big and tall pilots, they also have fold flat seats that help. Need to have the seats all the way back, all the way down, and reclined a little for really big pilots. A lot of people over 6 feet and over 200 lbs flying these planes, so in essence, I think people confuse the technique needed to get into place in any cabin class plane, CJ1, M2, PC12, TBM without the pilot door, with the size of the cockpit once in place.

Anyway, if you are really fluffy, want to make it easy, you can drop the seats and roll in. ;)

View attachment 52190
Click to expand...

Even my big ass can get in there like that.:D
 
weilke said:
More of a hatch. A hatch designed for skinny French pilots. It was an option on the 850.
Click to expand...

If one is too fat to get through that door there's no way one is going to fit in the front seat either, French or otherwise.
 
Cherry picking numbers but not far off. The Malibu (not Mirage) has the Continental engine, and was designed for LOP operation (mainly because Piper cheaped out and opted against cowl flaps). Most pilots in the mid/late 80s didn't understand LOP, ran their engines contrary to design, with predictable consequences. That engine is quiet, smooth, and reliable, especially when paired with an MT 4 blade prop. Chad Menne has an STC for a very effective cooling mod which I think makes sense for any PA46 piston. The cabin is very comfortable for pax. My family loved it back there. The cockpit is snug though. I am 5'11, 200# and I had to squeeze in. Once there it is fine. My instructor for initial was 6'8" probably a good 275, and I still don't know how he squeezed into the right seat.
 
Looking up close at an Aerostar parked on the ramp, I stood there wondering how the hell you got up front.

The Malibu looks downright easy compared to that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top