Next Time Make Mine Pressurized

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
Inspired by the "Next Time Make Mine Turbo" thread, I wanted to ask you if there are any pressurized single-engine birds which are practical. By "practical," I mean don't need constant maintenance, don't cost $300k to get a good one, and similar.

I know Mr. Collins loves his P210, and it sure seems to be in good shape, but I also notice a lot of turbine conversions.

I like the Mirage, but I hear the engine rarely makes TBO, and there also have been a lot of accidents.

Is it too much to ask one turboed engine to pressurize (and often also de-ice) your airframe?
 
Actually, good thread, I'd love to hear more opinions on the mirage. I almost got one but got scared off by all the horror stories which seemed to be confirmed by the high insurance cost. I was advised not to make that my first plane (seemed like good advice). I really like them. I'd love to be pursuaded though! I've been in a couple of them.

The Piper Meridian seems to be about as cheap a single engine pressurized turbine as you can get, but the payload with a decent amount of fuel is quite low.
 
I looked around a lot before going to the P-baron years ago from my TN A-36. Just didn't like what I saw. The 210 will hold a lot and they seem to be available. I know several folks with them that are happy. Just didn't fit me. Guess I've had Beechcraft too long and for the flying I do, I wanted a twin.

Good luck.

Dave
 
Not a single, but the cheapest purchase price on a pressurized plane you're likely to find is a P337.
 
You can pick up a nice P210 for about 150k. Probably the least expensive pressurized aircraft to operate. They don't climb all that well but they have good cruise numbers
 
Go to the library and find the mystery section. Pick up any book by Stuart Woods and check in the back pages for his email address...he welcomes emails. He has owned a couple of turbocharged/turbine singles; ask him for his advice.

Bob Gardner
 
Well, you know what my choice is. You could buy a fairly up to date 84-85 Malibu for 200-250K today. I can even check it out for you. Stewart Woods had a Jetprop for a while. I couldn't give up the pressurization.
 
Kevin, I was tempted. I found a 1985 about that price range, that had the original gar-keyon hydraulics, though, and I couldn't find a fix for that. It had the original continetal 520 and reasonable (nonWaas) 430 etc...

But when it came to it, I liked having TWO....despite the fuel penalty.
 
I have a 4,800 hr 1985 Gar-kenyon Malibu. It also has the original TSIO520-BE engine. The GK hydraulics got a really bad name because it was misunderstood (like me). The 520 may be 7-10 kts slower than the 550, but the 550 will need more fuel for the extra speed. I've had the opportunity to work on all of the PA46 models and as a mechanic the 85 model is hard to beat.
 
A guy has STC'd a 550 for them. The reviews I have read have been favorable.

dell30rb said:
You can pick up a nice P210 for about 150k. Probably the least expensive pressurized aircraft to operate. They don't climb all that well but they have good cruise numbers
Click to expand...
 
kmead said:
Well, you know what my choice is. You could buy a fairly up to date 84-85 Malibu for 200-250K today. I can even check it out for you. Stewart Woods had a Jetprop for a while. I couldn't give up the pressurization.
Click to expand...

If you had a choice between the PA46-310 and PA46-350 which would you go for and why? What is the typical TBO that you see for each?
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I looked around a lot before going to the P-baron years ago from my TN A-36. Just didn't like what I saw. The 210 will hold a lot and they seem to be available. I know several folks with them that are happy. Just didn't fit me. Guess I've had Beechcraft too long and for the flying I do, I wanted a twin.

Good luck.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, I remember that. The P-Baron is such an incredible traveling machine.
 
kmead said:
Well, you know what my choice is. You could buy a fairly up to date 84-85 Malibu for 200-250K today. I can even check it out for you. Stewart Woods had a Jetprop for a while. I couldn't give up the pressurization.
Click to expand...

I'll bet. I'd always assumed once I've "tasted" pressurization, I could never go back. Of course, I'll need to earn a lot more money, and soon.
 
Lancair es-p. 200kts @ 15.6 GPH LOP, fixed gear, only mtce item in 660 hrs has been the tcm tsio-550e. Easy to fly. No fiki possible, tho

Isaac
Lancair ES-P N7842K
 
What amount would you advise a prospective owner to budget for care and feeding of such beast based on 150 hrs/yr for a six-year ownership period?

kmead said:
I have a 4,800 hr 1985 Gar-kenyon Malibu. It also has the original TSIO520-BE engine. The GK hydraulics got a really bad name because it was misunderstood (like me). The 520 may be 7-10 kts slower than the 550, but the 550 will need more fuel for the extra speed. I've had the opportunity to work on all of the PA46 models and as a mechanic the 85 model is hard to beat.
Click to expand...
 
Gubbins said:
If you had a choice between the PA46-310 and PA46-350 which would you go for and why? What is the typical TBO that you see for each?
Click to expand...


I will always favor a 310P (TCM powered) over the 350P. Once caught up, the 310Ps are cheaper to operate. Much lower fuel and oil consumption, cheaper engine parts and simple systems. A Mirage can get expensive real quick when the stall warn, windshield, or engine fails. The Mirage is a great aircraft, just expect to pay more in upkeep.

The recommended TBO is the same on both, 2000 hrs or 12 years whichever is first. Major overhaul time vary a lot, many are forced into early overhauls when a cam shaft fails or other metal issues. Expect a top overhaul in the areas of 700- 1000 hrs. It's my observation that the top end of a TSIO520 BE is the longest lasting.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
What amount would you advise a prospective owner to budget for care and feeding of such beast based on 150 hrs/yr for a six-year ownership period?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, my wife pays the bills.

Expect average annual costs of $12,000- $15,000. There is always something broken or some improvement needed. It seems that every 4 years you may see a higher costing annual.
 
The problem that exists with any piston pressurized single is that it's a lot of work on the (one) engine. That engine is:

- Powering the airplane (at a high power rating)
- Providing all the bleed air to the cabin (which makes the turbo(s) work harder)

Then...

- Harder working turbos lead to higher induction air temperatures into the engine
- Higher induction air temperatures mean more heat in the engine and lower efficiency, which leads to faster wear

All this leads to poor engine reliability. Bruce and correct me, but I believe he mentioned that Malibus have the highest engine failure rate of an piston aircraft. That should tell you something. I don't think that the Lycoming variant offers any advantage over the Continental, other than you have a bit of extra power.

Even though you do have decent fuel efficiency from a pressurized single, your climb rate is lackluster so it will take you a while to get to the altitudes where you'll be able to make full use of the pressurization. This means it's only truly beneficial on long trips. And now you're paying the extra cost of maintaining pressurization. Plus, oxygen really isn't that bad.

My friends know that my dream is a 421, followed closely by a RAM 340. Given the length of trips we do, we would actually be able to benefit from the turbos and pressurization. If funding was unlimited, then of course we'd go for one. It's not, and although there would be a benefit, we really need a crew door for what we spend a lot of our flight time doing. The 310 makes a great compromise. And, like Bruce, I very much appreciate having two. This appreciation goes further at night over water or hostile terrain.
 
kmead said:
I will always favor a 310P (TCM powered) over the 350P. Once caught up, the 310Ps are cheaper to operate. Much lower fuel and oil consumption, cheaper engine parts and simple systems. A Mirage can get expensive real quick when the stall warn, windshield, or engine fails. The Mirage is a great aircraft, just expect to pay more in upkeep.

The recommended TBO is the same on both, 2000 hrs or 12 years whichever is first. Major overhaul time vary a lot, many are forced into early overhauls when a cam shaft fails or other metal issues. Expect a top overhaul in the areas of 700- 1000 hrs. It's my observation that the top end of a TSIO520 BE is the longest lasting.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I've heard the same from others I've spoken to so it is good to get validation from someone who obviously knows a lot about them.

If I ever do decide to get one, I will definitely contact you to help me check it out. What are your opinions on the meridian?
 
We were belatedly told (after the crank failed at FL250 with 1,300 hours in service) that the factory-recommended LOP power settings on our '87 model were not appropriate. What settings do you suggest to prolong engine life?

We found the cockpit controls and construction to be cheesy at best. Knobs and levers were of less quality than those on my Toyota Tercel. Have mods or upgrades been developed to improve that junk?

kmead said:
I will always favor a 310P (TCM powered) over the 350P. Once caught up, the 310Ps are cheaper to operate. Much lower fuel and oil consumption, cheaper engine parts and simple systems. A Mirage can get expensive real quick when the stall warn, windshield, or engine fails. The Mirage is a great aircraft, just expect to pay more in upkeep.

The recommended TBO is the same on both, 2000 hrs or 12 years whichever is first. Major overhaul time vary a lot, many are forced into early overhauls when a cam shaft fails or other metal issues. Expect a top overhaul in the areas of 700- 1000 hrs. It's my observation that the top end of a TSIO520 BE is the longest lasting.
Click to expand...
 
Gubbins said:
Thank you, I've heard the same from others I've spoken to so it is good to get validation from someone who obviously knows a lot about them.

If I ever do decide to get one, I will definitely contact you to help me check it out. What are your opinions on the meridian?
Click to expand...

Oh please don't ask me that one. My wife would always choose a Jetprop first. I like the simplicity of a Jetprop, but I do like the fit and finish of the Meridian. Sales of the early Meridians has really picked up with availability of the dual G500 panels and Cutter's new full Garmin panel.
 
wabower said:
We were belatedly told (after the crank failed at FL250 with 1,300 hours in service) that the factory-recommended LOP power settings on our '87 model were not appropriate. What settings do you suggest to prolong engine life?
Click to expand...

In my experience, the higher-powered turbocharged engines (classified as 300+ HP) are typically best served by operating at 65% power, ROP or LOP. The reason is that, even if your CHTs and EGTs are reasonable, the peak cylinder pressures that exist at the higher power settings end up being high enough to wear out parts. This manifests itself in various ways from crankshafts exploding to needing frequent top overhauls (although the crankshafts have improved on both Lycoming and Continentals, and Continental has improved their crankcases significantly from the years of the earlier Malibus).

I'd probably gravitate towards something 2300 RPM, 30", LOP.

It's worth noting that twins have this issue as well as singles. The difference (as I noted before) is that twins have two engines to feed the cabin pressurization, which does seem to impact load on the engines. Manufacturers have always come up with fairly ludicrous power recommendations to get speed numbers that people want. Operators can then choose to accept those (like the many 421 operators out there who operate at 32.5-35" and 1800 RPM), or realize that the significantly lower cost per mile of operating at a lower power setting (both due to fuel burn and lower MX) can be worth it.

We found the cockpit controls and construction to be cheesy at best. Knobs and levers were of less quality than those on my Toyota Tercel. Have mods or upgrades been developed to improve that junk?
Click to expand...

I've been in two Malibus, an early 80s one (that rivaled a Renault Alliance for interior quality) and Andrew's Matrix back when it only had 150 hours on it, and before he turned it in for the funny-smelling variant. I found Andrew's Malibu to have worlds better fit and finish than the 80s one.
 
[What are your opinions on the meridian?[/QUOTE]

The Meridian is a great airplane. It is about as fast, efficient and inexpensive to operate as you can get in the turbine market. It carries a decent amount of passengers and stuff a reasonable distance, but it is realistically a 3 hour / 750 mile airplane.

The annual operating cost is comparable to the cost that I experienced when I owned older airframe twin engine aircraft. However, there are some big ticket items that can come up and bite the owner.

I agree with everyone that has weighed in: once you go pressurized, it is very tough to go back.

Good luck and have fun.

Abram
 
The big issue with any turbine is that the cost of repairs on turbines are big bucks. If you don't have to repair the turbine (which you normally don't) it's not a big deal. When you hot start the thing and blow out the back side, it will be expensive (figuring $50k minimum). Same for if you need a fuel controller ($75k on a TPE-331).
 
Any thoughts on difficulty flying the P210 verses the Malibu? About the same?
 
The M glides better, and more often. The M climbs better. Otherwise, both are typically busy high-perf singles with all the systems that create the workload. Both are much better airplanes with the whoosher rather than the popper.



spiderweb said:
Any thoughts on difficulty flying the P210 verses the Malibu? About the same?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The M glides better, and more often. The M climbs better. Otherwise, both are typically busy high-perf singles with all the systems that create the workload. Both are much better airplanes with the whoosher rather than the popper.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is scary. I would favor the M, because it has more width and more room in the back. But I enjoy getting places far more than gliding to a safe landing when the engine stops every other month.
 
spiderweb said:
Your first sentence is scary. I would favor the M, because it has more width and more room in the back. But I enjoy getting places far more than gliding to a safe landing when the engine stops every other month.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the P210 is known for having engine problems, as well. See my previous comments regarding pressurized piston singles. But the Malibu is far, far worse.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
To be fair, the P210 is known for having engine problems, as well. See my previous comments regarding pressurized piston singles. But the Malibu is far, far worse.
Click to expand...

But sexier. But I guess sexier isn't so sexy when you're gliding into a cornfield. . . .
 
Well, it wouldn't be the first time sexier was chosen over more sensible...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top