Saratoga vs. Malibu vs. ??

spiderweb said:
Right! I need to think of bags and cello entry and egress!
Click to expand...

Something to consider with this (as someone who loads big items into planes) is that you must also consider how you get to the front seats. I once put 52 cats in a short-body Navajo. Getting up front was quite a challenge! I'd expect with a cello in a Malibu, it would be difficult to get up front, but it would probably be doable.

Given that requirement, I think you'd be better off with a 58 Baron/A36 Bonanza or a 340/short body Navajo. Maybe a 58P if the cello could fit through the rear door.

Admittedly, the high rate of engine failures biases me against the positive features of the Malibu. The turbine variants make a lot more sense, provided you can regularly fly high enough to make sense.
 
You mentioned early in the thread that you like two engines. Given the great deals available on twins I'd go for a 55 or 58 Baron; really the only "light" twin that can actually climb out on a single piston engine. If you will be flying mostly solo or with your wife pick up a late model 55 with IO550s. Great single engine climb (for a piston) and plenty of room and about 200 lbs more payload and 20 knots faster then a Seneca V.

The 58 has better seating access in the back if you plan to carry passengers and overall more nose baggage capacity but at a cost of about 5 knots.

The Baron will give you the redundancy you're used to and most have on-board radar, stormscopes, and fully-coupled autopilots. The Baron is an exceptionally stable IFR platform and quite a few of the 58s on the market will have FIKI; which, I wanted and have benefited from quite a few times.

I flew a PA32RT-300T (Turbo Lance) for about five years and ~750 hours. I spent a great deal of time researching planes before buying my 1998 BE58 about five years ago. I love my Baron and more importantly so does my wife. My Baron is fully-loaded (FIKI, Radar, Etc) and still has 1500 lbs of payload, does 185K true at 25GPH (LOP) and 200K+ at 30+ GPH (ROP).

Take a look at 58P; they have awesome altitude performance if your typical flight is 2 hour plus. Don't let the 10K hour airframe limitation cause any concern. They do have higher operating costs due to the "P".
 
I believe Piper increased the isle space between the front seats for 2012. I love the airplane and the updated 2012 interior is beautiful.
 

Attachments

  • malibu2012.jpg
    malibu2012.jpg
    145.4 KB · Views: 50
Given Ben's need to make space for his cello, he'd need the doors on the 58 Baron, and maybe the P if the cello can fit through that smaller door. I'd be surprised if a 55 would do it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Given Ben's need to make space for his cello, he'd need the doors on the 58 Baron, and maybe the P if the cello can fit through that smaller door. I'd be surprised if a 55 would do it.
Click to expand...

Correct, a 55 would be a pain. The 58 will easily accomodate a cello and the rest of the orchestra!
 
I'm not sure where to begin first: hauling 52 cats or a cello...

All fantastic information.

Yes, I am used to multiple engines and because of this, rarely fly the Lance at night. Not that have 2 engines would add much night flying.

I just flew with a guy who was a demo pilot at Beech, and I asked him what twin he would get, and his answer was the 58P.

The cheapskate in me comes out when I look at maintaining 2 engines. I like the 25 gph mentioned above. I have access to a turbo (that I haven't flown yet) and the owner mentioned something like 45gph.

For my typical leg, 20 kts won't change the trip time much...as much as I'd rather fly faster.

The whole point in looking at a twin is my wife mentioned it, and who is going to turn down that opportunity??

I just have trouble seeing the value of a second engine and not much more speed...other than having that second engine.
 
Gubbins said:
I think the 2011 or 2012 model allows the right seat to be folded flat forward to help the left seat entry. That doesn't help whoever is getting into the right seat.
Click to expand...

Given the useful load limitations in the Mirage, that seat will remain empty most of the time anyway :wink2:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Something to consider with this (as someone who loads big items into planes) is that you must also consider how you get to the front seats. I once put 52 cats in a short-body Navajo. Getting up front was quite a challenge! I'd expect with a cello in a Malibu, it would be difficult to get up front, but it would probably be doable.

Given that requirement, I think you'd be better off with a 58 Baron/A36 Bonanza or a 340/short body Navajo. Maybe a 58P if the cello could fit through the rear door.

Admittedly, the high rate of engine failures biases me against the positive features of the Malibu. The turbine variants make a lot more sense, provided you can regularly fly high enough to make sense.
Click to expand...

Problem with the Navajo/Baron/340 is the price for me. Also trying to find partners for something that complex. Ideally, though, I'd love a 340. I could deal with Tx and ice, and all in pressurized comfort. Right now in the Cirrus, the cello sits in the back seat, but with any six-seater, I remove the last bench, if allowed.
 
Don't forget that all airplanes eat while you sleep, and 340's are even hungrier than most. And thinking you'll get relief from convective in any GA piston airplane is wishful thinking. And the factory air in 340's is pathetic and pressurization differential isn't all that great. The big de-ice strip that's glued to the the center of the pilot-side windshield is a huge PIA. The cockpits are cramped and getting in and out of the pilot seats is a case study in contortion. Other than that they're great.
spiderweb said:
Problem with the Navajo/Baron/340 is the price for me. Also trying to find partners for something that complex. Ideally, though, I'd love a 340. I could deal with Tx and ice, and all in pressurized comfort. Right now in the Cirrus, the cello sits in the back seat, but with any six-seater, I remove the last bench, if allowed.
Click to expand...
 
Don't forget that all airplanes eat while you sleep, and 340's are even hungrier than most. And thinking you'll get relief from convective in any GA piston airplane is wishful thinking. And the factory air in 340's is pathetic and pressurization differential isn't all that great. The big de-ice strip that's glued to the the center of the pilot-side windshield is a huge PIA. The cockpits are cramped and getting in and out of the pilot seats is a case study in contortion. The sharply-raked windshield and big tip tanks are a signficant barrier to vision. Other than that they're great.
spiderweb said:
Problem with the Navajo/Baron/340 is the price for me. Also trying to find partners for something that complex. Ideally, though, I'd love a 340. I could deal with Tx and ice, and all in pressurized comfort. Right now in the Cirrus, the cello sits in the back seat, but with any six-seater, I remove the last bench, if allowed.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Don't forget that all airplanes eat while you sleep, and 340's are even hungrier than most. And thinking you'll get relief from convective in any GA piston airplane is wishful thinking. And the factory air in 340's is pathetic and pressurization differential isn't all that great. The big de-ice strip that's glued to the the center of the pilot-side windshield is a huge PIA. The cockpits are cramped and getting in and out of the pilot seats is a case study in contortion. The sharply-raked windshield and big tip tanks are a signficant barrier to vision. Other than that they're great.
Click to expand...

Haha, in this second post, you added more to the complaints!

I think the real, money-is-no-object, answer would be a Meridian.
 
spiderweb said:
Problem with the Navajo/Baron/340 is the price for me. Also trying to find partners for something that complex. Ideally, though, I'd love a 340. I could deal with Tx and ice, and all in pressurized comfort. Right now in the Cirrus, the cello sits in the back seat, but with any six-seater, I remove the last bench, if allowed.
Click to expand...

A Malibu is likely going to require recurrent training to be insurable in. A Baron will not require that, and a Navajo may not (depends on your insurance carrier - I never had to go to sim training). A 340 or a P-Baron will almost certainly require recurrent training. That may be a big negative in finding partners, where a 58 Baron will probably just require 25 hours of dual with an instructor.

As Wayne points out, a 340 has a number of limits, and a Malibu is only going to be worse in that regard. Obviously you'll have some more options than I do in the 310 (or that you would in a normal 58 Baron), but it's no turbine.

That said, I've not had a day when I no-go'd the 310 or Navajo, and the only times I did in the Aztec was due to lack of experience at the time. Not saying days that bad don't come up, they're just rare. And as folks know, I'm not exactly one who avoids bad weather.

I love pressurization, but I wouldn't want to pay for what comes with it. I wouldn't mind having to go to the sim for recurrent training (and am thinking about doing it anyway), but the extra systems are money-hungry for sure. I find the 310 to be a happy level of cost/benefit. It's worth noting that when I've talked to Malibu owners and compared total hourly costs, they say the Malibus cost a good bit more than the 310, for effectively the same speed...
 
spiderweb said:
I think the real, money-is-no-object, answer would be a Meridian.
Click to expand...

Which isn't a bad airplane. I'd go for the TBM just because of the extra speed. Of course, now you have all the pluses and minuses of a turbine. Plus: great altitude performance, lots of power. Minus: massive fuel burn at low altitudes, need to get up quickly (IIRC you're in the Boston area, may take a while), and little items like fuel controllers cost as much as overhauling an entire piston engine.
 
spiderweb said:
Problem with the Navajo/Baron/340 is the price for me. Also trying to find partners for something that complex...
Click to expand...

I agree with the partner statement.

Few of the folks I know are ME qual'd.

I'd have zero chance of a partner on a multi.
Decent chance on a single.

That is...if I really want a partner.
 
So, I look at a '81 58P vs. the previously mentioned Saratoga.

There is a 58P with TT1910, 614 on both engines for 10,000 more than the Saratoga.

How much more, besides fuel burn, will the 58P be to operate?
 
If finding partners is part of the mix, keep in mind that there are plenty of people around who have PA31 time and could get insured in your plane without much effort. That way your 'partner' could be a non-pilot who just hires someone to fly him.

There are a lot less people floating around who happen to have PA46 time.

Yes, they are expensive, but so are divorces. The reason is the same:

because they are so worth it :)
 
brewski said:
How much more, besides fuel burn, will the 58P be to operate?
Click to expand...

24 spark plugs instead of 12
2 engines instead of 1
2 turbochargers instead of 1
1 air-conditioning system with 2 evaporators
1 fuel/air bomb in the nose to maintain

Anyone who tells you that it is 'not much more' is lying through their teeth or willfully ignorant of the amount of money they are spending.
 
brewski said:
So, I look at a '81 58P vs. the previously mentioned Saratoga.

There is a 58P with TT1910, 614 on both engines for 10,000 more than the Saratoga.

How much more, besides fuel burn, will the 58P be to operate?
Click to expand...

I've compared singles to twins, and found that, when you have comparable aircraft, it ends up being about 30% more per mile for the twin.

A 58P is more comparable to a Malibu than a Saratoga, so figure about 50% more per mile.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A 58P is more comparable to a Malibu than a Saratoga, so figure about 50% more per mile.
Click to expand...

This may be true in performance, but not price.

I keep going in circles between a twin and a roomy single.

More speed would be nice, but is not essential.

I didn't know the 58P was turbo.
 
brewski said:
I didn't know the 58P was turbo.
Click to expand...

It's pressurized. If you can't breathe, the engine can't breathe either.

It also uses bleed air from the turbo system to maintain pressurization.

The 'plain' 58 Baron is normally aspirated.
 
brewski said:
This may be true in performance, but not price.

I keep going in circles between a twin and a roomy single.

More speed would be nice, but is not essential.

I didn't know the 58P was turbo.
Click to expand...

Yes, in price, that's what I'm talking about.

Look at a Bonanza vs Baron, Saratoga vs. Seneca, you're lookint at about 30% more cost per mile. 50% for the Saratoga vs P-Baron is my guess since they aren't exactly equivalent.

Purchase price, you'll get a better deal on the twin. Piston twin resale values are in the gutter.
 
You aren't the first, probably won't be the last. I was there too, carried the family around in 210's for many years, finally let my partner talk me into a 340. Big mistake.

brewski said:
This may be true in performance, but not price.

I keep going in circles between a twin and a roomy single.

More speed would be nice, but is not essential.

I didn't know the 58P was turbo.
Click to expand...
 
You aren't the first, probably won't be the last. I was there too, carried the family around in 210's for many years, finally let my partner talk me into a 340. Big mistake. On my first business trip from KC to Jackson, MS, I checked the meter to record the time in our little book. The number looked a lot like the time I had been writing in the 210 book for many years, and I was puzzled.

As I secured and plugged the 340 I noticed another one sitting in the adjacent tie-down and saw the pilot preparing to depart. I asked him about speed and block times for his airplane, wondering if my new ride was slower than others. He laughed and replied that his company had one of each and the crews blocked them them the same for trip times.


brewski said:
This may be true in performance, but not price.

I keep going in circles between a twin and a roomy single.

More speed would be nice, but is not essential.

I didn't know the 58P was turbo.
Click to expand...
 
Of course, that's going to depend on what your normal trip profile is. A 340 needsa good distance to show speed advantage over a 210.

If we didn't do the long trips we do, the Aztec would make more sense than the 310 for that reason. As it is, my posterior is very accistomed to that sheepskin cover.
 
Both airplanes are flying one leg against the wind, most of them at low altitude. The advantage on long legs changes from speed to endurance.

Ted DuPuis said:
Of course, that's going to depend on what your normal trip profile is. A 340 needsa good distance to show speed advantage over a 210.

If we didn't do the long trips we do, the Aztec would make more sense than the 310 for that reason. As it is, my posterior is very accistomed to that sheepskin cover.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, and if you compare a 310 to a 340 the advantages get even fewer. The 340's anemic climb rate and need to go up high to use its turbos and pressurization as an advantage. Means more fuel burn and time at a lower speed.

I was doing 175 on 25 gph with the 310 at 6-9k. When it gets its new engines installed, I'm guessing 180-185 at 28. Combination of engines with compressions greater than 0 and adding the GAMIjectors that will allow LOP at a higher power setting than we could do previously. 550s would have done better still, but the extra $30k isn't worth the minor benefit vs the 520s.
 
Wow this convo dropped of quickly.

I didn't get a chance to look at the local Bonanza for sale this weekend.

I will say, there appears to be a lot more shoulder room in a Saratoga than a Bonanza...there is room for a cooler between the middle seats of the 'toga.
 
brewski said:
Wow this convo dropped of quickly.

I didn't get a chance to look at the local Bonanza for sale this weekend.

I will say, there appears to be a lot more shoulder room in a Saratoga than a Bonanza...there is room for a cooler between the middle seats of the 'toga.
Click to expand...
Same Fuse. tube as the Seneca. It IS WIDE. My kids used to pile up their stuff between the two middle seats :)
 
The wider planes are typically the slower ones. Example: Aztec!
 
flyersfan31 said:
All the PA46 haters. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

You were smart and upgraded to the funny-smelling version.

However, I'd also be curious as to what the Matrix will prove for reliability vs the straight Malibu. When I flew in yours, the engine seemed to run cool, and people won't run them as high as often, I'd suspect. But I'm pretty sure the engine still has the sonic nozzles for the cabin pressurization, just dumps all the air overboard. Engineering fail.
 
So Ted, what you are saying is the engine is still working to provide pressurization, but as the Matrix is un-pressurized it just allows the air (and pressure) to get released beneath the cowling? Really?

Andrew's turbine was a VERY nice upgrade.
 
Anthony said:
So Ted, what you are saying is the engine is still working to provide pressurization, but as the Matrix is un-pressurized it just allows the air (and pressure) to get released beneath the cowling? Really?

Andrew's turbine was a VERY nice upgrade.
Click to expand...

That was my understanding. Lycoming didn't want to certify a new engine (even though the sonic nozzles would be the only change), and Piper didn't want to pay for it. Remember, the Matrix was a low-budget plane. Certification won't allow simply plugging the nozzles because of turbo dynamics that can occur. I think it's silly, personally, but that's the FAA for you. End result is the engine is driving the pressurization with no benefit, but the plane does weigh less because it lacks the pressurization bits.

And yes, the turbine was a very nice upgrade.
 
Thanks Ted. Since the air is just bleeding off, there should be a reduced load on the engine compated to the Malibu as it does not have to maintain pressurization, correct? However, it does seem a bit silly to do it this way, and you'd think maybe the FAA would grant some type of waiver with enough supporting data. But, then again, it's the FAA.
 
The load on the engine ends up being roughly identical. The airflow is the same out of the sonic nozzles, and then the bleed valve regulates the pressure by varying the amount of air that gets bled out. The turbos are working just as hard.

The real benefit is in the lower weight. Andrew knows better than I, but the Matrix I think is several hundred pounds lighter than the Malibu, meaning better climb/faster airspeed. Also you may see people tend to climb slower without pressurization.
 
Interesting. Thanks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top