Saratoga vs. Malibu vs. ??

[brewski]

Quick background: I'm an ATP who has flown jets for the last 20 years, I only say that to clarify I know how to fly.

I don't know GA very well -- the airplanes and what makes sense from operating costs to speed & fuel burn.

For the last year + I've leased time on a '78 Lance.

It has been great, but my wife also mentioned it would be nice to have a second engine. I don't disagree as I've had at least 2 engines for decades.

Our typical flying is no more than 50 hrs a year and ave about 2 hour trips. We do make a few 4 hour trips each year. Also, we have 5 in our family, so we have to go 6 seater.

This Lance is on the market, and I don't want to buy it. I want something more. Faster, less mustard velour, maybe bigger.

Malibus fit the faster bigger arena, but as I look at turbo Saratogas, I see they do about 190?

I found a few Malibus for mid 200's, while I've found nice Saratoga for mid 100's.

A Seneca is also a consideration, but I don't know if the speed is there.

Open to any and all input folks!

 

[Kelvin]

Turbo Togas are super planes...the 190 is a marketing number though...

 

[Ken Ibold]

As for the 5 of you ... three little kids? Teenagers? Big-boned family? Stringbeans? And on these trips ... how much luggage? Skis or golf clubs? Mountainous terrain? IFR at night?

Not having any of those details, I think you are crying out for an A36 Bonanza -- provided your luggage space/payload requirements are met. The Lance/Saratoga has a much roomier cabin than the Bonanza, and you don't get that handy front baggage bay in the Bonanza either. That said, the build quality of the Bonanza is far superior and it's faster than the Saratoga.

 

[Abram]

I flew a Saratoga II TC for a few years and think it is a great plane for the type of trips that you have mentioned. However, the realistic speed that I used for flight planning is about 165 knots, which got me pretty realistic trip times.

I also owned two Aztecs, which were also great airplanes. However, the older airframes became very expensive to maintain and the care and feeding of two engines eventually wore down the luster of having a twin.

I figured out that I got most of the performance I needed from the Saratoga and a newer airframe for a lower operating cost.

 

[brewski]

Ok, Bonanza, interesting.

My family consists of string beans, 10, 12 & 15

Luggage has never been an issue, we've learned to pack every nook and cranny of the Lance.

No real mountainous flying to speak of.

I was wondering about that 190 Saratoga.

What does a Bonanza cruise at & burn?

 

[bbchien]

Ok, Bonanza, interesting.

My family consists of string beans, 10, 12 & 15

Luggage has never been an issue, we've learned to pack every nook and cranny of the Lance.

No real mountainous flying to speak of.

I was wondering about that 190 Saratoga.

What does a Bonanza cruise at & burn?

A turbo'd A36-185 knots.
A Seneca- 160 at just under oxygen altitudes, 65% power. You can get 180 but everyone is on the nose hoses.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

I'm an ATP who has flown jets for the last 20 years, I only say that to clarify I know how to fly.

Must...resist...making....comment

So you'll be wanting a autopilot then

 

[Gubbins]

As for the 5 of you ... three little kids? Teenagers? Big-boned family? Stringbeans? And on these trips ... how much luggage? Skis or golf clubs? Mountainous terrain? IFR at night?

Not having any of those details, I think you are crying out for an A36 Bonanza -- provided your luggage space/payload requirements are met. The Lance/Saratoga has a much roomier cabin than the Bonanza, and you don't get that handy front baggage bay in the Bonanza either. That said, the build quality of the Bonanza is far superior and it's faster than the Saratoga.

The Saratoga has a roomier cabin that the Bonanza? I considered a Saratogo II TC and decided against it after a test flight. It was too cramped for me. I'm 6'2 for comparison purposes.

My favorite single six seater by far was the PA46. But every pilot I knew tried to talk me out of it and succeeded but one of these days I'm going to ignore everyone and get one.

 

[wabower]

Yeah, what the hell do they know, other than how to get a new engine shipped to wherever the dead-stick landing occurred?

The Saratoga has a roomier cabin that the Bonanza? I considered a Saratogo II TC and decided against it after a test flight. It was too cramped for me. I'm 6'2 for comparison purposes.

My favorite single six seater by far was the PA46. But every pilot I knew tried to talk me out of it and succeeded but one of these days I'm going to ignore everyone and get one.

 

[spiderweb]

Yeah, what the hell do they know, other than how to get a new engine shipped to wherever the dead-stick landing occurred?

Ouch.

 

[brewski]

Must...resist...making....comment

So you'll be wanting a autopilot then

Excellent, the first wise crack.

I'll have you know I'd be thrilled if it could autoland at 300 RVR, but I'm generally realistic.

Yes, I'd like autopilot. The Lance I'm on now only has heading hold.
I can do without...but would rather not.

 

[bbchien]

Cross post from "next time make mine..."

Malibu: The problem is the engine(s). 10% of the fleet has had engine out. Doesn't seem to matter whether Conti 520 or Lycoming 550. If the engines are a problem, it's much less sexy paying for the fuel and the OHs for two. But in the 'Bu you gotta plan so that you don't land out. Or get very very lucky.

Amazing that the type owner society has an Engine Out ILS procedure. Tells you something.

 

[brewski]

In the Lance I'm in, height isn't a problem (I'm 6'1").

I want more speed and air conditioning.

How does the Malibu have such a problem?

What about new or rebuilt motors?

 

[bbchien]

I think Turbocharging, and pressurization are just too much to ask from a 310 hp flat six banger. Add to the fact that Jim Griswold (designer of the 'Bu) admitted that he made some erroneous assumptions and so the 'bu doesn't even have cowl flaps.

Attractive at the Malibu is, I just am NOT going to subject my family to a one-in-ten chance of an off field landing.

10% of the fleet. No matter which engine installed, New/Reman/OH. Are the operators al hamfisted? I don't think so. Think about that. "Turn off the Landing Light" is a bad one if that's the last item on the checklist.

 

[Pilawt]

The Saratoga has a roomier cabin that the Bonanza?

More volume, yes. Longer and wider than the Bo; but the Bo's ceiling is taller, and the seated posture of the Bo's front seat occupants is more upright and, well, regal.

Take this 1980 Piper ad with a grain of salt, but it is a valid comparison:

 

[Gubbins]

More volume, yes. Longer and wider than the Bo; but the Bo's ceiling is taller, and the seated posture of the Bo's front seat occupants is more upright and, well, regal.

Take this 1980 Piper ad with a grain of salt, but it is a valid comparison:

That's a funny ad!!!

So I don't know the exact comparison between a 210 and a 206, but the 206 is positively cavernous inside compared to the Saratoga II (except for the third row). In other words, that ad is probably a bit suspect (but that's marketing for you).

I've heard good things about the Bo. At the time, there were no viable candidates for me though so I didn't check it out.

 

[wabower]

The Cessna graphic in the ad has the pilot's seat pretty much positioned in the middle row. It does in fact invoke a bit of literary license.

That's a funny ad!!!

So I don't know the exact comparison between a 210 and a 206, but the 206 is positively cavernous inside compared to the Saratoga II (except for the third row). In other words, that ad is probably a bit suspect (but that's marketing for you).

I've heard good things about the Bo. At the time, there were no viable candidates for me though so I didn't check it out.

 

[Gubbins]

So there has been quite a bit of malibu bashing not only in this thread but in others. I seriously considered getting one a couple of years ago and like most things I do I researched it extensively. I even went to a MMOPA weekend event at Horseshoe Bay (KDZB nice airport) so I could hear directly from owners. Some of the best information was provided after a few beers or glasses of wine if you know what I mean. I also spoke with mechanics who had worked on them to get their impressions. I checked out malibus, mirages and also the matrix (nice plane, engine is not as overworked but no pressurization). Ultimately I decided not to go for it for a variety of reasons, but my overall impression was that some of the bad press may be a little exaggerated.

I personally remain cautious about the PA46 but I would encourage anyone thinking of this aircraft (including the OP) to make sure they get the facts with references, and do their own research rather than relying on internet hearsay. They applies to any plane purchase of course.

 

[Ted]

I think Turbocharging, and pressurization are just too much to ask from a 310 hp flat six banger. Add to the fact that Jim Griswold (designer of the 'Bu) admitted that he made some erroneous assumptions and so the 'bu doesn't even have cowl flaps.

Attractive at the Malibu is, I just am NOT going to subject my family to a one-in-ten chance of an off field landing.

10% of the fleet. No matter which engine installed, New/Reman/OH. Are the operators al hamfisted? I don't think so. Think about that. "Turn off the Landing Light" is a bad one if that's the last item on the checklist.

And Bruce hits the nail on the head. They're asking for too much from the engine, it runs too hot, and thus it fails.

Given what you're looking at for your family hauling and desired speed, I'd go for a 310 or a Baron, depending on your preferences. I prefer the 310.

 

[bigred177]

I think Turbocharging, and pressurization are just too much to ask from a 310 hp flat six banger. Add to the fact that Jim Griswold (designer of the 'Bu) admitted that he made some erroneous assumptions and so the 'bu doesn't even have cowl flaps.

Attractive at the Malibu is, I just am NOT going to subject my family to a one-in-ten chance of an off field landing.

10% of the fleet. No matter which engine installed, New/Reman/OH. Are the operators al hamfisted? I don't think so. Think about that. "Turn off the Landing Light" is a bad one if that's the last item on the checklist.

Not that I don't agree with you, but it takes a while to come down from 20k feet. That's time that you can find a better landing spot. I think I remember the one that went into the gulf taking 25 minutes to come down? The Coast Guard beat them to the rescue.

Depending on where you are, you could find a number of airports in 60 miles.

 

[bbchien]

Not that I don't agree with you, but it takes a while to come down from 20k feet. That's time that you can find a better landing spot. I think I remember the one that went into the gulf taking 25 minutes to come down? The Coast Guard beat them to the rescue.

Depending on where you are, you could find a number of airports in 60 miles.

Then why don't they?

They don't because pilots use them to fly across mountains (like the guy who lost his propellor in Western Colorado, where the ground is a 12,000, or 6.5 minutes from failure), and water, like the one you cite (And it's more like 17 minutes from FL 20).

 

[wabower]

Then why don't they?

Because it depends on where they are. Like he said. Doh.

 

[kmead]

Please don't trash my baby! The early TSIO520-BE engines did had a lot of problems. We learned a lot about maintaining and engine that was doing it's very best at FL250. Introduction of the Lycoming engine in 1989 just brought out a whole new bunch of problems. Over the years both manufacturers had quality problems that did hurt the reputation. Over 1 year now without a fatal.

The owners that seem to have had the best reliability out of their PA-46 were those that fly more than 250 hrs a year and fly routinely below FL200. I have had many TSIO 520BE and 550C engines that flew beyond TBO. Not so many TIO540-AE2A engines.
Good flight training seems to have helped out a lot.

My wife has seen the horrible problems on PA46 aircraft that flew in for maintenance and will still fly in it as long as she has a pro pilot flying the Malibu and not me. She knows how I drive.

 

[wabower]

Don't take it personally. We aren't holding you responsible for the problems that Piper and the engine mfrs foisted on the owners of these cream-puffs.

Please don't trash my baby! The early TSIO520-BE engines did had a lot of problems. We learned a lot about maintaining and engine that was doing it's very best at FL250. Introduction of the Lycoming engine in 1989 just brought out a whole new bunch of problems. Over the years both manufacturers had quality problems that did hurt the reputation. Over 1 year now without a fatal.

The owners that seem to have had the best reliability out of their PA-46 were those that fly more than 250 hrs a year and fly routinely below FL200. I have had many TSIO 520BE and 550C engines that flew beyond TBO. Not so many TIO540-AE2A engines.
Good flight training seems to have helped out a lot.

My wife has seen the horrible problems on PA46 aircraft that flew in for maintenance and will still fly in it as long as she has a pro pilot flying the Malibu and not me. She knows how I drive.

 

[Ted]

Not that I don't agree with you, but it takes a while to come down from 20k feet. That's time that you can find a better landing spot. I think I remember the one that went into the gulf taking 25 minutes to come down? The Coast Guard beat them to the rescue.

Depending on where you are, you could find a number of airports in 60 miles.

Like Bruce said, they don't. The concept of coming down from FL200 and having the rescue people beat you to the scene of the crash is extremely rare. Yes, you could find an airport. This also means you have to get the plane in on the first shot. How proficient are these pilots at engine out landings? Probably just as bad (or worse) as many twin pilots on OEI ops.

Please don't trash my baby! The early TSIO520-BE engines did had a lot of problems. We learned a lot about maintaining and engine that was doing it's very best at FL250. Introduction of the Lycoming engine in 1989 just brought out a whole new bunch of problems. Over the years both manufacturers had quality problems that did hurt the reputation. Over 1 year now without a fatal.

The owners that seem to have had the best reliability out of their PA-46 were those that fly more than 250 hrs a year and fly routinely below FL200. I have had many TSIO 520BE and 550C engines that flew beyond TBO. Not so many TIO540-AE2A engines.
Good flight training seems to have helped out a lot.

My wife has seen the horrible problems on PA46 aircraft that flew in for maintenance and will still fly in it as long as she has a pro pilot flying the Malibu and not me. She knows how I drive.

Yet when we take a look at similar engines made by the same manufacturers, they don't have the reputation for problems. Chieftain engines (TIO-540-J2BDs), also rated at 350 HP (and not having the intercoolers) have a decent resemblance to the TIO-540-AE2A, yet are known for being solid as a rock. The TSIO-520s have similarities to a decent number of Continental engines (including other versions that fed pressurized twins at equal or higher power settings) without having reputations for failing as often.

I would fully agree that people who don't push the airplane to its limits and instead focus on more conservative goals will have fewer problems and will be less likely to be part of the statistics that Bruce cites. But, does one have the self-control to fly that way?

 

[Ted]

Don't take it personally. We aren't holding you responsible for the problems that Piper and the engine mfrs foisted on the owners of these cream-puffs.

Mostly Piper. I have a personal belief that Piper actually builds airplanes for the purposes of destroying engines, and not to actually provide a means of transport.

They really, really, don't like engines.

 

[wabower]

For the record, our crankshaft failure occurred over Illinois at FL250. The owner landed it without incident (other than the fire trucks standing by) on the runway at Galesburg where the FBO towed it to the hangar. We never saw it or flew it again.

 

[Ted]

For the record, our crankshaft failure occurred over Illinois at FL250. The owner landed it without incident (other than the fire trucks standing by) on the runway at Galesburg where the FBO towed it to the hangar. We never saw it or flew it again.

Glad that one was a walk-away.

 

[brewski]

And Bruce hits the nail on the head. They're asking for too much from the engine, it runs too hot, and thus it fails.

Given what you're looking at for your family hauling and desired speed, I'd go for a 310 or a Baron, depending on your preferences. I prefer the 310.

Family or not, I want to be safe.

How about some, non-emotional, feedback on a Seneca.

Are they reasonably fast? That is, beyond the second engine, what advantage does a Seneca have over a Saratoga?

 

[wabower]

They will still fly if you lose an engine, if you limit your loads like Bruce does.

Family or not, I want to be safe.

How about some, non-emotional, feedback on a Seneca.

Are they reasonably fast? That is, beyond the second engine, what advantage does a Seneca have over a Saratoga?

 

[weilke]

Are they reasonably fast?

No.

That is, beyond the second engine, what advantage does a Seneca have over a Saratoga?

It has a second engine, that's about it.

 

[Ted]

Family or not, I want to be safe.

How about some, non-emotional, feedback on a Seneca.

Are they reasonably fast? That is, beyond the second engine, what advantage does a Seneca have over a Saratoga?

As said, the only thing you're buying is the second engine, which does give you more options. From Bruce's numbers, it's basically the same speed and fuel burn as the Aztec. Your engines are less powerful and more maintenance intensive, and you can't hold as much. But, you do have turbos.

A 310 or Baron will be faster and cheaper, plus naturally aspirated. Unless you need the turbos...

 

[spiderweb]

No.



It has a second engine, that's about it.

I think 160 kts, with all that room, and six seats is pretty good.

 

[spiderweb]

As said, the only thing you're buying is the second engine, which does give you more options. From Bruce's numbers, it's basically the same speed and fuel burn as the Aztec. Your engines are less powerful and more maintenance intensive, and you can't hold as much. But, you do have turbos.

A 310 or Baron will be faster and cheaper, plus naturally aspirated. Unless you need the turbos...

I know a guy who owns a turbo C310 and he claims he can get 225 kts in the flight levels. I don't believe him.

 

[wabower]

The rest of the story is important as well.

I know a guy who owns a turbo C310 and he claims he can get 225 kts in the flight levels. I don't believe him.

 

[weilke]

I think 160 kts, with all that room, and six seats is pretty good.

Ok, it's 'pretty good'.

The plane that is comparable to it in terms of cabin space and layout is the B58 Baron. They are a bit faster, which with 150-200hp more they should be.

Every plane is a compromise. If I wanted to travel 1000nm on a regular basis, the Seneca would not be my first choice. If 300nm to the beach with kids and inflatable toys is the goal, sure, nothing beats the flying pickup truck.

A friend of mine is taking delivery on a SenecaIII next week. Looking forward to it.

 

[brewski]

As said, the only thing you're buying is the second engine, which does give you more options. From Bruce's numbers, it's basically the same speed and fuel burn as the Aztec. Your engines are less powerful and more maintenance intensive, and you can't hold as much. But, you do have turbos.

A 310 or Baron will be faster and cheaper, plus naturally aspirated. Unless you need the turbos...

This is going to sound weak, but I find the 310 ugly inside & out. I think it is a great plane for the value (I guess).

The Lance I'm in has club seating, and I wouldn't want anything else.

I agree, for most of our flying, 160 is fine. Hell, for all of my flying 160 is fine...but more speed would be nice.

What exactly is a turbo doing for me? Yes, beyond more power & more fuel burn.

 

[bbchien]

Family or not, I want to be safe.

How about some, non-emotional, feedback on a Seneca.

Are they reasonably fast? That is, beyond the second engine, what advantage does a Seneca have over a Saratoga?

Advantages: FIKI certified. Ice evasion capbility (altitude). Largest Cabin and doors in class.
Disadvantages: 170 knots is SLOW (I'm always up high. 160 down around 10K is normal).

 

[wabower]

In that case, buy something else. You're going to have plenty of opportunities to wonder why you bought whatever you decide to buy, so you don't want to have the "why did I buy this ugly sumbitch to start with" as one of them.

This is going to sound weak, but I find the 310 ugly inside & out. I think it is a great plane for the value (I guess).

The Lance I'm in has club seating, and I wouldn't want anything else.

I agree, for most of our flying, 160 is fine. Hell, for all of my flying 160 is fine...but more speed would be nice.

What exactly is a turbo doing for me? Yes, beyond more power & more fuel burn.

 

[Ted]

I know a guy who owns a turbo C310 and he claims he can get 225 kts in the flight levels. I don't believe him.

The RAM T310Rs will do that, yes. Stock T310Q/R/320 I doubt.