Tell me why I should not buy a Malibu.

[JOhnH]

Here ya go @Zeldman :
https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=177271&view=unread#unread
(You may need a Beechtalk account to see it).
$385K
pics @ https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s6nfbkvncdx0fod/AAC-CVts5nrxR_QqAF3byqDva?dl=0

 

[MIFlyer]

Life is changing for me. Soon I may need a personal plane for about half business and half personal.

My mission will be at least one approximately 1350 trip a month and two approximately 500 mile trips a month. Plus whatever personal trips the wife and I will want to do.

I wanting pressurization, air conditioner, known ice, club seating and air stair entrance.

I have always liked the Matrix Malibu. The plane seems to be a fair mix of my wants and needs.

Any thoughts, pros and/or cons anyone might have will be appreciated.

Nice 58p on beechtalk that looks cherry for Less than 150Edit. 58tc not pressurized. But fiki actively flying and nice

https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=176661

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MIFlyer]

Not just you. While I can dehydrate and be fine for long legs if needed, most of the time I just tell the co-pilot to go in the back of the plane while I refill a Gatorade bottle. Not worth being hard on my body with the kind of flights I do.

Then for family trips with the kids we have a 5 gallon bucket with a toilet seat on it. Works great.

It was easier with the 414 since it had a relief tube. I wish the MU2 had that.

DO NOT INSTALL!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ted]

Nice 58p on beechtalk that looks cherry for Less than 150

The problem with the 58P is that its cabin is really pretty small. Granted if you're talking 4 people with 1 bag each that would fit, but you still have to be friendlier in a 58P than you do in a PA46, plus no air stair door on the 58P.

I still like the P-Baron more than the Malibu, but there are definite negatives.

 

[MIFlyer]

(I know you're a pro pilot and probably already thought of this, but...)

Zeld, you also need to think about your runway requirements for your home base, destinations, stops and even your "abort".

Example, I know you are in the high desert, so even if your main field is long, are the smaller fields along your routes populated with long runways or are you in a situation where you need to insist on a plane that can handle shorter fields.

I also think you will have to really consider if you need pressurization. If you stick with this requirement, this massively limits choices.

 

[Zeldman]

Here ya go @Zeldman :
https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=177271&view=unread#unread
(You may need a Beechtalk account to see it).
$385K
pics @ https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s6nfbkvncdx0fod/AAC-CVts5nrxR_QqAF3byqDva?dl=0

Looks really good. Now if the seller will hold it approximately 6-12 months until I am ready to start looking....

 

[Ted]

I also think you will have to really consider if you need pressurization. If you stick with this requirement, this massively limits choices.

Limits yes, massively limits not so much. Once you get into the cabin class realm it almost gets harder to find planes without pressurization. Given his desire for 4 people and light load of luggage, the pressurized versions would be the PA46, Cessna 340, arguably Piper P-Navajo... he could get a Duke! Or any of the various single engine turboprops or lower "entry level" twin turboprops, all of which are pressurized (other than the Caravan, which would not fit the mission at all, and a couple of oddball freighters).

For the non-pressurized planes that meet his criteria there's the Navajo, Cessna 335/401/402 (none of which are in significant supply), PA-46 Matrix, then a few oddball planes that I wouldn't recommend to someone looking for a reliable plane receiving that level of use. It's actually harder to find a good 335/401/402 than a 340.

If the cabin class and airstair door are removed from the requirements, then yes, it does significantly open up the requirements. But there's a reason why planes that fly passengers that much are generally cabin class - eventually it gets old for the people in back to be in back of a 310. But a Navajo would be a good, comfortable, and reliable option if pressurization wasn't mandatory.

Personally, I think the mission would be better suited to a turboprop (and a short body MU-2 would be a perfect fit!) as I'm skeptical that any turbocharged piston plane (except maybe a Navajo) will fly between inspections without significant issues popping up semi-regularly. But the people footing the bill may not want to make that jump at first.

I would also want pressurization if I was based where Billy lives given the other requirements. MEAs and weather, especially if he flies north at all, will be a whole lot easier to deal with with pressurization. Turbos without pressurization limit the gains you get from that expense of turbochargers.

 

[Zeldman]

Zeld, you also need to think about your runway requirements for your home base, destinations, stops and even your "abort".

Example, I know you are in the high desert, so even if your main field is long, are the smaller fields along your routes populated with long runways or are you in a situation where you need to insist on a plane that can handle shorter fields.

Thanks, I have been at high DA airports for so long it is all second nature to me now. But still something to add to the planning.

I also think you will have to really consider if you need pressurization. If you stick with this requirement, this massively limits choices.

I guess I am not catching your thought here, how would it limit choices.??

edit: After reading Ted's post above I got it now.

 

[Zeldman]

I have considered a C-340 as well as P-Navajo. I am just trying to keep maintenance cost down a little with a single.

If I just knew someone that had a MU-2 that could drop in sometime and give me a ride I might consider that.....

 

[Ted]

I have considered a C-340 as well as P-Navajo. I am just trying to keep maintenance cost down a little with a single.

With the TIGO-541s a P-Navajo is really hard to justify as a business tool these days. Orphaned engines are never a good thing. Orphaned airplanes you can live with to a greater extent since wings don't usually need to be replaced (and you can fabricate those), but it's a lot harder to machine a replacement gearbox out of 6061-T6 sheets.

A decade ago, the story was that the PA-46 was a very unreliable airframe and that it ended up costing more to operate than a 340. Having watched a number of friends deal with issues on their 340s and a few Malibus, I'm not convinced that's true, at least these days. But the 340 will have a much better time-to-climb performance and the advantage of the second engine, at least if you have a RAM VI/VII 340 or AA Intercoolers.

If I just knew someone that had a MU-2 that could drop in sometime and give me a ride I might consider that.....

Fly on out to KC and come along with me on this weekend's dog flight. I'm dropping the plane off at the end of the trip in SC and you can airline home from there.

That Malibu that JohnH posted above was advertised at $385k. You could spend about $100k less for a F model MU-2. Of course then you're talking about burning 52-60 GPH of Jet A, but you're going 250ish for that instead of 200. The real thing is the cost of Jet A. For a while in a lot of places, Jet A was tremendously cheaper than 100LL. These days that seems to be less the case, but it still is on the whole cheaper. I'm not going to tell you an MU-2 is cheaper to operate than a Malibu, though. I'm not that crazy.

...yet

 

[midwestpa24]

A decade ago, the story was that the PA-46 was a very unreliable airframe and that it ended up costing more to operate than a 340. Having watched a number of friends deal with issues on their 340s and a few Malibus, I'm not convinced that's true, at least these days.

I've never flown the Malibu, but I have friends that have. In fireside discussions, it was often said the issues with the Malibu are more often then not caused by the operator. Namely engine management and descent planning. My understanding is the Malibu has a lower than expected Va, given its long glider-like wing. So in order to protect the airframe from turbulence in the descent you have to slow it down quite a bit, but at the same time not shock cool the engine or lose pressurization while at altitude. A lot of guys stepping up from lesser aircraft are used to pushing the nose over and letting the airspeed build in a descent, but the Malibu is less tolerant to that.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

shock cooling?

 

[Rockymountain]

Tactical dehydration is never something I considered flying the PA46.....because I could never fly greater than 2-2.5 hour legs without needing a fuel stop.

PA46s do have a relief tube.....but you won’t ever need it.

Why would you need a fuel stop after 2-2.5 hours? The Continental powered version stock carries 7 hours of fuel, the Lycoming stock carries 4.5 hours at normal cruise with IFR reserves and 6.5 hrs+ IFR reserves at long range cruise?? Did you ever lean the mixture??

 

[midwestpa24]

shock cooling?

Yeah I know. Not talking about the cylinders so much as the turbos.

 

[hindsight2020]

Why would you need a fuel stop after 2-2.5 hours? The Continental powered version stock carries 7 hours of fuel, the Lycoming stock carries 4.5 hours at normal cruise with IFR reserves and 6.5 hrs+ IFR reserves at long range cruise?? Did you ever lean the mixture??

I believe he meant the useful load is limited, thus at the payload requirements his employer ran with, he wasn't able to fuel up to a range that would incur a biological limit.

 

[GRG55]

The problem with the 58P is that its cabin is really pretty small. Granted if you're talking 4 people with 1 bag each that would fit, but you still have to be friendlier in a 58P than you do in a PA46, plus no air stair door on the 58P.

I still like the P-Baron more than the Malibu, but there are definite negatives.

Definite negative #1: Why on earth would anyone want to pay the costs of owning and operating a piston twin to cram themselves into a Bonanza size cabin?

 

[GRG55]

...I guess I am not catching your thought here, how would it limit choices.??

edit: After reading Ted's post above I got it now.

If one can live without pressurization, and a non-cabin class 4 place single will do the trick, its actually pretty difficult to beat the turbo SR22. That is one damn fast airplane at altitude.

BUT, if it was my choice (and I was 5'10", <200 lbs) the Malibu would win hands down.

 

[Fearless Tower]

If one can live without pressurization, and a non-cabin class 4 place will do the trick, its actually pretty difficult to beat the turbo SR22. That is one damn fast airplane at altitude.

THIS.

Unless you need more than 4 seats, from an economics standpoint, I'd be looking at a SR22 with A/C. PA46 is more fun to fly, but the Cirrus is a more efficient airplane.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why would you need a fuel stop after 2-2.5 hours? The Continental powered version stock carries 7 hours of fuel, the Lycoming stock carries 4.5 hours at normal cruise with IFR reserves and 6.5 hrs+ IFR reserves at long range cruise?? Did you ever lean the mixture??

First off, I've never flown a Continental powered PA46, so can't comment on that other than I've been told by PA46 owners that you can fly the Continental powered PA46 LOP, but can't do the same with the Lyc versions. Since I wasn't the owner and not paying the bills, I never dug enough to find out why. That said, leaned out on cruise, the fuel burn in both of our airplanes was around 24 gph IIRC. I've talked to earlier Malibu owners with Continental engines who were running in the high teens for fuel burn. I couldn't get either of our planes leaner without seeing CHTs pushing 390F-400F.

With the loads we typically carried (3-4 pax) you would be very fuel and CG limited. I rarely had room to carry more than 90 gal. Most of the time I was in the 75-80 gallon range. I remember one trip (ORF-CHS) with 4 pax that originally booked the Mirage, but when we flight planned it, I couldn't make it legal IFR with sufficient reserve (It's a 2 hour flight). I could do it with sufficient reserve in the Matrix though.

 

[Rockymountain]

I get that. Sounds like your motor was not running great. That is a lot of fuel flow to keep the engine cool, and even at that your engine was running pretty hot. Might be bad baffling or something. That would be 2-4 gallons per hour higher than I would be used to ROP. Of course that is about 8 gph higher than running LOP if your Mirage were tuned enough for that. I ran mostly LOP, but you have to have everything well tuned on a Lyc to run LOP.

 

[GRG55]

I get that. Sounds like your motor was not running great. That is a lot of fuel flow to keep the engine cool, and even at that your engine was running pretty hot. Might be bad baffling or something. That would be 2-4 gallons per hour higher than I would be used to ROP. Of course that is about 8 gph higher than running LOP if your Mirage were tuned enough for that. I ran mostly LOP, but you have to have everything well tuned on a Lyc to run LOP.

I run my IO-540 Lycomings LOP all the time in cruise. But they are not turbocharged, operating at high altitude in thin air either.

I do have difficulties understanding why a horizontally opposed, air cooled, turbocharged Continental 520 can run LOP and a horizontally opposed, air cooled, turbocharged Lycoming 540 in the same airframe in the same flight environment (allegedly) cannot.

 

[mondtster]

I run my IO-540 Lycomings LOP all the time in cruise. But they are not turbocharged, operating at high altitude in thin air either.

I do have difficulties understanding why a horizontally opposed, air cooled, turbocharged Continental 520 can run LOP and a horizontally opposed, air cooled, turbocharged Lycoming 540 in the same airframe in the same flight environment (allegedly) cannot.

There's nothing stopping people from running the Lycoming powered Malibus LOP, unless you consider the lack of instruction to do so in the POH to be a limitation. That changed when the engine switched from Continental to Lycoming, and I suspect that is what is being referred to when it was said "cant run LOP".

I've run the one I fly LOP a couple of times. It runs a touch rough under those conditions so I don't do it often but would/will do it all the time once I cure the roughness.

 

[Zeldman]

If one can live without pressurization, and a non-cabin class 4 place single will do the trick, its actually pretty difficult to beat the turbo SR22. That is one damn fast airplane at altitude.

I will agree that the SR22 is one heck of an airplane. There is not very much that I do not like about it. The biggest problem right now is that it doesn't meet my mission needs (wants). Normal flight altitudes for me here in the southwest is above 15,000msl. I still haven't given up on a twin.

 

[Ted]

I do have difficulties understanding why a horizontally opposed, air cooled, turbocharged Continental 520 can run LOP and a horizontally opposed, air cooled, turbocharged Lycoming 540 in the same airframe in the same flight environment (allegedly) cannot.

There's nothing stopping people from running the Lycoming powered Malibus LOP, unless you consider the lack of instruction to do so in the POH to be a limitation. That changed when the engine switched from Continental to Lycoming, and I suspect that is what is being referred to when it was said "cant run LOP".

It mostly comes down to having nozzles tuned such that there are even air/fuel ratios across cylinders. Continentals seem to be better set up for that than Lycomings on the whole, but Lycomings can run LOP fine. On the rich side a little difference won't make much of a power difference. On the lean side, a small fuel flow difference makes a much larger difference in power.

Many pilots don't like the roughness that Lycomings tend to have when run LOP since they assume that equates to an engine that's about to quit (when it's not). Despite popular belief, that's more than anything the reason why there was the lack of instruction.