Unpressurized Malibu

From an AvWeb podcast interview with "a guy from Piper" (sorry, going from memory):

1. Structurally, it is different enough from the Malibu (since it doesn't need to go through pressurization cycles) that there will be a new type certificate for it.

2. He VERY thinly veiled some comments that basically said "we expect this to compete with the Saratoga. And after a while will see whether we still need the Saratoga". At least that's what I took from his comments.

Sam
 
Silver Eagle performance is amazing. Cargo capacity is not, unless you pull some seats. Plus, you get a 20+ yr old airframe for your $$$. I know, yrs don't make the airframe, but when you think about pressurization cycles, then age starts to count.

The Matrix is a very clear (albeit bloated) replacement for the bloated craft now called the Saratoga. I guess leather and AC are mandatory these days. If the Matrix had a G1000, though, I'd be a serious looker. For my mission, 200-400mi, it actually makes some sense. Fuel economy does raise some question marks (the Piper rep told me 22-23gph, which is pretty much non-competitive in this day and age.)
 
flyersfan31 said:
The Matrix is a very clear (albeit bloated) replacement for the bloated craft now called the Saratoga. I guess leather and AC are mandatory these days. If the Matrix had a G1000, though, I'd be a serious looker. For my mission, 200-400mi, it actually makes some sense. Fuel economy does raise some question marks (the Piper rep told me 22-23gph, which is pretty much non-competitive in this day and age.)
Click to expand...

Looks Avidyne to me:( . What exactly is your mission that you think the Matrix fits?
 
Ken Ibold said:
Yeah, but new vs old are different markets, no matter how much you gussie up the old one. The 1970s planes will soon be unsupportable in any economic sense, I believe.
Click to expand...

Too bad, that turbine Duke is a good-lookin' plane.

I think the 70's planes still have some life left in 'em. The new ones are still so expensive that you can throw a lot of mx dollars at the oldies before they even come close.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think the 70's planes still have some life left in 'em. The new ones are still so expensive that you can throw a lot of mx dollars at the oldies before they even come close.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not planning a funeral for my Lance yet, either. But I think the writing is on the wall at Piper and Beech, and after that Cessna will get on the bandwagon. Listen to Bass talking about product support. They are setting the stage for getting out of the parts business for legacy designs. It won't happen tomorrow, but it's coming.

So it won't be a matter of mx costs per se, but the problem with parts availability will grow to the point that it won't be worth the cost or hassle of custom parts fabrication -- unless the airplane is really something special. Like Tom Downey's Fairchild.
 
Ken Ibold said:
So it won't be a matter of mx costs per se, but the problem with parts availability will grow to the point that it won't be worth the cost or hassle of custom parts fabrication -- unless the airplane is really something special. Like Tom Downey's Fairchild.
Click to expand...

Which was, of course, part of the reason that Commander owners bought the company.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Fuel economy does raise some question marks (the Piper rep told me 22-23gph, which is pretty much non-competitive in this day and age.)
Click to expand...
Guidelines used by folks at the Malibu/Mirage Owners and Pilots Association show, for ROP cruising in the Lyc, 25 gph at 75 percent (32 inches/2500 rpm), 21 gph at 65 percent (30 inches, 2400 rpm) and 18 gph for economy cruise at 24 inches/2400 rpm. That gives a starting point, then fine tune so the hottest turbine inlet temp is less than 1600.
 
wsuffa said:
Which was, of course, part of the reason that Commander owners bought the company.
Click to expand...

Now that gives me an idea...

Years ago, I was a member of a downhill ski club. We had our own hill with 5 runs, several ski jumps (10, 20, 40, 60 meters, used for training and Olympic trials), rope tows instead of chair lifts, etc.

To ski at the club, you had to be a member. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. But, it was $75 per season, ski all you want (open weekends, Tuesday and Thursday nights, and every other Friday night).

They said that the reason you had to be a member was liability - As a member, you also became part owner of the club. They said you then couldn't sue the club, because it'd be like suing yourself.

What if there were a new airplane company that gave you a share of stock with your new airplane, and required that you sell the stock with the airplane? If that would work, even partially, a lot of this product liability crap could go out the window.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What if there were a new airplane company that gave you a share of stock with your new airplane, and required that you sell the stock with the airplane? If that would work, even partially, a lot of this product liability crap could go out the window.
Click to expand...

The problem is third-party tort. Airplane hits a house, lawyers sue everyone in sight.

Even if the pilot is responsible (or the pilot's family sues the company), the most the pilot is out is one share. Everyone else has to pay.

IIRC, at one time a certain GA company would only lease, not sell, airplanes in order to try and control liability. It didn't work - folks wanted to own the aircraft, and lawyers sued anyway.
 
wsuffa said:
IIRC, at one time a certain GA company would only lease, not sell, airplanes in order to try and control liability. It didn't work - folks wanted to own the aircraft, and lawyers sued anyway.
Click to expand...

...and the company ended up in bankruptcy, its assets sold to a collective of airframe owners...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top