The high aspect ratio wing is the reason the Malibu does what it does. You can't clip its wings and have it be the same.

Mike C.

Here is my NA SR22:

175 TAS @ 7,500' burning 14.5 GPH.

Not bad but in the bumps.

Is yours one of the newer generations of Sr22?

To the poster

Marc, think M600, a kerosene burning Mirage. Oh, if only I had 2.8MM...

Well, as long as we are bragging :

11.8 GPH 197 knots true or 13.5 GPH 208 knots true. Bumps not a factor This was before the GAMIs. Getting another 2-3 knots on the same fuel now.

Way to go Todd!

Are they still that good on fuel with lycomings?

Hey Brian, it's an old stock 2003

so efficient!

I'm not so sure after seeing how the C172/182 have fared. Useful load takes a large hit due to higher fuel density and I'm not seeing huge fuel burn improvements over an LOP 550 continental malibu. The Centurion 4.0 uses about 12gph in cruise, which is about 4-5gph better than the conti running LOP. Using some crude napkin math:

For a max endurance flight in the 550-powered Malibu, you're gonna have 720lbs of fuel (120gal) and ~620lbs left for people and bags. To do the same distance (with 45 min reserve) in the diesel, assuming same engine weight, same cruise speed, but 12gph cruise and perhaps 15gal used for the climb, you'd still need 98 gallons of Jet A. That leaves you with about 677 lbs in the cabin. An additional 57lbs of useful load gained.

For shorter flights, that benefit in useful load will be even less. The diesel would let you fly further distances solo or with one passenger, but the regular Malibu already tests the limits of bladder endurance, so I'm not sure that's a real benefit.

At best, you are really just saving money in fuel and gaining some maximum range. Useful load benefits are largely being negated by increased fuel density.

I'm .3-.4 on the GAMI spread depending on RPM. It was .9 before the GAMIs.

My 98 Mirage has a TIO-540-AE2A 350-hp Lycoming with gamis and does ok with really low temps 50 LOP up to about 15K at 16 gph but the engine runs rough like it is fuel starved above that FL. I am told that this particular power plant varies greatly from engine to engine. Some do great LOP and others not so much. Mine is about in the middle. The Malibu Continental obviously does way better.

The Continental definitely is more fuel efficient LOP and smoother as you lean further. My IO-550 Bonanza will run about 1/2 GPH leaner on the same power setting. I am pretty sure my electronic ignition is really helping the LOP operations as well. I can shut off the mag at idle, LOP, ROP, or any power setting and the is almost no noticeable difference in performance. If I shut off the electronic ignition there is a huge difference.

I don't miss starter adapters and cracked cylinders though. It is nice to know that if my starter fails I can replace it in less than an hour and for under $400.

With all that said, the Malibu with the 550 sure is a economical plane to run. A true 1000+ NM plane doing 210 knots for 4 people and bags in comfort and burning Bonanza rate fuel. I wish I could have afforded one 15 years ago when I was flying more.

so efficient!

Would never pay that kind of money for a Piper, will stick to a TBM.

As much as I like the Malibu/Mirage, its underpower. Think slowwww climbing.

You need power to get to the flight levels.






Marc, think M600, a kerosene burning Mirage. Oh, if only I had 2.8MM...