Yeah, you are asking a lot out of that one engine. Big Turbo providing pressurization, tight cowl, high altitude operations pulling a lot of power. You can buy nice 1986 models for under $300k and they will run knots knots LOP on very little fuel. They are a good value as long as the fan keeps running.

Mooney Mark 22 Mustang

What were the accidents. Piston PA46's are somewhat prone to engine failures, but it's pretty hard to actually find an accident with injuries due to an engine failure. PA46's spend most of their lives within gilding range of a dozen airports.

Slippery fuselage, long wing optimized for high altitude. It's a good recipe.

What were the accidents. Piston PA46's are somewhat prone to engine failures, but it's pretty hard to actually find an accident with injuries due to an engine failure. PA46's spend most of their lives within gilding range of a dozen airports.

My impression - and this is purely anecdotal from two years of flying a malibu and being fairly involved in MMOPA - was that the engine failure rate was probably measurably higher than typical. But the casket count from engine failures was really, astoundingly low. Plenty of stupid pilot tricks, but very few engine failure accidents.

TBM

I have flown both a Malibus and a Mirage for a few years now. I prefer the Malibu's range and nearly everything about it except the hydraulic system (flaps and gear). I mostly fly a Mirage now because they are newer and nicer inside.

My milk run used to be between Raleigh and San Antonio. Typically one stop going west and no stops going east. My longest flight in a Malibu (without extended tanks) showing 15 gallons to spare was 7.5 hours or a burn of 14 gph!

That is what entices me about the Malibu. I hear realistic stories of 17 GPH block to block @ 190-200 knots on trips of 4-5 hours. That makes my trip from IN to FL doable non-stop with bags and 4 adults. Pressurized and a pretty comfortable cabin as well. It just scares me having that tiny IO-520 up there.

I can't think of a better single engine piston plane than a 1986 Malibu.

I've lusted after a Malibu/Mirage for many years, but I can't get past the maintenance cost of the plane. I've heard multiple times that a $20,000 annual is a "good" annual. The fact is that if you want pressurization, FIKI, radar and all the rest, it's going to cost a lot of green to maintain the beast, not to mention finding a hangar to accommodate those 43' wings. It's just an expensive plane to own...

Funny that we have two threads going that have basically evolved into the same topic!

I definitely wouldn't shy away from the P210. I owned a T210 for 6 years and it's a hell of a versatile airplane. Equally comfortable flying an ILS at KTEB squeezed between two G5s or landing at a 2,000 foot dirt strip in Mexico.

The T and P are very similar airplanes, so even though I don't have a lot of P time, I think I can extrapolate a fair amount.

Any single engine pressurized airplane is going to pull a lot out of the engine and both airplanes have a ton of stuff crammed under the hood. Both airplanes had MAJOR teething problems early on, but they have been around long enough that the issues are either resolved or at least known about so they can be mitigated.

The P210R is a wonderful airplane and was designed to meet/beat the Malibu, but the market disappeared shortly before Cessna introduced it.

I suspect the P210 is going to be cheaper to maintain than a Malibu, but I don't have any direct evidence to back that up. I do know that there are a TON of shops who know the T210 and can work on a P210. Charles mentioned that there we no specialized P210 shops, and I think that's just because there are so many Cessna shops out there that there isn't a need for a P210 specialty shop - Not really a negative in my book.

The benefit of the Malibu is in looks, high altitude performance, and "cabin class". The downsides are useful load, pilot's space (I just flat don't fit in a Malibu), and lack of ability to land off-concrete.

Both are good airplanes, both will have uninformed detractors.

Robert

Couple points of information:

1) malibus from mid '86-88 have electric flaps. Only the very earliest have hydraulic.

2) I hsve generally found that if you want to fit in a PA46 cockpit, you can. It's a contortionist act getting in but not bad once seared. There are seat mods.

3) PA46s operate fine on well maintained grass (jet props excepted). 2500 feet is plenty long. P210s are clearly superior on rough/unimproved/very short strips.

I would say $15k is a good annual. Flat rate is $4k. $2k for a cylinder every year. Misc squawks on top of that.

I have thought about this issue several times. Aviation consumer looked into pa46 engine failures. 1 out 10 had failed. Not good. On the other hand the airframe is very good. The p210's have their upsides, however the gear needs to be maintained. I have even had gear issues in one. Can be maintained with money and experienced mechanic, but not as simple as the bonanza gear. Find a 210 for sale that did not need a top overhaul. Good luck.

I've owned a fair number of PA46 aircraft, Meridian, 2 Malibu (Malibi?), and a Mirage. My favorite in the piston world is a malibu over the mirage. Both of my birds had the 550 conversion, which was pretty nice as it gives you a little more power when you need it.

A couple of observations regarding the airplane. First, it can get to 25k. You don't want to fly it up there. CHTs are going to be super high if you are trying to do LOP operations. Yeah, you might be the lucky one with a perfectly balanced engine, but don't bet on it. Secondly, it takes forever to climb that last 3-4k feet. I generally flew mine 16-22k. I kind of liked staying under 18k to maintain my own flight plan, but that's just dependent on your airspace. In Socal, it matters. In the midwest, it didn't.

I never had the dreaded 20k annual, but I certainly had a lot of expenses. It really comes down to how you maintain the airplane. It really is a single engine airplane, but it has a lot of items that are operating in extremes. Engine components certainly need to be inspected regularly and you should plan on a TOP at least once, maybe twice. You need to O/H your turbos at 1,000 hours or so and you are asking your mags for a lot of performance up high.

If you have glass windshield, know it will fail at some point. It isn't a question of if, but when. Piper is quite content to sell you a new one and believes their pricing is fair. You will also go through an actuator or two, some pumps, etc.

I have a pretty good shop that works on a fair number of PA46 airframes and I bet it is 20k a year to keep it running. Certainly more if you are playing catchup on a cheaper airframe. I believe in progressive maintenance, so I try to spread out tasks throughout the year instead of at the annual. That way there are more eyeballs on that engine up front.

I really like the PA46, it certainly performs a great mission. Join MMOPA and ask some questions. The one thing I really dislike about the PA46 is the way it handles turbulence. It just isn't a good ride. But then again, nothing really beats a Baron for handling bumps.

-jason