If that is the mission profile, get a car.

Mike C.

It isn't an hour in the Baron door to door, preflight, briefing, filing, time invested outside of the flight (training, maintenance, etc).

The point is that for that short a mission, you aren't gaining much with a 300 knot airplane.

Mike C.

60 gallons is 360 lbs. 1260-1360lb useful load Malibu ('84-'88) is not hard to come by. I flew my family in one for two years. The pax cabin is very comfortable for (in this case) a small woman and 3 pre-teen kids.

The nose baggage will take two car seats. The rear baggage is big enough for two adults to sit in (this is for visualization purposes, not a suggestion)

I wouldn't have asked the question about planes if I wanted to drive. 200nm between Baltimore and buffalo is a 7hr drive through mountains. Plus it is only my most frequent trip, but the Carolinas and Florida are a few times per year trip as well. Plus I plan on seeing the country more as the kids get older. And obviously, we all love flying ourselves. My family is spoiled by GA and knows how good we have it. If the best answer is we squeeze into our a36 until the stall horn goes off on takeoff, well so be it. But it's nice to know what options exist and what the pros and cons are. I love the Malibu, my brother flys a Meridian, but I've always assumed it wasn't meaningfully larger than our A36. I forgot about the nose baggage. And il have to run the partial fuel useful load numbers again. I assume the early Malibus are best? Also I need to look at how much space there is in the front of a P baron. A straight 58 isn't enough of a beneficial jump for me, nose baggage but no pressurization with little kids.

Here's a good thread with a brag picture of the crap that can go into a 58P laid out on the ramp: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=62774&p=667976&hilit=reno+58P#p667976

It's more than you first think, and really makes the difference for bulky crap like folding strollers, pack-n-plays, etc. We are only a family of 4 (plus a dog) and I don't think we ever had a single piece of baggage in the cabin that wasn't cabin-related. (the cooler and backpacks with snacks, iPads, etc)

I agree, the turbo prop doesn't make a lot of sense for these short legs unless you want the attributes and performance of one over the piston and are willing to pay extra for that.
As for the entry price of $500,000, an older C90 with descent avionics can be gotten for that if higher engine time is acceptable. Of course, part 91 may extend past TBO and there are engine extension programs out there now. The problem would be the poster's annual budget. With phase inspections and other work, one needs to plan on spending $40,000 to $60,000 a year in maintenance alone. If that's only for 100 hours a year, it leaves a high hourly cost. It could work with a partner, but for just the OP, that would bust his budget. As with all decisions like this, these posts seem to help him bracket his direction. The TP seems too much. I'd suggest looking at the 58 or 58P to start. If it's not enough of an incremental upgrade, start looking at the larger cabin class twins.

Best of luck.

Guy is your 36 deiced? If not then a 58 is indeed a big jump in capability and a little bitty bump in operational requirements. The NA58 is so easy to fly and maintain. Far less work to fly and be ahead of the game maintenance and proficiency wise than a turbo pressurized piston twin.

I own a 58 and fly the pants off of her. I also fly a 414 for someone on a charter cert. Don't disqualify the 58 over the other options.

A deiced twin would sure make me more comfortable flying from Baltimore to Buffalo from November till March.

It isn't an hour in the Baron door to door, preflight, briefing, filing, time invested outside of the flight (training, maintenance, etc).

The point is that for that short a mission, you aren't gaining much with a 300 knot airplane.

Mike C.

Agreed

If that is the mission profile, get a car.

Mike C.

No, sadly our A36 is not deiced. That does scrap many winter flights to buffalo. I accept that limitation and have zero interest in unprotected ice or thunderstorms. My next plane must have fiki

I don't want to talk you out of any particular position, but I want to make sure you're knowledgeable enough on exactly what you're looking for to make an informed choice.

There is effective ice protection and there is FIKI. In general, FIKI airplanes have effective ice protection (booted P210 being a possible exception), but there are many, many airplanes with effective ice protection that are not FIKI.

Both my 58P (boots) and A36TN (TKS) have effective ice protection for the types of pleasure flying I do. Neither is FIKI. Either would suit your mission, IMO.

There is a lot of ink that's been spilled and a lot of electrons that have been inconvenienced on the topic and my conclusion is: for part 91 flying, if the ice protection is enough to keep you safe, you don't need to worry about whether you have a FIKI "sticker" or not.

When thinking about practical winter flying, I'd rather have a turbocharged engine, hot props, and an O2 system than a FIKI normally aspirated airplane, even if the turbo didn't have any wing protection. Put any kind of wing protection on (TKS better than boots, IMO), and it's not even close.

The meridian (factory turboprop) has no nose baggage

The jetprop (stc turboprop conversion) loses 50-90% of the nose baggage to fuel.

The Malibu ('84-'88 continental), mirage ('89-present lycoming) and matrix (unpressurized mirage) have a large nose baggage. Two big carseats, no problem.

The Pa46 has gotten fat over time same as the bonanza. It's a 2015 vs 1985 issue, not a "mirages have no useful load " issue.

The Malibu does have an advantage of being designed for lop. 12-16 gph are typical cruise fuel flows. 45-60 gallons goes a long way. I once flew STL-SLC westbound on 100 gallons (5-10 kt headwinds).

The 58 is much, much more than an A-36 with a second engine hung on it. The nose baggage is a game changer and makes it the perfect plane for six, assuming they are FAA std. or smaller, especially on shorter legs. In addition to having more performance and more storage, the 58 will offer ice protection and radar. It's a much more capable aircraft. That's not even getting into the benefits of pressurization if he went with a 58P.

Just for fun, I ran the numbers on the typical 200nm trip with an hours reserve and my "nothing special" NA 58 can do the trip with a 1.5 hour reserve, every seat filled with 170# person, 225 pounds in the nose and 100 pounds in the rear baggage compartment (1345# total). All of this for a very minimal operational cost increase, and quite likely a decrease in acquisition cost.

The 700nm trip is nonstop with 1.5 reserve is you cut the load of people and bags to 900 pounds.

Guy,

What about a partnership with someone in the northeast so you could get more plane? you both fly 100 hours and split everything, the cost of a TP makes more sense....