banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 15:54 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 11:03 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/08
Posts: 12161
Post Likes: +3535
Aircraft: C55
Username Protected wrote:


In my roughly 60 times of making this trip I have never missed on an approach or been re-routed that added more than 10 minutes to the trip. From Indiana to N Florida is always direct and usually you get AYS OCF LAL then FMY. I have delayed the trip twice before taking off because of severe weather.

As far headwinds - yes, I agree with that and then you just have to bite the bullet and land or delay the trip. In my P210 I made the trip 4 times and only had to land early once of one leg. The Duke was the same way.

Either way you look at it there are tradeoffs. In the Glasair you get efficiency, speed, great avionics, best ride possible, but give up pressurization and de-ice. In the Malibu you give up some speed and definitely some ride, but arrive refreshed in a pressurized cabin that is quiet. Same goes for a Duke.


I've never flown in a pressurized piston so I'm used to picking my way around weather. I didn't think about how being at FL200+ allows you to essentially draw a line from airport to airport and fly it. That's nice. These couple of threads are going to cost me $300k not too far in the future.



Even in my Baron, Bonanza, etc I went direct 99% of the time. The advantage of 20k ft is that you get above 95% of the weather. You are usually above the normal clouds and can see the Tstorm clouds and fly around the visually. It is also nice to be out of the clouds and in smooth air. Doing 210 knots vs 140 knots is a big difference as well.
_________________
The kid gets it all. Just plant us in the damn garden, next to the stupid lion.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 18:45 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1845
Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
The Malibu cabin is that is basically the same width front to back and doesn't start contracting till aft of the rear seats. I believe it is 49.6" wide and 47" tall. A Mirage is every so slightly narrower b/c of the formed panel sidewalls. It is just as comfy in the middle seats as the back ones.

Another benefit to the Malibu is the front baggage compartment. Similar to the nose compartment on the P Barons it gives you a large space to put bulky objects. If you remove the cabinets between middle and front seats you pick up some UL and get even more baggage space. I actually keep a bucket toilet behind the pilot side. It has been used too though it required some creative curtaining.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 19:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/11/13
Posts: 889
Post Likes: +697
Location: Raleigh, NC
Aircraft: Malibu,Husky,TBM7C2
Username Protected wrote:
Does anyone know or can someone measure the next time they are at the plane how big the rear cabin area is in the PA46? I've never been in one and would really like to know how much bigger it is than my PA32. Width across the hips on the 2nd and 3rd row and distance between the club would be awesome.


Anthony, you're lucky that your wife will do that. Mine has done 4 hours in the Six. All I'm saying is don't count on that before trying it a few times. If your family will do it, great, but don't count on it.



I don't have measurements of the back but it is quite spacious. The cockpit not so much. I am 6'2" and I fit comfortably but my 5'7" wife (thin) does not like to sit up front because she says it is too small. She prefers to ride in the back and that works for me. The attached pic is my mother with a 100+ lb pilots and paws pooch.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 22:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/22/10
Posts: 233
Post Likes: +54
Company: Rushing Media
Location: Houma, LA
Aircraft: PA32-300
Username Protected wrote:
The Malibu cabin is that is basically the same width front to back and doesn't start contracting till aft of the rear seats. I believe it is 49.6" wide and 47" tall. A Mirage is every so slightly narrower b/c of the formed panel sidewalls. It is just as comfy in the middle seats as the back ones.

Another benefit to the Malibu is the front baggage compartment. Similar to the nose compartment on the P Barons it gives you a large space to put bulky objects. If you remove the cabinets between middle and front seats you pick up some UL and get even more baggage space. I actually keep a bucket toilet behind the pilot side. It has been used too though it required some creative curtaining.


I've got a similar front compartment on the Six. It's great for stuff like the stroller, fly rods, tow bar, etc.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 13:28 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/16/09
Posts: 663
Post Likes: +643
Location: British Columbia
Aircraft: Cessna 350
For those with Malibu experience I'm wondering about it for westbound cross country and an alternative to moving up to a tprop. I know the numbers but wondering about real world experience. I fly Toronto to Alberta.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 13:56 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
For those with Malibu experience I'm wondering about it for westbound cross country and an alternative to moving up to a tprop. I know the numbers but wondering about real world experience. I fly Toronto to Alberta.

Your question indicates concern about headwinds when flying west. Your route would suffer some fairly strong winds over quite a lot of the year.

For the turboprop, it doesn't like to fly low as the fuel flow increases dramatically. So when you face a heavy headwind, your choices are to fly low and burn more fuel, or fly high and take more time.

For the Malibu, flying low is some impact on speed, but little effect on fuel flow. It is thus a better airplane to fight headwinds by flying lower. The problem there is if you can't avoid turbulence or weather, either of which may also impact speed.

The primary advantage to the turboprop is that it is generally faster overall, but that depends on the specific turboprop. If it is an older 90 King Air, it won't be much faster than the Malibu. If it is a TBM, it will run circles around the Malibu.

I recently did a flight where headwinds at FL280 (where I would fly generally) were 120 knots on the nose.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N305 ... V/tracklog

Initially at FL200 doing about 310 knots true, I was making 230 over the ground, 80 knots headwind. By going down to FL180, I gained 25 knots to 255, only about 55 knots headwind. Sometimes a small altitude change can make a big difference as it did in this case.

If the winds had been strong all the way down to low altitude, my fuel burn would have been way up. The Malibu is a bit more flexible in this regard, though I suspect the ride would be quite bumpy and uncomfortable. Taking the Malibu to FL200 and have it make 120 knots groundspeed would be disappointing to say the least, but may be required for weather or turbulence reasons.

You buy a fast airplane not for the tailwind days, but for the headwind days.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 13:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/11/13
Posts: 889
Post Likes: +697
Location: Raleigh, NC
Aircraft: Malibu,Husky,TBM7C2
My milk run is back and forth to KSAT or KCXO Texas from North Carolina (max 1100nm). Typically it requires a stop going out and a straight shot coming back in the Mirage, especially with the winter westerlies.

I made it a couple of of times straight through in a Malibu. My longest flight in a Malibu with 120 gallon tanks was 7.2 hours of flying time with 15 gallons left at 200TAS. You can fly one that long. I don't think I would again unless enroute ceilings required it though.

You can get way more distance especially from a Malibu because the Continental does well LOP up high. The JP and the Meridian get you there faster but they have less distance capability.

It always comes down to mission. I fly more on the east coast now in 300nm segments and will probably stay piston when my Mirage goes to TBO. Mainly because routing is often favorable at lower altitudes where the turbines are less efficient.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 14:27 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I fly Toronto to Alberta.

CYYZ (Toronto) to CYYC (Calgary) is 1450 nm. I would presume a fuel stop both ways. In REALLY bad winds, it might take two fuel stops. In REALLY good winds, non stop east bound may be possible.

I ran some numbers on the route for a fight 1 hour from now, averaging over the entire route:

FL280: 61 knot headwind
FL240: 52 knot headwind
FL200: 31 knot headwind
16,000: 23 knot headwind

Under those conditions, I'd choose FL240 doing about 250 GS, and I would expect the Malibu would be at FL180 doing about 180 GS.

So not a particularly bad day to go that direction. In the winter, this is high enough latitude that you could be on the north side of the jet stream.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 14:52 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
For those with Malibu experience I'm wondering about it for westbound cross country and an alternative to moving up to a tprop. I know the numbers but wondering about real world experience. I fly Toronto to Alberta.



The Malibu is a 310hp, 4100 lb plane. Down low, it pretty much behaves like a Bonanza.

In my two years/150 hrs flying a Malibu, I generally found the wind aloft/TAS gradient was well matched such that within reason, altitude rarely made a difference. I rarely flew below 10,000 feet for turbulence/atc reasons. Winds aren't usually howling between 10-14 and that was a good compromise.

That said, in my 421 (which at the 55% power I use typically matches Malibu speeds) I made a flight at 4000 after Christmas because the winds were crazy.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N421 ... /KBNA/KHKS

You can do that in a Malibu the rare times it makes sense. I'm not familiar with the terrain over your route, that certainly is a consideration. 1450nm is a looooong way at 200 kts though. Have you looked at a Merlin? 300 kts and 650 gallons of fuel would be nice for that leg.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 15:45 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/11/13
Posts: 889
Post Likes: +697
Location: Raleigh, NC
Aircraft: Malibu,Husky,TBM7C2
"You can do that in a Malibu the rare times it makes sense. I'm not familiar with the terrain over your route, that certainly is a consideration. 1450nm is a looooong way at 200 kts though. "

I concur w Charles.

I am thinking EPIC or TBM though. I personally fancy EPIC because of range and payload.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 15:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/09/10
Posts: 3632
Post Likes: +860
Location: KPAN
Aircraft: PA12
Username Protected wrote:
I fly Toronto to Alberta.

CYYZ (Toronto) to CYYC (Calgary) is 1450 nm. I would presume a fuel stop both ways. In REALLY bad winds, it might take two fuel stops. In REALLY good winds, non stop east bound may be possible.

I ran some numbers on the route for a fight 1 hour from now, averaging over the entire route:

FL280: 61 knot headwind
FL240: 52 knot headwind
FL200: 31 knot headwind
16,000: 23 knot headwind

Under those conditions, I'd choose FL240 doing about 250 GS, and I would expect the Malibu would be at FL180 doing about 180 GS.

So not a particularly bad day to go that direction. In the winter, this is high enough latitude that you could be on the north side of the jet stream.

Mike C.


I would think that trip today with those winds would be a piece of cake non stop east bound and easy one stop west bound in a malibu.
_________________
520 M35, 7ECA, CL65, CE550, E170/190, B737
5/19 737
5/18 E170/190
8/17 CL65
3/17 CE500


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 16:28 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/16/09
Posts: 663
Post Likes: +643
Location: British Columbia
Aircraft: Cessna 350
If I read the book right at 18k at below ISA temps the Malibu would TAS around 190? With 25 on the nose thats in the 160s GS


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2015, 16:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Maybe closer to 200.


Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2015, 23:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/21/14
Posts: 73
Post Likes: +33
Location: KCAK
Aircraft: Phenom 300, Bell 407
Username Protected wrote:

4.5 hours won't do your trip in a Malibu. All it takes is a headwind, reroute for weather, missed approach, etc. to turn that into a 6 hour flight. That could quickly sour the whole experience then you're back to sending them commercial. The pain of one bad long flight will last multiples as long as the joy of a dozen perfect flights, and there are few perfect flights.

I'm just saying, I wouldn't count on making that trip nonstop often with the family. It gives you a lot of flexibility to trade fuel for bags if you stop for lunch in South GA or North FL.

That said, I'm watching this and the Malibu costs thread intently. Conti powered Malibus make a lot more sense for me when I think about it than a Baron 58 or C340. My mission is twelve or fifteen solo trips around this side of the Rockies with a handful of family trips thrown in. The solo trips look a lot better burning 17gph and the 1000+ mile range is awesome for when it's just me.


In my roughly 60 times of making this trip I have never missed on an approach or been re-routed that added more than 10 minutes to the trip. From Indiana to N Florida is always direct and usually you get AYS OCF LAL then FMY. I have delayed the trip twice before taking off because of severe weather.

As far headwinds - yes, I agree with that and then you just have to bite the bullet and land or delay the trip. In my P210 I made the trip 4 times and only had to land early once of one leg. The Duke was the same way.

Either way you look at it there are tradeoffs. In the Glasair you get efficiency, speed, great avionics, best ride possible, but give up pressurization and de-ice. In the Malibu you give up some speed and definitely some ride, but arrive refreshed in a pressurized cabin that is quiet. Same goes for a Duke.


I owned 2 Mirages from 1995 to 2002 and I also made the Midwest (Cleveland) to Florida (Vero Beach) trip about 50 to 60 times over that time period and I never had to stop for fuel even with headwinds (850nm). I never had any reroutes to speak of. My family always enjoyed to roomy cabin and pressurized comfort. We were traveling with kids, so that helped with weight. I flew down there at FL240 and back north at FL250.

On the second Mirage I put on the outboard fuel caps that added 10 more gallons of fuel per side. Of course that will limit the already limited payload, but with 2 or 3 people on board it is a nice option to have.

Climb rates were slow, but I always enjoyed those planes. Eventually our family outgrew the Mirage.

Top

 Post subject: Re: real numbers from flying a Malibu last year
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2015, 23:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/21/14
Posts: 73
Post Likes: +33
Location: KCAK
Aircraft: Phenom 300, Bell 407
Username Protected wrote:
For those with Malibu experience I'm wondering about it for westbound cross country and an alternative to moving up to a tprop. I know the numbers but wondering about real world experience. I fly Toronto to Alberta.


In my 7 years of owning a Mirage I made the Cleveland to LA trip 2 times. I have an office in LA that I need to visit 2 to 4 times per year, but unfortunately the westbound trip took too long, so I would fly commercial. For north south trips it was fantastic. For 500 nm east west trips it was great too. But the 1800 nm trip was too much for me.

If you can afford the TP, then go that route.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.tat-85x100.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.