A guy at my Airpark (57AZ) has one. His also has TKS, not sure if it is KI or not but that sure is one sweet traveling machine. He loves it.

Turbo Commander, 5 year gear overhauls average about $15K. It's a much cheaper plane to operate and will outperform a King Air in everything except cabin size. Worth taking into consideration when we're comparing MU-2's, Cheyenne's, King Air's etc. Somehow they always get left out. Fully supported by the factory as well - can you say that about a Cheyenne or an early King Air?

Sorry gentlemen. I had not considered the P210 when I made the Malibu post above.

Safe to say that the Malibu and P210 are the top 2 among low cost of operation, FIKI, pressurized aircraft?

I don’t know enough to decide between the top 2. Never owned either one.

Either plane sounds like about the lowest cost per mile way to travel and safely deal with moderate weather.

My experience in pressurized, piston FIKI was with a PBaron. That plane was amazingly capable for the acquisition cost.

It did take a quite few dollars to keep the fuel tanks full vs a single. The 58P had the same cylinder compression issues that all turbo 520s experience.

Outside of those hurdles, the 58P has the Beechcraft quality and was really not bad to maintain.

KJ

If your considering a P210, I'd certainly go into it eyes wide open after reading this article:

https://airfactsjournal.com/2014/09/log ... urbulence/

Jason,

What is it that scares you about the P210 from that article?

He puts a lot of emphasise on the fact that his P210 was more or less the "on the line" test plane.
But the last lines more or less sums up what he thinks about it.

With engine monitors, LOP and aux fuel tank, the P210 is an amazing plane for what you pay (buying and maintenance)

My aerostar is a 601P with intercoolers, ie its basically turbo normalized.
Climb does not require much engine management...
set up 29.5 in, 2500 RPM and 1450 EGT and don't do anything till you level off.
So a TN system for the P210 makes a lot of sense.

(My 601P Averages 800 to 900 fpm all the way to FL22 at 145 IAS or so...)

How much fuel can you put in a Malibu with 6 full size adults?

Pa46 useful loads decline over time. The conti-bu’s can approach 1400# UL. 12gph is a reasonable cruise fuel burn giving 160+ at lower altitudes.

Calculate as you will.

My Malibu has 1340useful when I owned it. Next owner got it to 1400 with new panel and dumping old panel junk and wiring.

I did Denver Dallas with 6 people a few times. 3 hour flight. Memory is I need about 70 gallons for the flight with reserves. 6 people had 4 175ish pound males and 2 125ish pound females. Obviously the math is different with all 200lbers.

Without weather/airspace issues, I’d say that you could use 40 gallons and plan 300nm in a Malibu.

There is a lot to be said about the positives of running a PT6 beyond TBO. With careful shopping, Jet A can be had for 1/2 the cost of 100LL and a PT6 flying beyond overhaul can be inexpensive to operate.

If a guy could buy a higher time Meridian in the 600's, I bet fuel cost on a per/nm basis could be about the same.

There is always the JetPROP conversion to consider. I would limit any search to the Mirage conversions with the Parker gear. Most buyers look for the -35 conversions but the -21, while a bit slower and temps out at lower altitudes, are very efficient airplanes. At FL230 you will be looking at 28 to 30 gallons per hour and around 240kts true. The Achilles heel is useful load. Its really only a two maybe three person plane with enough fuel on board to go anywhere.

My comments aren’t designed to sway anyone one way or the other, it’s simply my experience. I decided to buy a pressurized single a few years ago. I only looked at the P210 as well as the Malibu. I settled on the 210 as I already have a 182 on floats and decided to stick with Cessna. It’s was also a capital cost issue at he time. I bought an engine timed out P210 with the intent to put in a Vitatoe TN550. It had boots, but not FIKI, so I removed the boots and put in a FIKI TKS system. You can find FIKI booted P210’s around. If you go that route, I’d try to find a 1983 model, their booted systems are better than the prior ones. I flew the 520 engine in the plane for a few months before I converted to the TN550 so I didn’t become an expert on it. The conversion was 130 AMU’s. I did have challenges on the cooling with climb rate, but some manage it fine (overheating issues). The 550 climbs at 1000 fpm to the Flight levels with no temperature issues whatsoever and the P210 is certified to FL230. Pressurization is a weak point over the Malibu (3.35 psi verses 5.something). So cabin is at 12,500 at FL230. Plane cruises at 210 TAS around FL210-220 on 17 gph, LOP. Engine temps never an issue, usually around 350’s. It flies very solid and I’m in the final stages of getting my IFR and I think I’m really going to enjoy the platform. I’ve flown up at 17,500 with my 182 with oxygen hoses up my nose and I can say I’ll never go back. The 210 parts issue is a concern, but at this point anyway, it’s manageable. I haven’t flown a Silver Eagle, but for the cost (750 AMU’s) you only get another 10 KIAS I believe so other than reliability of a turbine, not worth it in my opinion. I’ve learned that the fuel is a bit of an issue in IFR. Standard is 89 gallon tanks. You can get Flint, but FIKI status gone. You can get a baggage tank, but I have a TKS tank there, so that’s not an option either, so for me, it just means extra stops when flying across the country.

Garth

VALUE is a subjective term. Every person will have a different function for what is valuable and what isn't.

In my view, the hassles and complex maintenance of pressurized piston twins make them hard to be at the top of the list. The performance isn't all that great, either. But if I was forced to choose one, I'd go with a 421C, 1976-1979 straight leg.

That being said, if someone said "Here's $300K, buy a plane you have to maintain, fuel, and use", I'd be looking at MU2s, specifically an F or K model with stock engines. Big cabin, very reliable, 260-290 knots, known ice, pressurized, twin turbine redundancy.

Having owned one for 11 years and 1500 hours, it is life style changing in a way a piston twin would never be. Not only the ~300 knots, but the fact it is so dependable makes the airplane effectively faster as well. Further, it handles weather so well, that is another aspect of mission speed. I am far more reliable than the airlines in making a schedule, having only canceled one trip in my 11 years and that was due to my health, not the airplane.

I'm convinced I have flown my MU2 for equal or less per mile than a 421C, and had far fewer hassles doing it. The extra speed means the per hour cost gets amortized over more miles, so the per mile cost is comparable. Also, don't forget that you spend most of your time flying in a headwind and a slower airplane is more penalized by this.

Here's the most obvious difference when flying turbine: you do nothing to the engines. In my 1500 aircraft hours, I've had ONE oil change and some nozzle cleanings. See if you can find a turbocharged piston twin owner who can state they only did scheduled maintenance in that amount of time (which, BTW, would be about 2200 hours to get the same miles, they would have had at least one overhaul and likely a top as well). I don't have 4 mags, 12 cylinders, 24 valves, 24 spark plugs, 12 injectors, etc to go wrong.

You do burn more fuel. 421C is 40 GPH 210 knots, my MU2 is 65 GPH 290 knots. But the fuel is cheaper, often dramatically when you consider contract fuel programs. Don't use list prices, almost no one pays those. Here is an extreme example:

TAC Air KAPA: $6.00 for 100LL, $2.86 for Jet-A (contract).

Using those prices, the 421C is $1.14 per cruise nm, my MU2 is $0.64 per cruise nm, 56% of the fuel cost per mile. If you have a headwind, the ratio gets even worse for the twin. I've used KAPA as a fuel stop to the west coast a number of times for this reason, and many others do, too.

Here's another thing not so obvious. When flying turbine, those "big city" airports you tend to avoid with piston aircraft can actually be cheaper in the turbine. So you end up with better facilities, and often closer to where you want to be. Case in point, KLGB is $6.57 for 100LL, but Jet-A is under $4 (Ross), so tolerable.

If you want to fly pressurized and FIKI, and both are highly desirable game changers IMO, and you want to do it for meaningfully less money than an MU2, then you are looking at a PA46 of some sort in my view. The PA46 is a nice plane, but nowhere near as stout as the MU2, so beware of heavy icing and bad turbulence, but it is the best value if you want to retain pressurization and known ice. I'd be unhappy having only one engine, though.

If I had to choose between FIKI and pressurization, I'd pick pressurization. I don't think I have ever been in a situation where the boots on the MU2 were essential to the safe outcome of the flight. A big part of that is climbing up high with pressurization.

Mike C.

Interesting post Mike. Are there really nice ones out there in the 300 range?