I had 1200 Bonanza time when transitioning to the Malibu, but would have felt comfortable with much less. The biggest difference for me was systems and flying at altitudes. I just recently used Hank Gibson for my recurrent training and would highly recommend him. Wonderful pressurization system, comfortable passenger seating and air conditioning make for happy passengers.

Kevin

I transitioned to a Malibu with 200 Cessna 182 hours. I flew with a mentor pilot 100 hours to become proficient. I then transitioned to a TBM at about 1000 total hours with little effort. I think it depends on your missions and how often. Mine were always cross country and 200+ hours per year.

Thanks for the replies. I’m still a new pilot but I would like the end game for me to be a PA46 even as my 2 kids get older. I figure that as I get older I will want pressurization for comfort having grown tired of weaving around weather and/or sucking oxygen and it is a suitable plane for getting further while flying higher. I have a few years of flying low and slower, then maybe move to a higher performance retract first though and I definitely understand the value of good transition training.

Malibu folks -

I have client with a Malibu whose sun shades have been compromised by kids pulling on them too aggressively.

Does anyone know of a shop that can replace them and IF there is a solid alternative to the paper shades (think airliner shades).

The original shades are nice, but boy are they fragile.

This is unsolicited but, here I go anyway....

I’m an experienced pro-pilot but had limited GA time prior to buying my P210N (Vitatoe STC to the TN550). While I went the Cessna route I had the same line of thinking, eventually transition to a PA46T or another SETP in 10 years. I could’ve started with a 182T or a -33/35 Beech but figured I might as well purchase “the” airplane. After flying my 210 for 7 months, the idea of stepping up in 10 years almost seems silly. Yea, I can get another 10k of altitude in the high 20s, yes, the Px system is better, yes, club seating is better for the family. Yea, PT6 is reliable. But, for $300k you can get a lower time P210, solid avionics, and a new TN550. The numbers make sense but everyone has their preferences which is important too. Larry V doesn’t pay me to market his STC but I can’t say enough about the capability. Many of the compromises are subjective, not objective. Insurance is about the same/maybe a little less than a PA46. Insurance will probably require training, which is fine with the right CFII.

The converted birds aren’t on the market often, so a project might be the only way to go.

For what it’s worth...

Larry, let's see some pictures of your bird.



This is unsolicited but, here I go anyway....

I’m an experienced pro-pilot but had limited GA time prior to buying my P210N (Vitatoe STC to the TN550). While I went the Cessna route I had the same line of thinking, eventually transition to a PA46T or another SETP in 10 years. I could’ve started with a 182T or a -33/35 Beech but figured I might as well purchase “the” airplane. After flying my 210 for 7 months, the idea of stepping up in 10 years almost seems silly. Yea, I can get another 10k of altitude in the high 20s, yes, the Px system is better, yes, club seating is better for the family. Yea, PT6 is reliable. But, for $300k you can get a lower time P210, solid avionics, and a new TN550. The numbers make sense but everyone has their preferences which is important too. Larry V doesn’t pay me to market his STC but I can’t say enough about the capability. Many of the compromises are subjective, not objective. Insurance is about the same/maybe a little less than a PA46. Insurance will probably require training, which is fine with the right CFII.

The converted birds aren’t on the market often, so a project might be the only way to go.

For what it’s worth...

Numbers are basically the same as a TAT WWIII bonanza, maybe a touch faster depending on variables. Useful load depends on each aircraft, 1250-1300 is about standard. Many owners remove a middle seat, or both, which provides a large area for pets/kids/bags/third row legroom. CG isn’t really a problem.

17.6 GPH, CHTs <350. I have a XC trip coming up this weekend, I’ll snap some real world data from that one. Mostly local flying the latest few months.

Very nice!

We loved our Mirage

Its really the best 6 seat family plane there is. It takes a huge jump up to beat it. Personally the only real advantage of PT-6 is speed. If you are not in a hurry the Mirage will get you more payload, more baggage, and better range.

Pressurization is super easy. Really just mess with it twice a flight at top of climb and top of descent, thats it. It is a game changer and makes flying so much more comfortable. I can not imagine every going non pressurized again.

My only two complaints about the PA46 is 1 the AC isn't great. If you are in a hot area it can be painful.

2 is landing. It's not very stable on the ground and in my opinion the only real sketch part of the aircraft. It takes practice and process to have good safe landings. Lots of ground accidents that plaque the fleet.

Other than that its a dream to fly and very affordable for what you get.

Flying in the Flight levels for sure opens up some more risk and you need to know what you are getting into but its just like anything, respect it, understand it, and you will be fine.

Oh and the shop that maintains the aircraft is a big deal. Its a complete plane with lots of gotchas. We used Malibu Aerospace and were very happy. they kept our Mirage in top shape.


Mike

Nice looking 210.

Not sure how “compromised” they are, but if they are just sagging and not ripped, you can spray starch on them and then let them dry while taped in the up position. It will stiffen the shade back up. It is pretty expensive to replace those cheap shades.

And leave the shades in the up position when not using.

You are all making this difficult for my wallet. I am not swayed at all from really liking the -46 and my wife is an auditor and IT guru. She sees my plane shopping and knows about them before I present anything. And all she’s seen lately is everything PA-46.

I looked for an A36 without AC when I was first looking, being greedy for useful load, so poor AC isn't a deal breaker for me. No. 2 gives me pause though, as does the reputation for an uncomfortable ride in turbulence.

People might comment that a less forgiving airplane makes you a better pilot, but someone advocating for the simplicity of 500 and 600 turbines pointed out none of us on our A game everyday. Do those flying PA 46s have lower tolerance for gusting crosswinds on landing the PA 46 than for other airplanes?

Just let another year go by without an airplane. And then another, and another, and another...