And ailerons. Letting go of the yoke as soon as you touch down if you had crosswind correction in has caused a lot of these problems.

Hundreds per year? I would check your math on fleet sizes and accident rates.

Again, we can debate what is and isn’t a flaw, but to me, a tricycle gear airplane that has a runway excursion rate equal to or higher than a tail dragger has a problem. Maybe it gets fixed with a redesign, maybe it gets fixed with extra training, or maybe the insurance companies enforce a fix, but either way, to me that is a design flaw.

There is still the possibility that the 6 accidents in 14 months was a fluke, and over a longer timeframe with more airframes, the accident rate will not stand out. That’s what the NTSB investigation (and time) should reveal.

I didn't say hundreds per year. I said hundreds. The M600 is not hundreds per year or even close. The MU2 had many, many incidents as well. MU2 and FAA came up with a new training program and their safety record has been excellent since. Cirrus/COPA also revamped their training and safety program after a rash of incidents and have markedly improved their safety rate. New planes require new training standards to fit that make/model. I can't understand why some are so quick to chalk it up to design flaws.

I repeat check your math. If 158 M600’s have 6 incidents in 14 months, and they are no worse than other tricycle gear designs, how many incidents could be expected every 12 months for Cirrus, Cessna piston, Cessna Citations, Beech pistons, other Pipers, Mooney, Pilatus, Socata, etc. If the ratios were the same the answer would be hundreds per year.

I am not sure you can find a tail dragger that has historically matched that accident rate, let alone another tricycle gear design. Again, the numbers are small, so it could be a fluke, but it’s certainly attention grabbing to see an anomaly like this.

I repeat check your math. If 158 M600’s have 6 incidents in 14 months, and they are no worse than other tricycle gear designs, how many incidents could be expected every 12 months for Cirrus, Cessna piston, Cessna Citations, Beech pistons, other Pipers, Mooney, Pilatus, Socata, etc. If the ratios were the same the answer would be hundreds per year.

I am not sure you can find a tail dragger that has historically matched that accident rate, let alone another tricycle gear design. Again, the numbers are small, so it could be a fluke, but it’s certainly attention grabbing to see an anomaly like this.

Any design that requires special training or technique is not a good design. Period.

Can you get good at landing a PA46?, Yes you can. Making sure its set up right, the right tire pressure, straight nose wheel straight touching the runway, and lots of back pressure to reduce the weight on the nose. Follow these and you will have good safe landings. But that does not mean its a good design.

Anyone that has owned a PA46 will tell you the ground handling is the weakness of the model. If they don't they are lying, to you and themselves.

When the PA46 fleet was grounded they changed the training and told pilots to turn the pitot heat on when entering the runway. That greatly reduced the model falling from the sky. Thats a simple fix. The training and fix for landing is much longer and more difficult.

If people were killing themselves during the PA46 runway crashes the FAA would have grounded the fleet long ago. The design is not good, period.

Mike

BS. I own a P46T and I have no issues with ground handling. Never have. Do you think I'm lying? Every plane has their idiosyncrasies, from fuel management to stall characteristics. This includes the plane you fly. There is no excuse for not being properly trained in the plane you fly. The FAA did an exhaustive retest on the PA46 and found NO design flaws. Most if it was new pilots in the flight levels where they had no experience and broke it up. The PA46 is, in fact, a very tough airframe. You can read the report yourself. https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-f ... R92-03.pdf

I read on a previous post on BT that this issue was related to low tire pressure on the nosewheel and that it should be checked on the first flight of the day. If true it's an easy if annoying fix.

Yes, correct, along with making sure the NLG is property rigged at annual. SL 1286B covers that. SL1285A covers tire pressure.

BS. I own a P46T and I have no issues with ground handling. Never have. Do you think I'm lying? Every plane has their idiosyncrasies, from fuel management to stall characteristics. This includes the plane you fly. There is no excuse for not being properly trained in the plane you fly. The FAA did an exhaustive retest on the PA46 and found NO design flaws. Most if it was new pilots in the flight levels where they had no experience and broke it up. The PA46 is, in fact, a very tough airframe. You can read the report yourself. https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-f ... R92-03.pdf

You have to be on your game in many, many, dare I say most, planes. Tail draggers especially. I had a 182 and it was very nose heavy on landing. Without the proper technique you could crumple the NLG. Design flaw? If the 182 was "designed better" I'd have more room for error there too. That logic escapes me. So your 421 handles "better on the ground" than your Mirage? So? Your Mirage probably did other things better than your C421, like fuel management. Because your C421 handles better on the ground, in your opinion, than the PA46 does not constitute a design flaw on the PA46.

I never once said the PA46 has a great NLG design. I said it is not flawed. Is it perfect? No. But neither is every component on your C421. I am not justifying this "weakness" by pointing out other planes weaknesses. I am simply stating the fact that ALL planes have their pros and cons, just like the C421, so why are you singling out the PA46 as "flawed"? There are many, many previous PA46 owners here, I am sure. I'd also be interested in how many of them upgraded or downgraded due to a "flawed" NLG. That would be silly. I didn't upgrade out of my C182 due to the nose heavy landing characteristics.

Your personal experience, by your own account, was problem free. Not sure why this is now a design flaw issue for you. To claim all of us PA46 drivers are liars is beyond comprehension.

Not even sure what you mean by 421 fuel management issues. My 421C is way easier than my Mirage was to manage fuel. My Mirage I had to switch tanks every 25 minutes or so. One time I forgot and the imbalance was enough for my AP to disengage and put me in a pretty good bank in the flight levels. My 421 I leave them alone. Not even sure the last time I messed with fuel switches in my 421. Left feeds left and right feeds right.

But regardless of other make and model issues the PA46 has a weak nose gear design. Anyone that has flown it a lot and flown other makes and models will tell you that.

You are saying it’s a weakness you can overcome and are comfortable with. That’s great but does not take away the weakness.

I did not sell my Mirage because if the nose wheel design. It was not a factor for me as I was comfortable with it. I sold mine because I needed more payload.

I had a partner in my Saratoga. He ground looped the Saratoga on landing and totaled it. He would for sure have done the same thing in the PA46. No way I would have let him fly the Mirage.

Mike

That excludes all jets since they require a type rating.

Mike C.

Well, I for one, have flown the PA46 a lot and would not say that. I don't see all the owners on MMOPA saying that either. So I'm not sure who you are talking to. You can continue to call it a weakness but that doesn't make it so. Maybe the C421 has more "weaknesses" which is why people quit buying them and Cessna quit making them.