The T-210 is FAR FAR FAR superior to the pre-R P210 in every aspect other than not being pressurized. My 1978 T-210 climbed 1000 FPM and was faster than my P210. The P210R is a vast improvement, but for what they are bringing you can buy a Malibu that is faster with a better cabin for passengers.

Thank you for the responses! A couple of questions...1) why the 1986, something about that year?, 2) how active is the MMOPA?, its $250 annually to join which is fine if there is an active online community.

I fly both an A36 and Mirage. I have really found both to be great planes, but with different missions.

The bonanza is the best NA plane for routine use I can imagine right now. It offers great economy and speed.

The Malibu platform is pressurized and turbocharged, FIKI, with radar. While much less economical to fly short distances, it is a fantastic cross country aircraft. I have flown with 6 adults and very light luggage sor a few hundred miles from 3500 ft strips with no concern.

Both are the best examples of their type, NA and turbo piston.

As for the MMOPA, it is worth every penny if you are thinking of buying any PA46. The boards are as full of content as these are, when you compare against fleet size. The members are just as supportive and even have an official relationship with the manufacturer.

If you have any questions I would be happy to discuss my experiences.

The R is certainly a better P210 but there is now an STC which cures most, if not all, of the P210N issues:

http://www.vitatoeaviation.com/category/cessna_pt210/

Drops in a 550 that is essentially a TN conversion and improves performance and maintainability. Then maybe the O&N Aircraft rudder/elevator STC to get to what amounts to an "R" tail:

http://www.onaircraft.com/products-serv ... -products/

Between the 2 you get the equivalent of an R w/o the price premium.

RAS

That would make it better. You also want the Flint tip tanks and NOT the rear baggage tank. The rear baggage tank takes up all your baggage useful load (in that area) and it is a serious safety concern if you crash. My friend and his 4 family members burned to death in their P210. When he hit the ground flat, but hard the the rear tank ruptured and threw the fuel forward into the cabin. It was very sad.

Not to threadjack, but since this thread seems to have run its course and since this is BEECHtalk, after all... do any 58P owners want to chime in here?

For $20k/year in MX on the Malibu it seems like a P Baron would be in that ballpark.

Fuel burn is higher, but acquisition cost is lower.

I did not own my 58P long, but $20k per year would be about right if it included reserves for engines, future window replacements, failed cylinders, etc. The annual itself is really not that expensive.

I think $20k per year would be the high end on a Malibu as well.

Think of it this way - 16 GPH vs 32 GPH on roughly the same speed. On 100 hours per year that is at least $8,000 in fuel. The 58P also has 12 more spark plugs, 12 more quarts of oil to change, and unfortunately - 12 more cylinders to fail.

Unless the Malibu is a really bad plane in design I don't know how the maintenance would be even the same let alone more.

It's also the BRAND X TALK section of BEECHtalk. And as i put in the original post I've done extensive research on pressurized twins, and there are countless threads on 58P v Duke v 421, etc.

I was looking for, and received, input on the single engine options, which is greatly appreciated.

It's also the BRAND X TALK section of BEECHtalk. And as i put in the original post I've done extensive research on pressurized twins, and there are countless threads on 58P v Duke v 421, etc.

I was looking for, and received, input on the single engine options, which is greatly appreciated.

Regarding safety and the PA46, I seemed to recall back in the day, the Feds did a recertification review and the plane passed with no problems. I seem to remember a lot of fatals were the result of lower time pilots mid-operating/ not understanding the auto pilot and using same in flight levels. Not sure of the specifics. I would jump on a 520 model if I could...

I have flown in both a 79 P210 and an IO550 1986 Malibu. Both were dogs in climb especially when the owners were doing cruise climb.

If im flying a single engine pressurized aircraft I want a PT6 on the front.

I love my Malibu. Its an 86 and burns 16gph LOP at 16000 and trues at 200kts. I just flew back from Klamath Falls OR to KVNY and did the trip in just over 2 hours and in comfort. The air conditioning is great and the plane is quiet. I have been in several pressurized singles and these Malibus seem to be very quiet inside the cabin. Have a friend who has a P210 and the plane is loud inside, but it does get up and go. Frankly, the Malibu is a lot sexier of an airplane.

MMOPA is good and there is very active discussions that go on. Even though I don't own one anymore I keep my membership in MMOPA active and pay the fees.

I would caution the comment about a "relationship" with Piper. There is a casual relationship and one of the old members at MMOPA is in charge of relationships with them, but it is far from what I would like to see. I will give Piper a thumbs up for figuring out the ultimate pricing elasticity on some of their components.

Make sure if you are buying a Mirage (lycoming engine) that you get the new engine mount. Piper just released a new one to correct some of their admitted defects and want to charge owners something like 6k for it.

Compared to a PT-6 the malibu is a dog in the climb, but compared to other airplanes it is a speed demon. It's all relative.

Bang for buck, hard to beat the PA46 piston, and at 20k you usually have 40-50 miles of glide range. Not too shabby.

Jason, thank you for that information. That is one of the benefits of the Malibu for sure - glide range. At 20k you are probably within a good airport 50% of the time and a suitable landing area 90% of the time. Coupled with modern GPS, SVT, etc the safety advantage may actually swing to a plane like a Malibu as compared to a plane like a NA Baron, 310, etc.

The Malibu certainly does have a nice cabin and decent speed considering the fuel burn.

It has all of that but it rides turbulence horribly and it is no where near as much fun to fly as a Baron. I'm still on the prowl for a good 55... :-)

I'm just going to turn into Adam... Citabria and a Baron... and my cessna.