Is the turbulence problem due to light wing loading, ineffective yaw damper, or something like that?

I know my Glasair is a toy to many people, but I am not sure I can go back to another plane with light wing loading and low airspeed limitations. with nearly 30:1 wing loading and the yellow arc starting at 245 knots indicated I am finding the ride is so much more comfortable than anything I have ever flown. It is nice to be at 12k in the bumps and not be thrown around and have the ability to nose it over and descend at 6k per minute and still be in the green arc.

The Malibu is very attractive for all the reasons previously mentioned but my impression is that you're asking an awful lot out of a single Piston engine. I haven't ever reviewed the safety stats but how often do engine failures contribute to accidents? When they do occur, do they most often occur during cruise or at other phases of flight?

Tough to tell on engine failures. Most of the accidents I read about are because of pilot error. The most recent spate of accidents were all that.

In fact, I often compare the PA46 to the V-tail lore. Yeah, the wing or tail will snap off if you fly into a T-storm. Duh...

I don't see or hear that many engine failures on the PA46 line, but the FAA and NTSB databases won't have anything if the landing was uneventful in most cases.

If you stay on top of the engine and change the oil and inspect it regularly, you should be okay. The biggest problem is people trying to make the engine and turbos make TBO without OH the turbos in between or doing a top.

If I recall correctly there has never been a fatality due to an engine failure in a mirage. I think there was one malibu fatal sonewhere in the Canadian Rockies. Engines do fail but people either make a field or put it down safely. The airframe seems to do well in off airport landings.

...there was also an FAA AD* issued for certain models of the Lycoming TIO-540 AE2A engines, as there were some engine failures related to crankshafts (serial number specific) that had a metallurgical deficiency.

*"This AD results from reports of 23 confirmed failures of similar crankshafts in Lycoming Engines 360 and 540 series reciprocating engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the crankshaft, which will result in total engine power loss, in-flight engine failure, and possible loss of the aircraft."

Hey Todd,

Don't get in a big hurry on the Malibu. I've got two more years of flying the heck out of my baron, then I'll sell it with timed out motors. And then buy the Malibu you buy and fix up!

I have owned an '86 Malibu for the last 14 years, with the 520 engine. I think the key to low maintenance cost is attending to maintenance promptly. My last annual was under 5k. The plane climbs at about 800 ft/min using cruise-climb power, and would climb faster at full power. It easily does 200 k true in the flight levels at 16 gal/hr.

I think the engine troubles have been sorted out. Most owners have installed engine monitors like the JPI 700, so nowadays the engines are not operated incorrectly. I do think there is a misunderstanding about the "demands" placed on the engine by pressurization and FIKI. Pressurization places no real demand on the dual turbos - the amount of air flowing into the cabin is very low compared to the air flowing into the engine. FIKI places no big demands on the engine except the load from the alternators, and that is only when it's used. The engine is capable of supplying the demand that it is rated for, and it doesn't care whether the load comes from the prop or elsewhere. High alt does place demands on cooling, but the engine monitors help a lot keeping CHT and TIT within limits.

The '86 is a good year for Malibus. Electric flaps makes it slightly preferable to the '84 and '85. '87 should be good too. But they are all good.

That one was not an engine failure.
The experience pilot took off in a Jetprop in IMC with a failed HSI, overgross, (full cabin and full fuel).Lost control in the clouds, overspeed and the airframe came apart. Similar to the PC12 in FL.
This is the accident that after TC decided to remove the POC autority from CBAA.

3-4 years ago, I owned a 182 and was seriously shopping for a P210. Took the (excellent) CPA 210 systems and procedures class, took a demo ride, and read the CPA forums and rest of the Internet about P210s. I came away deciding that I'd only want an R, which only about 30 were made, and I'd need TKS rather than trust the combination of the P210 airfoil, marginal excess power and boots in the high teens/low flight levels.

By the time I got to that decision, that basically killed the economics of the purchase price and I found BT, checked out TBones and an 18 and finally settled on a 58P and was happy with that decision except when I want to use a 2500' strip somewhere. That's not that often, so I was a happy camper. That said, a 58P is going to cost more to run than a (piston) P210 or PA46 for maintenance.

Not double, but definitely not the same either... Fuel is a bit less than double the P210 and probably is the full 2x the Piper.

Never looked too seriously at the PA46, as I decided long ago to only pay cash for airplanes (personal choice) and I couldn't justify the cash I'd need to tie up for a nice PA46 and the larger hangar I'd need to buy/build to house it.