Jetprops are incredibly cheap to maintain and fly. Fuel cost/nm is competitive with a piston. Owners report annual maint costs often under $10k. But you're looking at another half million capital costs, minimum. Meridians can be had cheaper but cost more to fly and maintain.

Jetprops are incredibly cheap to maintain and fly. Fuel cost/nm is competitive with a piston. Owners report annual maint costs often under $10k. But you're looking at another half million capital costs, minimum. Meridians can be had cheaper but cost more to fly and maintain.

Jetprops are incredibly cheap to maintain and fly. Fuel cost/nm is competitive with a piston. Owners report annual maint costs often under $10k. But you're looking at another half million capital costs, minimum. Meridians can be had cheaper but cost more to fly and maintain.

Will you elaborate on this? Why is the Jetprop cheaper to fly and maintain?

There was one posted recently that had over 100 pound negative payload with full fuel. Basically you couldn't legally fill it. Seems crazy I thought the pt6 was about the same weight, is the weight in the PSRU? Just seems like if you're going to bite off 45-50k a year to operate a Malibu you might just consider going turbine for not much more, especially with the jetA advantages and turbine reliability.

There was one posted recently that had over 100 pound negative payload with full fuel. Basically you couldn't legally fill it. Seems crazy I thought the pt6 was about the same weight, is the weight in the PSRU? Just seems like if you're going to bite off 45-50k a year to operate a Malibu you might just consider going turbine for not much more, especially with the jetA advantages and turbine reliability.

The euphoria over the Malibu proved short-lived. Scores of engine failures were blamed on the Continental engine. The 520s used in Malibus held just eight quarts of oil, or four quarts less than many other variants of the same engine. This, plus poor flows of engine intake and exhaust air, the absence of cowl flaps, and a fundamental misjudgment of piston-engine thermal stresses at altitude were blamed for many problems — with hot-running cylinders leading the list. As time wore on, more problems surfaced. Starter and air conditioner drives, and over-torqued crankcase through-bolts, caused more engine failures.

Many felt that the published leaning procedures explained at least some of the Continental's problems. Because of the engine's tuned induction system, Piper advised leaning to 50 degrees lean of peak turbine inlet temperature (TIT) for all cruise power settings. Using a richer mixture, Continental said, would cause the engine to run at super-high (better than 80 percent) power settings and cause much higher-than-normal operating temperatures. There is widespread speculation that many Malibu owners operated their engines at rich-of-peak mixture settings, succumbing to habits established with more conventional engines.

There were other service problems. Among them was the hydraulic system, which lacked an accumulator and thus produced pressure spikes that blew O-rings. Low fluid levels would cause the pump to fail. In addition, the hydraulically actuated flaps needed their linkages periodically adjusted.

A spate of wrist pin problems finally prompted Piper to ground the early Malibu fleet in November 1987. In a grandiose act, Piper's then-president M. Stuart Millar promised first-class airline travel to all inconvenienced Malibu owners. On a superficial level, this was perceived as an act of magnanimity. In reality, this gesture was a symptom of the growing financial irresponsibility that would eventually bring Piper to bankruptcy.

Despite a number of fixes intended to keep the Continental from running hot and falling apart, the -BE had been tarred, and the early Malibu with it. For this reason, some Malibu owners have opted for a recent STC that allows the installation of the cooler-running, more powerful Continental TSIO-550C. Though it's capable of 350 hp, the -550C is derated to 310 hp for the Malibu.