I ruled the p baron out because of useful load unfortunately

Be sure you're comparing a "fueled for the need" not "fully fueled". The 190 gallons usable is nice to have available, but almost never required. If you compare useful load with full fuel, you penalize airplanes with large/flexible tanks.

For a 200nm trip, a typical 58P will carry more payload than a typical A36.

I agree that the 58P sits in an uncomfortable middle spot for you. It's probably not enough of a increment over a straight 58 for a family of 6 with short trips as the primary need and the bigger Cessna P-twins are.

If an A36 is to small, why would a P-B be any better? If your going to make the move to more room either a cabin class twin Cessna or a TP. Also, excluding engine and prop reserves, I expect my Solitaire to run around 60-70k for a 100hrs. Also, as a result of the speed of the MU-2, I expect to only fly 60 hours per year, so my cost will be closer to 50k per year.

The Malibu has ample useful load for two small adults and 4 kids.

120 gallons is over 8 hours fuel. 14gph lop gets you 190ktas in the mid teens and 60gallons will be plenty for most trips leaving you 900-1000lbs payload. The Malibu is comfortable for 6 and has large rear and nose baggage. It will be a meaningful step up from an A36.

Where are you finding that kind of useful in a Malibu? With full fuel you may have 500-600 lbs and Mirage will have less. Family's have a lot of luggage.

His A36 is fine for 2 adults and 4 small kids. The problem is when the kids become teenagers. I'd struggle to say a malibu is comfortable for 6, the few times I've flown one it wasn't comfortable for only me flying it solo.

I'd agree with the comments that if the A36 is good but marginally too small baggage-wise, then an unpressurized 58 will be perfect. There's nothing to be gained with a fire-breathing pressurized monster to go 200 miles. Heck, if I'm only going 200miles and it's a nice day sometimes I'll leave the beechcraft and take the aeronca champ.

I'm no malibu fan but to be fair, full fuel useful load in and of itself is meaningless. Any airplane that lets you fill both the seats and the tanks, is a poor design. It needs more seats or more tanks.

The OP will be flying 200NM legs. His hourly in an MU2 will be north of $1,000 don't you think?

Where are you finding that kind of useful in a Malibu? With full fuel you may have 500-600 lbs and Mirage will have less. Family's have a lot of luggage.

That is why, overall, a 414 or 421 will fit the bill perfectly. Easy to fly 200 miles and can also, go 800 when needed. When I owned my 414 and even more so with the 421, I could carry a minivan full of stuff plus the whole family, and with little ones the potty was a nice extra.

I think a well cared for 421 can have reasonably high dispatch rate (> 98%). It won't be turbine, but it can be pretty good.

I think $500/hr for 100 hrs/yr is achievable with some diligence on your part. You will get about 17,000 nm in those 100 hours, or $3/nm.

That is about what it is costing me to fly the MU2 about 100-125 hrs/yr.

Mike C.

If that is the mission profile, get a car.

Mike C.

If that is the mission profile, get a car.

Mike C.

It can be true.

One, you can't apply piston twin reliability with turbine repair costs. While things cost more per event in turbine, the events happen *WAY* less often.

Example: I've flown two TPE331-10AV engines for ~ 800 hours. My maintenance so far is two nozzle cleanings, one oil change, and routine oil analysis. That's it. Almost nothing to do.

Two, some turbines are costly. King Airs for example. Not efficient, expensive maintenance program. So it depends on which airplane you select (which is true in pistons, for example Duke).

Mike C.

I have an M model with -10. The M was the only combination of short body, 3 blade props, higher gross weight, and higher ceiling.

Very economical, perhaps more than an F model not counting acquisition costs.

No glass windshield (costly to replace). No oil cooler deice boots (useless and break all the time). No 4 blade prop (5 year overhaul, much $$$).

The -10 engine is actually less cost per hour to maintain than the -1, -5, or -6 engine. Longer inspection intervals.

My ability to operate at FL280 allows better efficiency. Lower fuel flows and faster speeds.

The F model is ideal for someone who wants to minimize purchase cost and still go faster than King Air 90 on far less fuel. 260 knots at 58 GPH is typical. Not too good in high/hot situations, however.

Mike C.