| 
	
	| 
		
		31 Oct 2025, 02:38 [ UTC - 5; DST ] |  
	| 
	
  
	
	
	
	
	
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 17:22  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				|  
 
 |  
					|  |  
|     
 
 
 
 Joined: 11/25/08
 Posts: 5311
 Post Likes: +6395
 Company: Tornado Alley Turbo/GAMI
 Location: Ada, Oklahoma
 Aircraft: N11RT
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: You physically couldn't fit? Or is it just not practical/comfortable?
 Im curious since Im a similar size.
 No...  physically could not fit.    I am  6' even.   I am extremely uncomfortable in a Malibu/Mirage sitting up front._________________
 It is not how hard you run the engine.
 Rather, it is how you run the engine hard!
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 17:40  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				|  
  
 
 |  
					|  |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 12/12/07
 Posts: 10873
 Post Likes: +2252
 Company: MBG Properties
 Location: Knoxville, TN (KDKX)
 Aircraft: 1972 Bonanza V35B
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: You physically couldn't fit? Or is it just not practical/comfortable?
 Im curious since Im a similar size.
 No...  physically could not fit.    I am  6' even.   I am extremely uncomfortable in a Malibu/Mirage sitting up front.Me too, George.  I struggled to get into the co-pilot seat of a Malibu and had one heck of a hard time getting out (and I was not comfortable in the seat as I sat in it).  I'm a skinny 6'4".  So many planes have a big box of avionics between the up-front seats that require a pilot/co-pilot to crawl over getting in/out.  Nowhere else to put that stuff?
 _________________
 Max Grogan
 
 Come fly with me.
 
 My photos:  https://photos.google.com/albums
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 20:40  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 06/23/09
 Posts: 2320
 Post Likes: +720
 Location: KIKK......Kankakee, Illinois
 Aircraft: TBM 850
 |  | 
				
					| I'm 6 foot and about 230...... yea I know ......need to lose a couple pounds. I found Malibu's and the meridian a tight fit. TBM is cozy wiggling in the front seat. But I've gotten used to the dance and once I'm seated I'm just fine. 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 20:43  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 11/22/08
 Posts: 3106
 Post Likes: +1065
 Company: USAF Propulsion Laboratory
 Location: Dayton, OH
 Aircraft: PA24, AEST 680, 421
 |  | 
				
					| Wow, guess the Malibu is not in the cards for me. But then, I manage to squeeze int an Aerostar. 6' 1" 165 lbs. I thought the MU-2 was comfortable once I got in the seat. 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 20:45  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
					|  |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 02/13/10
 Posts: 20339
 Post Likes: +25348
 Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
 Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: Would you believe a Commander 114.  Too bad they are so slow, overweight and underpowered----wait that's me    I've had 2 of them over the years.  A VERY comfortable plane, and a door on both sides!_________________
 Arlen
 Get your motor runnin'
 Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 20:55  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 06/09/09
 Posts: 4438
 Post Likes: +3305
 Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
 |  | 
				
					| For those who fit in a Malibu it is hard to beat in its class.  I had trouble fitting so I stopped looking.  I am sure that had I fit well I would have bought.  The frugality of the machine is unmatched. 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 21:00  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				|  
 
 |  
					|  |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 01/07/08
 Posts: 3979
 Post Likes: +3753
 Location: Columbus, OH (4I3)
 Aircraft: 1957 Twin Bonanza
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: I find the bonanza very roomy, even with two adult males. 
 What would be an example of a luxuriously roomy plane? A Navion maybe? Comanche?
 Twin Bonanza._________________
 Chris White
 Ex-Twin Bonanza
 N261B
 N695PV
 N9616Y
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 21:01  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 06/09/09
 Posts: 4438
 Post Likes: +3305
 Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: Ditto on the MU2, at least for me.  Love the plane; hate the pilot seating.  Got more room in a 35. The Merlin is a very roomy cabin class aircraft with a 7 psi pressure diff. 6'2" and comfortable.  Texas built.
 Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Rode in a Malibu today  Posted:  21 Mar 2016, 21:16  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 08/16/15
 Posts: 2931
 Post Likes: +5605
 Location: Portland, OR
 Aircraft: Prusinski'ing
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: I find the bonanza very roomy, even with two adult males. 
 What would be an example of a luxuriously roomy plane? A Navion maybe? Comanche?
 I know the comanche guys are rabid about their cabin being 4" wider than a Bonanza, but a PA24 or PA30 feels about as roomy to me as a Cardinal. Not awful, but not "I'm not touching the dude next to me" either. I think the shoulder room is different in a meaningful way, or something else ergonomic. I'd say comparative studies should be commissioned if the factory hadn't drowned in 1972, rendering the point moot.  
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |    
	|  | You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 You cannot edit your posts in this forum
 You cannot delete your posts in this forum
 You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 |    
 | Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us 
 BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a 
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include 
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, 
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
 
 BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. 
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
 
 Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
 
 
 | 
 |  |  |