BeechTalk - BT - 2020 PA46 M350

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jan 2021, 23:34

Username Protected wrote:

IDK about the M350 but the Malibu's could be sat on their tail if you loaded heavy pax in the back seat before pilots.

Never heard of people having forward CG issues.

The reliability of that 350 HP Lycoming TIO-540-AE2A comes at a price of about 100 extra pounds of metal over the continental. That is a lot of weight at a forward station. Not saying you couldn’t do it, but you would have to try pretty hard to put a Mirage on its tail.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jan 2021, 13:34

Username Protected wrote:

IDK about the M350 but the Malibu's could be sat on their tail if you loaded heavy pax in the back seat before pilots.

Never heard of people having forward CG issues.

I had a friend once that loaded a V35b and it sat on the tail. I think that's a beechcraft safety feature...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jan 2021, 16:59

M350,

Va is 100 to 133 Kias.
Vno is 168 Kias

I've been very leery of all these pipers, because I'm not ok with cruising above Va.

For comparison My Aerostar Va is 166 Kias and Vno is 215 Kias

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2021, 10:10

Username Protected wrote:

The reliability of that 350 HP Lycoming TIO-540-AE2A comes at a price of about 100 extra pounds of metal over the continental.

That's a pretty bold statement .

I'm a A&P/IA & shop owner, I maintain dozens of acft and own & operate acft with both Conti 550s and Lyco 540 engines.

Frankly, I would be very hard pressed to find data to support your opinion.

That said, by far the most problematic is the accessories (as witnessed by the OPs starter problems) and these are virtually the same for both brands.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2022, 03:15

Congratulations David.

Are you still a happy M350 owner?

Looking at buying one myself.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Dec 2022, 09:09

I had the opportunity to demo a new M350 a few years ago; it’s a wonderful and capable aircraft.

But it won’t fit in my hangar.

From what I can tell true airspeed is very comparable to my TAT TN 550 powered A36. With a 1,628 lb. Useful load I can carry more than an M350, but the pressurization is a real game changer. The air conditioning and FIKI are bonuses.

I’d absolutely buy one if I could fit it into my hangar (although I’d like get a used model).

Enjoy your M350.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Dec 2022, 16:05

Jim,
if you want pressurization, and the Mirage won't fit, get a Cessna P210. It will fit in a standard 40ft T hangar. Almost as fast, slightly less maintenance hassles, less expensive to buy. I had three different ones over 25 years, wonderful cross country planes. Buy the latest year model you can afford since Cessna made significant systems upgrades over the production life of the plane, my '83 model was the best of the three I owned. Wonderful plane if you happen to be tall...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Dec 2022, 12:23

Username Protected wrote:

My experience in an '86 Malibu. I understand the seats are somewhat better now

It's definitely a trick getting into the seat. Imagine the bonanza middle seats were 6" apart and you had to enter the barn doors, walk between the two seats then sit down.

Once seated ... yeah legroom can be tight. (I'm 6'3)

I joke though that the biggest problem with the PA46 series is room for the pilots's wallet. if it's thin, you fit just fine. if it's really stuffed full though, you might not find enough room in the cockpit and need a TBM or a KA.

And I would also say that much of what holds true for a 2020 model also goes for the 80's versions. GREAT airplane

I have the extended seat mod in my Malibu. It makes a big difference.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2022, 13:05

So …will it fly LOP?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2022, 20:30

My M350 would fly LOP very well at 29.5 MP 2400 RPM and 15.2 GPH,the speed reduction was about 8 KTS and the fuel flow reduction was about 6 GPH.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Dec 2022, 20:40

Here is a photo of LOP

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Dec 2022, 01:11

Those panel photos were interesting, about the same true airspeed as I would see in my P210 LOP burning about the same fuel. This is ~65% power in my P210 with the TSIO 520AF engine. Guess the PA46 isn't much faster at all.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Dec 2022, 09:34

Username Protected wrote:

My M350 would fly LOP very well at 29.5 MP 2400 RPM and 15.2 GPH,the speed reduction was about 8 KTS and the fuel flow reduction was about 6 GPH.

Had you ever tried the MAP increase method and bring the MAP up to the 32-33 range which allegedly recovers the speed loss?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Dec 2022, 09:43

Had you ever tried the MAP increase method and bring the MAP up to the 32-33 range which allegedly recovers the speed loss?[/quote]

I did but the speed was only a couple of KTS greater and I sensed that the engine was not happy.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Dec 2022, 09:45

Here is a photo from FL 220

2020 PA46 M350 - Impressions