Thanks for posting the FL220 picture, about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as one would see. Main difference I see is the TIT on the PA46 is 90 degrees hotter than the P210. All the other parameters are essentially the same. I am actually a little surprised the P210 compared that well to the PA46. Biggest advantage of the Malibu is the higher pressurization differential which adds to comfort and fights fatigue, especially on long legs at higher altitudes. You would likely get more bang for your buck with a P210 in today's market though.

I had a 1985 Malibu in the 90s and as you know it must be run LOP and it was at least 10 KTS faster than the M350 at altitude,The compression ratio in the Lycoming TIO540-AE2A is a little less than the Continental and that helps the Continental a little,I am sure that there are a lot of other factors that effect the LOP operations.

They sure are close on CR.
Lyc is 7.3 and the TSIO-520 is 7.5.

I wonder if mag timing is a bigger factor. The Lyc is placarded at 20 and the BE at 24.
Having done the APS class and remembering my ThetaPP graphs and all.

They sure are close on CR.
Lyc is 7.3 and the TSIO-520 is 7.5.

I wonder if mag timing is a bigger factor. The Lyc is placarded at 20 and the BE at 24.
Having done the APS class and remembering my ThetaPP graphs and all.

182ktas at FL220 seems a little underwhelming. I was under the impression that the piston PA46's were 200ktas airplanes in the 20s

Not comparable but Acclaim at FL170 is 204-214KTAS LOP due obviously to no pressurization but I also thought the M350 would be 200. Not 30 kts slower.

????

The PA46 and P210 panels shows were how they were being flown at essentially the same fuel flow. My surprise was they were at essentially the same TAS as flown. I am sure the PA46 can fly faster at a higher fuel flow, and I know the same is true for the P210. I suppose there are folks out there who do fly them faster too, but I always chose to fly at 65% power for range and a cooler running engine. I am guessing Jack made similar choices. The 1981 P210 POH I have said the plane will do 192KTAS at 17000ft. I never tried to find out if my plane would really do that, however. I wasn't in that much of a hurry....I lied and perhaps that is why I got the MU2 It will do 260KTAS at FL 240-250 on 58gph at average temps, best I have seen at that altitude is 271KTAS on a pretty cold day. It will hit 280KTAS in the high teens but on a higher fuel flow.

Don’t kid yourself: The P210 is NOT truing @182 kts, probably somewhere between 170 - 160 kts, since we have no idea what the temps are, nor ASI errors to take into account.

Also, loading would also affect both acft up to +/- 5kts.

And as a benchmark, I pulled out the P210N POH :

ISA +20C, FL220, 2400 x 29” , 14.4 gal/h =160 k TAS

Vs. M350 POH :

ISA +20C FL220, 2400 x 25”, 15 gal/ h. = 182 k TAS = exactly what is shown in the photo

Here is my M600 on a very cold day with a fuel flow of 330 PPH.

As those who know have already mentioned the M350 (350hp Lycoming) is not an original Malibu. The engine timing is probably the biggest factor on the amount of energy the two engines can extract LOP with the Malibu purposely designed to run LOP.

Here's a pic from last week in my TSIO550C powered Malibu running LOP. Couple things we are dealing with a vacuum sensor issue that's mounted inside the pressure vessel and shows a dropped pressure as the cabin pressurizes and the reason, I took the photo. The wrong sensor was just replaced at the shop a few hours earlier. Second, I am playing with some different power settings. 32.5"/2300rpm is probably not normal setting people would see (vs say 31.5"/2400). I wasn't exactly light here either as I was carrying a bunch of stuff from a tradeshow in Orlando the week prior.

For the record, I do have a radar pod, boots and 4blade MT prop. Oh, and it's burning 94.8pph for those turbine guys.

Legacy Malibu with 550 STC = biggest bang per buck !

Michael,
not sure how to reply to you, but I have owned three different P210s and have over 3200 hours in them. The '81 was about 5 kts slower than the '78 and the '83. The '78 and '83 both did about what the picture shows. Good rigging helps a lot as does having a plane that was straight from the start. The aileron trim tabs on the faster of my planes were not deflected at all when the rigging was done, the '81 did have some deflection. That might explain the speeds shown. The OAT is on the Insight G3 in the picture BTW (0.9 F). AS an aside, other P210 owners I have talked to also said their planes were faster than the POH numbers.

I don't doubt for a second what your' saying, but OTH, to imply that a P210 gives the same cruise performance as the PA-46 Malibu or Mirage is incorrect by about 10kt to 20kt.

Not to mention Time to Climb, where the Malibu/Mirage beats the P210 to the flight levels by a wide margin, resulting in much better block times, which at the end of the day (literally) is what counts most.

84 310P TSIO520. 2 blade prop. 197TAS 15.2 GPH @FL220

Impressive! With 120/140 gallons of fuel, you can really travel a distance and in style.

John