Placing my 1987 TSIO550C Malibu on the market:

TT 2,400 hrs, flies about 150 hrs a year
2xGI275, GTN 750/650, Flight Stream, installing an EDM830 04/23
Tanis heater, new style pilot side window

Recently overhauled hydraulic pump, 2x new alternators, paint touch-up and ceramic coating (https://www.air-design.co.at/portfolio-item/pa46/).

Specs and pictures available on: https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=55207

Asking 420k EUR / 450k USD. Ping me for digital logs

Trade-in Aerostar 601P/602P or B Duke considered.

For anyone interested this is a primo engine/airframe combo

Light early airframe
Upgraded engine designed to run lop

Thanks Charles,
Indeed, 14.5 gal LoP giving 190 TAS at FL210

Full details available on: https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=55207

I would agree with the comments about the engine/airframe. I owned this model for 1,500 hours with the 2 blade (more efficient) propeller. It routinely flew at 223 KTAS at FL250 on about 22 gallons per hour. With the outboard STC fuel caps it is a 6 hour, 1300 nm no wind plane. It is my first choice of the PA 46 piston family.

what would price be in us dollars?

Not to be redundant but totally agree with the previous comments. This is a great airframe engine combination. I have just under 1400 lbs useful and flight plan at 15.5 gph for 195 knots at FL210. Even with standard fuel that’s 5.5 hours of cruise with a one hour reserve after the climb to altitude. It’s just an amazingly efficient airplane

480k US - looking for a B58P (ideally) or (if need be) C340A / C414 and trade-in possible

I will never understand why anyone buys a turbo cirrus over this plane. Loved my Malibu. Everyone forgets the original Malibu POH forbade ROP operations. The entire airframe was designed around LOP ops. So ahead of its time.

For US buyers, I have an Europe based PA46 agent who can manage the FAA registration, prebuy and ferry services as needed.

Ping me for detailed logs.

I think a 58P might be a disappointment after flying this plane (until an engine failure of course).

58P will be more fuel burn, fly maybe a few knots faster but not a lot, probably have less UL, and be a lot more expensive to overhaul when the time comes (and OH is much sooner on the 58P TSIO520).

No offense, but it seems like you’ve got a perfect plane now, especially when you’re paying what? 11€/gallon?

I'd really like to have this plane but don't see how I can sell my 36 with a soon-to-be grounded 550.

I did because of the extra security of the chute, which gives me a chance at surviving if I lose an engine over terrain / at night. Would be amazing to have pressurization though, but not sure its worth the trade off of not having the chute when single engine in heavy IMC/at night/over terrain

My understanding was that with the efficient Malibu wing operating in the flight levels you should generally have a lot of options to make a runway if the engine quits. Obviously easier said than done in bad conditions but I'm not sure I'd want to pull a chute over the Rockies in February either.

I personally would prefer an engine failure in a Malibu up high to a chute event in almost all cases. Flying a PA46 is done with a different profile, up high on almost all flights vs. low teens in a Cirrus. I hate having to use O2 (which I have to when taking the DA42) and I always feel tired no matter what. In the PA46, cabin altitude is below 5k even when flying in FL210 and above.