Comments on the PA46-350 ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments on the PA46-350 ?
Myself and a few other guys are looking at joining forces to purchase a PA46-350 Mirage. Would love to hear comments good or bad to help steer us towards / away from this machine.
The used price seems pretty decent for a pressurized single that can clock along at 200kts (is 200kts realistic ?) Ceiling is 25K but I am guessing 21 / 22K is realistic.
Any thoughts ?
The used price seems pretty decent for a pressurized single that can clock along at 200kts (is 200kts realistic ?) Ceiling is 25K but I am guessing 21 / 22K is realistic.
Any thoughts ?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are flying on a CAA PPL you'll (which, given your handle you may not 
) you'll need a type rating. No idea if this is a CAA or JAA requirement, though. Check the LASORS or Irish equivalent.
) you'll need a type rating. No idea if this is a CAA or JAA requirement, though. Check the LASORS or Irish equivalent.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a serious bit of kit. The piston version does not require a type rating it requires the high performance aircraft rating. The turbine version requires a TR. The do meet all of the performance figures and are a real pleasure to fly.
However you will need an IR and a good few hours under your belt. If you want to use it for the same type of flying you do in your average spam can the running costs are breathtaking. FL200 at 200kts it sings along.
If you want to fly in one give me a shout and I can arrange to take you on a flight.
However you will need an IR and a good few hours under your belt. If you want to use it for the same type of flying you do in your average spam can the running costs are breathtaking. FL200 at 200kts it sings along.
If you want to fly in one give me a shout and I can arrange to take you on a flight.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA 46 Type Rating
At present the PA46 Malibu (Piston-Engine) and the
PA46 Malibu Turbine rating are classified as a High
Performance Aeroplane. However, it has been decided
that an applicant for the PA46 type rating who trains on
the piston engine variant will not be required to hold a
certificate of proof of having undergone HPA training as
a pre-requisite for adding the type to a UK issued
licence. Whilst it will not be necessary to comply with
the HPA theoretical knowledge requirement as detailed
earlier, applicants will still be required to meet the 200
hours total flying experience pre-requisite. This policy
only refers to the PA46 Malibu (Piston-Engine) variant,
the PA46 Malibu Turbine requires the HPA theoretical
knowledge requirement.
A pilot who has trained on the piston engine variant who
then wishes to fly the turbine engine variant will only be
required to complete differences training as per
Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.220. It will be for the
instructor giving the differences training to ensure it is
suited to the purpose.
Holders of a Private or Commercial Pilot Licence for
whom the PA46 (piston-engine) rating is the first type
rating for an aeroplane which according to JAR-FCL
required HPA knowledge, are not entitled to the HPA
knowledge credit for subsequent types requiring HPA
knowledge unless the HPA knowledge training was
actually completed as a pre-requisite for the
endorsement of the PA46 type rating.
At present the PA46 Malibu (Piston-Engine) and the
PA46 Malibu Turbine rating are classified as a High
Performance Aeroplane. However, it has been decided
that an applicant for the PA46 type rating who trains on
the piston engine variant will not be required to hold a
certificate of proof of having undergone HPA training as
a pre-requisite for adding the type to a UK issued
licence. Whilst it will not be necessary to comply with
the HPA theoretical knowledge requirement as detailed
earlier, applicants will still be required to meet the 200
hours total flying experience pre-requisite. This policy
only refers to the PA46 Malibu (Piston-Engine) variant,
the PA46 Malibu Turbine requires the HPA theoretical
knowledge requirement.
A pilot who has trained on the piston engine variant who
then wishes to fly the turbine engine variant will only be
required to complete differences training as per
Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.220. It will be for the
instructor giving the differences training to ensure it is
suited to the purpose.
Holders of a Private or Commercial Pilot Licence for
whom the PA46 (piston-engine) rating is the first type
rating for an aeroplane which according to JAR-FCL
required HPA knowledge, are not entitled to the HPA
knowledge credit for subsequent types requiring HPA
knowledge unless the HPA knowledge training was
actually completed as a pre-requisite for the
endorsement of the PA46 type rating.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am keeping half an eye open for this too; Meridian or Jetprop.
The Malibu (piston) always used to require a TR under G-reg so I would check this very carefully. Under N-reg you are OK, and I believe Bose-X you hold an FAA PPL/IR also?
Mind you, a recent survey found that only 2% of Malibu engines make TBO so perhaps the TR is a bit moot
Another survey found that 10-15% of Malibus had an engine failure in flight, which is unacceptable.
One important factor is that the Meridian is > 2000kg and thus clocks up heavy Eurocontrol charges, probably of the order of £50 per hour. Some people fly them VFR for this reason, whenever possible, but this is practical only in France and possibly Spain, and I have found the French reluctant to let me into their Class D (FL105-195, IIRC) VFR. Flying a PT6 at say 5000ft is going to lose the substantial TAS gain of ~ FL250 and the extra fuel will blow away the route charge saving.
The Jetprop (Malibu conversion with a PT6, not sanctioned by Piper) is faster and is below 2000kg. However, Piper do tend to slag them off so careful who you listen to.
The Malibu (piston) always used to require a TR under G-reg so I would check this very carefully. Under N-reg you are OK, and I believe Bose-X you hold an FAA PPL/IR also?
Mind you, a recent survey found that only 2% of Malibu engines make TBO so perhaps the TR is a bit moot
Another survey found that 10-15% of Malibus had an engine failure in flight, which is unacceptable.One important factor is that the Meridian is > 2000kg and thus clocks up heavy Eurocontrol charges, probably of the order of £50 per hour. Some people fly them VFR for this reason, whenever possible, but this is practical only in France and possibly Spain, and I have found the French reluctant to let me into their Class D (FL105-195, IIRC) VFR. Flying a PT6 at say 5000ft is going to lose the substantial TAS gain of ~ FL250 and the extra fuel will blow away the route charge saving.
The Jetprop (Malibu conversion with a PT6, not sanctioned by Piper) is faster and is below 2000kg. However, Piper do tend to slag them off so careful who you listen to.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am looking at the piston version.. I spend most of my time in Colorado and at present the price difference between JET A1 and 100ll is insignificant. The capital cost difference between the turbine and the piston is substantially different hence my looking at the piston.
However, I am very concerned at IO540's mention of the fact that they have a high engine failure rate coupled with the point that they do not meet tbo. Why would this be the case ? Poor engine management I suspect during decent.
I am looking at a 2002 model which does have speed brakes. I wonder if the earlier variants suffered more that later ones ?
However, I am very concerned at IO540's mention of the fact that they have a high engine failure rate coupled with the point that they do not meet tbo. Why would this be the case ? Poor engine management I suspect during decent.
I am looking at a 2002 model which does have speed brakes. I wonder if the earlier variants suffered more that later ones ?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Malibu has had loads of engine problems. The reasons probably include
- a tightly cowled engine
- a higher power version of an otherwise OK engine
- operating regime that encourages rapid cooling (rapid descent from a FL250 cruise, etc)
- lack of engine management knowledge among pilots
- lack of comprehensive engine instrumentation in many airframes
I am trying to dig out something more concrete for you. Two surveys in particular which I recall reading.
- a tightly cowled engine
- a higher power version of an otherwise OK engine
- operating regime that encourages rapid cooling (rapid descent from a FL250 cruise, etc)
- lack of engine management knowledge among pilots
- lack of comprehensive engine instrumentation in many airframes
I am trying to dig out something more concrete for you. Two surveys in particular which I recall reading.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tks IO540. Appreciate the info.
Bose-X, thanks for your offer to go for a ride in one. Right now I am based in Colorado so unlikely I will be able to take you up on your offer, however much appreciated. Do you have any direct experience of issues with this machine ?
Bose-X, thanks for your offer to go for a ride in one. Right now I am based in Colorado so unlikely I will be able to take you up on your offer, however much appreciated. Do you have any direct experience of issues with this machine ?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: England
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F900EX
Don't buy without joining the active and excellent PA46 pilots' association first. http://mmopa.com/
Everything you need to know is there. And some. I fly a PA46 and the MMOPA is an invaluable resource.
On the G, you do need a type rating, but not the HPA to fly the PA46 piston. You need a type rating and the HPA if you jump straight to the turbine, unless you already have the atpl theory, in which case you don't need to sit the HPA. Alternatively, once qualified and experienced on the piston you can 'upgrade' with differences training and an examiner's flight sign off to the turbine without having to sit the HPA. Complicated, I know... Bottom line: you need a type rating regardless of engine varant, and to renew it with an examiner annually. And you might need the HPA too.
On the N, insurers call the shots. You need up-front conversion training - usually a minimum of 25 hours dual, or more depending on experience. And insurers insist you complete an annual training refresher with an approved instructor. So although different from the G regime on paper, it's similar in practice from a training point of view.
You do not need an IR to fly a PA46.
Engines - yes, there were problems in the early days. But engineering improvements, coupled with far better pilot education (thanks to the instructional and qualification rigours described above - training which was not required by either the FAA or CAA when the type was first introduced 25 years or so ago), has cured most of that.
Don't buy without joining the active and excellent PA46 pilots' association first. http://mmopa.com/
Everything you need to know is there. And some. I fly a PA46 and the MMOPA is an invaluable resource.
On the G, you do need a type rating, but not the HPA to fly the PA46 piston. You need a type rating and the HPA if you jump straight to the turbine, unless you already have the atpl theory, in which case you don't need to sit the HPA. Alternatively, once qualified and experienced on the piston you can 'upgrade' with differences training and an examiner's flight sign off to the turbine without having to sit the HPA. Complicated, I know... Bottom line: you need a type rating regardless of engine varant, and to renew it with an examiner annually. And you might need the HPA too.
On the N, insurers call the shots. You need up-front conversion training - usually a minimum of 25 hours dual, or more depending on experience. And insurers insist you complete an annual training refresher with an approved instructor. So although different from the G regime on paper, it's similar in practice from a training point of view.
You do not need an IR to fly a PA46.
Engines - yes, there were problems in the early days. But engineering improvements, coupled with far better pilot education (thanks to the instructional and qualification rigours described above - training which was not required by either the FAA or CAA when the type was first introduced 25 years or so ago), has cured most of that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AngelsHigh.. Thanks a lot for the info. I am looking at a 2001 or 2002 model (piston) variety. Most of the examples I have in mind have between 750 and 1100 hrs total time.
In view of previous comments, what do you think is a reasonable tbo ?
Cheers.
P.S The aircraft will be N and based in Boulder, CO
In view of previous comments, what do you think is a reasonable tbo ?
Cheers.
P.S The aircraft will be N and based in Boulder, CO
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: England
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F900EX
Flown properly, there's no reason why the engines shouldn't go all the way - with engineering tweaks and pilot education improvements over the years.
I'd say go for youngest if you can, but above that, go for the machine that's been the best cared for.
This article may help give you a good overview - a few years old now - but still very relevant.
http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182792-1.html
The PA46 is a fabulous aircraft - it's firmly at the top of the GA single piston fleet in my view. It's got speed, safety, style, space, comfort and the utilitarian luxury of pressurisation. Once you've had that, there's no going back. Those twin turbo chargers - power - will be more than at home in Colorado too...
Flown properly, there's no reason why the engines shouldn't go all the way - with engineering tweaks and pilot education improvements over the years.
I'd say go for youngest if you can, but above that, go for the machine that's been the best cared for.
This article may help give you a good overview - a few years old now - but still very relevant.
http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182792-1.html
The PA46 is a fabulous aircraft - it's firmly at the top of the GA single piston fleet in my view. It's got speed, safety, style, space, comfort and the utilitarian luxury of pressurisation. Once you've had that, there's no going back. Those twin turbo chargers - power - will be more than at home in Colorado too...
