Aircraft selection with specific criteria

C_Parker

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
142
Display Name

Display name:
x
I've done quite a bit of research, and I feel like I have the right aircraft selected, but there are a lot of experienced pilots here and I'd love to hear your recommendations. The goal here is to find the aircraft that is most cost effective in meeting these criteria.

Here are the target criteria:

1. Pressurized
2. FIKI
3. Piston, twin or single but preferably single because efficiency is an important factor
4. Reasonably fast, ~200kts
5. Capable of carrying myself and better half, another couple, and bags comfortably 600 miles with reserves non stop
6. Capable of carrying myself and better half, dog, and bags 1200 miles with reserves (East AND West)
7. Well supported with parts and mx
8. Comfortable cabin, I'm 6' and 230lbs with broad shoulders. My shoulder is up against the window of a 182.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
This thing has MALIBU written all over it!

1. Pressurized
--CHECK

2. FIKI
--CHECK

3. Piston, twin or single but preferably single because efficiency is an important factor
--CHECK

4. Reasonably fast, ~200kts
--CHECK

5. Capable of carrying myself and better half, another couple, and bags comfortably 600 miles with reserves non stop
--CHECK

6. Capable of carrying myself and better half, dog, and bags 1200 miles with reserves (East AND West)
--DEPENDS.. potty break? then yes CHECK. I don't think anything "small" will do that non stop though

7. Well supported with parts and mx
--CHECK, it's a Piper.. virtually every plane Piper built is just some evolution of the Cherokee lol

8. Comfortable cabin, I'm 6' and 230lbs with broad shoulders. My shoulder is up against the window of a 182.
--the larger Pipers really can't be beat. I have a real "issue" with comfort and shoulder space. To me, the most comfortable plane is still the Cirrus, but the Lance/Six/really any "big Piper" is right up there with it. For your mission a Cirrus won't caught it.. IE, not cheap, and four people and bags will never fit (W&B wise) in a FIKI Cirrus

So, in case I didn't mention it... MALIBU!!!!!

in fact, maybe one of these two?
https://www.controller.com/listing/...90-piper-malibu-mirage-piston-single-aircraft
https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/194976681/1986-piper-malibu-piston-single-aircraft

**FYI.. there are a select handful of Malibus that were built that are the ones you really want, if you can find one.. they had Conti engines and a different gear arrangement so you could run them lean.. this guy talks about it
 
This is very reassuring, you guys are championing the exact aircraft I selected. I'd poured over dozens of articles and cut sheets before determining the Malibu would be the best fit. My plan was to look for a late 80's PA-46-310P with the improved gear/flap control and the 520 engine.

I have two questions though:

1. A close second was the newer M350 because they claim a similar range to the 310P, does the M350 run lean of peak now? I thought the 540 engine wouldn't.

2. I see a couple of examples of TSIO-550 conversions, what effect does that conversion have on fuel burn/range?
 
8. Comfortable cabin, I'm 6' and 230lbs with broad shoulders. My shoulder is up against the window of a 182.
--the larger Pipers really can't be beat. I have a real "issue" with comfort and shoulder space. To me, the most comfortable plane is still the Cirrus, but the Lance/Six/really any "big Piper" is right up there with it. For your mission a Cirrus won't caught it.. IE, not cheap, and four people and bags will never fit (W&B wise) in a FIKI Cirrus
My experience with the Malibu is about as limited as it gets. I climbed into the left seat of one that was on display at an expo once. My impression was that I could not believe such a big plane could have such a tight and uncomfortable front seat. I'm a 6' guy and getting into the front seat took some odd contortions. Perhaps there are tricks to it that make ingress/egress easier, but my one attempt at it was... awkward. Once in the seat it felt, cramped. The sidewall and window are close. My shoulder was against it and because its a pressurized tube instead of the typical 'box' that most light single cabins are shaped like, the side of my forehead was inches from the wrap around windscreen.

Now again to be fair, this was one time only sitting in a display plane at an expo. Who knows what seat adjustments are available that I wasn't able to find in the few minutes I spent sitting in the left seat drooling over the new airplane panel. I had the same experience the first time I climbed into the left seat of a Lear. Such a big plane, such a tight cockpit. Also everyone is shaped different so what's uncomfortable for one 6' guy might be the perfect fit for another.

But I agree with everything else, Malibu was the first thing that came to mind for me when I read the list of criteria.
 
I've done quite a bit of research, and I feel like I have the right aircraft selected, but there are a lot of experienced pilots here and I'd love to hear your recommendations. The goal here is to find the aircraft that is most cost effective in meeting these criteria.

Here are the target criteria:

1. Pressurized
2. FIKI
3. Piston, twin or single but preferably single because efficiency is an important factor
4. Reasonably fast, ~200kts
5. Capable of carrying myself and better half, another couple, and bags comfortably 600 miles with reserves non stop
6. Capable of carrying myself and better half, dog, and bags 1200 miles with reserves (East AND West)
7. Well supported with parts and mx
8. Comfortable cabin, I'm 6' and 230lbs with broad shoulders. My shoulder is up against the window of a 182.

Thanks

This was too easy, you needed to say you had a budget limit of $100k or something so everyone could tell you it was impossible to achieve and then tell you to get a Bonanza.
 
Weren't there some engine issues with the early Malibu's?
 
Weren't there some engine issues with the early Malibu's?
It really depends who you ask. General aviation piston engines are pathetically unreliable overall, and in the case of Malibu, and honestly Cirrus as well, people really need to get good training on engine management and read and follow the POH.. not go off some bogus OWT and their own wrong ideas about rich/lean/temps, etc.

The Malibu doesn't have cowl flaps, and with pressurization and turbo the engine is doing a lot of work and has the potential to get hot. It will spend it's life at 75% power, not the 55%-65% most other planes will. It's critical that fuel flow and temps be adequately managed and the plane be competently flown

In the case of the Continental (lean) versions people didn't really trust the whole LOP thing or know how to do it.. so they ended up running sort of rich.. in reality a lot of these people just ended up killing their engines, or thinking they were LOP but in reality sitting right at peak

Honestly, it's the same general big dumb engine that is used in any other plane. Fly it poorly and it well eventually not make it to TBO, or just end up dying on you

Zeldman posted a link above, it goes into good details about the engine issues with the plane. It would not for a moment scare me away from a Malibu, not anymore so than any other piston GA plane scares me at least

PS - the other issues is people train on a PA28 or 172.. flying behind, at least in the case of old 172, the most basic easy engine out there without even a fuel pump. So they never really develop or learn good leaning techniques or habits. You can't just apply 172 engine technique to a big complex turbo'd plane
 
My experience with the Malibu is about as limited as it gets. I climbed into the left seat of one that was on display at an expo once. My impression was that I could not believe such a big plane could have such a tight and uncomfortable front seat. I'm a 6' guy and getting into the front seat took some odd contortions.
I agree. That was the same reason I didn’t list the 340 as an option. I was thinking about the OP’s #8.
 
My impression was that I could not believe such a big plane could have such a tight and uncomfortable front seat
Was it a newer one? I've only been around the older planes, maybe the new ones have more padding or whatever. Our club has a newer Archer and it feels miniscule inside compared to the 1976 bird we have. It's almost like Piper added a bunch of extra wall material to make it feel "nice" but really just ended up making the inside feel smaller

**Incidentally, I don't think any piston singles are going to be that "big" inside. The pressurized nature of the thing seems to cut interior space and overall cabin shape. You don't get as much of that square Piper Lance shape

Separately noted, the TBM has been my Tantalum lottery plane since I can remember, but, the handful of times I've sat in one I'm always surprised how small it is inside for how imposing it looks on the ramp
 
Separately noted, the TBM has been my Tantalum lottery plane since I can remember, but, the handful of times I've sat in one I'm always surprised how small it is inside for how imposing it looks on the ramp

That would be my next bird after the PA-46 if ever the funds are available. The TBM, in my opinion, and without ever actually flying one, is the ultimate personal traveler.
 
Was it a newer one? I've only been around the older planes, maybe the new ones have more padding or whatever.
It was about 20 years ago so not a newer one. I took a screen grab from the video you posted. Bobby is wearing headphones and still has plenty of room between his head and roof. But the owner of the plane is using in-ear with no head band and tilting his head and he's still making contact with the roof. Clearly he's not a short fella, but he doesn't exactly look like he has NBA potential either.

Like pretty much every GA airplane, if you're looking to buy a certain make and model and you're anything other than 5'6" 180lbs, you should probably go find an example or two that you can sit in or better yet fly before you spend too much time shopping for one.






Malibu-Cockpit.jpg
 
The Saratoga, Piper Six and Seneca share a fuselage design. Does the Malibu/350? I didn't think so.
 
It was about 20 years ago so not a newer one. I took a screen grab from the video you posted. Bobby is wearing headphones and still has plenty of room between his head and roof. But the owner of the plane is using in-ear with no head band and tilting his head and he's still making contact with the roof. Clearly he's not a short fella, but he doesn't exactly look like he has NBA potential either.

Like pretty much every GA airplane, if you're looking to buy a certain make and model and you're anything other than 5'6" 180lbs, you should probably go find an example or two that you can sit in or better yet fly before you spend too much time shopping for one.






Malibu-Cockpit.jpg
But look at all that shoulder room! lol

Comfort is a very hard thing to define.. for some reason I've always been a stickler with shoulder room. Everyone will have a different metric and tolerance for it

I don't as much care about headroom or legroom, in fact I usually find myself both in cars and in planes pulling the seat up just to the point where my knee touches. Makes me feel like I'm more in control
 
The Saratoga, Piper Six and Seneca share a fuselage design. Does the Malibu/350? I didn't think so.
I can't help but think though that the designers at Piper used the bigger planes as the starting point then modified it as needed to deal with the pressurization and different envelope requirements
 
I can't help but think though that the designers at Piper used the bigger planes as the starting point then modified it as needed to deal with the pressurization and different envelope requirements
It's just a whole lot rounder in cross section-so shoulder room looks to be at a premium. The others are obviously sharing, at least a heritage, if not actual cross sections.
 
Definitely find a Malibu to "try on" so to speak. I'm 6-1, but all legs, and would not want to spend more than an hour at a time in the PA-46, and the turbine Meridian is the same. But that might be different for varying body shapes. Aside from the Cirrus jet, a P210 is really the only other pressurized single. Once you start talking twins, the whole spectrum opens up, and as Radar Contact mentioned, the 400-series Cessnas probably have the widest cockpit/cabin.
 
You guys make an excellent point on "trying it on," I'll have to find one and check it out to be sure it will fit.

Several have mentioned the 400 series, I think what steered me away from them is they don't quite fit the "most cost effective" part of the criteria. The 414 was on my short list though. Although they would certainly do the job, and maybe better so than the Malibu in many respects. For whatever reason I struggle with the seating arrangement in the 400 series, it seems inefficient and goofy and I don't like how the one seat is right in front of the door and has to be moved back and forth.

The other aircraft that was on my short list was the P-baron.
 
Back
Top