M 350

[GaryP1007]

For those that have owned the M 350, can you share performance specs in the real world and general annual costs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rockymountain]

A new M350 usually comes with a pretty good spinner to tail warranty, and they used to have the fly 3 years for free with fuel, maintenance and training included. Not sure if they still have the program. The plane does book numbers, and above 18,000 feet is a 200+ knot aircraft. If you pull the engine back a little you can get 1000 nm range at decent speeds. 1300 nm with long range cruise settings which are in the 180 knot range up high. There is an STC for long range tanks that adds another hour of fuel. Some can be run LOP, but that is not recommended by Lycoming, but can give some impressive range numbers.

Annual maintenance out of warranty can run 10-30K and be lumpy. The engine will usually need some mid-time work with turbos, or cylinders 700-1000 hours. Think of the M350 as a turbine with a piston engine. Has the systems and redundancy of a turbine with a piston engine. Heated windscreen, AOA as an option, 2 separate pitot static systems, 3 ADCS and 3 ADHRS, duel vacuum pumps to run the boots and pressurization, Lemo plugs, USB ports and 110V power front and back, 2 alternators, engine and electric heat, hydraulic retract, speed brakes, dual transponders, sat phone/text, onboard radar, ADSB and XM weather, 4 glass panels that can all be used as an AI. Quite a lot of plane for a piston. But very comfortable and very capable.

 

[mondtster]

I flew and maintained one for 5 years. They’re a 180 knot airplane down low and will do 200 at higher altitudes. The plane is nice to fly and very capable, although I think it would benefit from another 50-100 horsepower.

The airframe itself was pretty simple and the systems are well thought out. Ours never needed much attention during our ownership. Firewall forward is where most of the work was needed, and some tasks took quite a bit of time because there is a lot of stuff packed in there.

 

[GaryP1007]

Thanks for the great insight. Trying to decide between this class of plane vs a twin such as a Baron 58.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mondtster]

Thanks for the great insight. Trying to decide between this class of plane vs a twin such as a Baron 58.

What’s your intended use?

Both are nice flying airplanes but for more flexibility and longer trips I’d take the quiet, pressurized cabin of a PA46 over a Baron almost every time.

 

[RussR]

Thanks for the great insight. Trying to decide between this class of plane vs a twin such as a Baron 58.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having recent experience in both PA-46s and Baron 58's (meaning, I flew both of them last week), I offer the following comments. Note I don't own them, and I'm not a mechanic, so I can't speak about the maintenance angle or costs, etc.

- They are both nice flying airplanes. Easy to fly.
- 58 is way easier to get into the front of. PA-46 requires some acrobatics. Yes you figure out a method that works for you, but nobody can deny it's a bit of a challenge stepping over that spar.
- They are pretty much equal when it comes to getting in the back.
- From a back-seat passenger perspective, the 46 probably seems more like a "bigger" airplane. You have the airstairs, after all.
- 46 is wider. More elbow room.
- 46 is quieter.
- Pressurization is a game-changer for passenger comfort.
- However, 2 engines is often a game-changer for passenger psychological comfort.
- 58 is faster up to 10,000 or so. At 10,000, about 10 knots faster. Of course it also burns more fuel.
- You have more altitude flexibility with the 46 to deal with weather, find favorable wind, and get above the bumps.
- Standard single vs multi advantages/disadvantages.

 

[iamtheari]

Thanks for the great insight. Trying to decide between this class of plane vs a twin such as a Baron 58.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every plane has strengths and weaknesses. What is your mission? The people, places, and weather requirements will probably weigh strongly into the choice between a pressurized piston single and an unpressurized piston twin. Also, it may push you toward a pressurized twin or a turbine.

 

[StraightnLevel]

What’s your intended use?

Both are nice flying airplanes but for more flexibility and longer trips I’d take the quiet, pressurized cabin of a PA46 over a Baron almost every time.

What about a Baron 58P?

 

[mondtster]

What about a Baron 58P?

I can’t comment on the 58P as I have no personal experience with it. The good thing about it is that it should fit in a normal T hangar while the Malibu won’t. Beyond that, my guess is that I’d probably still favor the PA46 but having more power would be nice.

 

[RussR]

What about a Baron 58P?

I didn't answer with that in mind because I got the impression that since the OP was first asking about the M350 (and not the Mirage/Malibu), which was introduced in 2015, he's looking for a pretty late-model aircraft. The most recent 58P is 30 years older than that. At least in my mind, it was a "M350" or "Baron G58" type of choice.

I have some time in a 58P as well. Same caveats, I wasn't responsible for costs or maintenance. But they flew well, comfortable, got up high and went pretty fast. I specifically remember cruising at FL230 in one over the Rockies.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

I believe the M350 will run about 19 or 20 gph because it shouldn't be run lean. The earlier Continentals are supposed to be run lean. However the Lycomings don't kill cylinders as fast as the Continentals.

I was researching the PA46 a lot the last few months but can't get a hangar wide enough around here to fit one so I stopped.

 

[Skymac]

It’s a 3 adult airplane.

 

[mondtster]

I believe the M350 will run about 19 or 20 gph because it shouldn't be run lean. The earlier Continentals are supposed to be run lean. However the Lycomings don't kill cylinders as fast as the Continentals.

I was researching the PA46 a lot the last few months but can't get a hangar wide enough around here to fit one so I stopped.

The general recommendation by most training providers is to set fuel flow at 22 gph on the Lycomings. In my experience, that’s about the right setting for ROP operations. I have run the Lycoming LOP, but mainly just to prove to myself that it could do it without problems. (The owner didn’t want it run that way, so I didn’t.)

 

[RussR]

The general recommendation by most training providers is to set fuel flow at 22 gph on the Lycomings. In my experience, that’s about the right setting for ROP operations. I have run the Lycoming LOP, but mainly just to prove to myself that it could do it without problems. (The owner didn’t want it run that way, so I didn’t.)

That's right where I end up too, 22 gph.

 

[Rockymountain]

It’s a 3 adult airplane.

Depends on the size of the adults and how far you are going. Useful load is around 1250 lbs. I have had 6 onboard on short flights. My young family of 5 and a nanny on longer flights. My wife got to pick the nanny, but I set the limit on Nanny weight ;-)