Piper Matrix

GaryP1007

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
113
Location
Chandler, AZ
Display Name

Display name:
GaryP1007
I currently own a Mooney Ovation but am thinking about a Piper Matrix. Anyone here have real world performance data or other comments on the Matrix?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have a few hundred hours in a 2010 Matrix, all in the last few years. Random thoughts in no logical order:

Big caveat - I don't own it, so I can't really talk about costs. I'm just the pilot.

Compared to a Mooney Ovation (which I have not flown), it's not going to go much faster and certainly not more efficiently! It is bigger though.

It's a decent airplane, but in my opinion really hampered in its utility due to the lack of pressurization. Piper's intent, after all, when they took a Mirage and removed the pressurization system, was to make a cheaper upgrade to Bonanzas and Mooneys. In my opinion, though, the pressurization IS a major appeal of the PA-46 line. So removing it makes it not really that much of an upgrade from the Bos and Mos.

Okay, so obviously it's bigger than either. The back is far more comfortable. If the main purpose for purchasing it instead of a Mo/Bo is for passenger comfort, it definitely wins that (although if passenger comfort is REALLY important, and you can swing the extra cost for a Mirage or straight Malibu, that's always a game-changer). To this point, as far as I have been informed, pretty much the ONLY difference between the Matrix and the Mirage is the pressurization system and a couple minor things like air vents. Everything else is the same. So, barring pressurization problems, I'd imagine the maintenance costs between the two are pretty much identical.

It still has the twin turbos of the pressurized models, so it CAN still go up to the 20's. But of course that requires oxygen (for which there is an on-board bottle). My flights in it have not required me to go that high, so I usually cruise at anywhere from 6000 (if to avoid headwinds) to 12,000.

TAS is around 170 at lower altitudes, 185 or so at 12,000, and reportedly gets up to 200 up at FL200. This at "normal cruise" power of 30"/2400 rpm and around 22 gph.

Piper discontinued the line in 2014 or so, I believe due to lack of demand. 200-ish were built. I imagine they are selling at a bit of a discount compared to similar-vintage Mirages. For my main flights in them (300 nm flights between two airports in the central U.S. with one passenger who sits in the back), it works just fine.

Like most planes, you can't fill the tanks and the seats. With full tanks (120 gallons), it's effectively a three-adult aircraft. But, that fuel will take you a pretty long way. So NOT topping it off is routine.

Insurance - this airplane is an unpressurized, single-engine piston. But the insurers lump it in with the pressurized versions (because they're all PA-46s), and require formal initial training and generally recurrent training as well. Now, I am a big fan of recurrent training in general, but this airplane isn't that hard to fly. I think the insurance requirements are over the top on this model.

As far as flying goes - it's not a short-field performer. I operate it regularly into a 4000 ft runway at 2800 ft elevation, and it does fine at max gross. But there's not a TON of extra runway. 3000 ft would be tight, and warrant running the numbers. Otherwise it's a good-flying airplane. Speed brakes can come in useful, as does the high 10 deg flap and gear speeds (165 kts) which means you can almost always lower them. Over the fence speed is about 80-85, so nice and slow (but it's a heavier airplane than others of similar speed, so it takes longer to stop).

Wingspan is longer than similar airplanes. Hangar size may be an issue.

The place to go for all kinds of good PA-46 information is Casey Aviation at https://flycasey.com/ . That's where I did my initial training. Also, highly recommend is their podcast, the Malibu Guru podcast, available on all the normal podcast players. It isn't JUST about PA-46s, but is primarily about them. Even though the Matrix isn't mentioned specifically very often (although I believe they did a fairly recent episode covering it), almost all of the advice for the Malibu/Mirage applies as well. And he does cover the turbine versions as well, which will definitely make you want one.

One thing about maintenance - it seems that most PA-46 owners do take their planes to specialized PA-46 shops for annuals and major maintenance. I interpret this to mean that the average A&P who works on Cessnas and PA-28s and Bonanzas doesn't have much experience with PA-46s. But that's just my interpretation. Our annuals are done at HUT, Hutchinson, KS, at Midwest Malibu, but there are several other specialty shops around the U.S.

Oh yes, getting in - it's nice to have the air stairs on the back. Great for the passengers. But for the pilot, it's definitely somewhat acrobatic getting up into the front seat. I'm 6'2 (and I believe Joe Casey is 6'3" or 4"), so it can be done but there is definitely a method that each person learns for themselves. You have to step over the wing spar that's just behind the front seats. Even if you're not quite as tall, it still requires some practice.

184 ktas at 11,500, ISA + 29, power settings as mentioned above:

1698590351680.png
 
Last edited:
I have a few hundred hours in a 2010 Matrix, all in the last few years. Random thoughts in no logical order:

Big caveat - I don't own it, so I can't really talk about costs. I'm just the pilot.

Compared to a Mooney Ovation (which I have not flown), it's not going to go much faster and certainly not more efficiently! It is bigger though.

It's a decent airplane, but in my opinion really hampered in its utility due to the lack of pressurization. Piper's intent, after all, when they took a Mirage and removed the pressurization system, was to make a cheaper upgrade to Bonanzas and Mooneys. In my opinion, though, the pressurization IS a major appeal of the PA-46 line. So removing it makes it not really that much of an upgrade from the Bos and Mos.

Okay, so obviously it's bigger than either. The back is far more comfortable. If the main purpose for purchasing it instead of a Mo/Bo is for passenger comfort, it definitely wins that (although if passenger comfort is REALLY important, and you can swing the extra cost for a Mirage or straight Malibu, that's always a game-changer). To this point, as far as I have been informed, pretty much the ONLY difference between the Matrix and the Mirage is the pressurization system and a couple minor things like air vents. Everything else is the same. So, barring pressurization problems, I'd imagine the maintenance costs between the two are pretty much identical.

It still has the twin turbos of the pressurized models, so it CAN still go up to the 20's. But of course that requires oxygen (for which there is an on-board bottle). My flights in it have not required me to go that high, so I usually cruise at anywhere from 6000 (if to avoid headwinds) to 12,000.

TAS is around 170 at lower altitudes, 185 or so at 12,000, and reportedly gets up to 200 up at FL200. This at "normal cruise" power of 30"/2400 rpm and around 22 gph.

Piper discontinued the line in 2014 or so, I believe due to lack of demand. 200-ish were built. I imagine they are selling at a bit of a discount compared to similar-vintage Mirages. For my main flights in them (300 nm flights between two airports in the central U.S. with one passenger who sits in the back), it works just fine.

Like most planes, you can't fill the tanks and the seats. With full tanks (120 gallons), it's effectively a three-adult aircraft. But, that fuel will take you a pretty long way. So NOT topping it off is routine.

Insurance - this airplane is an unpressurized, single-engine piston. But the insurers lump it in with the pressurized versions (because they're all PA-46s), and require formal initial training and generally recurrent training as well. Now, I am a big fan of recurrent training in general, but this airplane isn't that hard to fly. I think the insurance requirements are over the top on this model.

As far as flying goes - it's not a short-field performer. I operate it regularly into a 4000 ft runway at 2800 ft elevation, and it does fine at max gross. But there's not a TON of extra runway. 3000 ft would be tight, and warrant running the numbers. Otherwise it's a good-flying airplane. Speed brakes can come in useful, as does the high 10 deg flap and gear speeds (165 kts) which means you can almost always lower them. Over the fence speed is about 80-85, so nice and slow (but it's a heavier airplane than others of similar speed, so it takes longer to stop).

Wingspan is longer than similar airplanes. Hangar size may be an issue.

The place to go for all kinds of good PA-46 information is Casey Aviation at https://flycasey.com/ . That's where I did my initial training. Also, highly recommend is their podcast, the Malibu Guru podcast, available on all the normal podcast players. It isn't JUST about PA-46s, but is primarily about them. Even though the Matrix isn't mentioned specifically very often (although I believe they did a fairly recent episode covering it), almost all of the advice for the Malibu/Mirage applies as well. And he does cover the turbine versions as well, which will definitely make you want one.

One thing about maintenance - it seems that most PA-46 owners do take their planes to specialized PA-46 shops for annuals and major maintenance. I interpret this to mean that the average A&P who works on Cessnas and PA-28s and Bonanzas doesn't have much experience with PA-46s. But that's just my interpretation. Our annuals are done at HUT, Hutchinson, KS, at Midwest Malibu, but there are several other specialty shops around the U.S.

Oh yes, getting in - it's nice to have the air stairs on the back. Great for the passengers. But for the pilot, it's definitely somewhat acrobatic getting up into the front seat. I'm 6'2 (and I believe Joe Casey is 6'3" or 4"), so it can be done but there is definitely a method that each person learns for themselves. You have to step over the wing spar that's just behind the front seats. Even if you're not quite as tall, it still requires some practice.

184 ktas at 11,500, ISA + 29, power settings as mentioned above:

View attachment 121920

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In my opinion, it would be a lateral move from a Mooney like yours. I haven’t flown a Matrix but I have several hundred hours in Malibu/Mirages, and that is where I’d be looking if you’re thinking about upgrading into the PA46 lineup.

The PA46 is a pleasant airplane to fly and has a fairly specific mission that it excels at. If the mission fits what you’re looking for, they will be the best aircraft for it. The downsides to a Malibu/Mirage are that you’ll likely need annual recurrent training, insurance can be costly (compared to many piston singles), and they can be expensive to maintain depending on who does your maintenance and how nice the aircraft is to begin with. None of these things are insurmountable, but they are reality for dealing with this aircraft and not everyone has a budget to match their aspirations.
 
I've never been in a PA-46, but I was curious as to how bad the ingress/egress was to the front seats...and then I found this video:

Getting in a Malibu

Yikes! Still love the plane, though
 
I currently own a Mooney Ovation but am thinking about a Piper Matrix. Anyone here have real world performance data or other comments on the Matrix?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I recently saw someone (+700hr pilot with lots of Instrument & Retract time) want to move up to a Malibu and got insurance quotes on a $600k airframe which came in over $25k a year.
 
I've never been in a PA-46, but I was curious as to how bad the ingress/egress was to the front seats...and then I found this video:

Getting in a Malibu

Yikes! Still love the plane, though

Pretty accurate.

If the airplane is newer and has the G1000 FMS/keyboard pedestal sticking out below the throttle quadrant, it presents an additional obstacle. It does have a gap underneath it to allow your feet to swing through, though.

1698672334725.png
 
Obviously the main competitors to the Matrix are the 210, A36, and Saratoga. It's a big airplane with big power but probably the least versatile of the competitive set. It's the fastest and most comfortable for passengers but getting in the front seats is a challenge. Once there you are greeted with lots of panel space, leg and shoulder room but head room is tight especially on the sides. Once you get used to it, the annoyance goes away. It flies beautifully and has better curb appeal. Stepping into pressurization brings a lot of added complexity and expense so if you don't need the sustained flight level comfort it's the better choice.

A friend of mine has flown his into BQ1 which is a 2500' paved airport. It was tight and required favorable winds but doable with only 2 on board.
 
I currently own a Mooney Ovation but am thinking about a Piper Matrix. Anyone here have real world performance data or other comments on the Matrix?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I might say, try to keep away from the Avidyne models. The older PFD's are not the most dependable. My partner kept ours
but it moving up to a turbo. The Matrix runs best at high altitudes. Running around Fl110-125 does not really get the speed you want and also the plane is not a true 6 passenger. If you fill the tanks with 120 gallons, you still have 680 lbs useful load though. . I'm 6'2" and 265#. Not a comfortable plane for me to get into or out of. It's also expensive to run and maintain but it does have a great ramp presence.
 
Pretty accurate.

If the airplane is newer and has the G1000 FMS/keyboard pedestal sticking out below the throttle quadrant, it presents an additional obstacle. It does have a gap underneath it to allow your feet to swing through, though.

View attachment 121946
An Aspen to back up a G1000? Ewww. And I thought the G5 next to an aspen was bad.
 
I recently saw someone (+700hr pilot with lots of Instrument & Retract time) want to move up to a Malibu and got insurance quotes on a $600k airframe which came in over $25k a year.

Not unusual for the first year of ownership, and 700 hours is still pretty low time in the insurance world. They usually want to see double that, plus will require initial training and time in type.
 
This is a non value-added post, just one to rant about simpe aesthetics. You're spending tons of money on a 'new' plane, nothing should look after market.

Oh man. Is that a factory picture? Why do so many Garmin suites look 'after market' even when coming from the factory. Mount them inset. Agree on the Aspen.

My old Cirrus-fan-boy days are going to show here, but at least they nailed that part of the flight deck, nothing looks after market. Everything looks factory.

Last rant.. what's with the stupid 1963 backup microphone these planes still have? Is this some obscure TCDS requirement? Sit in a brand spanking new Cessna 182 or Piper anything-piston at an airshow and they have that awful beige microphone relic. WHY?!??!?!
 
Oh man. Is that a factory picture?
I got it from an Avweb article about the G1000Nxi release, so yes I assume it's a factory picture included in press releases.

Last rant.. what's with the stupid 1963 backup microphone these planes still have? Is this some obscure TCDS requirement? Sit in a brand spanking new Cessna 182 or Piper anything-piston at an airshow and they have that awful beige microphone relic. WHY?!??!?!

I agree, it's the same microphone in all its space-age world-of-tomorrow Epcot Center styling from 1963. But admittedly, for an item that is almost never used, I wouldn't want the manufacturer spending even a penny on developing a new one. Most planes I'm in, the hand mic is in the seat back pocket anyway.
 
An Aspen to back up a G1000? Ewww. And I thought the G5 next to an aspen was bad.
At 6'2" 265# The seating in the plane was not very comfortable. My head was constantly bouncing off the ceiling in turbulence. As others mention you need to become a contortionist to get into the front seat. You eventually learn how to but never easy and I often worried how would I escape if the plane went down in an emergency landing some place. Someone mentioned insurance at $25K. I got quoted once I turned 70 way more than that. Well over 30K. At that point I decided to self insure. 90% of my flying was single or with one other person so full tanks and luggage was never a problem and she loved to stretch out in the cabin with the dog. I no longer use the plane. My partner bought it. When we used it we never flew for more than 3 hours at a time. Having a huge range is meaningless when you need to refresh or got hungry. Overall, it's a solid plane but you better have the mission requirement and the funds to maintain it. It's not the plane to take to your archer or Mooney or Bo A&P. You need specialists. Happy hunting. PA46.jpg
 
Last edited:
Excellent first response from Russ, he pretty much nailed it. I have near 1500 hours in all of the flavors of PA46s. The PA46 really thrives at high altitude cruise, and in my opinion they kind of cut the legs off the thing by not pressurizing it. If it's what you have, it's definitely a fine airplane...comfortable cabin, nice cruise speed, fun to fly, but the pressurization turns it into a really really useful airplane. 100 lbs of unpressurized nose baggage, and 100 lbs of pressurized baggage behind the rear seats. Some of the Matrixs (Matricies?) shipped as bare bones machines. No boots, no hot windshield, no radar pod, and no yaw damp. Please, at minimum, get one with a yaw damp! The PA46 is a miserable airplane without a yaw damp, especially for your passengers. Good luck in your search!
 
I got it from an Avweb article about the G1000Nxi release, so yes I assume it's a factory picture included in press releases.



I agree, it's the same microphone in all its space-age world-of-tomorrow Epcot Center styling from 1963. But admittedly, for an item that is almost never used, I wouldn't want the manufacturer spending even a penny on developing a new one. Most planes I'm in, the hand mic is in the seat back pocket anyway.
There must be some reason it is still included. haha, thanks for the informative post by the way. I don't know much about the Matrix, was nice to get the detailed info. My experience to 'nicer' single engine pistons are relegated to about 50 hrs of Centurion time and a few hundred in SR22T and TN. Some Bonanza time (25 hrs?) but never fell in love with it (sacrilege, I know)
 
Not unusual for the first year of ownership, and 700 hours is still pretty low time in the insurance world. They usually want to see double that, plus will require initial training and time in type.

Before the insurance market went crazy a few years ago the preferred flight experience for prospective Malibu/Mirage pilots was to have at least 1000 hours, some complex time, and an instrument rating. If you were missing one of those things you'd probably still get one or two underwriters that would take you on but it would be at a significant cost. I know two guys who got insurance quotes on late model aircraft (~$1M hull valuation) that didn't meet any of those expectations and the policy prices were $40k and $50k/year. I can only imagine the policy prices and requirements for low time pilots have gotten worse since then. The good news is that the Matrix and its lack of pressurization seems to be more attractive to underwriters when low time guys are looking to get insured.

Right or wrong, the PA46 seems to be viewed by many as the same thing as an A36 Bonanza or something else similar. The insurance companies don't agree; any prospective buyer should probably talk to an insurance broker (and perhaps a maintenance provider) prior to getting excited about buying one.
 
Overall, it's a solid plane but you better have the mission requirement and the funds to maintain it. It's not the plane to take to your archer or Mooney or Bo A&P. You need specialists.
I agree that the PA46 can be expensive to maintain, but I disagree that this airframe needs any more of a specialist than a Mooney or Bonanza does. The airframes are simple and well thought out in their construction. The real labor and costs to maintain these aircraft seem to come from the firewall forward. For things that may seem simple to accomplish on other aircraft you may need to budget 3-5x the labor time to get the same job done. Any accessory work on a Lycoming powered aircraft is going to be an "event".
 
By the way, @GaryP1007 the timing is Apropos. Rich puts out great YouTube reviews of airplanes, this one he has for sale, but the videos are less 'sales' and more educational. Check it out! He just posted this Matrix video two days ago:

 
I've never been in a PA-46, but I was curious as to how bad the ingress/egress was to the front seats...and then I found this video:

Getting in a Malibu

Yikes! Still love the plane, though
Al Mooney was 7 feet 9 inches tall and wore a size 74 jacket!

Sorry, wrong thread. Yeah, getting into the back of a PA-46 is definitely easier and more fun than getting into the front. I've only gotten into the front of one once, and it took more than one try. But I think the Matrix would be a great upgrade from the OP's Ovation if the mission includes putting people in the back. Airstairs are simply better than climbing on the wing, and if I am flying with passengers then I put their ease of entry over my own since I get the fun of flying the thing and they don't.
 
No boots, no hot windshield, no radar pod, and no yaw damp. Please, at minimum, get one with a yaw damp! The PA46 is a miserable airplane without a yaw damp, especially for your passengers.
I have to agree with everything he wrote. If you still go this route I also would go with the Garmin for a couple reasons. Besides much more information in front of you the GFC 700 trounces the capability of the S-tec 55X that came with the early models. The most important thing to remember is your mission and options that the pressure would give you.
Here are 2 similar planes on controller today Oct 31, 2023.
https://www.controller.com/listing/...12-piper-malibu-mirage-piston-single-aircraft. This plane is loaded with everything including pressure and radar for $845
https://www.controller.com/listing/...12-piper-malibu-matrix-piston-single-aircraft. Same year Matrix , no pressure, no radar for $770K. The difference is only $75K. Here's photos of both panels plus one showing radar. Pay a little more but be thrilled every time you get into the plane and bring people along. Happy hunting.Avidyne.jpgGarmin.jpgWeather radar.jpg
 
Does the Cessna 300/400 compare? I just saw this months edition of Aviation Consumer, and they had an article on those.
 
Does the Cessna 300/400 compare? I just saw this months edition of Aviation Consumer, and they had an article on those.
Compare to what? One is fixed gear normal and one is Turbo. Both are 4 seaters based of Lancair design
 
There must be some reason it is still included. haha, thanks for the informative post by the way. I don't know much about the Matrix, was nice to get the detailed info. My experience to 'nicer' single engine pistons are relegated to about 50 hrs of Centurion time and a few hundred in SR22T and TN. Some Bonanza time (25 hrs?) but never fell in love with it (sacrilege, I know)
You mentioned the Bo. My friend has couple thousand hours in his 2012. He loves it but he's also 5'7" and about160#. The cabin width is same as an Archer @ 42". Take 2 225# passengers in the front and they can never sit side by side. One needs to be a little forward. Not my idea of comfort but wow does the plane handle like nothing else in the sky in singles.
 
Al Mooney was 7 feet 9 inches tall and wore a size 74 jacket!

Sorry, wrong thread. Yeah, getting into the back of a PA-46 is definitely easier and more fun than getting into the front. I've only gotten into the front of one once, and it took more than one try. But I think the Matrix would be a great upgrade from the OP's Ovation if the mission includes putting people in the back. Airstairs are simply better than climbing on the wing, and if I am flying with passengers then I put their ease of entry over my own since I get the fun of flying the thing and they don't.
Misinformation. You really need to check on. Al Mooney was 6'5'' .
 
The cabin width is same as an Archer @ 42". Take 2 225# passengers in the front and they can never sit side by side. One needs to be a little forward. Not my idea of comfort but wow does the plane handle like nothing else in the sky in singles.
Yeah. They look great on the ramp and fly nice but after about 25 hrs I've decided it's just not a plane for me. The cabin is incredible narrow. I hate the whole 'stagger the seats' thing.. every inch counts and the Centurion with 44 is noticeable. The more 'square' cabin also helps. In the case of the Centurion you also don't have to worry about it falling on it's @$$ if god forbid your rear seat passengers board without someone hanging off the prop. But, it's a high wing - sadly no one and no thing is perfect.
 
Last rant.. what's with the stupid 1963 backup microphone these planes still have? Is this some obscure TCDS requirement? Sit in a brand spanking new Cessna 182 or Piper anything-piston at an airshow and they have that awful beige microphone relic. WHY?!??!?!

As silly as it looks, I see the logic in keeping it. The aircraft is certified for IFR. It should be equipped to operate legally in that environment without additional pilot-provided equipment. Wouldn't be surprised if that was in the FAR somewhere.

Headsets are not subject to any sort of approval or acceptance process for QC. You could literally get a hat, some speakers, duct tape, wire, and jacks, fabricate your own headset, and be perfectly legal to fly. So putting a big placard on the panel and AFM saying "Pilot must furnish headset to operate IFR" is not a viable approach for the TC holder.
 
The aircraft is certified for IFR. It should be equipped to operate legally in that environment
Fair - but you're marketing an extremely expensive 'toy' to a buyer that is now accustomed to modern accoutrements. If we're going with 91.205(d)(2) logic then what's the realistic cost of putting a new mic in there? I mean, they already threw the latest and greatest Garmin tech at these things (or Avidyne circa 2007). Is the industry truly so hard up that in house R&D can't spare the expense of mic design? Or is it some kind of cute anachronism?
 
Fair - but you're marketing an extremely expensive 'toy' to a buyer that is now accustomed to modern accoutrements. If we're going with 91.205(d)(2) logic then what's the realistic cost of putting a new mic in there? I mean, they already threw the latest and greatest Garmin tech at these things (or Avidyne circa 2007). Is the industry truly so hard up that in house R&D can't spare the expense of mic design? Or is it some kind of cute anachronism?
It's the expense of approval, not design. Somebody somewhere got a PMA back in the 60's for airplane mikes. They are still out there, cranking out a few hundred mikes a year. Probably a single vendor and a single design; you can have any color you want, as long as it's beige. Easier and cheaper for Piper to order a batch every now and then, rather than doing the paperwork to have the spec for an unimportant part added to the TC.

I'm seeing this a lot as I restore my Decathlon. There are all kinds of decrepit widgets on the TC spec sheets that haven't been redesigned since 1956 because the FAA hoops are a deterrent. An example would be the Grimes cockpit light. That thing would be perfectly at home in the cockpit of a B-17, and probably was. You can't buy a TSO or PMA one, because Grimes is long since defunct. But technically speaking, the TC specs still list that as the approved cockpit lighting device.

grimes.jpg

 
Last edited:
As silly as it looks, I see the logic in keeping it. The aircraft is certified for IFR. It should be equipped to operate legally in that environment without additional pilot-provided equipment. Wouldn't be surprised if that was in the FAR somewhere.

Headsets are not subject to any sort of approval or acceptance process for QC. You could literally get a hat, some speakers, duct tape, wire, and jacks, fabricate your own headset, and be perfectly legal to fly. So putting a big placard on the panel and AFM saying "Pilot must furnish headset to operate IFR" is not a viable approach for the TC holder.
There is an old saying with regards to the FAA. If it ain't broke, don't spend a ton of money to replace it. The thing works. You won't use it but it's there if you have to.
 
Misinformation. You really need to check on. Al Mooney was 6'5'' .
Ten foot four and not a hair shorter! Did I ever tell you I had my gall bladder removed? Anyway, right before I'm about to go under, I see Al Mooney standing over me in a surgical gown, drinking a bottle of Captain Morgan spiced rum.

There is an old saying with regards to the FAA. If it ain't broke, don't spend a ton of money to replace it. The thing works. You won't use it but it's there if you have to.
I have the hand mic for my Cessna but can't imagine it being terribly useful over the engines at climb power. I leave it in the hangar and, if my headset stops working, I'll squawk 7600. The hand mic and speaker probably work just well enough to maintain certification. But is it really an FAA requirement? What does a new Cirrus come with to allow communication with ATC without the pilot bringing a headset to the party?
 
What does a new Cirrus come with to allow communication with ATC without the pilot bringing a headset to the party?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that an aircraft is held to the regulatory standards in force at the time of type certification. The TC will list the FAR certification basis applicable. So a newer aircraft type might have a more (or less) restrictive set of regs than an older aircraft type.

As an example, the Champ and Citabria were originally type certified to CAR requirements. The Decathlon and some later 7-series variants were certified under the FAR. This has practical implications that continue to the present day, the biggest one being that a Citabria can be easily equipped and approved for IFR while a Decathlon cannot.
 
Back
Top