Piper Mirage or Meridian?

D

Dax71

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
Dax
Hello,

Im new PPL Pilot from Europe.

I plan to buy new Piper Mirage or Meridian (I prefer Presurised Cabin).
New Airplane not because I have got as much Money but because I dont know anything about used airplanes.

I dont talked with any Seller yet.
Is this usually to get Percents on new Aircraft like in Car Business?
If Yes, how much percent is typical?

I plan to Fly min. 2*180NM every WeekEnd as fast as posible.

Question: Does the Meridian is really "twice" as better than the Mirage?
Do I really need TurboProp? Advantage / Disadvantage?

Or should I better go with Cessna (but which one) ?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
 
If you dont mind $55/hour vs $18/hr for engine overhaul than go for the Meridian. Yes turbo-props are better, easier to fly and maintain. Behind a PT-6 my mind works about 1/4 as much behind a TSIO-540. I would challenge you to look at the used market. You can still get good depreciation and still pay a hell of allot less $. I would have to say though on a 180 mile leg not a huge time savings but much more weather versatility.
 
And if you buy a used turboprop, there's a good chance the maintenance has been done to a high standard.
 
For a 180nm trip, either of those seems a bit of an overkill.

How many people ?
Any mountains in the way ?
Where in europe, is Avgas availability ensured ?
 
Dax71 said:
Im new PPL Pilot from Europe.
Click to expand...
Is this post a joke or am I missing something?
A "new" PPL pilot flying Mirage or Meridian?
Did you check with your insurance agent what he/she thinks about it?
Do you have an IFR rating?
On top of this this question about "twice as good" made me chuckle. Do you know anything about airplanes :confused::dunno:
Assuming you can really afford them I would sit down with someone in your area who would walk you through what a turboprop is all about, show you some numbers related to aircraft ownership and perhaps pour some cold water over you head.
 
Last edited:
180nm is a relatively short trip. At 180ktas, 1 hr, which is pretty much what you could expect in a Mirage. At 125ktas (say, your average Archer or 172) 1:26. At what altitude would you expect to fly? How many people? How much weight? How much is 26 minutes worth to you?

(plus, 1:26 in an Archer is maybe 14 gallons/53litres of 100LL, 1 hr in a Mirage = 20gal/76l, depending on altitude in a Meridian say 220-250ktas at 280-325pounds/hr of JetA = say, 45 gal/170litres and 45mins travel time).

Time, as they say, is money.
 
olasek said:
Is this post a joke or am I missing something?
A "new" PPL pilot flying Mirage or Meridian?
Click to expand...

The 'buy your last plane first' concept. With a Meridian it would probably involve hiring a pilot/CFI who babysits you for the first 100-200+ hours. If you can spend 2mil+ on the plane, adding another 80k for one year mentor pilots salary into the price is just another number.


If the 'mission' is indeed 180nm and there are no longer trips in the mix, I would really look into whether the pressurization is a 'must have' or a 'want to have'.

Not many options for new aircraft these days. For the 180nm mission in someone who can even think about a Meridian, two others would come to mind:
- Cessna T206
- Beech G36

Both would be entirely sufficient for the mission, a lot easier to insure, hangar and operate. A meridian would probably gain 15 minutes on either of them. Neither is cheap to buy.
 
What weilke said. It's not uncommon to see people that are relatively low time stepping into a Mirage or Meridian. I know of one person who bought a Saratoga, flew that for a year, bought a Meridian.

With sim training and paying a pilot to fly along for continuing training, it's doable.

I'd advocate the piston variant for trips of that length, but if it's going to be operated in Europe, the turboprop would have a lot of merit simply due to availability of 100LL. The high cost of 100LL over there may make turbine operation more appealing. And given that, there are other aircraft to consider - the TBMs come to mind.
 
Hello,

First of all Im asking in American Forum because Flying is rather normal to US People than to people in Europe.
I think and hope Ill get more honest answers from US Pilots than from European people.

I dont plan to fly in the night but I have got all Licences to fly (PPL-A, IR-A, NR-A and AFZ) I would need a Class Rating for this Plane(s).

Currently Im using Car for the distance of 2 * 180 NM.
With Car I need more than 2 * 6 Hours.
If I have got Plane I would fly on another destinations too.
I understand this during my PPL Course that I was limited with Car.

On this Route there are no Mauntains.
This is the minimum I would fly.

Airports on both destinations are Fully equipped.
Both Airports are ~25NM from my Home/Destination.

@olasek
Insurance is not interested on my Problems. They only wants Money.
With "twice" as good I meant, does the more expensive Airplane is worth of this additionalyl costs?
And offcuorse Ill talk with people in my Area too.
I just want to be prepared on this meeting.

@weilke
Yes, I plan to fly more than just this 2 * 180NM per Week.
I plan to use the Plane for Fotography too so the presurisation is not only a "wish".
And, yes, I plan to hire a Pilot (or to pick up additionally lessons in USA on the same Plane).

@Freiburgfan
Currently Im sitting in Car min 800hours (55000km) in Year.
All I want from a Plane is to save Time.
But not to risk my Life (with used Plane).

@all
Thank You for all Advices. I hope I explained all my decisions nice :)
I tought to buy 75.000USD Plane too (if I die at least i dont pay much ;) )
But all this planes are 25+ Years old.
another alternative I tought about to Charter (with Pilot).
But if I use Charter offten Ill spend much on Charter and still dont have got Plane (its like taxi vs own car).

Cessna for short grassy runway would be an alternative too (since I have got such Runway in 5NM distance).
But the 180NM trip should be finished in 1 hour (if this is posible).

On my Location I can make service only for Piper or Cessna.

Thanks again,
Richard

PS If they offer I would pick up Piper or Cessna training courses in the States.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what kind of aerial photography you are thinking about, for most a pressurized low-wing is the least useful aircraft.

Have someone run the numbers for you, but on a 180nm commute the difference in time between a Cessna 206 and a Meridian is going to be modest. The difference in purchase is going to be x5, the difference in direct operating cost is going to be x2.5 or more.

If I could, I would certainly buy a new plane over a used one. It would not be for added safety. I doubt that a lightly used but well maintained plane is any less safe than a new one. You are proposing quite some use, your plane will be 'used' in a year or two.

I think you should look for an advisor to guide you through this process on a fixed fee basis. You are about to spend a lot of money, if you are not careful you may get taken advantage of.
 
It sounds like a Cessna 182, or 206 if you need more room would be a great choice, especially if you have a grass field close to home.

Most of us by used planes, all the time. You are not risking your life buying used if you have a proper pre purchase inspection done.
 
Dax71 said:
Hello,

I plan to buy new Piper Mirage or Meridian (I prefer Presurised Cabin).

Question: Does the Meridian is really "twice" as better than the Mirage?
Do I really need TurboProp? Advantage / Disadvantage?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
Click to expand...

Richard,

If you have decided on a Piper Mirage or Meridian, consider joining the MMOPA group. It is dedicated to those aircraft. I'm sure you could get very good information there.

http://www.mmopa.com/
 
Hello,

Thanks again.

The Turbo Stationair really sounds/looks like very nice alternative.
Especially since the Airport is near me (but for Piper´s Airport I have to drive ~40 mins with car).

@oolong
Thanks for the Link. I dont decide anything yet.
I have to look on the Cost vs Usability (Airport & IFR) factor first.

EDIT: I cant find a Forum for Questions.

Richard
 
Last edited:
taters said:
If you dont mind $55/hour vs $18/hr for engine overhaul than go for the Meridian. Yes turbo-props are better, easier to fly and maintain. Behind a PT-6 my mind works about 1/4 as much behind a TSIO-540. I would challenge you to look at the used market. You can still get good depreciation and still pay a hell of allot less $. I would have to say though on a 180 mile leg not a huge time savings but much more weather versatility.
Click to expand...

You assume the piston engine makes it to overhaul. Something that rarely happens.

Turbines on the other hand tend to make it to overhaul.
 
n20junkie said:
You assume the piston engine makes it to overhaul. Something that rarely happens.

Turbines on the other hand tend to make it to overhaul.
Click to expand...

Most bottom ends make it, it the top end that usually does not.
 
Unless you eat a cam, or make metal.

On turbocharged engines, you have turbo issues as well.

Our columbia just got a complete rebuild due to a cam. 600 hours. A google search will show almost none of the 400 series making it to even 1,000 hours without some serious work. Which happens to be the same engine as the mirage I believe.
 
You mentioned you were interested in photography, this is much easier in a high-wing aircraft. Also generally a better fit for a grass strip.




Dax71 said:
Hello,

Thanks again.

The Turbo Stationair really sounds/looks like very nice alternative.
Especially since the Airport is near me (but for Piper´s Airport I have to drive ~40 mins with car).

@oolong
Thanks for the Link. I dont decide anything yet.
I have to look on the Cost vs Usability (Airport & IFR) factor first.

EDIT: I cant find a Forum for Questions.

Richard
Click to expand...
 
n20junkie said:
You assume the piston engine makes it to overhaul. Something that rarely happens.
Click to expand...

:confused: I wouldn't say 'rarely'. Plenty of Lycomings make it to TBO and beyond if they are flown on a regular basis. A weekly commute of 3hrs flying time would certainly count as 'regular'.

Turbines on the other hand tend to make it to overhaul.
Click to expand...

Along the way, they typically require various hot-section inspections and minor maintenance events, each of which approaches the cost of a piston engine overhaul. Also, the airframes they are bolted to have mandatory inspection schemes that are far more rigid than what is required for regular part91 piston operation. In addition, they slurp down prodigious amounts of fuel for often not much faster block times. The Meridian has an MTOW of 2.3tons, in order to make use of its capability it has to be flown IFR in controlled airspace. The OP states that he is in 'europe', which adds another $50-150/hr in eurocontrol fees to his cost. It's a whole different category.
 
n20junkie said:
Our columbia just got a complete rebuild due to a cam. 600 hours. A google search will show almost none of the 400 series making it to even 1,000 hours without some serious work. Which happens to be the same engine as the mirage I believe.
Click to expand...

Different engine. Columbia is a Conti 550 variant, Mirage is a Lycoming TIO 540.
 
If you have nearby grass strip, get a Cessna 182.

A Meridian is overkill. A 182 will finish your trip in maybe 1hr 10 minutes with MUCH lower cost than a Meridian. It will be far more convenient than driving to an airport to fly a Mirage.

$400k for a new 182 versus $1.1million for a mirage? For your typical mission?

A 182 is ideal. Go turbo.
 
There are 3 PA46 airframes with a big camera hole flying around. All are piston PA46-310P models (I've seen them all). If you're going turbine you might consider a Jetprop conversion too.

My Malibu has been spending to much time sitting lately.

Kevin
 
Btw. 'Dax', if you are seriously thinking about a Mirage or Meridian, contact 'Kmead' and contract him at whatever his consulting rate is to go over the different options and real life cost scenarios for the two airframes. He is the retired owner of the preeminent maintenance shop for the PA46 series and lately has too much time on his hands.
 
I don't know about too much time!

Today I'm in Ottowa, Jetprop prebuy. It's been sitting outside for 2.5 years.
Next week I will be in Orlando and Vero for Simcom and MMOPA safety seminar.
The following week it's going to be and engine install in NW Montana on a downed Mirage.

I love it, I only have to watch myself now.

Kevin
 
kmead said:
I don't know about too much time!

Today I'm in Ottowa, Jetprop prebuy. It's been sitting outside for 2.5 years.
Next week I will be in Orlando and Vero for Simcom and MMOPA safety seminar.
The following week it's going to be and engine install in NW Montana on a downed Mirage.

I love it, I only have to watch myself now.

Kevin
Click to expand...

It's allways the same with those darn retirees. Can't get hold of them.

Still, if he wants to buy either of those new, the best money he can ever spend is to hire someone knowledgeable to get him through the purchase process so the sales-weasels at piper dont screw him over.
 
Here is another (dumb :) ) idea:

A Soloy 206. Combine the disadvantages of a Cessna with the expense of a turbine:

http://www.soloy.com/Products/Fixed+Wing+Aircraft/Turbine+Cessna+206+Mark+1/default.aspx

performance lie-sheet:

http://www.soloy.com/files/Products/Documents/206 Mark1 cruise & endur.pdf

I know there are a couple of them around europe, they were popular to drop skydivers at one point. The engine is common in helicopters, so any place that has support for Bell helos can wrench on it.

The nice thing about them is that they are really quiet as the prop turns pretty slowly and the engine sound is rather muffled. They also go in and out of short grass-strips without a problem and there are plenty of aerial photography options available for the 206 via STC. For example this big-azz side window:

ObservationWindow.jpg


Oh, and they burn jetfuel and properly filtered diesel-fuel. So in a place where 100LL supply is limited, the risk of being stuck on some Greek island is markedly decreased.
 
Last edited:
n20junkie said:
You assume the piston engine makes it to overhaul. Something that rarely happens.
Click to expand...

Like the 3 engines I'm in charge of that are at or beyond TBO? (4th one has 1000 to go)

Or like [insert a lot of people's name on this forum] who's [a couple hundred] past TBO?

Both Lycomings and Continentals. I've got two IO-520-Es that are 300 over, and my IO-540 is about 100 over. Doesn't mean they made it without any maintenance, but saying that the engine rarely makes TBO is nowhere near accurate. You've referred to the Cessna 400's engine problems more than once - I don't know what's causing problems with them.

Turbines on the other hand tend to make it to overhaul.
Click to expand...

Assuming you don't temp them on start and need a hot section or the like.
 
I know many engines over TBO. But topping them 3 times over doesn't really count.

Turbines are best put on an engine program like JSSI or ESP. Then there are no surprises, just a fixed price.

I don't know of a company that does this with recips. For good reason.


I don't know if the issues with the 400's is airframe or engine induced. But its a modern engine in a modern plane. 30 year old engines are hardly relevant to current quality of engines.

We all know of the lycoming crank and cam issue and contential's Issue with valves and barrels.

Except for improper operating causing corrosion, PT6's are pretty bullet proof. Especially when operated at half its capability.
 
Last edited:
n20junkie said:
I know many engines over TBO. But topping them 3 times over doesn't really count.
Click to expand...

If you do that, you're most likely operating it wrong or using bad parts, and that's not the engine's fault.

We had a number of 135 ops whose engines we got back, with maintenance records. Pretty much trouble-free operation over TBO. This was getting factory overhauls.

Turbines are best put on an engine program like JSSI or ESP. Then there are no surprises, just a fixed price.

I don't know of a company that does this with recips. For good reason.
Click to expand...

Western Skyways offers a good warranty option on their overhauls. My recollection is something like 5 year warranty or TBO, whichever comes first. Would cover your cam issue.

I would say the primary reason nobody does that on pistons is because the operator has control over the engine. Turbines are more idiot-proof.

I don't know if the issues with the 400's is airframe or engine induced. But its a modern engine in a modern plane. 30 year old engines are hardly relevant to current quality of engines.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. The TSIO-550 in the 400 is not significantly different from the engines Continental was building 30 years ago. Actually, if I recall correctly, it's got a lot of similarities to an early Malibu's TSIO-520 engine.

Overall, both Lycoming and Continental have made various changes over the years to improve their engines. The base engine they produce today is very similar to the base engine they produced 30 years ago. Suppliers have changed over time, and with them new problems have cropped up now and then as others have gone away. But overall, the engines are better than ever before.

The aircraft itself, however, is definitely modern. But it was also originally a Lancair design, moved to Columbia, then bought by Cessna. Lancair is all about speed, which may or may not mean getting the best cooling over the engine. In that regard, they work well with turbines. That said, I doubt cooling has much to do with cams.

We all know of the lycoming crank and cam issue and contential's Issue with valves and barrels.
Click to expand...

Sure, issues do pop up - nobody said otherwise. But your view seems to piston engines are pretty well worthless, and that's simply not true.

Except for improper operating causing corrosion, PT6's are pretty bullet proof. Especially when operated at half its capability.
Click to expand...

No doubt, the reports show that turbines overall have fewer failures than piston engines per hour of flight time. I'm still happy with the cost and reliability of my piston engines, though, and think that overall, they have a lot of positives.
 
Its nice to be proud of your engines. And i love recips! I build very high HP rwcips as a hobby.

The current production quality, and customer support from the 2 largest GA recip manufactures, has me turned off on their use for any business use aircraft.

For a weekend putter, sure. My weekend toy has one, and is at 4,500 SMOH.

For a plane that you don't want to have in the shop for various issues and down for a month here and a month there. A turbine is for you.




Keep in mind, I not only fly for a living, but also work on engines that make more HP per cylinder, than most GA pistons make as a whole. Its the idea that current engines are not being built with current technology, and with worse materials than in the past. And when it fails, e customer is left holding the bill for a 60k overhaul because the engine is 2 days past warranty. I worked in a cessna service center, as an IA, and had to give the bad news more than once.

I would never recomend a modern recip until the current QC issues are fixed. With this economy, I don't see that happening.

We are buying a Meridian for these reasons.
 
n20junkie said:
The current production quality, and customer support from the 2 largest GA recip manufactures, has me turned off on their use for any business use aircraft.

For a weekend putter, sure. My weekend toy has one, and is at 4,500 SMOH.

For a plane that you don't want to have in the shop for various issues and down for a month here and a month there. A turbine is for you.
Click to expand...

I have been running two piston twins about 300 hours per year each over the past three years. Both these planes are over 40 years old. If it's down for a month here and a month there, you need a new shop. We've only had two times that maintenance issues have caused flight delays.

Keep in mind, I not only fly for a living, but also work on engines that make more HP per cylinder, than most GA pistons make as a whole.
Click to expand...
While that does give you good engine understanding I'm sure, those kinds of engines are significantly different application wise from GA piston engines. There are probably more differences than similarities.

I would never recomend a modern recip until the current QC issues are fixed. With this economy, I don't see that happening.

We are buying a Meridian for these reasons.
Click to expand...
It seems you've had very good luck with turbines and very bad luck with pistons, hence your bias. I've had good luck with both, albeit very limited experience with turbines.

However, it seems that the people you fly for have a good sum of money. If they can afford to purchase and operate a new Phenom, then that would indicate as such. Not all of us are in such a position. A piston aircraft can still provide a great deal of utility at a far more reasonable cost (both acquisition and operation). I have flown piston twins over the Gulf of Mexico, to northern Quebec and Ontario (in January). I flew the Aztec from LA to NYC in one day (although I don't really want to do that again), and I flew it to Newfoundland for my wedding (that was a very good idea).

So, having piston aircraft really hasn't hampered me any.
 
I think that for someone who has a lot of cash and wants new (read, "has a lot of cash!!!!!!!!"), let him get a turboprop. If money were no object, I'd get a new Pilatus!
 
Dax, fully 10% of the American piston Malibu fleet, whether Continental 520, continental 550 or Lycoming 540 have had as their primary cause of accident, "engine failure".

Unless you only fly over the farmlands of the Central Rhine Valley, there is no way I can recommend this aircraft to anyone.

The MOPA has developed an ILS porcedure for power off ILS it's gotten so bad. There is no other type fleet that has this.
 
I'm not the only one having bad luck it seems.

Ted, like I said, I'm talking about the newer stuff. Many of the newer big bore turbo planes are seeing serious issues. Be it cooling, materials.....

I know lots of older recips do good. I too fly a 414 and have worked on many 421's, 340's, 414's and the beech stuff.

These new engines in the HP planes are not holding up. The mirage has one of these newer engines obviously.
 
Last edited:
n20junkie said:
I'm not the only one having bad luck it seems.

Ted, like I said, I'm talking about the newer stuff. Many of the newer big bore turbo planes are seeing serious issues. Be it cooling, materials.....

I know lots of older recips do good. I too fly a 414 and have worked on many 421's, 340's, 414's and the beech stuff.

These new engines in the HP planes are not holding up. The mirage has one of these newer engines obviously.
Click to expand...

If you look, the GTSIO-520 in the 421s were the highest powered engines produced by Continental (at least, as far as engines that you still see regularly).

The Lycoming TIO-540-AE2A in the Mirage and the TIO-540-J2BD in the Chieftain both have 350 HP. The Chieftain engines are considered to be one of the best engines that Lycoming built. They tend to have good reliability records. While the engines do have a number of different parts, they also have decent similarities.

I have typically had the view that the high-performance single engine aircraft with piston engines tend to overwork them, and that probably causes a number of issues. But the point I'm trying to get across is that if you buy a TIO-540-J2BD and a TIO-540-AE2A, both of them are made on the same line, in the same building, from a number of the same parts. So, if you see particular aircraft having engine issues, it's probably mostly due to airframe installation bits.
 
Regardless of whats causing the issues, they exist in this case.

The decision to buy a high performance single recip over a turbine, shouldn't be based off information from a totally dirrerent installation.

Ther is no doubt that singles are worked harder than twins. Twice the work with no backup.

There are serious issues with engines these days. How many times do we hear about our cars "making metal" or cams falling apart, cranks cracking.......... The current state of technology in aviation recips is sad to say the least. But when you can sell a 6 cylinder, air cooled, magneto fired, carburated or stone age basic fuel injected engine for 90-110k, why change a thing. And if there is a problem, just get then FAA to issue an AD and sell a pile of replacement parts to engines you made 30 years ago.

When were paying 1mill pluss for a new recip powered aircraft, the reliablility isn't even close to what it should be.
 
n20junkie said:
These new engines in the HP planes are not holding up.
Click to expand...

Try and get a Cirrus to TBO without serious issues, In fact I am test flying a SR-22 Turbo today for the service center with about 500 hours on it..just had to re-topped and turboed...have seen countless of these scenarios.

If you can afford it go for the turbine..Your looking at about $270/hour in variable cost on the Meridian, about a $100 more an hour than the Mirage. Aside from the cool factor...you cant hardly hurt a PT-6 with proper training. WAY less moving parts , no more aggravating mag checks, praying for cylinder compression at annual etc...and real HEAT! in the winter
 
Last edited:
When you add the extra cost for tops every 500 and majors every 1000 with 4 sets of turbos to get it to TBO. The turbine doesnt cost any more really. And that turbine can be on a fixed cost MX plan.
 
n20junkie said:
When you add the extra cost for tops every 500 and majors every 1000 with 4 sets of turbos to get it to TBO. The turbine doesnt cost any more really. And that turbine can be on a fixed cost MX plan.
Click to expand...

That is what is called a 'straw man argument'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top