Starting search for new plane.

If you can afford to play in the turbine world, go with a turbine. If you like the PA-46 series with a turbine, there isn't any particular reason I know to avoid them. MU-2 is a hell of a plane, but it takes a higher mental commitment than the PA-46. As long as that's good for you, it's a rocking performer.
 
Last edited:
After looking all the suggestions over and including the king air,the Malibu pretty much wins in my opinion. Insurance for me was at least 3 or 4 times more for anything else. My insurance broker told me,that in fact,the Malibu with a turbine might be slightly cheaper at the same hull values. All of the other choices had either hourly checks or phase checks. Fuel burn was twice or close to it for all other choices for same speeds. I know everyone feels the plane they own is the best but after flying a Malibu it's hard to find anything that will do the same things for close to the cost. The two things I personally don't like about a Malibu, are the ground steering, as its really touchy and the other is engine issues. Mainly keeping it cool. I can live with cabin size and useful load. They also are made in the United States and you can get parts fairly easy, if not cheaply. I really don't haul more than 4 people around often and usually Just my wife and I, and I can leave fuel if I want to load up. The turbine will take me into the flight levels in less than 20 minutes so a fuel stop isn't major. I own other planes also and thought when I bought Malibu that I would use those for short trips but after owning the Malibu few years have found when I go somewhere it's in the Malibu. It is good in low levels,more so than I thought it would be. Only put about 30 hours on the Cessna 205 last year which was my go to plane.
I may not be big Malibu fan myself, but can't fault your thinking. Sounds like a great deal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
After looking all the suggestions over and including the king air,the Malibu pretty much wins in my opinion. Insurance for me was at least 3 or 4 times more for anything else. My insurance broker told me,that in fact,the Malibu with a turbine might be slightly cheaper at the same hull values. All of the other choices had either hourly checks or phase checks. Fuel burn was twice or close to it for all other choices for same speeds. I know everyone feels the plane they own is the best but after flying a Malibu it's hard to find anything that will do the same things for close to the cost. The two things I personally don't like about a Malibu, are the ground steering, as its really touchy and the other is engine issues. Mainly keeping it cool. I can live with cabin size and useful load. They also are made in the United States and you can get parts fairly easy, if not cheaply. I really don't haul more than 4 people around often and usually Just my wife and I, and I can leave fuel if I want to load up. The turbine will take me into the flight levels in less than 20 minutes so a fuel stop isn't major. I own other planes also and thought when I bought Malibu that I would use those for short trips but after owning the Malibu few years have found when I go somewhere it's in the Malibu. It is good in low levels,more so than I thought it would be. Only put about 30 hours on the Cessna 205 last year which was my go to plane.

Do you think if you did not have a Malibu you would have picked a Meridian or does the Jetprop Malibu have better performance than a Meridian?
 
The meridian will beat the the jetprop in useful load and has bigger tail or parts of tail. But has -42 engine which burns around 40 to 42 gals per hour. Also being heavier I suppose, can't touch the jetprop in takeoff and landing specs. You can get late meridian with g1000 avionics, while best you can do with jetprop would be Aspen, G500 or 600 garmin or meggit. Jetprop stc doesn't cover g1000 for some reason. Also meridian doesn't have the front baggage compartment, really limiting baggage space. There are lot more meridians for sale than jet props, which makes me think, must be more demand for jetprop.
 
I do like the jetprop. The fact that most people fly them 500 lbs over gross worries me. Why is that? Is it in fact more capable than the certification limit? I've seen examples where the full fuel payload is only 70 lbs... Throw two people and some luggage and you're already way over gross. It's almost as if they EXPECT you to fly them over gross. Call me chicken/conservative/whatever as much as I like them, I think I'd go for a Meridian and you can get Meridians for not much more.
 
I've never seen the useful ever get that low, but on mine with the reduction in weight from turbine and increase in weight on jet fuel, I would have close to 400 useful with full fuel. Right now with full fuel and not as large capacity my useful is 680 lbs. Think that useful on meridian is around 650. I would really miss the front baggage compartment and short takeoff. But with fuel burn difference I can leave 40gal on ground and be the same. Yes people do fly them over gross and usually get away with it, but, not always.
 
The meridian will beat the the jetprop in useful load and has bigger tail or parts of tail. But has -42 engine which burns around 40 to 42 gals per hour. Also being heavier I suppose, can't touch the jetprop in takeoff and landing specs. You can get late meridian with g1000 avionics, while best you can do with jetprop would be Aspen, G500 or 600 garmin or meggit. Jetprop stc doesn't cover g1000 for some reason. Also meridian doesn't have the front baggage compartment, really limiting baggage space. There are lot more meridians for sale than jet props, which makes me think, must be more demand for jetprop.

Personally I would take a pair of G-600 with a pair of GTN-750s next to them, one set for each side and a nice glass engine panel in the middle. The G-1000 is still the old GNS architecture and human interface. The G-600 has plenty of screen real estate for comfortable, uncluttered, easy to read interface, and with a 750 next to it, that gives you a PFD and 2 independent MFDs per side, plus you get the GTN rubberband-able interface and remote audio panel and transponder boxes.

G-1000 has been an OEM only product, but I saw an add the other day that makes me question if that has changed.
 
I would ask for a copy of the ICA for ANY engine conversion STC. There is no chance in hell I'd spend that kind of money without looking and knowing all the hidden traps on the back end.

In fact I'd want to see everything.
(if applicable)

#1 Supplemental Maintenance Manual
#2 Supplemental Parts Manual
#3 Airplane Flight Manual Supplement
#4 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (Additional Airworthiness Limitations?)
#5 Wiring Diagrams
#6 Weight and Balance Supplement

Quality of these documents vary greatly from one STC to another.

Hypothetical: Buy shiny new gismo that gets installed on the wing and the STC adds a life limit to it because of the additional load.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top