Trading "down" from a C340 to a Malibu

[Lead Sled]

LOL...

As long as we're dreaming....would a TBM700 be considered a trade down?

I'd much rather fly one of those than an Meridian....


Someone posted the downside of the Bonanza is no pressurization....

That's the only reason I thought of the Malibu, and why I bought this 340 over a 310 that was available at the same time.

They were both about the same price, but I went with the comfort of not having a tube up my nose anymore.

Otherwise, the Bonanza fits almost everything we want.

You really ought to at least take a ride in a P210 before you make your final decision. It really wasn't that bad of an airplane and, at the time, I didn't think I'd like it. They're a lot of bang for the buck IF you need that type of performance capability want to be free of the nose hose. The earlier models are still reasonably reliable and, even though they aren't quite as fast as a Malibu, they can still haul a respectable load a reasonable distance at a pretty good speed. The one I flew had boots and airconditioning. I think that they can be bought for well under $200K.

Personally, I've never thought much of an A36. Six seats and no baggage. The Lance / Saratoga or a 210 give you 6 usable seats and a place to put some bags.

Now, if it were me and money were no object, I'd find me a nice T-38 (it's just the wife and I). Enough range to non-stop it to were the kids and grandkids live and mach 1+. Yee haw!

 

[FN FAL]

What an excellent idea! The guy wants to cut costs by trading down from a quarter million dollar C340 to a million dollar + turbine. Makes perfect sense to me.

'Sled

Actually, if this guy has some professional friends that need the same amount of aircraft, they could form a flying club and enjoy a lot of benefit from a TBM 700 by sharing costs. It works and it happens all the time.

 

[pilotmiketx]

... great useful load too, with full fuel you can carry two people and a brown-bag lunch.

There's no way you could carry your SpongeBob lunchbox. And you have to leave your fruit rollups at home.

 

[SpyFlysDOTs]

I've got a couple thousand hours in a C340, but only a few in a Malibu. Personally, I'd never be able to get comfortable in the Malibu or Mirage with their history of engine issues. The Bonanza or (if you didn't need the 5th and 6th seat) even a Mooney 251 or Bravo would get you close to C340 speeds at about 1/3 the overall cost and give you nearly the same capabilities that you have now.

I have flown with a pilot who had a couple of thousand Malibu hrs and lived through 4, count em Four engine failures.
Any questions?

 

[Mickey]

The Malibu is a very nice airplane. I have one friend who flew more than 3000 hours in his. He didn't make it to TBO the first time, but he wasn't the only one flying it. After being overhauled he made it to TBO, but he was the only person flying it and he payed attention to temps. and planned his descents. There are some Malibus that have the 550 in them and they are supposed to be "better." The Mirage uses the Lyc.540. I think that started in 1989 or so. Two of my friends have these. One switched from an BE33 and the other switched from an Ovation. Both of them are extremely happy. It's an easier plane to fly than the Ovation and quite comfortable. I hav e to run now so, more later..

The engine issues have been blown out of proportion by hype. Study the numbers and they aren't bad at all. I think C210s have more engine outs.

Take care.

 

[Lead Sled]

I have flown with a pilot who had a couple of thousand Malibu hrs and lived through 4, count em Four engine failures.
Any questions?

One can happen to anyone, anytime, in anything. Two, well unless there were some very extenuating circumstances, that would be it for me with that particular engine/airframe combination. Four in 2000 hours! At that point, I would question your friend's judgment.

'Sled

 

[SpyFlysDOTs]

4000 hrs and 4 engine failures, isnt blown out of proportion.

(cant remember if it was 2000 or 4000 hrs, thinking it was 4000 hrs, he once told me he had more time in the malibu than any other pilot..now flys a Citation.)

Took a testflight in a jetProp a couple years ago, it was a rocketship!
Now, where is that spare million, where is my wallet?

 

[SpyFlysDOTs]

One can happen to anyone, anytime, in anything. Two, well unless there were some very extenuating circumstances, that would be it for me with that particular engine/airframe combination. Four in 2000 hours! At that point, I would question your friend's judgment.

'Sled

How so?
What is faulty with his judgement, to keep flying a plane with so many engine failures?
Does the fact he has experienced four engine failures indicitive of a failure of judgement of any pilot, or a reflection on the engine?

 

[A Squared]

... great useful load too, with full fuel you can carry two people and a brown-bag lunch.

Hmmm sounds about right for a well designed airplane. For maximum utility you would want your fuel capacity sized that way.

I don't know about the specifics of the meridian, but in general the idea that you should be able to "fill the tanks and fills the seats" is just foolish. For a given useful load, you have better flexibility if you can reach max gross weight with just yourself and full tanks. More fuel capacity is a waste, obviously, because a plane at max gross weight with no-one in it won't fly very far, and less fuel capacity limits your range when your cabin load is light.

There's a reason that very few g/a airplanes have the ability to carry full fuel with a max passenger load, and that is because the folks desiging the airplane have thought the problem through, instead of designing to match a silly platitude.

You want to "fill the tanks and fills the seats"?? Pull out the tanks and install smaller ones, then you can do that. Doesn't make sense when you put it that way, does it.

 

[Lead Sled]

How so?
What is faulty with his judgement, to keep flying a plane with so many engine failures?
Does the fact he has experienced four engine failures indicitive of a failure of judgement of any pilot, or a reflection on the engine?

You're kidding right? You honestly don't see the problem? Let's put it another way, would you let your wife or one of your kids, or perhaps your mother fly with him in that airplane?

Most pilots can, now days, expect to fly an entire career without the statistical probability of an engine failure. To have had four in a single airplane over a period of between 2,000 to 4,000 hours blow me away. There is something wrong there - either he's not telling the truth or there's something else going on. Either way, yes I'll question the judgement of a pilot that would subject himself and, more importantly, others to those kind of statistics.

'Sled