Is the Jetprop the right plane for my mission? (and other high performance types)

The Mirage is an amazing plane it just needs another engine.

PT6?

Lucius wrote:

Malibu Mirage (…) Typically of 220 knots at FL230-250 at 75 percent power burning 18.8 GPH, or 11.7 nm/gal.

I owned two of those planes and that is by far exaggerated. On a good day it will do 195/200kt TAS on 20GPH. And it does not like to cruise above FL200 so you will be using even more fuel to cool the engine that high up. The Mirage is an amazing plane it just needs another engine.

I have been given the following, to post, with no more information:

the engine is able to qualify for the MORE program http://www.morecompany.net. This will upgrade the PT6 TBO to 8000 hours and not 4000 hours.

boscomantico wrote:

In fact, what you are looking for (turbine, pressurization, decent cruise speed, short/grass field capability, moderate capex and opex) does not exist.

I agree. Went through a similar thought process and ended up with a B36TC as a compromise. It leaves me with room for future upgrades, like >190 lbs useful load increase and TKS. Dispatch reliability is important for me. I had considered the Malibu Mirage, but was turned off by these citations from owners and reviewers:

Cons:

• Low maneuvering speed in the mid-130s KIAS at gross, decreasing as the airplane gets lighter.
• Anyone contemplating buying one should be ready to pay what we consider to be substantial maintenance bills, with the reward being fast cruise speeds above the weather in pressurized comfort and with reasonable payload.
• With the introduction of the Piper Mirage, some of the quirky systems were addressed. The hydraulic system was improved, the engine cooling system was redesigned, the cabin door was improved, the seats were strengthened and the flaps were changed from hydraulic to electric operation. (Actually, some of the later Malibu models got the electric flaps and improved hydraulics for the gear.)
• It gained a reputation as a problem airplane. The engine and systems were finicky to operate, and dispatch reliability ranged from barely acceptable to just awful for some years.
• Even ardent supporters of the airplane admit that it requires frequent and ongoing maintenance. Owners emphasize the value of having a knowledgeable maintenance shop doing routine and ongoing work on the airplane. The Malibu is not an airplane that just any shop can fix and we don’t recommend bringing one to a shop without PA-46 experience

Pros:

• Cabin and cockpit noise are on the low side as GA airplanes go
• Comfortably carry four people and baggage with full tanks yielding a nonstop range of about 1000 to 1200 nm. Useful load is 1300lbs.
• Typically of 220 knots at FL230-250 at 75 percent power burning 18.8 GPH, or 11.7 nm/gal.
• Excellent glide rate.

HBadger wrote:

and reliable as the jetprop

Yes, the 340 is a difficult aircraft to maintain, but a nice cruiser for six people, much more space-comfortable for pilots than the Jetprop.

A Jetprop is much easier to maintain reliably than a 340, but it can still be done if you find the right shop.

rschris wrote:

I can still do this from time to time with a rental aircraft.

Once you get into ownership , it will be a difficult big sidestep to rent a lesser aircraft you are no longer familiar with. Realistically you’ll be happier wasting a little jet-fuel low-level flying in your Jetprop, if it comes to it.

Texas

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/224343875886783/

Xlr8tr wrote:

Doug Jackson on the Cessna 300/400 Facebook page

Where?

@Peter
Thank you for the input. I agree with you about low level/scenic flight. But I can still do this from time to time with a rental aircraft.

@HBadger
The aforementioned plane has a space in a hangar in Geneva. While not the closest airport it still convenient for me.
And taking off from LSGG, it is not mandatory to land at a customs airport at destination if you remain within Schengen area.