denopa- apologies if I hurt your feelings… as we found out on several occasions, the PA46 and the E400 are in reality very similar and I may have gotten over enthusiastic (heck, I was high due to the broken cylinder event ;-)
You are right about the relatively attractive purchase price of the Mirage. And you and I have compared maintenance budgets and this favors the PA46.
So why did I not go PA46 then?
The deal breaker from my perspective is indeed the cockpit. It may not matter to other people, but to me the issue is significant enough that I would not upgrade to an M600, M500 or Jetprop if I could afford one.
Yes Flyingfish, I can attest to your being contacted from “all over the world”, as I just attempted today. All the way from Washington State, USA. The airplane is just so attractive looking in my eye and so capable that it is hard to resist.
When you are talking about 500K and 25K annual maintenance budget, is that in Euro? Is that with hiring out most of the labor? Does That leave any room for those of us who are able to roll up our sleeves and do a lot of the work on our own?
I read on one of the posts about building three Homebuilt AC in the time that you have spent on Galatia. Is that real, or were you just having a rough day?
There is a new to the market offering that is a lower entrance fee, but as with any aircraft, the lower entry fee may not be the most economical path to the air.
denopa wrote:
what does the E400 do that the PA46 cannot?
Waait a minute! I am late to this but…what do these two do that the P210 cannot?
Oh my… it looks like I have upset everyone with this comparison. So,I’ll withdraw it with apologies – there was no intent to insult anyone ( and by the way I only mentioned the Silver Eagle, not the regular 210). I was just pointing out the value proposition in the context of saying that the real cost is around 500K.
to corbinace: my email is flyingfish28 at google’s mail. if you’d like to discuss, happy to help.
I confirm that several thousand hours went into Galatea, and the 500K is really a ballpark. 500 AMUs…
It is meant to filter out the illusion of buying a 200 K plane and thinking that this is it…
A healthy Extra 400 is one that is flying regularly. The longer it sits, the deeper the issues to be expected and the lower the price. For example : Crankshaft corrosion is not uncommon, and a typical prebuy won’t catch it. There goes 100 K…
It is absolutely ok to buy a cheap one and rebuild. You’ll end up around this number. If you see the value at this price point, great… otherwise you’re bound to be disappointed.
And of course you can replace A&P manpower with your own, that’s how I got my yearly budget down to only 25 K…..
Cheap it is not. Budget 500K and be happy if it ends up being 400…That’s what I tell my friends. YMMV…
Flyingfish wrote:
Oh my… it looks like I have upset everyone with this comparison. So,I’ll withdraw it with apologies – there was no intent to insult anyone ( and by the way I only mentioned the Silver Eagle, not the regular 210)
No, no, no need to: it was not meant like that and I said it tongue in cheek. Us owners tend to value our aircraft highly, and think it is better than that of our fellow flyers. Kind of the opposite of the famous neighbour’s greener pasture.
The EA400 is as capable as SEP’s go, in most aspects…when it is in good condition. It is however a unique, rare airframe with a unique, rare engine and as clearly related by you it brings associated a…er…unique ownership experience. The work you have done with that aircraft is amazing and you have clearly turned Galatea into a useful travelling machine, showing what can be done with the right resources and amazing passion you have put in to it. My hat is off to you.
Although the EA400 has unique characteristics, both the PA-46 and the P210 in their own way have 97% of its capabilities in most aspects (and more in others) with an easier ownership experience. All three are expensive to maintain and all three will be much more expensive than the price tag may make them seem depending on what the prior owner/s were doing with them operationally and maintenance-wise. This is no different from other aircraft, it is juts more so since they are more complex than other SEP’s.
I like the way you share your experience and are making us all sit in your “owner’s seat” which, especially in this case, is way beyond the pilot’s seat.
We have to make a pressurized-SEP get-together when times allow!
Although the EA400 has unique characteristics, both the PA-46 and the P210 in their own way have 97% of its capabilities in most aspects
I think the capability versus weather (i.e. the general despatch rate) is totally equipment-specific. This needs to be integral to any discussion of weather and what weather to fly in or not, etc. Probably all three are very similar in despatch rate.
Having been inside all of these I would expect the EA400 to be the most comfortable for both pilot and passengers, but the passenger aspect is likely to depend on how one “tarts up” the cabin.
If it is the same setup as the Extra 500, the EA400 has a separate cockpit with a “wall” separating it from the “passenger section” (and a “corridor” or “aisle” through that “wall”), which, I would think, impacts the “passenger aspect” quite a bit. I don’t think it has a door to close off the corridor.
Peter wrote:
is totally equipment-specific.
Absolutely: when comparing aircraft types, one would assume like-for-like as far as possible equipment-wise.
Having said that, in this aircraft class , there are two main groups of equipment I would deem relevant wx-wise:
-Avionics .
-De-ice . IN this regard, I think the only one where there are variations is the P210, I believe the other two are always full-deiced, although I am unsure about certification (@Flyingfish is Galatea “EU-FIKI”?)
Of course the overall comparison we are considering here is beyond wx-capability and factors comfort (as you say) , usability, maintenance, factory support, overall ownership and a few other aspects.
Flyingfish wrote:
Rotation is 80 KIAS, approach 85.
Looking back at this thread I noticed the above. This is a real point of differentiation.
A PA46 Mirage has the option of a shortfield takeoff technique: 20 degrees flaps instead of 10 degrees, lowers rotation speed to 68 kts, vs 80. That opens up a lot more airfields. It can handle 700m grass quite easily if OAT OK and weight a bit below MTOW.
iApproach speed is 80 kts.
OK so here is the big news. And it is not good. While working on the one broken cylinder, we had removed so many accessories that we decided to go just a bit more overboard so we could inspect the bottom end thoroughly. We had found some metal in the filter and it did not match the aluminum cylinder head.
Everything looked great except… for the LAST lifter and cam – both are kaputt.
So the engine is being removed and torn down.
We inspected the exhaust valves from cylinders 2 and 5 to get an idea of what could be salvaged.
Their condition is so good, and the cylinders and pistons look so clean that we are tinkering with the idea of repairing vs overhauling the engine.
The logic behind this is that we know what we have: proven parts with hardly any wear.
After 600 hours, 95% of this engine’s parts look as new and inexplicably, this happens to a single lifter/cam.
So it could happen again: no workmanship during overhaul can counter poor manufacturing…
Why go after a « zero time » illusion instead of betting on 5 proven cylinders and replacing just one?
(By the way cam and lifters are standard TSIO 550 parts, no liquid cooling specialty here.)
Thoughts?
Antonio: yes EASA and FAA FIKI
Buckerfan: I have in the meantime reduced approach speed to 80 KIAS at MTOW. 85 as I had been taught was way too high and 1.3 x VS would be 75.
Rotation at 80 is a self inflicted overkill: the rotation is smoother and feels safer. Extra recommended a lower value but I did not like it.
As I said in the post that triggered this debate: some of the competing aircraft are superior in this or that area. You should mention range in the case of the 310 HP PA46 which can run LOP at 15 GPH vs the Extra’s 19.
