Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Piper piston PA46 Malibu / Mirage and other pressurised SEPs (and some piston versus PT6 discussion)

https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Pilot-licences/Aeroplanes/Single-pilot-type-rating-for-aeroplanes/

The language in this link seems to imply that to operate a SP HPA (single pilot high performance aircraft), you also need a SP ME/IR. This is a website so not EASA FCL, but seems to be inconsistent. Presumably a SE IR and HPA would satisfy?

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Malibuflyer wrote:

Also when looking at the asking prices of used PA46 I wonder why it looks like 5-10 years older jetprop conversions are priced same or higher than a native turboprop version (Meridian)?

Also, a big attraction of the Jetprop in Europe is that it doesnt attract airways route charges (about Euro 80 per hour) and often significantly lower landing fees etc. This is due to its MTOW of 1,950kg falling just under the key 2,000 kg cutoff.

As I understand (I have never flown either the Jetprop or Meridian), the big drawback of the Jetprop is useful load. I don’t know whether operators have a tendency to fly over MTOW as a result.

Upper Harford private strip UK, near EGBJ, United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

The language in this link seems to imply that to operate a SP HPA (single pilot high performance aircraft), you also need a SP ME/IR. This is a website so not EASA FCL, but seems to be inconsistent. Presumably a SE IR and HPA would satisfy?

The part of the CAA website mentioning MEIR is not about SP HPA generally, but complex SP HPA (SPHPCA). A Jetprop or Meridian are not complex. But is is still incorrect:

FCL.720.A(a)(3) Single-pilot high-performance complex aeroplanes
Applicants for the issue of a type rating for a complex single-pilot aeroplane classified as a high-performance aeroplane shall, in addition to meeting the requirements in point (2), hold or have held a single- or multi-engine IR, as appropriate and as established in Subpart G and shall meet the requirements in point (b)(5)

(My emphasis.) So, yes, with the addition of an Advanced Upset Recovery Training course – that’s what point (b)(5) is about – SE IR and HPA would satisfy for a SPHPCA type rating..

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 23 Sep 09:03
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Buckerfan wrote:

Also, a big attraction of the Jetprop in Europe is that it doesnt attract airways route charges (about Euro 80 per hour) and often significantly lower landing fees etc. This is due to its MTOW of 1,950kg falling just under the key 2,000 kg cutoff.

As I understand (I have never flown either the Jetprop or Meridian), the big drawback of the Jetprop is useful load. I don’t know whether operators have a tendency to fly over MTOW as a result.

Yes but isn’t the Meridian allowed on 1999kg on EASA reg also? In both cases I think they practically operate overweight much of the time on a 1999kg reg.

Can both models also be operated over TBO? I think the Jetprop can with some trend monitoring. This could explain why the Meridans with 3000HRs are priced low if TBO 3600 is hard limit? Thats probably a 300K EUR pricetag for the overhaul of a PT6-42.

As MalibuFlyer wrote then the early avionics that does not support WAAS is another reason.

In generel I find the PA46 type very interesting as there really isn’t anything else in that class. I consider it my next aircraft after my TB21 in a few years hopefully :-)

One thing I do like about the piston models is the super long range. And the lower pricetag vs turbine versions. Im not sure running costs of a Malibu/Mirage (initial Investment and depreciation aside) is much lower than a Jetprop considering the faster cruise speed and lower price on jetfuel.

THY
EKRK, Denmark

Thread renamed to a generic piston PA46 one.

1999kg Meridian thread – not really viable.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There seems to be a consensus that running costs are not very different between a Meridian and a Mirage, and somewhat lower in a Jetprop. Maybe Jason still has some data somewhere, although both his Mirage and Meridian were quite new, and the Mirage gets more expensive maintenance-wise as it gets older, relative to the Meridian.

EGTF, LFTF

Wiki says the Mirage is piston (“Malibu Mirage”). The Meridian is a TP (turboprop) and was marketed as “Malibu Meridian”.

Hence how would “running costs are not very different between a Meridian and a Mirage” be possible?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

denopa wrote:

There seems to be a consensus that running costs are not very different between a Meridian and a Mirage

@denopa, did you mean the variable costs or fixed costs or …?

EGTR

Running costs = all costs except initial investment / depreciation, as an answer to THY.

The unplanned maintenance costs in the Mirage (piston) tend to be significantly higher than in the Meridian (turboprop). This helps offset the higher costs of the TP which in Europe are going to be concentrated around hot section inspections, overhaul and landing/handling.

EGTF, LFTF

Can both models also be operated over TBO?

Why not? A turbine plane <2730kg is non complex and part ml applies for private ops.

From speaking to owners the operating costs are the same between malibu and meridian, the difference is capital outlay.

always learning
LO__, Austria
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top