Isn’t the PA-46 the same cross section as the Navajo? I’ve also heard they are quite cosy, but my impression of the Navajo is that it is quite comfortable? Perhaps the PA-46 lost cabin space up front.
I would not pay $250 to see if a particular aircraft type is worth considering.
Especially not to a type specific forum 
Try posting critical stuff on the Socata forum and see what happens. These communities can get really religious. COPA, anyone?
Why pre 1989 specifically?
Peter wrote:
Why pre 1989 specifically?
i am looking at a older type with a conti 520
Another good source is Aviation Consumer. You can buy the specific type review for a few dollars. I have no practical experience with the Malibu (TCM) but it appears that some of the early troubles were due to pilots not following the POH which prohibits ROP cruise. Since (at that time) LOP was still new for many pilots, they thought they couldn’t harm it by running ROP. There were some modifications to the nosegear doors as well.
Anyway you want to have a shop with Malibu experience. See if you fit in the front seat first.
Peter wrote:
I would not pay $250 to see if a particular aircraft type is worth considering.
For an older type I am serious about, I sure would.
The original Malibu with the Continental engine is what many consider the best Malibu in terms of performance and range. The Continental engine fitted is designed for LOP operation and at the time this was something many people considered witchcraft and consequently flew the airplane out of design specs with the predictable result that the engine had trouble. this however was purely on pilots errors and not anything really wrong with the engine. So with proper training and adherence to procedures, the Continental driven Malibu can deliver a lot more than the Lycoming powered one, which is “safe” with ROP operation but at the cost of lots of range and economy. Were I in the market for one, Iˆd definitly go for the 310 hp model.
Having said that, people I know who operate one tell me that they do have to do serious maintenance up to top overhauls regularly to keep those engines happy. Top overhauls every 600-700 hrs are the norm, not the exception.
Also many of the older Malibus have period pieces in the panel which means you will be looking at upgrading the avionics… even though a lot of people obviously will have done so.
what should be taken into account is that the Malibus accident record is not exactly stellar for the reason that a lot of pilots seem to have problems with getting to speed with it or, in other words, are overtasked with the plane. So serious training with a savy Malibu FI is a must if you donˆt want to become a part of the sordid statistics.
However, the original Malibu is a great airplane in terms of efficiency and particularly range, where it mostly has 6-7 hours of cruise endurance translating into 1000 NM plus ranges.
I found a rather good article about the original Malibu here: Malibu 310 Analysis
Recalling a conversation from many years ago I googled on
malibu 10% engine failure rate
and that turns up quite a bit of info on the background.
This PA46 was for sale recently with the TISO-550C
If you really get serious about buying one I also recommend MMOPA. The fee is negligible compared to the possible mistakes one can make.
Lots of information also available on free sites but the bottom line is the piston PA46 is the entry level all weather go to places plane. The shortcomings are no grass fields, limited space up front for people taller than about 1,85cm (you can mod the seat a bit but still) and the piston engine will break, often, no matter how you treat it. This more or less applies to all three engines available (520, 540, 550). This fact kind of limits the all weather capabilities.
I have crossed the North Atlantic twice in the piston PA46 and once in a turbine. It was great fun but I would not do it again in the piston. The only reason to get a piston PA46 is capital outlay. The turbine versions seem to be better in nearly all other aspects, often even operating costs.
> 225 kt TAS mid-weight @75%
Very optimistic. In real life rather budget 195/200kt TAS but the real performance parameter is the slow climb. You can spend 30min to climb to FL200 if quite heavy.
I was tinkering with the idea of joining the MMOPA myself. Despite flying the competition, just for the additional knowledge one can obtain.
If you are thinking of buying a PA46, think of $250 as a percentage of your purchase price or yearly maintenance cost. I would do it in a heartbeat because it will help you save a large multiple on the investment and running costs.
This said, I would never buy a PA46 because of the lousy workplace. Isn’t this where we spend our time and why we spend our money?
What value has a luxurious cabin when you have to be a contortionist to get to the pilot’s seat, must live in a cramped place with minimal visibility and a good chance of being barbecued after a crash landing because only Houdini would manage to get out??? No thanks.
