I have owned a Malibu for 10 years. Lots of difference in a Lance vs a Malibu...Know Ice, pressurized hull, dual vacume pumps, dual alternators flying in the flight levels, costs...
Different years have specific problems-advantages.
Email me and we can talk more...
Check out www.mmopa.org.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2007 02:39PM by helpdesk.
Hello,
I am a corporate pilot with about 1200 hrs in Seneca II and 300 in Malibu Mirage, only a handful in T-Lances. Beware limitations in useful load for the Malibu. Our Seneca has about 180# more payload with full fuel than our Malibu. That said, the Mirage is a great airplane. Won't set the world on fire on takeoff, especially at higher density altitudes, but goes like hell when cleaned up.
Some say the Lycoming is more robust than the Cont., and since I flew our Lycoming quite successfully 200 hrs beyond TBO (then we sold it), I would agree. But you must mind temperatures and rates of change, even more so than T-Lance or other smaller turbocharged engines (eg: Seneca). Some have problems with TIT probes: need to be replaced every 250 hrs.
If you want speed, pressurization and roominess, go for the Malibu. It is expensive to operate however: our costs were about $375/hr @ 100 hr per yr. Fuel @ 19-21 gph (cruise). Hangaring will bite, because the a/c will not fit in standard 40' hangars. Insurance also, because of 6-seat and high-performance aspect. Also, most insurance co's require annual training (unlike T-Lance and Seneca where you can keep yourself current).
But again, it is a great aircraft -- there's nothing like a "cabin-class" aircraft to make you and passengers feel like bigshots. The pressurization allows for high fast flight (200 kts @ FL200+), plus airconditioning, club seating, etc.
Caveat emptor: Some Malibu POH's have the performance specs at "mid-weight" -- that's you, fuel, and a sack lunch. Read the fine print before you believe all the speed and economy hype!
