Mooney_Driver wrote:
I am a bit more sceptical about the PA46 in general, as for my liking, too many of those have had inflight breakups.
That statement needs to be qualified further. It is true that the FAA did an extensive review of the PA46 in 1991 when they felt the number of inflight breakups in PA46s was higher than average. The result of that investigation was that there was nothing wrong with the airframe, but with pilot training and experience in flying a pressurized and relatively slick airframe at flight levels and in (sometimes too) challenging weather. With the proper training, knowledge, and attitude to risk, this can absolutely be mitigated.
Such a statement is a bit like saying “I would never fly a tailwheel aircraft because the number of runway excursions is higher on them”. Yes, but it’s not really the aircraft’s fault, you need the proper training as for any aircraft type.
As stated in this article by the Aviation Consumer:
During descents, it’s easy to get above maneuvering speed or even redline if you’re not paying attention. This, along with the autopilot and weather factors, was implicated in a string of inflight breakups that led to a great deal of consternation (and an AD-mandated restriction on operations) in 1991. But no positive link was confirmed and the airplane was given a clean bill of health.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
wonder whether these pressurisation issues are generally a problem with the Silver Eagle
I have not flown it but spoke to an owner multiple times over the years and the general issue seems to be that the RR turbine was made for helicopters. Thus, it works quite efficiently at low level but looses power higher up. So on one side the max differential pressure of the airframe if quite low and on top the engine is low on power in the flight levels and can not deliver much bleed air.
The PT6 in our Piper Meridian is quite the opposite. It drinks fuel liky crazy down low and at idle but there is always plenty of power and bleed air available. It will hold the max power and cabin pressure all the way up and the cabin will not bother even if the power is pulled back more or less to idle.
I am not a huge fan of the Silver Eagle cabin. It feels like 1970 Cessna for 3/4 Million Euro. But for the mission of HBadger it seems to be the perfect aircraft.
Yes, but the issue remains with grass airfields. The wheels of the 210 are standard (6-inch) size, so you will have issues if the grass runway is soft, just as you would have in an SR22 without wheel pants. Landings are never a problem in the Silver Eagle, but takeoffs could be. Actually, you might get bogged down right at the parking spot, the the ground is soft.
And I totally agree with Sebastian, the cabin of the P210 is rather awful. It is not roomy. It’s a tight, rather dark box which you sit in, smelling and feeling 50 years old.
Ah, the eternal debate where we can’t afford PC12 but try to justify various compomises for “non-grass SEPs”
The SR22 seems the closest one can get in that regard 
Sebastian_G wrote:
As far as I know the Jetprop runway performance was never tested. The STC just says equal or better than the piston model before conversion. So even if the plane can do it and something goes wrong there is a chance they blame you because the POH did not say so.
Seems most “engine HP upgrades STC” use that kind of wording, is there a case where they have really published new takeoff perf tables?
I notice first gen PC-12s which are quite a smart buy, you save on Honeywell database fees and have some more UL, have doubled in value in the last twelve months.
That PC-12 price action speaks to this discussion
Rwy20 wrote:
That statement needs to be qualified further.
I am well aware of the FAA recertification and yes, I suppose the problem most of the times sits on the pilot seat. But this also would indicate that it is an airplane which requires rather more currency and experience than others which are more forgiving. My qualms about it is, that apart from loosing a friend in a not explained inflight breakup very close to us here, I’ve seen other accident reports which look frighteningly similar: Loss of control followed by either crash intact or breakup. So I’ve told myself to stay away from the Malibu series, as even if I had the cash to fly one, I would certainly not qualify as either experienced or would have the time to amount to much currency.
I would guess that the 210 series would be better in this regard, as it is really not very difficult to fly. The only qualms I have with Cessna retracables are the complexity of the landing gear and the consequently high rate of failures which end up with gear up landings.
Sebastian_G wrote:
Thus, it works quite efficiently at low level but looses power higher up. So on one side the max differential pressure of the airframe if quite low and on top the engine is low on power in the flight levels and can not deliver much bleed air.
Ok, that makes sense. I wonder whether there would not be a solution to add a electrical compressor to assist the pressurisation or, as in the 787 for instance, take over entirely. I always found the bleed air concept lacking, particularly also with the problems with contaminated air. But that is academic, it is what it is.
The cabin, well it’s Cessna and it is an old design. But I’ve seen the massive difference between examples which had updated, bright leather seats and newer walls and covers as opposed to original rather dark and gloomy interiors. Yes they are tight, but still quite roomy as opposed to 172’s or similar planes. If it is used as a 3-4 seater, I doubt that it will leave much to be desired in terms of space.
Sebastian_G wrote:
But for the mission of HBadger it seems to be the perfect aircraft.
And that, I suppose, might mean a heck of a difference.
The interesting bit may well be finding a good exemplar. The only one on planecheck right now is lovely, but has no FIKI. For a Silver Eagle, or any 210 for that matter, I’d guess FIKI would be a must.
My flying steed of the last four years has been a P210 and I happen to be in charge of a friend’s pressurized 337 that I have been flying the last six months,so I can comment with mostly first-hand knowledge on all three CESSNA’s in this discussion.
CHAPTER ONE: PRESSURIZATION system
I’ll start with the PRESSURIZATION system, which is 80% common on both of those aircraft, SE is the same as P210, other than the pressure source!
Agreed that the system is a simple as it gets: max 3.35 psi DP and NO cabin rate selector. One outflow plus one safety valve.
SIMPLICITY: The good news is that there is not much to break: the main fault- and maintenance-drivers are leak searching and fixing. Once you have a nice setup then they are mostly maintenance-free, but as usual with older aircraft most of the examples I have witnessed in the for-sale market were not up to par in that respect.The other culprits could be the valves or the controller. If you regularly replace the (350 $) filter, a properly set controller never fails. As to the valves, if you keep them cleand and do not smoke in the airplane, I have never found an issue.
MAX DP: In practice I found it not to be a limiter. Both the piston and turbine are happiest performing FL150-FL200. That gives you a cabin altitude of 6200-10000 ft which I have found reasonable. The only issue is if you need to fly higher (they can climb up to FL230) which means your cabin will be at up to 12500ft. I have only done it on a couple of occasions to clear some summer wx. In winter FL200 will get you above most wx. If that is aproblem for your mission, then get a PA46: it is happier above FL200 both performance-wise and pressurization-wise.
CABIN RATE CONTROL (or lack thereof): @lionel ‘s main issue is in the desire+ability to use descent rates above 1000fpm. I have not found that to be such a big issue in practice. I will agree that when crusing at 20000ft planning for a 500fpm descent is a problem.
Let me explain:
All three of these Cessna’s are limited in their ability to supply pressurization air when the throttle is retarded for descent. THis is common to a lot of TP’s and all pistons. Jets seem to have more abundance of bleed air allowing for a better pressurization control in descent.
On the airplane-side of things (vs pressurization):
The P210 can be descended at over 1000fpm without significant throttle retardation but then you need to accept IAS in the yellow arc (170-200KIAS) , which most of the times works for me. It is always satisfactory to see 250KTAS and above, haha. However when in IMC or anything more than very light turbulence then you need to slow-down and plan further ahead for descent.
The SE however has a maximum KCAS of 167 but at least you can throttle back without fear on the engine, hence easily allowing 2000fpm descents.
The 337 is similar in this respect to the P210. Our 337 is equipped with speed brakes (spoilers on the wing upper surface) which will give you over 2000fpm descent at cruise power settings in the green IAS arc. All three of these aircraft can be equipped with speed brakes if that is a concern.
If you do not have speed brakes, then you will need to throttle back or go well into the yellow IAS arc (non.existant in SE) if interested in descending at 1000fpm or more.
Now to the pressurization side of things: once you know the system then you can use it to your advantage in two different ways:
a) The cabin leak rate on a tight cabin will be close to 1500-2000fpm at max DP, so with some practice you can throttle back just enough to manage a +-500fpm cabin VSI while the airplane goes down at 1500-2000fpm. However, if you level off you have to be ready to set cabin altitude similar to your current cabin altitude as you increase throttle if you do not want to have an ear-surprise. THis is easier to manage in a continuous descent.
b) Easier still, especially near the top of descent, is to set cabin altitude near your actual cabin altitude, then start down at whichever VSI suits you then adjust throttle slowly to maintain cabin altitude. I can easily descent at 1500fpm with zero change in cabin altitude from cruise. Then you can slowly adjust cabin altitude down so cabin meets actual later in the descent. Of course there will come a time when cabin will have to catch up, but hopefully by then you will be managing a slower actual rate of descent
Either way: it not the as-intended set-and-forget system as those aircraft with a cabin rate selector can be, like a PA-46. If you do that on one of these Cessnas, typically selecting (then forgetting) cabin altitude 1000ft above destination airfield, then cabin altitude will be all over the place as you descend first increasing cabin alt as you throttle back, then decreasing as you descend quickly, then decreasing further to maintain max dp as you level off, then increasing again as you throttle back again and so on…
Once you understand the system and the airplane, you can make it one more system to manage balancing cabin altitude, throttle setting and airspeed and enjoy descent rates in the 1500fpm range without a problem most of the time. It however does add one more task to the descent workload.
Thanks Antonio, this makes a lot of sense.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
But this also would indicate that it is an airplane which requires rather more currency and experience than others which are more forgiving.
It is a fast plane – so yes, it requires more currency than a much slower one. It is, however, not more difficult to fly than e.g. an SR22 – I would argue even easier as speed management on approach is much more simple due to retractable gears.
If you compare apples to apples – so the PA-46 to another capable cruising airplane like an SR22, Mooney, etc. on the same flight it’s quite obvious that the PA-46 is not more risky neither more demanding than any of these. The “problem” of the Malibu has alway been a different one: It comes with pressurized cabin, FIKI and even a (initially largely useless) weather radar. Therefore a larger number of owners have been tempted to commence flights, they would never have thought about in another SEP – and some of them have even been outside of the capabilities of a Malibu and or the ones of the pilot.
Coming back to the original question.
I had the same thoughts/requirements when I got my PA-46: I needed a plane that I could comfortably fly across the alps with small children in the backseat. While for me it is only about convenience (got my fair share of flying with straws in the nose in ancient times in gliders), my personal limit has always been that I do not go beyond FL120 with children smaller than about 12yrs. (Those limits are fully arbitrary but my limits). Therefore the Malibu was the cheapest plane to fulfill the needs – even if I had to compromise in terms short and soft field.
A PC-12 is not only outside of my financial possibilities, but also doesn’t always help in Europe: While it is obviously great on gravel, it also can’t deny physics when it come to soft field. in many cases my main concern would not so much be the landing (or takeoff) itself but how get it out of the holes it has dug itself by standing on a soft ground over night…
