With all the talk about Diamond's new HPSE and Mooney's attempts to build a relevant airplane, I have to wonder: Where is the twin malibu?

Where is the modern pressurized twin piston? When was the last 421C made, 1985?

Is the cost gap between building and operating a pressurized twin piston and a pressurized twin turbine really that low? It can't be. Look at the cost delta between a new G58 Baron and a new baby King Air. Millions.

Corporate flight departments that are restricted to twins by executive insurance generally do not need turbines to comply. Personally I think it's absurd that an adjuster could find a Baron safer than a Pilatus or TBM, but it is what it is, and it's widespread.

Build:
-A modern 6-place aircraft
-Powered by twin turbo FADEC piston engines
-Out of composites
-With a G3000 w/ autoland
-And a parachute
-That's pressurized
-And takes 2000 pounds 1200 miles at 250 KTAS

No gear inspection or calendar items. Annual it like a baron. No half-a-million-dollar sword of damocles hanging off each wing.

How does this not exist? I know certification is expensive. The DA50 must have been pricey to certify, and it solves ... no problems.

-J

Jourdan,

What you describe sounds easy, but is very difficult.

You would need at least 375hp motors.

They exist, but are not at all refined, none have they proven reliable.

They 421 was the semi exception. There are numerous available. But one. Dump a fee hundred thousand and make it a new bird. Or use that few hundred thousand for a nice payment for a TBM or PC12.

You have recognized a hole in the market. There are reasons why the hole still exists.

Now a Cirrus with pressurization, 6 seats, parachute and airplane would sell like brats at Lambeau Field. They could use same engine.

The Cirrus even has a problem. Would need to make longer wing to comply with stall speed, get an exception or a whole new wing. Greater than 40 feet means bigger hangars and will be the rate limiting step for Wall Street yuppies to purchase.

YMMV

How about the Lycoming iE2 TEO-540-C1 off a Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

https://www.lycoming.com/engines/ie2

RE: wingspan, can longer wings profitably create lift to make up for the extra weight of a folding mechanism? I believe so. Make them fold and lock with the push of a button, as high as the tail. Stack them in hangars like cattle at the feedlot.

-J

They passed on twin pistons and went SETP. Doubt they'll ever go back. IMHO the new aircraft market decided: PT-6 powered SETPs won out over the pressurized piston twins.

Exactly this. I think there is enough evidence to show a single TP has fewer problems vs a pair of piston engines and the corporate lawyers and insurance companies agree.

For the rare few that require two engines, the used King Air or Cheyenne market offer prices on par with what any new pressurized piston twin would cost. And you get turbine reliability.

I think they find it financially safer to insure a Baron vs. a turbine because there is less total exposure. A new Baron is about 1/3 the cost of of the cheapest viable turbine plane.

I don't know that they think the flying is actually safer.

With huge known AND unknown MX expenses that are challenging to properly plan for in the context of small business ownership.

-J

How hard would it be to pressurize the DA62?

I bet the airplane you're dreaming of would be priced within spitting distance of the Cirrus Vision Jet, and there would be very few people that would buy a piston twin over the jet.

I bet you're right. Maybe some corporate insurance guys can weigh in. I might be behind the times in believing many executives are not allowed to travel in single engine airplanes.

That being said ... the vision jet has horrendous range/UL stats and runway performance that makes it an ultra niche product.

-J

I bet you're right. Maybe some corporate insurance guys can weigh in. I might be behind the times in believing many executives are not allowed to travel in single engine airplanes.

That being said ... the vision jet has horrendous range/UL stats and runway performance that makes it an ultra niche product.

-J

Adam push pull twin promised close or at least new design but never made it.

I would have loved to have had a twin with forward door like the Pilatus guys do.

421 airframe with modern design engines would be fine too. The geared 520s are so quiet and smooth I’d hate to give that up except for reliability without losing any power.

Too bad the Orenda V8 designs never panned out as a turbine replacement. I have followed the LS V8 Seabee conversions. They seem to be getting high time on them so far.

Even if Cessna made a new run of Crusaders but used a simpler non turbo normal Lycoming or TCM engine to make a big normal aspirated simple easy to fly twin with good useful load it might be worthwhile.

Came very close to buying an a500 and spare parts before I understood what a full-time job keeping it flying would be. Super compelling. Baby starship.

-J