Cirrus Sr22 Gts Turbo

[Trinidad Baltzell]

Sothe only explanation I could think of is that there must be some performance cost associated with the turbo itself and as you gain in altitude, the turbo makes up for the cost and then some (by packing in the air as you explained :-) )

For simple understanding, aircraft engines can operate at 75%+ power while just flying around below 6000 ft. unlike a car that rarely use more than 40% of its power at any given time and even less, 15%, while cruising. Being that an aircraft engine is most always working hard and designed that way, a turbo charger is then used as a suppliment giving the engine it full capability even after the air thins out as it climbs higher.

hi tom i have miata 1992 and i custom made a turbo kit ..all ready inllatsed so i wanna do the 1.8 diff conversion so i wondering if you can tell me where i can get one of these complete rear end .and what is the price ..thanks and regards .

In an effort to fix this problem, the incoming air is greatly cooled through the use of an intercooler. However, pushing the air through radiator like device causes even further pumping losses. So, yes the naturally aspirated engine will produce better performance to a point.

Note that in the graph only 85% of rated power for the turbo normalized engine is utilized. In fact, if you wish to produce 100% power, the turbo normalized engine will do this for you. Though fuel burn would be high, at 5,000 ft or so the turbo will begin to pull away from the N/A engined plane.

If your mission is flying over the 1/2 of the U.S. that is relatively flat there is no compelling reason for the turbo. In areas of high mountainous terrain the ability to efficiently climb and cruise above the terrain and weather is a great advantage.

no se puede comparar un auto a un avion,a 18.000ft hay la mitad de oxigeno que a nivel de mar,ahi es donde es mas eficiente el turbo al mantener el aporte constante de oxigeno al motor.Los autos siempre circulan dentro de un rango normal de altitud,si a su auto normal le saca el tubo de escape y el filtro de aire le funcionara parecido a un turbo.

Hi,

i am so mcuh confused dont know either to go for turbo or non turbo, i normally go for mountain flight, and havent yet got cirrus , wish to know is cirrus turbo is a preassurised or non preassured, cause normally i am always on 18000 at, if i could get some hint about the cuirrs

Also small comment: Comparing your charts to the POH, it seems the numbers come directly from the Cruise Performance Tables. The Table for the SR22 is tabulated at 2900 pounds, while the table for the SR22 is tabulated at the 3200 pounds. As such, you comparing Apples and Oranges in the chart. Yes, there is a power difference between non-turbo and turbo, but it is not as large as the graph may make you believe. Whether you carry 300lbs more or less is a significant difference that I would not want to use the chart posted.

I made the exact same decision. Florida based airplane and rarely more than an hour mission. I kept all weight off and just ordered A/C and the optional G5 Perspective Panel. End Result 720lbs payload at a full fuel state, faster aircraft in the climb and less maintenance and operating expense.

I dont know who would buy the cirrus turbo. And you said same speed at SAME fuel rate. What if i ran a columbia higher, rich a peak. I dont see it a hip because even if does the same speed, people want to say they have the fastest plane.And plus the Acclaim is out!!

If I Remember the cirrus has a useful load of 982 pounds and less range then the sr22. Isnt that why you buy a turbo. Fast and fly far???

Cirrus doesnt have the fastest planes, the planes with the most range, or even the best built planes (i would have to give that to mooney) but they do have the most comfortable. Honestly the range isnt a big factor because i dont know how many pilots fly behind the range of 840 miles (range of the turbo). And plus, they most be doing something right cause they sell more planes then columbia and mooney. Come back in 3 years and Cirrus will have a better Turbo. The first isnt the best.

I pick the Acclaim. But really, they all for different types of flying. If you are flying by yourself, take the acclaim. But if you are carrying 4 people half way across the country the Cirrus works better. The columbia is kind of an inbetween plane but they DONT have good rear seat space (i know that from experience). And remember, in the end these planes will all get you to your destination with a +/- of 10-20 minutes. From what i have tracked on flightaware most guys never use their turbos to there advantage (above 14000 feet or flying long flights)

Mooney does have the proven known ice TKS, but Evade de-ice system on Columbia is almost half the weight, and never runs out of fluid. How well the electric system performs I would love to know, if anyone can say.

Cirrus is somewhere in the middle of these two. Fit and finish was not up to the Columbia, but then I have not seen the latest planes being produced. I recall closing the door was a hassle. Comfort was very good in Cirrus.

and for the guy who asked why so little range. Well they wont have a long range when speeding at 200 knots. i mean the accliam (236 knot plane cruises at 200 knotes and gets 1600 mile range). Cirrus is a 211 knot plane (they will run at higher power).

Why imagine?

Columbia Aircraft is the certificated offshoot of the Lancair kitbuild aircraft product line. The Lancair IV-P does well better than 260kts, more like 285kts. (at 24,000ft!)

The 2 seat Legacy is my favorite (however impractical), either retractable or fixed, a great looking plane.

Comfort is not the same for everyone. I am more comfortable in the Mooney because of my long legs. I cannot get comfortable in the Cirrus with someone behind me, and the seat lacks adjustability. I concede that more people find the opposite is true, at least until they take an hour long flight.

Mooney is no longer in any financial straights as far as I can tell, and as long as they keep selling over 50 a year all is well. That seems to be the magic number to me. They are owned by a public corporation.

I take you have owned a TAT Bonanza for a few years, as the Cirrus is rather new. I can also assume you did not fly the Acclaim in formation. As for the Cirrus being well tested, there will be only one way for that to happen. See you in a few years?

I would love to see data on the myth of shock cooling. Could you point us in the right direction? It seems you are from the LOP school, but I was unaware that they had had thrown out shock cooling as well. I would love to save the fuel so I really want to know. The LOP thing has saved me a lot of fuel, and my engine seems to just love it.

I will still wait for more real world data before recommending a Cirrus turbo without reservations. Test all you want, but pilots are going to fly a design the way they do, not the way you do in test flying. They then have the consequences, and they sell the planes to other pilots. I have nothing to go on but anecdote, but the TAT Bonanza owners seem to be happy. I have yet to meet Cirrus owner who has high TTAF and low repair bills.

That depends. In this case, very little is different. The combustion gasses have no idea which engine they are in, nor do the exhaust gasses know thru which exhaust they are passing. There is a lot of experience with this system. It is not a new-from-the-ground-up product by any means. It is an improved version.

There is no insurance against stupid pilot tricks. The TN Cirrus will be LIMITED not to use mixtures resulting in FFs between full rich and 18 gph. That means full rich at takeoff and climb and ONLY LOP in cruise. Period. That will result in excellent longevity like we have experienced int he TN Bonanzas flown like that.

3a8082e126