Turbo Cirrus [Archive] - AviationBanter

BDS[_2_]

January 19th 07, 02:40 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> All ya need is about half a million dollars. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <G>
> BDS wrote:
> > Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying magazine.
> > What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a fixed-gear
single at
> > 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
> >
> > I want one!
> >
> > BDS

Yep - looks like the wife is going to have to start working 2 jobs...

I've got it all figured out though. If I can get a 40% return on my
investments, and my wife and I both work 2 jobs and only eat salads, and
things go well at the casinos and the track for the foreseeable future, I
think I'll be able to afford one at some point in the next 20 years.

BDS

James M. Knox

January 19th 07, 02:44 PM

"BDS" > wrote in
m:

> Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying
> magazine. What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a
> fixed-gear single at 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
>
> I want one!

Tornado Alley Turbines (TAT) did the conversion, and is providing the turbo
systems to Cirrus. There is a great recording they did the day before the
big Cirrus fly-in last fall. It's a time-lapse record of all SR-22's in
the US. Early that morning you see little dots start to crawl from all
over the US, headed to the same destination (Ohio?). Mid-morning you see
this one dot depart Ada Oklahoma and just blow past all the rest! <G>

jmk

Mike[_11_]

January 19th 07, 02:48 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Bds,
>
>> Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying magazine.
>> What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a fixed-gear single at
>> 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
>>
>> I want one!
>>
>
> 17.5 gph??? I'll wait for the diesel, thanks very much.
>
Speaking of the diesel, Plane & Pilot announced in their last issue that
Thielert will be starting to install Centurion diesel's in brand-new
172's. One quote from the blurb: "Up to now, no Skyhawk has been able to
climb to 12,000 feet so quickly."

You can read the blurb here:
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/products/2007/feb.html

--
Mike

Matt Barrow

January 19th 07, 04:21 PM

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
2...
>
>> Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying
>> magazine. What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a
>> fixed-gear single at 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
>>
>> I want one!
>
>
> Tornado Alley Turbines (TAT) did the conversion, and is providing the
> turbo
> systems to Cirrus. There is a great recording they did the day before the
> big Cirrus fly-in last fall. It's a time-lapse record of all SR-22's in
> the US. Early that morning you see little dots start to crawl from all
> over the US, headed to the same destination (Ohio?). Mid-morning you see
> this one dot depart Ada Oklahoma and just blow past all the rest! <G>
>
Do you have a link? That'd be a kick!

Robert M. Gary

January 19th 07, 05:55 PM

BDS wrote:
> Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying magazine.
> What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a fixed-gear single at
> 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
>
> I want one!

I wonder how fast it would be if they could figure out how to get rid
of those ugly wheels that hang down in flight.

-robert

Montblack

January 19th 07, 07:51 PM

("BDS" wrote)
> I've got it all figured out though. If I can get a 40% return on my
> investments, and my wife and I both work 2 jobs and only eat salads, and
> things go well at the casinos and the track for the foreseeable future, I
> think I'll be able to afford one at some point in the next 20 years.

The NFC and AFC Championship games are this weekend, Super Bowl is Feb 4.

I'm just saying.... :-)

Montblack +3.5

Montblack

January 19th 07, 08:05 PM

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
> I wonder how fast it would be if they could figure out how to get rid of
> those ugly wheels that hang down in flight.

Maybe the kids over at Columbia have an idea?

http://www.flycolumbia.com/
Oh, wait, more ugly wheels. :-)

Montblack

Matt Barrow

January 19th 07, 10:10 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> BDS wrote:
>> Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying magazine.
>> What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a fixed-gear single
>> at
>> 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
>>
>> I want one!
>
> I wonder how fast it would be if they could figure out how to get rid
> of those ugly wheels that hang down in flight.

The Columbia 400 does about 10 knots more with equally ugly wheels hanging
down.

Tony

January 19th 07, 10:17 PM

why, that's almost 12 miles a gallon! landing checklist item: "gear
down and welded."

On Jan 19, 5:10 pm, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > BDS wrote:
> >> Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying magazine.
> >> What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a fixed-gear single
> >> at
> >> 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
>
> >> I want one!
>
> > I wonder how fast it would be if they could figure out how to get rid
> > of those ugly wheels that hang down in flight.The Columbia 400 does about 10 knots more with equally ugly wheels hanging
> down.

Robert M. Gary

January 19th 07, 10:46 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > BDS wrote:
> >> Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying magazine.
> >> What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a fixed-gear single
> >> at
> >> 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
> >>
> >> I want one!
> >
> > I wonder how fast it would be if they could figure out how to get rid
> > of those ugly wheels that hang down in flight.
>
> The Columbia 400 does about 10 knots more with equally ugly wheels hanging
> down.

One can only imagine how fast it would be w/o the ugly wheels. ;)

-robert, proud Mooney owner

Nathan Young

January 19th 07, 10:47 PM

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:10:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> BDS wrote:
>>> Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying magazine.
>>> What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a fixed-gear single
>>> at
>>> 17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
>>>
>>> I want one!
>>
>> I wonder how fast it would be if they could figure out how to get rid
>> of those ugly wheels that hang down in flight.
>
>The Columbia 400 does about 10 knots more with equally ugly wheels hanging
>down.

Not really a response to Matt's post. But his post got me thinking...

We all know that specmanship plays a large role in how airplanes are
sold.

According to the Cirrus website, the SR22 Turbo does 194, 203, and
211KTAS on 17.5gph at 12k, 18k, and 25k @ ISA temps.

I was surprised at how fast those numbers are, so I went to Lancair's
site for a comparison to the Columbia 400. The Lancair POH does not
give 17.5gph exactly, it must be interpolated, yielding 187, 200,
216KTAS at the same temps/altitudes.

I find it odd that the Lancair is slower down low, but faster up high.

For further comparison the non-turbo Cirrus will do 17.5gph @ ISA @
8000 for a TAS of 175KTS. Meanwhile the non-turbo Lancair 350 will
burn 17.4gph @ ISA @ 8000ft for a TAS of 191KTS.

Seems like a lot of conflicting data points.

-Nathan

Newps

January 19th 07, 10:51 PM

Nathan Young wrote:

>
> Not really a response to Matt's post. But his post got me thinking...
>
> We all know that specmanship plays a large role in how airplanes are
> sold.
>
> According to the Cirrus website, the SR22 Turbo does 194, 203, and
> 211KTAS on 17.5gph at 12k, 18k, and 25k @ ISA temps.
>
> I was surprised at how fast those numbers are, so I went to Lancair's
> site for a comparison to the Columbia 400. The Lancair POH does not
> give 17.5gph exactly, it must be interpolated, yielding 187, 200,
> 216KTAS at the same temps/altitudes.
>
> I find it odd that the Lancair is slower down low, but faster up high.
>
> For further comparison the non-turbo Cirrus will do 17.5gph @ ISA @
> 8000 for a TAS of 175KTS. Meanwhile the non-turbo Lancair 350 will
> burn 17.4gph @ ISA @ 8000ft for a TAS of 191KTS.

And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes
get 190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.

Matt Whiting

January 19th 07, 11:08 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>>BDS wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just read the article on the Turbo Cirrus in the latest Flying magazine.
>>>>What a beautiful aircraft - 194 kts at 12,000 feet in a fixed-gear single
>>>>at
>>>>17.5 gph fuel consumption isn't bad!
>>>>
>>>>I want one!
>>>
>>>I wonder how fast it would be if they could figure out how to get rid
>>>of those ugly wheels that hang down in flight.
>>
>>The Columbia 400 does about 10 knots more with equally ugly wheels hanging
>>down.
>
>
> One can only imagine how fast it would be w/o the ugly wheels. ;)

Or how short the landing roll would be. :-)

Matt

Jim Macklin

January 19th 07, 11:40 PM

Thomas Borchert

January 20th 07, 09:56 AM

Newps,

> And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes
> get 190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.
>

In an antique, to boot... <gd&r>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 20th 07, 09:56 AM

Robert,

> I wonder how fast it would be if they could figure out how to get rid
> of those ugly wheels that hang down in flight.
>

Plus 5 to 10 knots and several thousand dollars in maintenance hassle
for a nice little macho button ;-)

Worth it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Barrow

January 20th 07, 01:17 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nathan Young wrote:
>> For further comparison the non-turbo Cirrus will do 17.5gph @ ISA @
>> 8000 for a TAS of 175KTS. Meanwhile the non-turbo Lancair 350 will
>> burn 17.4gph @ ISA @ 8000ft for a TAS of 191KTS.
>
>
>
> And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes get
> 190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.

Using what leaning techniques?

One thing I did notice is the Columbia cockpit is WIDE (49"?? IIRC)! For
those big in the shoulders, that's a big plus!

Matt Barrow

January 20th 07, 01:19 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Nathan Young wrote:
>>
>> For further comparison the non-turbo Cirrus will do 17.5gph @ ISA @
>> 8000 for a TAS of 175KTS. Meanwhile the non-turbo Lancair 350 will
>> burn 17.4gph @ ISA @ 8000ft for a TAS of 191KTS.
>
>
>
> And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes get
> 190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.

But they are not dragging their wheels out in the slipstream.

Matt Whiting

January 20th 07, 01:43 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Nathan Young wrote:
>>
>>>For further comparison the non-turbo Cirrus will do 17.5gph @ ISA @
>>>8000 for a TAS of 175KTS. Meanwhile the non-turbo Lancair 350 will
>>>burn 17.4gph @ ISA @ 8000ft for a TAS of 191KTS.
>>
>>
>>
>>And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes get
>>190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.
>
>
> But they are not dragging their wheels out in the slipstream.

And paying the insurance commensurate with that. I checked on insurance
recently for a Skylane and a 210, both mid-60s vintage. The Skylane was
$1450 annually and the 210 was $3,800. That is a lot of extra dough
just to pick up your wheels and have two extra very tiny seats in the back.

Matt

Dan Luke

January 20th 07, 02:00 PM

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>>
>>
>> But they are not dragging their wheels out in the slipstream.
>
> And paying the insurance commensurate with that. I checked on insurance
> recently for a Skylane and a 210, both mid-60s vintage. The Skylane was
> $1450 annually and the 210 was $3,800. That is a lot of extra dough just to
> pick up your wheels and have two extra very tiny seats in the back.

I bet it's not *just* to pick up the wheels.

Other reasons:

o A 210 is more expensive to repair after most any kind of wreck.

o 210s can carry more people, raising the liability.

o 210s have a much worse fatal accident record than Skylanes. They are
faster, "slipperier," and apparently used more for IFR travel. In-flight
breakups are (relatively) common in 210s; almost unheard-of in 182s.

My insurance for a retractable 172 is $1600/yr for a $90K hull.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

alank

January 20th 07, 02:54 PM

But what about ICE?

Is the turbo going to get more Cirrus Pilots in trouble with ice? It might
get them up faster thru ice conditions and into the sun, but eventually
everything must come down, and from what I have read, I would rather be in
an old bonanza in ice then the slick cirrus.

I'm not bashing the Cirrus, just stating that the turbo is going to get them
in more icing conditions. ie - "Oh, I can climb thru that"........

alan.

Thomas Borchert

January 20th 07, 03:55 PM

Matt,

> And paying the insurance commensurate with that.
>

plus maintenance. Plus the weight of the mechanism. All for 5 or 10
knots, with well designed wheels as in the Cirrus or COlumbia.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Nathan Young

January 20th 07, 05:14 PM

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:54:58 -0600, "alank" > wrote:

>But what about ICE?
>
>Is the turbo going to get more Cirrus Pilots in trouble with ice? It might
>get them up faster thru ice conditions and into the sun, but eventually
>everything must come down, and from what I have read, I would rather be in
>an old bonanza in ice then the slick cirrus.
>
>I'm not bashing the Cirrus, just stating that the turbo is going to get them
>in more icing conditions. ie - "Oh, I can climb thru that"........

Cirrus has an option for TKS weeping wings for de-ice. I imagine it
would be available to the turbo Cirrus as well. I have not flown with
TKS, but there are a few planes at my field that have it. The pilots
rave about TKS performance vs boots.

Montblack

January 20th 07, 07:26 PM

(Thomas Borchert wrote)
> plus maintenance. Plus the weight of the mechanism. All for 5 or 10 knots,
> with well designed wheels as in the Cirrus or COlumbia.

Lets talk about those 10 kts (I'm calling them 10 mph)

Most flights are under 2 hours

Cruise speed (I'm calling it 240 mph. Vrrroooom!)

10 mph (x) 2 hrs = 20 miles

20 miles @ 4 miles per minute = 5 minutes (saved)

.....per every 2 hours of flight

<http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/specs/2004/lancair_columbia400_n143lc.html>
Columbia 400 specs

Same: ....2 hour flight (for the retract)
With: ...... a 10 mph speed difference
And: ....... a cruise speed of (only) 180 mph
That's: .... 20 miles (extra flying) for the fixed gear
At: ...........3 miles per minute (approx. @ 170 mph)
Saves .....7 minutes on a 2 hour flight

Plus insurance
Pus initial costs
Plus complexity
Plus "not if - but when"

Thank God LSA saved us from all of that :-)

Montblack
Retract Cri-Cri. How cool would that be? VERY!!!!

alank

January 20th 07, 08:12 PM

>
> Cirrus has an option for TKS weeping wings for de-ice. I imagine it
> would be available to the turbo Cirrus as well. I have not flown with
> TKS, but there are a few planes at my field that have it. The pilots
> rave about TKS performance vs boots.

How about this quote from a Cirrus Icing Crash -->
---
The accident airplane was equipped with an Ice Protection System. This
system was designed and certified for the Cirrus SR22 as a "No Hazard" to
normal operations, allowing a pilot who inadvertently enters icing
conditions to activate the system. Once the system is activated, deicing
fluid flows along the wing, horizontal stabilizer, and propeller blades.

The Ice Protection System section of the Pilot Operating Handbook (POH)
Supplements (Section 9) states in the Limitations Section that flight into
known icing is prohibited. The POH further states, "no determination has
been made as to the capability of this system to remove or prevent ice
accumulation."
---

Probably all manufactures might say that, but scan the NTSB reports - It
seems that the cirrus crashes involving icing catch the pilots off guard in
a hurry. Could it be that it is a very slick plane and throw in some ice
and bam.....

One would think that a turbo plane is going to put more pilots in icing
conditions.

Just because I have a parachute - I can always pull it......
Just because I have TKS, I can always get out of ice......
Just because I have a Turbo, I can climb higher and out of icing
conditions......

The above is going to give pilots more confidence. Wasn't the pilot in the
famous NY crash last fall interviewed about flying a few weeks before his
crash and mentioned something about being able to always pull the chute?

alan.

Judah

January 20th 07, 09:21 PM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:CFcsh.6
:

> Or how much more the initial and insurance + maintenance
> cost.

But Total Cost of Ownership would be much lower...

Matt Barrow

January 20th 07, 10:05 PM

"alank" > wrote in message
...
>
> One would think that a turbo plane is going to put more pilots in icing
> conditions.

How so?

How so as opposed to a NA plane that can't get above the freezing layer in
dry air?

alank

January 21st 07, 12:24 AM

Because the new turbo pilot might think - Now that I have a Turbo, instead
of staying down low out of the clouds, or even better, staying home, I know
that if I encounter Ice with my new turbo I can "safely" climb up through
the generally 3000' thick (at the most) layer of icing conditions and be
safe.... In other words, if I encounter Ice, I can climb out of it fast &
strong with a turbo plane, so more pilots decision makings may be a little
more adventurous.

Another reason might be flight planning - I can/want to get there in a short
amount of time & fuel, but I must fly higher to achieve this plan, so I must
go through that small layer of clouds.

alan.

Kyle Boatright

January 21st 07, 01:32 AM

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> (Thomas Borchert wrote)
>> plus maintenance. Plus the weight of the mechanism. All for 5 or 10
>> knots, with well designed wheels as in the Cirrus or COlumbia.
>
>
> Lets talk about those 10 kts (I'm calling them 10 mph)
>
> Most flights are under 2 hours
>
> Cruise speed (I'm calling it 240 mph. Vrrroooom!)
>
> 10 mph (x) 2 hrs = 20 miles
>
> 20 miles @ 4 miles per minute = 5 minutes (saved)
>
> ....per every 2 hours of flight
>
> <http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/specs/2004/lancair_columbia400_n143lc.html>
> Columbia 400 specs
>
> Same: ....2 hour flight (for the retract)
> With: ...... a 10 mph speed difference
> And: ....... a cruise speed of (only) 180 mph
> That's: .... 20 miles (extra flying) for the fixed gear
> At: ...........3 miles per minute (approx. @ 170 mph)
> Saves .....7 minutes on a 2 hour flight
>
> Plus insurance
> Pus initial costs
> Plus complexity
> Plus "not if - but when"
>
> Thank God LSA saved us from all of that :-)
>
>
> Montblack
> Retract Cri-Cri. How cool would that be? VERY!!!!

Don't forget the weight penalty associated with retractable gear.

Also, consider that the higher you fly, the less speed loss you will suffer
due to fixed gear, since the air density is lower...

KB

Matt Barrow

January 21st 07, 05:40 AM

"alank" > wrote in message
...
> Because the new turbo pilot might think - Now that I have a Turbo, instead
> of staying down low out of the clouds, or even better, staying home, I
> know that if I encounter Ice with my new turbo I can "safely" climb up
> through the generally 3000' thick (at the most) layer of icing conditions
> and be safe.... In other words, if I encounter Ice, I can climb out of it
> fast & strong with a turbo plane, so more pilots decision makings may be a
> little more adventurous.

They might think that. They might think that with a stronger climbing NA
engine, too.

> Another reason might be flight planning - I can/want to get there in a
> short amount of time & fuel, but I must fly higher to achieve this plan,
> so I must go through that small layer of clouds.

Considering that flight into "known" or "forecast" icing conditions it
prohibited without an appropriately approved configuration....

Montblack

January 21st 07, 05:50 AM

("Kyle Boatright" wrote)
> Don't forget the weight penalty associated with retractable gear.
>
> Also, consider that the higher you fly, the less speed loss you will
> suffer due to fixed gear, since the air density is lower...

Using: .... 15 gph
And: ......... 4 minutes

That's: .... 1 gallon (saved)
Every: .... 4 minutes (saved)

6 lbs vs. ?? lbs. (extra) for the retract system.

Montblack

Newps

January 21st 07, 06:25 AM

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Newps,
>
>
>>And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes
>>get 190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.
>>
>
>
> In an antique, to boot... <gd&r>

Yep, preferred parking for those of you who go to Oshkosh and tens of
thousands of dollars cheaper to operate.

Newps

January 21st 07, 06:26 AM

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>
>>And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes get
>>190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.
>
>
> Using what leaning techniques?

Find that red box list I posted a while back. Nothing radical.

Newps

January 21st 07, 06:26 AM

Newps

January 21st 07, 06:29 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
>
> And paying the insurance commensurate with that.

Have you checked the insurance on a Cirrus or Lancair? Double to triple
what I pay for the Bo, minimum, for a normally aspirated bird.

I checked on insurance
> recently for a Skylane and a 210, both mid-60s vintage. The Skylane was
> $1450 annually and the 210 was $3,800.

The last year I had the 182 I paid $1050 for $70K hull. I paid $2300
for the Bo for this year, I'll be below $2K when I re-up in August.

Happy Dog

January 21st 07, 07:44 AM

Matt Whiting

January 21st 07, 01:05 PM

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> And paying the insurance commensurate with that.
>
>
> Have you checked the insurance on a Cirrus or Lancair? Double to triple
> what I pay for the Bo, minimum, for a normally aspirated bird.

Nope. I can't afford either so no point in checking. I'm not surprised
as they are new and have 4X the value of your Bo. And the Cirrus has at
best an average safety record in spite of all of their safety hype.

Insurance doesn't like the unknown and both of these are still largely
unknowns as airplanes go and I suspect that adds to the insurance cost.

> I checked on insurance
>
>> recently for a Skylane and a 210, both mid-60s vintage. The Skylane
>> was $1450 annually and the 210 was $3,800.
>
>
>
> The last year I had the 182 I paid $1050 for $70K hull. I paid $2300
> for the Bo for this year, I'll be below $2K when I re-up in August.

Those are similar ratios, both well over 2X more for the retract. I
live in the northeast where everything costs more. Although, the last
year I co-owned my Skylane, my partner and I paid just over $1,000 also,
but he'd been insured with the same company for 10 years or more so that
likely helped.

Matt

Matt Barrow

January 21st 07, 03:59 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes get
>>>190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.
>>
>>
>> Using what leaning techniques?
>
> Find that red box list I posted a while back. Nothing radical.

they all use LOP? Oddly, IIUC, only a very few use LOP techniques.

The specs (which was the original reference) typically state the leaning
technique used to derive the numbers stated.

IOW, you're comparing apples and tangerines.

Matt Barrow

January 21st 07, 04:00 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Nathan Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>For further comparison the non-turbo Cirrus will do 17.5gph @ ISA @
>>>>8000 for a TAS of 175KTS. Meanwhile the non-turbo Lancair 350 will
>>>>burn 17.4gph @ ISA @ 8000ft for a TAS of 191KTS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And the Bonanza guys who put normally aspirated 550's in their planes get
>>>190-195 kts true at 8000 at about 16 gph.
>>
>>
>> But they are not dragging their wheels out in the slipstream.
>
> Good lord, no. Not on purpose.

More "Apples and oranges". Were you a salesman in a previous life (or even
this one)?

:~)

Matt Barrow

January 21st 07, 04:01 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> And paying the insurance commensurate with that.
>
> Have you checked the insurance on a Cirrus or Lancair? Double to triple
> what I pay for the Bo, minimum, for a normally aspirated bird.
>
>
>
> I checked on insurance
>> recently for a Skylane and a 210, both mid-60s vintage. The Skylane was
>> $1450 annually and the 210 was $3,800.
>
>
> The last year I had the 182 I paid $1050 for $70K hull. I paid $2300 for
> the Bo for this year, I'll be below $2K when I re-up in August.
>
What's the hull value of a Cirrus or Columbia? Your Bo is $70K....

Newps

January 22nd 07, 02:37 AM

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>The last year I had the 182 I paid $1050 for $70K hull. I paid $2300 for
>>the Bo for this year, I'll be below $2K when I re-up in August.
>>
>
> What's the hull value of a Cirrus or Columbia? Your Bo is $70K....

The Bo is insured for $90K. The main reason for the higher premium is
the higher value but also because there isn't much loss history and also
because the plastic airplane is going to cost a lot more overall to
repair as there isn't anywhere, relatively speaking, to have it fixed.