Turbo Cirrus

"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 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

"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

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.

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)

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.

(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!!!!

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.

"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...

"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?