Baron 58 To an SR-22 some advice

Guest Discussion
1

I have flown Beech product for over twenty years. During the
last seven, I have owned and flown a late model 2000 Baron 58. My normal
missions are from Gary Indiana to Valdosta, GA (700 nm) and Valdosta to Miami
(450 nm). For 90% of my trips, I either fly alone or with my wife. Ever so
often, we will fly with a total of three or four but rarely.

I have decided to trade the Baron for a 2004 to 2008 model
SR 22. They are cheaper to buy and operate and it appears that I loose very little
on speed. I do a fair amount of night flying as well as IFR and will fly in Ice
but am never reluctant to go commercial if the flight seems to challenging.

I would love to hear from Cirrus owners and particularly
from those who have traded from light twins (especially Barons) to the SR-22.
Specifically:

What TAS are you experiencing and at what altitudes do you
tend to fly? (I am not considering a turbo)

Handling, appropriateness for mission, reliability and
operating cost. Are you reluctant to fly at night? Does the parachute give you
a greater comfort level with night flying?

How effective are the TKS packages?

Thanks

2

Victor,

I transitioned a year ago from a Seneca II to a 2006 NA SR22. Some observations.

I fly 7000-9000 ft usually, and get about 172 TAS on 14.5 gph LOP. I originally bought the Seneca because my usual missions include IFR over the Smokies, sometimes at night. I would not consider any other piston single other than a Cirrus for that mission, solely because of the parachute. When I flew my first plane (an Archer) over the Smokies it was always during the day in clear conditions, and I still was antsy. Now I do not worry about where I’m going to set it down if I have problems over the mountains, because I’m coming in on the 'chute.

Transitioning from the twin took some training, but the SR22 handles very well in my opinion. I’ve already had one lost mission due to a starter/starter adapter failure, but otherwise no problems. The situational awareness is great, although I have to guard against being too aware of what’s going on on the screens and not aware enough of what’s going on through the windshield.

Like you, my usual payload is one or two people. The Cirrus is much more practical for that mission. I can’t really improve on the operating costs discussions that have numerous threads already.

Yes, the 'chute gives me greater comfort not only with night flying, but with all flying. Thanks to COPA and CPPP, I have no interest in any “iffy” landing scenarios, and plan to pull the handle rather than try any kind of off-airport shenanigans.

The TKS (non-FIKI) on my plane has worked well the one time I used it, but it was minor ice, and I try to avoid all ice all the time.

The one thing I was not expecting was how much enjoyment has returned to my flying life with the Cirrus. I would not just go out to the airport and fool around for an hour with the Seneca, but I enjoy the Cirrus so much, don’t worry about gear cycles, and burn so much less gas that I’ll do that now. I’m about as excited now as when I first got my ticket–looking for excuses to crank it up. And my wife is much more comfortable with the fixed gear (had a two-in-the-green with her once) and parachute.

Good luck–and before you buy, employ SAVVY to help you find and maintain a good plane. Best money you’ll spend in the whole deal.

3

Victor: I owned a Cessna 421C pressurized 8 person twin prior to owning my Cirrus. The costs were getting out of hand to maintain and operate that aircraft, and I wanted something more cost effective. Like you, I was giving up a second engine, but gaining a much more modern aircraft, modern safety features, modern avionics, and traded an engine for a parachute.

I purchased a turbo since I prefer to fly in the mid-teens. I saw some posts here on COPA about adding the OxyArm and Mountain High O2D2 setup, which basically gives me a fold-down oxygen tube on my headset. Very easy to use, and as close to pressurized as we can get in this plane. So, I still cruise in the mid-teens most of the time.

In the 421 I would cruise at 210 knots on about 45+ gallons per hour (I could go faster if I pushed it, but usually this was the speed I would have for my power settings). In the Cirrus I cruise at 200kts on about 17-18gph. So, basically the same speed.

I do like flying at night, and continue to do so with the parachute. I did not like night flying in other singles I owned. Same with flying over rough terrain or water. I would still prefer a second engine, but with one engine the parachute does give me another option if the need ever arose.

I had a 2007 non-FIKI plane first, and it did a fine job with the TKS of escaping unexpected ice. I upgraded to a 2010 FIKI Cirrus and now have some redundancy/etc. that was not available in the non-FIKI version. What amazes me is how the planes I owned with boots would collect ice until you blew the boots. Now, with TKS, the ice never even accumulates at all on the protected surfaces.

In summary, I have dramatically cut my operating costs. I fly at about the same speed, and I continue to fly at night, over water (with proper equipment), up/down through a layer of ice on departure/approach if it is light icing, etc. I don’t feel I lost much from the twin (other than payload, seats and pressurization). But, like you, I normally have two people, sometimes three, and on very few occasions two adults and two children where I can’t carry a lot of fuel (but those trips are usually short anyway).

-Scott

4

Victor,

I traded a Duke for a SR22 in 2001 and never looked back. Prior to the Duke I had a B55 Baron.

The Cirrus is slightly slower but has a range comparable to the twins. My major change in operating requirements is that I no longer fly over Lake Michigan. If you’re based in Gary that probably wouldn’t be an issue as flights to and from the east, south and west are not given overwater routings anyway.

I fly very little at night so that hasn’t changed.

My plane does not have TKS and the Duke was certified for FIKI. I am more careful about ice now and will cancel if there is a significant probability of ice with no easy out (higher temps or clear skys above or below).

I usually operate the Cirrus at 14 gph lean of peak and get TAS in the 168-172 range. I routinely make it from Jackson, WY to Chicago DPA nonstop although I need a fuel stop westbound. Typical cruising altitudes are 8-11,000 feet except for the Jackson-DPA run which I do at 15,000 with oxygen.

The biggest difference between the Duke and the Cirrus is cost. Maintenance costs have gone from absurd to reasonable. Fuel has gone from an overall average of 50gph to 15. Moving to the Cirrus was one of the smartest things I’ve done in my aviation life.

5

Thank you for sharing this wealth of information.

I would assume that
if you are getting 168 to 172 TAS on 14.5 GPH at LOP, at ROP in the 8-10K
altitude range it should be doing closer to 180 TAS? With the Baron I will do
188 to 192 TAS at 36GPH! Not much difference.

While I do most of my flying east of the Mississippi, going for
a turbo would actually enable me to beat the Baron’s speed at the flight
levels. The issue would now be turbo versus NA and that is a question for
another day.

Thanks again

6

You are obviously “gas usage conscious” as most are these days, but you are discounting the much higher levels of wear and tear on your engine when you are ROP.

10 kts aren’t going to get you there but a few minutes earlier. Certainly 14.5 or so GPH is better than 19 GPH and at $5.50 per gallon, you save 4.5 GPH @ $5.50 about $25.00-$30.00 per hr, in exchange for 10 kts, but that’s not the real savings.

The real savings is in less wear and tear on the engine because you are operating at lower internal pressure and lower CHT

It’s not unusual for an engine run properly to last 3000 hrs with only minor work

That being said, you can double your savings since we’re talking single engine vs twin.

7

Dennis,

At the Beech talk site, where I am a member, the LOP/ROP
debate takes on properties of a religious war so I tend to stay away from the
subject. I never felt comfortable with LOP operation on the Baron but many do
so it is a personal preference.

I don’t run ROP for the extra 10knots but have been told by
many mechanics I have worked with that, long term, it is better for the engines
thus the money you save in fuel, you spend in an early overhaul. I am fully aware
of the counter arguments and even concede that as more information is gathered,
the stronger the case for LOP.

I will say, however, that upon purchasing the Cirrus, I
will, again, look at the LOP/ROP and consider changing. I love flying so to spend
an extra few minutes in the air because I fly LOP is perfectly fine with me.

8

Trying to run my Duke or Baron LOP was futile. The engines just weren’t happy.

If you get into Cirrus flying you will see that the IO550 can easily be run LOP and you get almost the same speed (within 5-7 Kts) on 5 gallons less an hour.

My plane is operated almost exclusively LOP (except for TO and climb) and has 17000 hours. It has required zero engine work, and runs at CHTs of 320 tops.

Most mechanics don’t understand LOP operations. They mistake LOP for “lean”. In my Baron for example, the POH suggested 25 degrees RICH of Peak for the "lean (economy) setting. That’s about the worst place you can operate your engine. So in their experience pilots who operated “lean” were having significant engine issues.

If you really run Lean of Peak you will be doing your engine a big favor.

9

Congrats… that has to be a record in many regards. Of course even at 1,700 hours that is good.

10

Y’all may think that is a lot of hours for Jerry’s plane. But he is over 600 years old.

11

Victor, you are going through the same thought process and calculations that I did a few years ago. For 18 years I had owned a Cessna 340, my trips were 600 - 1,600 nm. with only 2 people 90 % of the time. After running all the numbers it made economic sense to “downsize” to a TN SR-22. With the increase in weight of the turbo, I did not want a/c to further reduce the useful load. The bulk of my flying is in the mid to high teens, so what I miss the most is the lack of pressurization. The O2D2 system with cannuals works just fine. The lack of a second engine at night was not a concern with the CAPS system on the Cirrus. I have found the TKS system works as advertised, and most of the use has been between Charleston, SC and Bozeman, MT. Fortunately I have never had to see just how good it works with moderate to severe icing, at that point I’m diverting or on the ground. Where I was flying less than 100 hrs. a year with the C 340 in the last few years of ownership, I am now flying 200 - 250 hrs a year with the Cirrus. My recommendation would be to look at the Turbo Normalized Cirrus. LOP operations have never been a problem since I have owned the Cirrus, where they were a problem with the C 340. You have already found the COPA website, membership provides a wealth of support and information here. I have gotten far more out of COPA than the annual dues.

Good Luck in your search,

Rick

12

The slightly slower may not be true end-to-end. A few years ago I was on an AirJourney to Honduras with my normally aspirated SR22, and a Baron was along as well. We would depart together, and indeed the Baron would outpace me in the air. But, as a careful twin pilot he would slow down approaching the airport environment to get the plane reconfigured, drop gear, etc. I would keep cruise speed up to 3 mile final. That would just about catch me up, and then on landing he would use quite a bit of runway. I turned off at the first exit and was parked by the time he would taxi in. The benefits of simplicity go well beyond maintenance costs.

I think I beat him at the fuel pumps too. [;)]

13

Thanks Rick,

One thing I am finding interesting is the relatively large numbers or Turbo Normalized Cirrus versus normally aspirated. This is totally different from what you see among the Bonanzas where the NA far outnumber the TN’s Why is that?

While buying a TN Bonanza to me as Midwest/east cost flyer seemed out of the question. It appears that a TN may be worth some consideration.

14

Victor, from just looking at the Controller, there are 8 G-2 TN GTS Cirrus listed vs 26 G-2 NA GTS Cirrus listed. But then when you look at the G-3’s there are 26 G-3 TN GTS Cirrus listed vs 19 G-3 NA GTS Cirrus listed. I don’t know what ratios ( NA vs TN ) were produced at Cirrus from 2006 until Cirrus came out with their SR-22T, that might explain part of it. Price might also be a factor, but I don’t have an answer. Personally I think any trip over 300 - 400 nm the turbo makes sense, but that is just me. I would rather be in the mid to high teens where there is less traffic than down below 12,000 where there is more traffic. There is no shortage of pre owned aircraft to choose from, although it does appear that we may have bottomed out price wise. From what I have seen prices seem to have stabilized and are starting to show some signs of improvement. Have fun in your search.

Rick

15

The 22TN or 22T provide the option to climb above weather very rapidly and cruise above a good bit of it. With the OxyArms and O2D2 units, it is very comfortable and faster at 16,000-17,000 feet. In the summer, it is nice to be above most clouds and visually stay separated from storms. In the winter, it is nice to rapidly climb above a potential icing layer, when appropriate. And I like the extra glide distance afforded to me since I fly in the mid-teens most of the time. This is also nice if crossing rough terrain, water, or night flying. Being higher provides more options.

From what I understand, the Normally Aspirated 22 will get to the mid teens, but the turbo adds a lot of additional options. I was used to flying turbocharged aircraft for many years, so going with such a configuration in the Cirrus made sense to me. And in the used market, there are plenty available.

Match the aircraft to YOUR needs, of course, not what many of us like. Do consider a turbo when doing your research, you might find it to be worthwhile.

-Scott

16

Whoops!!

17

Hahaha, Jerry, you could have said exactly the same thing had you transitioned from the Duke to a King Air 90. The Duke is probably the most maintenance-intensive aircraft ever built.

You got that right.

18

Victor,

I came from a situation similar to yours. Four years ago, I traded my B55 Colemill Baron for a 2003 SR22 and couldn’t be happier. Prior to that, I also owned a B58 Baron, a Cessna 304A, a Seneca II and three singles. Without a doubt, the SR22 is the best plane I’ve ever owned and, just like Jerry, the smartest decision I’ve ever made as a plane owner. I’m based in the Chicago area, not far from you and most of my trips are alone on business. Occasionally, we will fly with two or three and our Golden Retriever to Marco Island in SW Florida. The SR22 is perfect for all of my trips.

The speeds listed in the other posts are right on. I usually cruise between 7000-9000’ and always LOP, except for take off and climb. I tried to fly several of my other planes LOP and they just weren’t happy. I’m convinced that I did serious damage to my P210 engine after installing GAMI injectors and flying it LOP (I don’t care what George Braly says). The reason is that those engines weren’t tuned and inducted and designed to fly LOP from the start like the IO-550 is. When I first started flying my SR22, I was skeptical and a bit worried about flying LOP (because of the P210 engine debacle). Nearly 4 years and 1000 hours later, I can tell you that the SR22 is very happy flying LOP and the speeds are very good. Every time anyone asks me about speeds and range, they are amazed. Dennis is right - the real savings comes from how much better you treat your engine when flying LOP. It’s just better for it.

At 9,000’, depending upon time of year and weight, I’ll cruise anywhere from 168-172 KTAS, burning 13.5-14.0 GPH (vs 31 GPH for my B55 Baron). Run it at full power and you burn another 5 GPH and gain 10 KTAS…not a good trade off, in my view, so I always run it LOP. With 81 gallons on board, that usually gives me anywhere from 5:45 - 6:00 hours of cruise time to tanks dry. Since I follow Dick Collins rule of always landing with at least an hour of fuel in the tanks, that gives me 4:45 or so of flight time - far longer than my bladder or back will stand. I like to plan about 3:00+ hour legs, which works great for IFR planning. My airplane has been very reliable. I usually fly 200-250 hours per year and have only had to cancel a few flights, usually for flat tires, etc. I get the oil changed every 50 hours and the fuel injectors cleaned every 100 hours and that seems to keep the plane happy (not cleaning the injectors every 100 hours will affect your ability to run LOP). I do maintenance upon demand at the oil changes or when something fails (rarely). Annual costs are very manageable but can vary, depending upon what shop you use. After nearly 1500 hours TT on the engine, it only burns a quart of oil every 20 hours or so and all of the compressions are still in the 70’s. I’m really thrilled with my SR22.

The SR22 handles light a fighter…lots of fun to fly. It is very stable in IFR conditions and flying approaches. Once you get used to the side stick, you’ll never want to fly anything else. It was much harder transitioning from steam gauges to glass and learning the avionics systems and how to fly it smoothly with the autopilot, which is superb. It took me about 70 hours to get really comfortable shooting coupled approaches and learning where everything was in IMC. But it’s been smooth sailing ever since. While I wasn’t that impressed with the factory school that my insurance company made me attend in Duluth, I would recommend getting a knowledgeable CSIP and doing a lot of training in the airplane before flying it IFR. The avionics are world class and extremely capable, but will trip you up if you aren’t proficient with them.

Do yourself a favor and attend a CPPP for training. It will do wonders for you and help you to really understand the airplane. Plus it’s usually a fun weekend. I had the great fortune of drawing John Fiscus as my CSIP at my last CPPP. He is, without question, a great instructor and one of the best Cirrus pilots around. I learned more from him in a weekend than I did in a year of flying the airplane. John is one of the owners of The Flight Academy. Consider doing your transition training with them. They have motion based simulator training capability and will train you to fly the SR22 safely and to proficiency.

I’m not at all reluctant to fly at night, now that I know that I’ve got the chute if things go south. I subscribe to Rick’s mantra about the CAPS System (chute)…Pull Early And Pull Often. In all of my other aircraft (even the twins), I was a bit antsy at night. Now that fear is gone.

My SR22 has (non-FIKI) TKS and it works OK. The SR22 just doesn’t like nor tolerate a lot of ice the way that my B58 Baron did. I believe that it’s the thin design of the wing and horizontal stabilizer. The TKS does a good job of giving you time to get out of the ice but you do have to activate the system before you get into it.

Don’t wait to make the switch. You won’t regret it. And make sure that you join COPA! It is the best investment you can make, behind your Cirrus. Hope we see you posting here soon!

Safe flying - John

19

The TN was available as a factory option from Cirrus - and was heavily promoted - along with full warranty coverage. TN Bonanzas are all aftermarket.

20

John,

Thanks John for the wealth of information you provided. The Baron was sold this week-end so it’s a bitter sweet moment. I have joined COPA and will look into the Flight Academy program as you suggested. And now I launch into the search for an SR-22. I will be looking for a 2005 to 2008 22 with TKS and A/C. The biggest question for now would be TN or NA. While my mostly Midwest/East Coast flying does not require high altitude, the speed gained on my 700nm flights and the ability to climb above (some) weather, makes it worth considering. I assume there will be tons of information on the COPA blogs which I will examine. Once again thank you