Cirrus Advise Requested.

Hi All,

First post. I’m looking to buy a SR22 G3, and while I don’t really need a Turbo, there are very few NA ones around over here in Europe, Most are Turbo’s. A would greatly appreciate some thought from the those wiser than me about the pro’s and con’s of a Turbo rather than an NA. I’m looking at 2/3 at the moment, and one has Air Con as well. So I have read, this is not necessarily the best combination??? how does the Turbo and A/C affect useful load.

Thanks in advance.


The combination of both options consumes right around 150 lbs. turns a G3 into roughly a 2 person plane (plus reasonable traveling bags) with any substantial fuel load. Of course you can offset fuel.

I’ve been in that situation 3 months ago and ended buying turbo. And I am really, really glad I did. There is no free lunch of course, it is more expensive to operate. How much has been subject to very heated debates on this forum. Also, more stuff can break. On the other hand, I can fly higher (smoother, cooler) and faster. But if your mission is 1 hour hops over flatlands, you probably won’t see benefits.

Badly. I didn’t want A/C, because I don’t need it where I fly and it would only eat into useful load. Without A/C, I have 1015 lbs, which for a turbo is pretty decent.

Rob you’ll get the best answers if you’ll tell us about your mission profile. For instance, do you need air conditioning much? If you do, it’s very nice. More MX issues and a weight penalty, but weight may not be an issue for you. How high do you need to be able to fly? How far? Typical loading? Ideally you get the airplane that meets most but not all of your possible missions well. For instance, if you live in a warm climate A/C may be more important 80% of the time than having to stop for fuel on 20% of your trips. If you will use the additional performance capabilities of a Turbo they become a priority.

Most of the decisions weigh some utility against the need to stop for fuel. We can all get unrealistic about this, as stopping and getting out of the airplane can be quite nice after 1.5 to 2 hours, and you may not really enjoy longer legs that much. I think that the more PAX aboard the more important the short legs become for comfort. So even though A/C may cost you about 30 minutes of cruise fuel, if everyone’s comfortable it’s just better. The turbo question is often a wash as you burn more fuel per hour for fewer hours across a given distance since, if you fly it high, it’s faster. But if you tell us you have kids aboard the Turbo is harder to exploit due to O2 cannulas and sats monitoring. Clear as mud, right?!

Jason, you are quite correct, my initial post was written in a bit of a rush yesterday. I live in the UK, so A/C is really not needed. Typical flights are 2 POB with maybe 3.5 hrs flight time. I have recently passed my EASA IR with a few IFR flights under my belt. These have been done at FL100 in a Turbo Arrow. more height is needed sometimes in Europe to stay VMC on top, though cant say I really fancy donning masks at FL180. I’m flying for a hobby, so if the forecasted weather means flying at FL200 I would rather wait until tomorrow [:D] But as said mentioned in my initial post, not many NA ones available in Europe.

Hi Rob,

your profile is very much like mine. I do have the IR for 12 years but I’m not a hardcore all-weather flyer. I also fly with kids often, and I would certainly not fly in FL250 with them. On days on which I can’t get to the destination in my NA … I stay home.

Even normal maintenance is lot harder to do on T, I would say. Cylinders don’t last as long and there’s expensive exhaust parts that can break, and eventually will.

I have A/C too, but don’t have a payload problem. If I need the payload, I switch it off ! :wink:

South Geman weather is a bit better than yours, but I really enjoy the A/C on hot days.