From Bonanza to Cirrus

[Andrey_K (Andrey Korolenko)]

TN/Perspective/TKS/no AC, BEM 2443, so useful load with FF 405lbs. I am around 210 lbs myself and can be some luggage, so it is pure 2 seater. For 2,5-3 hours mission (+reserves) i have around 340 lbs left after myself, so it becomes 3 seater. still with limitations.

[Sean_Kendrick]

2010 TN, Perspective, FIKI, AC….893 lbs useful.

[civester (Charles Ivester)]

@gordonf

But I never had any W&B issues at all with the airplane for any of my missions, and it was a 3400# airplane.

To your healthy credit, you and Papa Lima, and your luggage, all combined way less than many of these pilots on the forums

[bmolander (Brock Molander)]

I flew an SR22 NA G3 FIKI, I no longer have it in my FF profile, but I seem to recall around a 960 UL. And a very forward CG.

[jmills (Jason Mills)]

@civester

To your healthy credit, you and Papa Lima, and your luggage, all combined way less than many of these pilots on the forums

Hey, I resemble that remark! Some of us are built like Chewbacca. Ask Erik.

[slopilot (Kevin Nichols)]

I went from a ‘79 V35B w/OEM R12 AC (I loved this bird for 8 yrs) to a 2020 SR22 NA GTS in Nov 2020. Very happy.

There are a few things you’ll miss. The community and the feel of the controls.

You’ve already received a lot of good advice, I’ll try not to repeat. The safety features go beyond the chute.

Costs will be higher, despite no moving gear. Slowing down is more difficult and takes more planning, but you’ll get used to it.

My biggest irritation: I’m not a fan of the prop speed controlled by the throttle. It is one of the reasons it’s harder to slow down.

But you’ll get used to the negatives and enjoy the abundance of positives. The newer you can buy the better.

[jmills (Jason Mills)]

@slopilot

Slowing down is more difficult and takes more planning,

I never owned a Bo, but used to own a Mooney.

My experience was the 22T wasn’t particularly hard to slow down. Seemed to me when that power came out flying the 3 blade scimitar prop version, they tended to fly like pianos. Of course, G5 and later have a speed hack in the event a pilot found themself needing it with the 150 knot first notch flaps.

[christopher.d.rush]

And even with keeping the flaps in, power to idle, and level flight, my G5 22T slows down very quickly when entering the pattern. I don’t fly faster than 120 coming into GTU because of the trainer gnats but it does allow for a quicker final at Charlies.

Will miss 696CC when she is sold.

[Bret_Heidkamp]

G3TN GTSX, A/C, TKS hazard, Perspective, all the options, 892 lbs useful load.

Full fuel leaves 340 for people and luggage. I do fly at max gross a lot, at high altitude, in the heat. It handles it fine. I’ll burn 10g climbing high enough to get across mountains (here). But once you’re at cruise…bliss. The plane handles turbulence really well, and the cockpit is modern.

I would love 200 additional pounds useful, but not for $100k, (and for a slower plane from what I’ve been told.)

The TN is sweet.

[rpgray2 (Roger Gray)]

4 gallons of TKS is another 36 lbs. That stuff is heavy…. So you’re down to 304. A few quarts of oil and my maintenance bag and your down to 290….

That made me choose an NA as I wasn’t ready to spend for a G5

[Jageman (Roy Jageman)]

All this talk about useful load is making me feel really good about my G2.

[rockyflyer (Jason Chambers)]

It really is all about the options.

My G3 checks in with 1120 Useful load. We actually are able to load up 4 people and bags. Although we do sweat without the A/C for the first and last 10 minutes of flight.

I keep flip/flopping on if the TKS option was worth it, but clean wings are pretty hard to find. I really like taking friends and going places, so useful load was trumped everything else for us.

[Bret_Heidkamp]

No, my numbers are with TKS already full.

I fly in high terrain, crossing peaks at 16k (or higher) which sometimes only gives a bit over 2k clearance. NA is definitely not a viable option for a plane for my flights. If I was primarily at sea level or flatlands, I’d certainly have an NA and not a turbo.

[Bret_Heidkamp]

Here’s a good real world example for you. I’m flying Colorado to Sedona in a few days. Myself, wife and Baggage and 86 gallons of fuel is the load out.

That’s more than enough to get there and have a comfy 32 gallons on landing. This is with a cruise of 16,000 feet. My point is that with proper planning none of the concerns stated above are an issue. It’s a three hour flight, 540nm, far enough in one hop.

Of course I bought this plane for myself and my wife. It works for three easily too - just use 60g fuel to tabs. 40 gallons gets you pretty far in a Cirrus leaving 20 in reserve.

If you want to fly four big people, you really need to buy a six passenger plane IMO. Or better yet- get a turbine. A jet if they bring 4 sets of golf clubs.