I do LOP climbs at about 14.5GPH; i can make it from the bay area to PHX in about 3.5hrs. so will burn about 60gal (+/-3gal for wind); Thats about 615nm. My TAS will be about 165KTS.
When you are up at 12k, you can coast for a long time on the way down.
Maintenance hasnt been a issue; maybe about $450 for a turbo check valve. Everything else has been repairs that can happen on a TN or a NA.
There are quite a few G2’s in that price range (or close). A nice G2 was posted by a broker just recently on COPA within earshot of his budget.
Those that have turbos love them, those that don’t are quick to be scared of Mx costs. There is truth in both sides of that. Turbos get more cylinder replacements and to deny that is simply denying reality. My own view is if you fly frequently above 10K the turbo starts to become useful. If you exclusively fly below that they are more dead weight than anything else. They just cannot shine if you don’t get to an altitude that they can work for you. And that might be the most interesting issue, if you have a turbo try to go up and enjoy the smoother air.
There is a reason for having them, mission determines everything frankly.
Sanjay… WOW… information overload… Thank you!
I down loaded the POH i found online and emailed myself links on the rest… Yikes I now see what everyone was talking about… Wholly crap there is a lot to learn…
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/flight-operations-manual/id1072487639?mt=11
http://www.cirrusconnection.com/9479/Men%27s-Jet-Jacket-Gry-M/
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/non_member/marketplace/b/tips_from_csips/default.aspx
Welcome to the firehose…
Sorry, I thought you were referring to Cirrus aircraft. On COPA, I have not heard of shock cooling being an issue of any kind, NA or T.
I do like the 25,000 service ceiling over 17,500 - frankly in five years the highest I have ever been in CA is 11,000. I like the idea of being able to climb over weather.
James,
I have never been trained in managing a turbo but this is what I have picked up in hanger talk. I was told you have to remember to close the cowl flaps on the descent and to pull out one inch of manifold pressure a minute as rule of thumb to avoid shock cooling a turbo charged engine… If that is not an issue with turbo Cirrus that is great to hear.
I think that G2 was a NA, not a TN and has dmg history. Though it does have low time so there is that;
I agree with just about everything you said, however, its not just Altitude where Turbos shine, its Density Altitude. So hot days where the air is thin, you will also see better performance than a NA. I can attest to this climbing out of AZ when the weather is 115F until you get to about 6k when the temp finally starts to drop.
What G2 with dmg history? Not tracking.
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/non_member/marketplace/f/13/t/166743.aspx
it was just posted in the market place.
Figures… Mitch listed it… still feeling burned on the last plane I made an offer with him on…
Trying to work out a deal with Steele Aviation … new everything.
I know nothing about that plane, so if it has damage history then that should factor into the price. I missed that.
I knew it was not a turbo. The point was it is a G2 with a 500 hour engine very close to his budget.
Jumping to 330K is a pretty big stretch of anyone’s budget that wants to be closer to 250.
I live in AZ so I know density altitude all too well [:|]
A light NA will outclimb a turbo for a while due to lower weight and no pumping losses of the turbo system. In the end it should be about mission and budget.
Guys with turbos tend to up sell the new buyer while the NA crowd does the opposite. The new potential Cirrus owner needs to recognize that bias. And then decide based on personal values what they can afford and what they need. Just say’n…
Edited to add, I just looked at the ad. Says NDH. I don’t know, just repeating what I read…
next time i am in AZ we can race 
But yea, jumping 75k is a lot, unless you are financing it; which you are looking at about a extra $500/m according to my amortization calc.
There is no cowl flaps in Cirrus
Excerpt from TAT
Many pilots are concerned about “shock cooling” their engines. There is a genuine debate as to whether or not this is a significant factor in engine longevity, but the methods described below will minimize rapid cylinder head temperature changes and provide very rapid descents from altitude.
Most pilots do not appreciate that the single most important factor in controlling engine cylinder head temperatures is the understanding and control of engine exhaust gas temperatures (TIT). Thus, the almost universally overlooked key factor in making rapid descents from altitude is the necessity to properly manage the TIT during the descent.
With this consideration in mind, we suggest that descents from altitude be made as follows:
SMOOTHLY (over a period of 3 to 5 seconds) reduce MAP from WOT to approximately 15 to 18" Hg MAP.
SMOOTHLY reduce RPM to a value in the low end of the green arc on the tachometer gage. Use as low an RPM as can be achieved, given the limitations of airspeed and the coarse pitch stops of the particular propeller. This may be anywhere from 1800 to 2300 RPM, depending upon the particular propeller, the altitude, and airspeed.
Typically, this is all you have to do. When you do steps A) and B), the resulting TIT, on the properly set up (TN) IO-550/520 will end up at or very near peak TIT, somewhere around 1300 to 1400°F with 15 to 18" Hg MAP and the reduced RPM, with fuel flows from 7 to 9.5 GPH. This is precisely where you want the TIT to be during a low power descent. However, to satisfy yourself that the TIT is at approximately peak TIT, after making the power reductions described in A) and B), you can RESET THE MIXTURE CONTROL SO AS TO OPERATE THE TIT AT ITS MAXIMUM POSSIBLE VALUE. The point is to operate the mixture so as to produce the hottest possible exhaust gas temperature during the descent. This can be difficult since the TIT is changing due to the lowered power setting and the MAP is increasing as you descend. This adjustment in mixture is not necessary since the fuel controller on the aircraft modulates the fuel flow so that when the throttle is reduced the mixture gets richer. (If a normal descent power setting of 23" Hg MAP and 2300 RPM is used you are very close to peak TIT. Using the lower power setting of 15" Hg MAP and 1800 RPM will increase the rate of descent, but the change in mixture at that low of a power setting will not make a significant difference in the engine CHT’s. In the lower altitudes the RPM reduction does not significantly increase the descent rate; in fact below approximately 8000’ MSL 2300 RPM will give you a higher descent rate.) The hot exhaust gases will help keep the CHT’s warm during the descent. (Note: this exercise may require you to either enrich the mixture slightly or to lean the mixture slightly from its previous cruise mixture setting. Regardless, you must simply move the mixture one direction, and note if the TIT is going UP or DOWN. If it is going DOWN, then reverse the process and move the mixture in the opposite direction until you force the TIT to a value near or just slightly (10 to 20°F) rich of its maximum or peak value at those low power settings.
Descend at an indicated airspeed appropriate for the turbulence or other conditions.
I climb ROP at about 35 GPH, Then cruise around 15.5 gph and you can get 14 nm/gallon which is better than my Nissan Titan Truck!
Don’t know, I have never had a payment on an aircraft. While I understand for business and leverage reasons that can be a good thing I have never been in a position to use it for business. I would rather not have a loan on a depreciating asset so I paid cash for mine when I bought it.
Every time I looked at an upgrade (and I have several times to get glass or a turbo) I look at the high incremental expenditure vs the low incremental use-fullness to my mission and I just keep my old trusty steed.
No judgments here. Everyone has to make their decisions based on their situation and values.
roger,
I agree that a NA will perform better on a cold day from a close to sea level departure. Is this also true if departing from Scottsdale on a 115 degree afternoon or will the Turbo have an advantage? I really don’t know…
Does this apply equally to NA SR22’s?
The NA would be more limited and the advantage less. Probably initially a NA would do better for only a short while at those temps and then they would be even and of course eventually the TN just keeps getting stronger. A better scenario for you is not SDL but FLG. Flagstaff at 7011 feet in the summer acts always like 10,000 or more. Then the turbo kills all NA’s.
Weight plays in as well. My plane has a empty weight of 2260. The turbo models are much heavier (to be fair that is usually just a lot of options I don’t have) and that really factors in based on how much we want to load. Of course if we both load to gross it is not a factor. But I would load either 1) more payload or 2) be lighter. And that helps too. If it is just you and just me I end up with a considerable weight advantage. Heavy planes just cannot help but be affected by their weight. Every single flight, light or heavy.
My back of the envelop is that the NA has an advantage below 5K density altitude. There is another fact that the 3 bladed AL prop on the NA is better at turning engine power into thrust at 10K and below. The composite prop is better above 10K feet.
Just to add to Roger’s comment…
Be aware that you may have to pay sales tax (once on the purchase price) and property tax (on the value every year). Add to that maintenance (annuals), training costs (twice a year Instrument Proficiency Check, Bi-annual Flight Review), IFR certification (transponder,altimeter) every two years.
Add in the cost of navigation database updates, weather subscription costs and insurance (based on hull value and experience).
Then of course, the cost of fuel and oil, tie downs/hangar, travel expenses (hotel, food, car).
It can really add up. Many have found that they just can’t keep the plane - even though they could afford to buy it.
That happened to a good friend of mine. Be conservatively financially with a plane.