OK, all you Cirrus enthusiasts have convinced me the SR22 GTS + AC is the way to go. I’ve decided on the SR22-NA (non-turbo), but my last question is if the $10K for the composite prop is worth it? The 12 lbs savings is not important to me, so it seems like a really high price to pay for what they claim to be a “Smoother Ride”. Does it really make much of a difference? (I’d love to hear from those who have flown both types of props)
Thanks again for everyone’s support. I’m looking forward to becoming a COPA member soon.
Hamids:
The real advantage of the composite prop is its light weight which helps keep the center of gravity in line on a turbo plane. Since you are not getting a turbo and the weight is not an issue with you, the ride difference is not noticeable enough to get it in my opinion. You can use your $10,000 for a far better purpose. The smoothness of the ride has increased with each generation of Cirrus planes and I think the engine mount has a greater influence on the ride than the prop; assuming the prop is balanced.
I’ll come down on the other side and say that moving the C of G aft by 12 lbs at whatever arm is a good idea and the prop might be worth it.
Or you could just buy a used NA SR22 and save LOTS more than 10K!!! Lots of guys dealing in their almost new non-turbo’d planes for the turbo. LOTS of great deals to be had with planes already debugged.
OK, all you Cirrus enthusiasts have convinced me the SR22 GTS + AC is the way to go. I’ve decided on the SR22-NA (non-turbo), but my last question is if the $10K for the composite prop is worth it? The 12 lbs savings is not important to me, so it seems like a really high price to pay for what they claim to be a “Smoother Ride”. Does it really make much of a difference? (I’d love to hear from those who have flown both types of props)
Thanks again for everyone’s support. I’m looking forward to becoming a COPA member soon.
Hamid
Get the Composite prop. Skip the TKS and A/C. Send me a PM in 100 hours when you want to sell yours and move up to a Turbo.
Hamids I bought #2534 g3 gts,ac with a composite prop in may, sold 07 sr22 gts ,ac .first let me say the ac is much better than the g2 it works very well .The composite prop is worth every penny! there is a BIG difference in the ride .GO FOR IT!!
Thanks again for everyone’s support. I’m looking forward to becoming a COPA member soon.
Hamid
I hope you’ll become a member before buying the plane. There’s a lot of information on the other side you are missing if you haven’t searched through the members section.
If you are interested, I’m going to be selling my 2007 Cirrus SR22 GTS (non turbo) with TKS, and air-conditioning and turbo oxygen system (a $10K) option. I’m buying a turboprop that better suits my flight mission.
Feel free to give me a call at: 918-605-4028 to discuss. I’m motivated, and ready to sell!
I’m not familiar with the composite prop for the Cirrus, but have flown with an aerobatic composite (The “Claw” by Hartzell, 3-blade, 78") for five years. It’s performance is phenomenal. Granted, you are not worried about vertical “hang time” in the Cirrus, but some of the other superior qualities of a composite may be relevant for your purposes. For example, in aerobatics, we are legitimately concerned about snapping off an otherwise weakened blade if we pop a snap roll too fast. This is a non-issue for the composite…it’ll just flex and and return to its normal shape. It has incredible strength, compared to wood or metal. I am also personally familiar with several instances in which these composite blades were bent when a plane nosed over, or otherwise had accidental damage (hole punched through blade by forklift). Repairs were either unnecessary or cheaply accomplished. The blades were made as good as new in all cases. The Claw also has an unlimited life…no scheduled re-build ever required…which I assume is probably true for most Hartzell composites. Given that my engine has a 1200/hour TBO, it’s nice to know I’ll never have to put another penny in the prop. My blade also has a nickel leading edge. Unlike the aluminum blade on my Piper, this leading edge never shows any wear at all. And frankly, the pitch black color of the blade looks “baaaad”!
So…there are a few more items to consider in making your decision. For doing akro, it’s a complete no-brainer. The composite wins hands down. For normal cruise flight in the Cirrus, some of the superior qualities in a composite might be over-kill…but in the long run, just knowing you never have to replace the prop, may by itself justify the extra expense.
OK, all you Cirrus enthusiasts have convinced me the SR22 GTS + AC is the way to go. I’ve decided on the SR22-NA (non-turbo), but my last question is if the $10K for the composite prop is worth it? The 12 lbs savings is not important to me, so it seems like a really high price to pay for what they claim to be a “Smoother Ride”. Does it really make much of a difference? (I’d love to hear from those who have flown both types of props)
Thanks again for everyone’s support. I’m looking forward to becoming a COPA member soon.
Hamid
After owning a G1 with a regular prop for close to a year and flying a brand new G3 turbo with said new prop yesterday, I would not recommend spending the extra money.
The new prop looks nice and is a few pounds lighter, but its not that much quieter at cruise than the old prop (I took my headset off yesterday). As far as smoother ride goes, our G1 w/6-point engine mount was smoother than the G3 I flew yesterday. Thats an injector thing.
I’m also wondering if that new prop produces less static thrust, the G3 turbo didn’t accelerate as well as our jurassic Cirrus G1, with similar loading. This could be a turbo thing, but maybe not. Eric Sanderman, the east coast Cirrus rep., told me that even the NA G3s are not leaping off the runway like the G1 and G2 planes.
Hamid:
Get a late 2005 with about 300 hrs, save 150k, and you can buy props for wall decorations.
I think you’ll need TKS for resale, if not for actual conditions. I’m not so sure about A/C, but your adequately broken in 22GTS will probably have it, so why not?
Good luck!
No TKS or AC, but get the composite prop? I’m assuming you mean I should do the opposite of that, but since I don’t know you, I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not.
No TKS or AC, but get the composite prop? I’m assuming you mean I should do the opposite of that, but since I don’t know you, I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not.
Hamid
No, I’m not being sarcastic. In the spring I will be looking for a slightly used plane with that exact combination. I have no use for TKS. I think it is a nearly useless option since it isn’t FIKI certified. The Cirrus A/C is reported to be minimally effective by owners who have it.
A G3 without A/C or TKS, and with a composite prop will have 112 lbs more useful load than one equipped the opposite way.
I would rather carry 112 lbs more people and stuff on occasion
You should be aware that the TKS on the G3 wing is pretty much ineffective at cruise speed. Cirrus apparently did not test the installation and owners ahve discovered that in cruise flight, the TKS does NOT flow over the top of the wings.
They issued some sort of advisory that you have to really slow down to get any fluid on the topside of the wings.
Whether or not Cirrus will ever fix this feature or simply claim that you are flying too fast to have TKS functionality is anyone’s guess. If I were you I’d ask the salesman what is going on. And GET IT IN WRITING.
Gary, I have a NA G3 with the standard prop and the plane does not accelerate nor climb as well as my G2. I thought it might have something to do with the wing paint problem disturbing the airflow and slowing the plane. It feels like the plane is over weight or is only running on 5 cylinders compared to my G2. I hope the wing paint fix solves this problem.
Don’t count on that. I have a G3 TN and it does not climb or accelerate like my G2 did. I think it has to do with the wing changes in the climb and the composite prop. It is faster at altitude. When I first flew the G3 I was suprised by the feeling of sinking when you retract the flaps. My G2 never did that, I felt like I was back in my 20. But, my new prop looks really cool.
Gary, I have a NA G3 with the standard prop and the plane does not accelerate nor climb as well as my G2. I thought it might have something to do with the wing paint problem disturbing the airflow and slowing the plane. It feels like the plane is over weight or is only running on 5 cylinders compared to my G2. I hope the wing paint fix solves this problem.
Jim and Tim,
This is quite puzzling. I would expect the TN not to accelerate/initially climb as well since no turbo (normalized or ground boosted) engine is as efficient as a non-turbo down low due to the turbo setup.
My prior plane, a NA C210 could easily out-accelerate/climb any T210 down low. Once you got higher however, the T210 would leave our plane in its propwash.
The fact that the NA G3 does not accelerate as well as a NA G2 or G1 makes no sense (I heard this from the Cirrus demo pilot as well). This is the same engine, and acceleration and climb are a function of excess power. Something else is going on here…could the plane weigh a lot more than its supposed to??? A couple hundred pounds could easily account for this (the Columbia 400 I flew a few months ago at a 3600# MTOW was also a slug until it got going…).
Jim and Tim,
This is quite puzzling. I would expect the TN not to accelerate/initially climb as well since no turbo (normalized or ground boosted) engine is as efficient as a non-turbo down low due to the turbo setup.
My prior plane, a NA C210 could easily out-accelerate/climb any T210 down low. Once you got higher however, the T210 would leave our plane in its propwash.
The fact that the NA G3 does not accelerate as well as a NA G2 or G1 makes no sense (I heard this from the Cirrus demo pilot as well). This is the same engine, and acceleration and climb are a function of excess power. Something else is going on here…could the plane weigh a lot more than its supposed to??? A couple hundred pounds could easily account for this (the Columbia 400 I flew a few months ago at a 3600# MTOW was also a slug until it got going…).
Gary, That is exactly how it feels, Too Heavy. So, I tried it both a 3400 pounds and 3000 pounds, same feel and weaker climb performance. I do not know how Cirrus came up with it will climb 100 FPM better than the G2. It climbs 300 FPM less than my G2 at the same weights.
Gary, That is exactly how it feels, Too Heavy. So, I tried it both a 3400 pounds and 3000 pounds, same feel and weaker climb performance. I do not know how Cirrus came up with it will climb 100 FPM better than the G2. It climbs 300 FPM less than my G2 at the same weights.
Tim,
Something is up here… the plane has to be heavier than advertised. This makes no sense to me.
