There was speculation about the SR22 having a single lever power control, but the spec sheet doesn’t mention this. Anyone have any more info about this?
Also, anyone with experience operating planes with a similar performance profile (Bonanza, etc.) have an opinion what the SR22 fuel consumption might be at an economy cruise setting that produced 150-160 ktas?
The SR22 DOES have a single power lever, just like the SR20. Verified it with Ian Bentley 2 days ago.
Roger
There was speculation about the SR22 having a single lever power control, but the spec sheet doesn’t mention this. Anyone have any more info about this?
The A36 produces about 150 kias and 160 ktas at 23/2300 on 11.5 gph, lean of peak.
about>Also, anyone with experience operating planes with a similar performance profile (Bonanza, etc.) have an opinion what the SR22 fuel consumption might be at an economy cruise setting that produced 150-160 ktas?
Bonanza comparison for fuel burn— I have no lproblem getting 150 knots @ 15 gal per hour
Also, anyone with experience operating planes with a similar performance profile (Bonanza, etc.) have an opinion what the SR22 fuel consumption might be at an economy cruise setting that produced 150-160 ktas?
The A36 produces about 150 kias and 160 ktas at 23/2300 on 11.5 gph, lean of peak.
Thanks. So, assuming similar performance can be had with the SR22, one could cruise at the same speed as the SR20, on about the same fuel burn, but have takeoff and climb power in reserve. Also, at the lower fuel burn, the endurance would exceed all but the most stalwart bladders and posteriors, meaning that one could choose to fly 3-4 hour legs with (almost) all the people and stuff they want, and with presumably less noise.
Am I missing something here? Sounds to me like a significant value enhancement for the money, especially for those of us who live in the Rocky Mt. region - we regularly get 9,000 + ft. density altitude here in Cheyenne. I also really like doing away with the vaccumn system and adding a second battery.
Am I missing something here? Sounds to me like a significant value enhancement for the money, especially for those of us who live in the Rocky Mt. region - we regularly get 9,000 + ft. density altitude here in Cheyenne. I also really like doing away with the vaccumn system and adding a second battery.
I agree. Then add the fact that, per a post on this board, existing sr20’s and those in production for the near future WILL NOT BE GETTING A USEFUL LOAD INCREASE…!
That means for about 25% more initial outlay you are getting a true 4-place, hard IFR version sr20 that can climb out of any downdraft within reason, and that will return that extra 25% if/when you ever sell it.
I think you’re interpreting too much into these posts. I am very confident there will be a gross weight increase in a few months time. How much, nobody knows, most probably CD doesn’t know exactly either. When, 2,3 or maybe 4 months, neither I nor CD really knows, but what CD knows is there will definately be an increase.
Will it just be a paper increase? They just don’t know yet. We heard about the issues with the brakes, which btw is just one example. They are working hard to achieve this goal and I am sure they will find a solution to accomodate both new and existing owners.
Am I missing something here? Sounds to me like a significant value enhancement for the money, especially for those of us who live in the Rocky Mt. region - we regularly get 9,000 + ft. density altitude here in Cheyenne. I also really like doing away with the vaccumn system and adding a second battery.
I agree. Then add the fact that, per a post on this board, existing sr20’s and those in production for the near future WILL NOT BE GETTING A USEFUL LOAD INCREASE…!
That means for about 25% more initial outlay you are getting a true 4-place, hard IFR version sr20 that can climb out of any downdraft within reason, and that will return that extra 25% if/when you ever sell it.
On payload . . . Weren’t we suppose to get a true 4-place in the SR 20 without the 25% premium? I think we will get close to a 4-place in the SR 20 once the gross weight increase comes through and any required brake enhancements are installed. In retrospect, the parachute system may have been too much of a trade-off in payload, especially since the planes are coming off the line weighing more than anticipated and many customers are opting for heavy options, such as a three-blade prop that doesn’t really offer any increase in performance.
That means for about 25% more initial outlay you are getting a true 4-place, hard IFR version sr20 that can climb out of any downdraft within reason, and that will return that extra 25% if/when you ever sell it.
I believe that the SR20 still has a mixture control, and while some might consider a combined prop/throttle as “single lever”, others do not. I was referring to talk that the SR22 would have a “FADEC”-like system that Continental is developing, which automatically sets mixture. Anyone hear any more?
The SR22 DOES have a single power lever, just like the SR20. Verified it with Ian Bentley 2 days ago.
Roger
There was speculation about the SR22 having a single lever power control, but the spec sheet doesn’t mention this. Anyone have any more info about this?
The engine callout is for a IO-550-N – My understanding is that the FADEC engines would have a IOF-550 designator. I also confirmed that the SR22 does not have FADEC when I called to find out where my SR22 letter was.
I believe that the SR20 still has a mixture control, and while some might consider a combined prop/throttle as “single lever”, others do not. I was referring to talk that the SR22 would have a “FADEC”-like system that Continental is developing, which automatically sets mixture. Anyone hear any more?
The SR22 DOES have a single power lever, just like the SR20. Verified it with Ian Bentley 2 days ago.
Roger
There was speculation about the SR22 having a single lever power control, but the spec sheet doesn’t mention this. Anyone have any more info about this?
The engine callout is for a IO-550-N – My >understanding is that the FADEC engines would >have a IOF-550 designator. I also confirmed that >the SR22 does not have FADEC when I called to >find out where my SR22 letter was.
Thats a shame I got the impression from Ian B,
at Oshkosh that the aim was to go to the FADEC
system. He certainly sang its praises for ease
of starting, tick over and cruise economy.
Does anyone where I can read more about this,
checked the Continental web site and couldn’t
find much. I didn’t think they had been certified
yet so cannot blame Cirrus.
FADEC seems like one of the biggest steps in
piston aero engines for a longtime.
Robert
I’d bet is a timing issue, wanting to get the SR22 started and TCM not finished with all its testing. I’d bet you will eventually see all Cirrus airplanes with FADEC.
For more info – do a search (www.dogpile.com or other search engine) for “TCM FADEC” – you’ll get several matches with varying amounts of info.
The engine callout is for a IO-550-N – My >understanding is that the FADEC engines would >have a IOF-550 designator. I also confirmed that >the SR22 does not have FADEC when I called to >find out where my SR22 letter was.
Thats a shame I got the impression from Ian B,
at Oshkosh that the aim was to go to the FADEC
system. He certainly sang its praises for ease
of starting, tick over and cruise economy.
Does anyone where I can read more about this,
checked the Continental web site and couldn’t
find much. I didn’t think they had been certified
yet so cannot blame Cirrus.
FADEC seems like one of the biggest steps in
piston aero engines for a longtime.
Robert