Will the new turbo charged SR22 have speed brakes in the near future? For some reason I’ve notice several articles about people adding speed breaks to Mooney’s and other planes (eg. STC) to allow for rapid loss of altitude. This would seem to make sense for the new (and significantly higher) flight levels made possible by the turbo charged SR22.
Great job Cirrus!
Thanks.
In reply to:
Will the new turbo charged SR22 have speed brakes in the near future?
I doubt it. I don’t find the SR22 that hard to get down – just slow down enough to drop flaps. Speed brakes would all you to maintain speed while quickly losing altitude, but I doubt it would be worth the effort until there are a lot more turbocharged SR22s in service.
The Cirrus is not nearly as slippery as say the Columbia 400, where the speed brake is quite useful.
The discussion about speed brakes should include a technique for losing altitude.
The last time I used this technique was coming into runway 3 at KABQ. I was cleared for the visual on a downwind to runway 3. Because of the terrain and local MVA/MEAs I was, as usual too high for the approach.
The technique? Bring the power back, pull the nose up and let the speed bleed off until about 75 kts. Put in 50% flaps below 119 kts. and keep 75 kts. until the altitude is right then bring the speed back up to finish the approach. The resulting landing was a “10” and I made the first turn off without any significant braking.
Caution: with following traffic you will want to let the tower know what you are doing so they don’t start crowding your tail feathers. As it was there was no other traffic for 3 and the maneuver was a brief one to get down to the landing profile.
Speed brakes are a fantastic option. Their use has nothing to do with having a turbo or not, because they are typically used down low to help ATC get the job done.
For example, yesterday coming into Victoria I was asked for maximum forward speed to get into a slot ahead of a Dash 8 on final. Then minimum forward speed to allow time for a Cessna to do a touch and go. 120KIAS to 190KIAS to 78KIAS with ease in the shortest distance and time. You never have to say “unable” to a controller and they are often truly impressed with how you can help them out.
Brakes simply expand the envelope of operation a bit - and that’s a good thing.
And there’s an argument that they have a role to play in safety. Take a look at the accident record to find runway over-runs, porpoised landings etc. Ham fisted pilots - maybe - but some accidents could probably have been saved by using brakes to bleed excess speed on short final, breaking the accident chain.
There’s a safety implication up north on very cold winter days too. If you want to maintain a fairly steep descent and some power on, both for safety, the brakes help accomplish that.
Plus they are a LOT of fun to use!
Do you need them - nope. But they make a good plane even better.
In reply to:
Will the new turbo charged SR22 have speed brakes in the near future?
IMHO the SR-20 would need speed breaks before the 22. It has been my experience that because of the bigger displacement engine in the 22’s the prop will “windmill” at a much lower RPM than the 20 with power all the way back, causing the prop to slow the 22 down more than 20 when in similar decent angels.
I agree with Marc, the SR22 is just not that difficult to slow down. It does take a the proper technique, i.e, level the nose up, but in a level attitude, the Cirrus will bleed off airspeed quitel nicely.
I offer the following as an example: I passed a SW B737 on final (well inside the outer marker) and landed on a 4,000’ runway with only delayed, light to moderate braking. I don’t now a 737’s approach speed, but I was probably at 180 KIAS. (If you doubt the story, another pilot was on board at the time.) Many of us have been asked to keep our speed up for following jet traffic only to be asked to slow down for the king air in front. Typically, these approaches all end in very normal landings.
Conversely, Speed brakes are a great tool to have and can come in handy at certain times, but IMHO, they are used far more often to compensate for ham-fisted pilots than any real need. If offered, I am not sure that I would spend the money for them.
If it is a major factor in your consideration of what plane to buy, I advise that you consider it a very minor concern.
[quote]
I passed a SW B737 on final (well inside the outer marker) and landed on a 4,000’ runway with only delayed, light to moderate braking. I don’t now a 737’s approach speed, but I was probably at 180 KIAS.
[quote]
A B737 will have a Vref in the 130-140 KIAS range.
In reply to:
The Cirrus is not nearly as slippery as say the Columbia 400, where the speed brake is quite useful.
Really? I bet the coefficient of drag on both those planes are very similar. The 400 was modified from the 350 which with the same HP was faster, but not by enough to bring on the need for speedbrakes. In fact when George Brailey addressed us at the COPA dinner at OSH, he said the 400 and the TN22 were essentially the same speed when producing the same HP That suggests the same cross section in the air.
Of course with its turbo charger instead of a turbo normalizer it can produce more HP than the TN22, so it is faster. But for power reasons.
Myself, I do not find the 22 needs speedbrakes. But if I was flying at those speeds and altitudes and ATC gave me a slamdunk descent, I think they might be handy. Not necessary, but useful.
In reply to:
Really? I bet the coefficient of drag on both those planes are very similar. The 400 was modified from the 350 which with the same HP was faster, but not by enough to bring on the need for speedbrakes. In fact when George Brailey addressed us at the COPA dinner at OSH, he said the 400 and the TN22 were essentially the same speed when producing the same HP That suggests the same cross section in the air.
Of course with its turbo charger instead of a turbo normalizer it can produce more HP than the TN22, so it is faster. But for power reasons.
I don’t think that is correct. I think George was referring to the Bonanza and how the retractable gear was nullifed by the aerodynamics of the Cirrus.
The Columbia is less draggy than the SR22 and has a lower effective front plate area. It also flies higher.
Both the turbo SUPERcharged TSIO-550 in the Columbia and the turbo NORMALIZED are capable of producing the same power. The TSIO uses lower compression pistons and higher manifold pressure to achieve the same power as the TN approach.
Changes in power to achieve the same airspeed are far more significant than drag reduction to achieve the same.
Either way, the need for speed brakes on either airplane is a result of poor planning or a need to feel like a big airplane pilot.
The latter could be accomplished by several overhead switches accompanied by the pilot barking “CHECK, CHECK” as he flips them back and forth. Oh yeah… and some flashing lights would be impressive also!
Look how impressed this guy’s wife is!
Thanks. I had asumed that speed brakes would allow you to stay at 25,000 feet longer because you could make rapid descent at your destination (eg. faster speed, less fuel burn, more time with O2 mask, etc). Almost all of my flying has been less that 10,000 feet (hopefully a Cirrus a few years down the road will change that), so I’ve never needed “speed brakes.”
I’m glad to hear that proper technique makes speed brakes not that critical. It would be a shame to open up that nice smooth wing on the Cirrus for something that isn’t critical.
In reply to:
I don’t think that is correct. I think George was referring to the Bonanza and how the retractable gear was nullifed by the aerodynamics of the Cirrus.
George did say that too. But he also said they did a 400 vs TN22 side by side flight (recall he described the 400 suffering serious vapor lock on that flight) - that is what I was talking about. My wife says I don’t listen well, but thats the way I heard it [;)]
In reply to:
The Columbia is less draggy than the SR22 and has a lower effective front plate area.
Robert,
I don’t believe that to be true. The Columbia 350 and Cirrus SR22 G2 produce identical airspeeds with identical engines. The Columbia 400 does not have any aerodynamic changes I am aware of (aside from the modifications to the tail to correct for the unrecoverable spin mode they detected in high altitude testing).
Most of the percieved difference in speed between the 350 and SR22 came from 3 areas: 1) Columbia (then lancair) always quoted speeds in mph not kts (I know that didn’t fool you), 2) Columbia quoted cruise speed at 85% power and Cirrus at 75%, and 3) the Cirrus G1 was slightly (~5kts) slower at equivalent power settings.
This is not finally confirmed by George Braly’s Oshkosh comments about the SR22 Turbo flyoff with the Columbia 400, which I heard also. What George actually said was identical speeds at identical fuel flows. While identical fuel flows would provide the same horsepower on the 350 and the SR22, that is not true on the turbo versions. The 400 uses 7.5:1 compression pistons, and hence gets less horsepower per pound of fuel (higher BSFC) than the turbo Cirrus using 8.5:1 compression. So the Columbia was getting slightly less horsepower than the SR22 in the comparison. However the comparison was between a production 400 and a prototype G1 SR22. We know the G2’s are generally 5kts faster than the G1’s, so I think Georges results could be consistent with equivalent flat plate drags between the two production aircraft.
In reply to:
Thanks. I had asumed that speed brakes would allow you to stay at 25,000 feet longer because you could make rapid descent at your destination (eg. faster speed, less fuel burn, more time with O2 mask, etc)…
I’m glad to hear that proper technique makes speed brakes not that critical. It would be a shame to open up that nice smooth wing on the Cirrus for something that isn’t critical.
Best efficiency is achieved without the use of any drag increase. So if you are up high and you want to come down, using speed brakes only wasted the stored energy you used in avgas to get up there.
And if the biggest excuse of all comes up “ATC might give me a SLAM DUNK clearance”… remember it is only a clearance- not an instruction. The word “unable” is cheaper than speed brakes and usually is the prudent piloting decision.
Post deleted by flynavy
A real smart engineer would tell you that shock cooling is a OWT. Run LOP to the ground and you don’t have to worry about shock cooling.
Why not just use a forward slip? And maintain sufficient speed, so you don’t have to “bring the speed back up”…what would happen if you lost the engine on final and were below the speed necessary to make the runway?
In reply to:
The technique? Bring the power back, pull the nose up and let the speed bleed off until about 75 kts. Put in 50% flaps below 119 kts. and keep 75 kts. until the altitude is right …
I hope you only do that in smooth air. At 75 knots with 50% flaps your margin above the stall is only 7 or 8kts.
We’re really just talking about getting rid of potential energy and that is best done with high speed/high drag configurations. So one would want to pull power and drop flaps at 119, then maintain 119, or even continue to slow to the full flap speed, deploy full flaps and continue at the full flap deployment speed. Or just pull the chute.
Hi Steve!
I’m not sure whether you are one of the non-Cirrus pilots who says an airframe parachute is a crutch for bad pilots, but for the sake of the arguement let’s examine your speed brake endorsement.
All but the last reason you cite “fun to use” are IMHO, diametrically opposed to the mindset we need to have for safe r general aviation.
A good pilot is one who doesn’t care to impress ATC with accepting clearances that may put himself and his passengers and the airport at risk.
“Slotting” in ahead of a Dash 8 and behind a Cessna doing touch and goes is simply unimportant in the big scheme of things. You’re ahead, let the Dash 8 slow down. It’s not like Air Canada/Jazz isn’t always on time [;)] anyways!
If you want to know the truth, to ATC you are simply a coded blip they need to keep away from other coded blips. VEry few things “truly impress” them.
A good pilot has no shame in using the word: “unable”. If more pilots did so, there would be fewer crashes etc.
Runway overruns are a result of grossly negligent planning and airmanship, not the lack of speedbrakes. It is my opinion that anyone who NEEDS speedbrakes to salvage the approach is likely not a decent enough pilot to properly utilize them anyways.
Besides, in a Cirrus all we do if we have a problem being lousy piltos is pull the red handle… the ultimate speedbrake!
(Or at least that’s what non-Cirrus piltos would have you beleive!)
BTW, how are things in BC?
