Sorry, but that is hyperbolic baloney. My actual experience was that it added about $10 an hour in overall expense at a usage of about 200 hours/year. Well worth it to fly in smooth, clear air at 200 KTAS on 17 GPH.
That is true for those like yourself who find routine O2 usage to be non-factor or at least a negligible factor. Something that does negatively impact your enjoyment of flying. Not everyone feels the same about that.
With the O2D2 and Oxyarms, O2 was a non-issue. Sure, I like pressurization better, but we didn’t complain about using O2 with our setup.
My only point was that not everyone shares that opinion. Some people here – I have one of them in mind that has your COPA stature – do not feel the same way. And among those who share your view, their spouses and/or children may not agree.
Without a doubt those that see O2D2/Oxyarm use as a non-issue like you do have a different fulcrum position when weighing Turbo vs. NA decisions.
We have the O2D2 but not the Oxyarms and O2 is not that big of a deal. Having the O2D2 made a bigger difference than the oxyarms. It’s usually just the two of us though. Prior to the O2D2, the canulas weren’t nearly as comfortable.
My bigger pain right now is headsets. Even my Lightspeeds are getting too tight. After about 3 hours, I just can’t stand the pressure anymore. I’d really like to go in-ear.
Since you do not have the OxyArms, do your O2 hoses go over your ears / under the headset cups? If so, that can be a major source of discomfort, solved by the OxyArm.
Sherri Taylor:
After about 3 hours, I just can’t stand the pressure anymore.
Are you wearing sunglasses? Where do the arms go? I sit mind on top of the headset earcups rather than trapping them between the earcups and my head.
via COPAme
Gordon was able to get rid of his before the big expenses hit. Ask the second owner how expensive the experience was for him. People shouldn’t be able to answer cost experience without at least 2,000 hours. It’s just not statistically relevant.
Yes on the sunglasses. They are progressive prescription so need to be correctly placed for me to see anything in the airplane. I do put the canula over the top of the ear cup. I just get less tolerant of discomfort as I get older. I’ve tried the Halo’s and can’t get them to work consistently; want to explore the Clarity Aloft.
On the maintenance, we have about 1800 on this engine. We have replaced an exhaust manifold and done a cylinder (rings I think); I’ve had the intake pop off climbing to altitude, and waste gates that need adjusting. But, overall, it’s been manageable and I’ve become so accustomed to flying high, smooth and fast.
higher than what? afaiu, most don’t fly above 180 too often (or at all) even in a turbo. NA flies 170 easy doesn’t it?
via COPAme
Sherri, what do the temple pieces of these sunglasses look like?
You know the plastic pieces that are on the “ear” end of the earpieces that sit on top of your ear? Superfluous. They usually pull right off. Then all you have is a ~ 0.05" thick wire “frame” between your head and the headset ear cushion.
You want them to look like this:
Check your earpieces to see if they pull off. If not, get frames so you can do so. HUGE difference in comfort.
I factored that in to my $10. While I had the airplane (4 years, up to 1000 hours), I replaced one of the exhaust headers with the newer design. The cost IIRC was about $3K with labor (during an Annual). The other costs were an extra $500 or so per Annual, plus an extra $75 or so per oil change (for the exhaust inspections). So it was $3K for the replaced exhaust, $2K for the extra on 4 Annuals, and ~ (20 x $75 = ) $1.5K for oil change extras, so $6,500 over 1000 hours = $6.50 / hour, which is less than the $10 I quoted.
IIRC I recommended that the buyer replace the other exhaust, which IIRC was done. I think the 3rd generation part may have been more expensive than the one I had done. I am not aware of any other Turbo components that were replaced (likely minor work like the clevis pins etc.) but there could have been. I therefore think the $10/hour for Turbo-specific costs stands.
Regarding cylinders, I IRAN’d one at about 750 hours and did 2 more at the last Annual when I sold it. It’s an open question whether cylinders need more work with the Turbo. Certainly we hear of a lot of cylinder work with NA’s as well, but I do think that if you run the Turbo “balls out” at 85% power per the book and the “It’s not how hard you run the engine, it’s how you run the engine hard” mantra there is no question that you’ll be doing cylinders earlier. But owners who run them at less than 1600 TIT and more like 75% power have reported cylinder reliability more in line with NA’s. So I’d say the Turbo gives you the opportunity to run the engine much harder, with the corresponding consequences, but if you choose not to do that, the “Turbo-specific” cylinder wear should not be a factor. So maybe you’ll do 190 KTAS instead of 202. You’ll still get all the benefits of high-altitude operations (weather, routing, traffic, smoother, etc.).
I run my TN at 15.5GPH which is around 75% power. I see TIT around 1550 and highest CHT around 330, and still get 200 TAS at 16-18K. A NA will get reasonable speeds up there but time to climb is a lot more so is a disincentive to go high.
Maintenance so far has been on a par with what my SR20 cost. There will be a hit around 2000hrs when the turbos need overhaul.
via COPAme
Is that good or bad? I don’t know. I thought the “safe” CHT level was highly dependent on the OAT.
I don’t think “highly dependent” is an accurate statement. It is said that the maximum CHT should be derated (from 380) when the OAT is below ISA. The OAT at altitude is rarely below ISA in Australia so it’s a non-issue for me, but in any case if the OAT were low, engine cooling would be better anyway so the CHT would be lower, all other things being equal.
The issue that you are referring to I believe mostly arose because there is a school of thought (that I don’t subscribe to) that fuel flow can be adjusted to a “target CHT” and that target should be varied according to OAT. I don’t believe it’s a major issue for more conventional operation.
Thanks to all for your responses. You have provided valuable information for my consideration and I have plenty to think about before a final decision. It is important to me to know the experiences of the pilots actually flying these airplanes and you have helped with that.
I am not surprised at the strong opinions both for the Turbo and the NA options as they both have their advantages. It has not become clear to me yet which option I should pursue however the Cirrus option overall is coming more into focus.
Jim Flynn
Jim,
There are several east coast COPA members who chose the TN (or newer T-model) after having flown NAs first.
I’m probably biased. So, I asked my spouse which she prefers. Without hesitation she told me, hands down, its the TN for its sustained climb rate, higher cruise speed, more direct routing, and traffic & weather avoidance. We love getting above the bumps faster.
Weather Avoidance:
If you’re traveling now in the 10,000-11,000 ft range; you’ll find you prefer mid to high teens in a TN. We’ve flown it all over the lower 48. One typical travel mission is Florida/Caribbean in the winter. V1 is a lot more pleasant up high, where you’ll top that low altitude scud you get north of the Dixie front. Sunny skies. Smooth air, No traffic.
On a COPA adventure to Costa Rica, we set the NAs off first and followed in the TNs so we’d arrive at the refueling stop and destination closer in time. Over Belize, the NA guys were stuck cruising down in the clag without Nexrad coverage. The turbos flew top cover and could see 100 miles ahead. We were able to tell the NA guys we saw no TS buildups busting through. Not sure how their ride was down low. But, we were in smooth air that whole trip.
Performance:
I lean to keep the exhaust below 1600dF (preferably 1580), which ends up somewhere around 17 gph. I looked at engine data for a couple of my recent flights. At 75% pwr, I saw 180 KTAS at 11,000 (OAT -4 C) and192 KTAS at 16,000 (OAT -14 C). You give up about 10 kts if you want to save fuel and cruise at 14 gph.
Maintenance:
Like Gordon, I’ve had work done on the exhaust headers and I’ve had to pull a cylinder for valve work. I now expect those issues to crop up between 700-1,000 flight hrs.
Keep us posted, and I hope to see you soon at an upcoming COPA training event or fly-in.
Thanks Mark, compelling points. I fly out of Saratoga, NY, so a little north of you but apparently on similar routes… Hope to be moving on an SR22 soon and I will keep you advised.
Jim
I’m in the same spot. I live on the east coast and I will be selling my 20 for a new or used SR22*. There are compelling arguments for the NA and the T. My question is why are there so few NA 22 sold and on the used market?