Never said it was a rule, it has been my experience. The overall lower cost of the airplane may be due to G3 vs. G1/G2, or whatever. The point is my TN system has NOT contributed to any mechanical issues to date. Im certain the TN hatters will say my day is coming, but I am very willing to pay the incremental cost to maintain the TN system in exchange for an airplane that is substantially better for my mission.
Kerry - I’m certainly not a TN hater as I very much like my 2012 SR22 TN but I think we can all admit that the TN on average is more maintenance intensive than the NA. I am jealous of your experience as my TN has consumed in its first year more maintenance $$ than my NA did cumulatively over the 6 years I owned it. That being said, both of our experiences are not typical - mine at the high end and yours on the low end.
At the end of the day, it depends on one’s mission, comfort level with flying high and willingness to absorb the typically higher cost and greater maintenance (time) needs of the turbo planes.
Hopefully not too many TN/T haters in the world. Life is far too short to be that opinionated. The general consensus seems to be that the TN will most likely cost you more over time since it has more parts and runs relatively hotter. The benefit is that you are going faster, so the additional costs are absorbed on a per nautical mile basis, to an extent, Great to hear that your bird is so reliable. As you implied, some SRs have a tendency to eat very expensive parts regardless of whether they are turbo charged or not.
Alexis:
I fly a TN Cirrus but would not want to own a T Cirrus. The efficiency of the TN outperforms the T when it comes to operating temperatures. Temperatures are the big item to watch carefully with a turbo.
As a pulmonary physician, I agree with you about the dangers of high altitude flying to the limits of the TN or T. You should know that I have had my TN for 10 years not and have never operated it above 18,000 for all the reasons you cited. So why have one? The operating envelope from 13000-18000 is far superior in the TN versus the NA. Speed is the main advantage. I often can climb at a speed that was equal to my NA plane in the past. The TN opens up your vertical envelope much more as every flight now allows a greater variety of choice to deal with the winds of each flight.
Many times I have had a headwind at low altitude that turns into a tailwind at higher altitudes. Since climbing there is faster, you want to go where the optimal ground speed takes place. The TN gains 2 knots of TAS for every 1000 feet you climb. So unless the headwind increases faster than that; it still pays to climb into some headwinds. As a result, all of my flights are faster than in the NA plane. I have not made precise calculations; but given I get everywhere faster, it takes fewer hours to fly to all destinations per year. Yes, it costs more per hour to operate. But when you consider the fewer hours needed to complete missions, it actually is almost a wash as far as costs go.
There are clearly more parts to break and more routine maintenance to maintain them. But ALL planes that go faster cost more money to do so. The increased cost of the TN compared to a turboprop or turbine is trivial. Sure we do not travel as fast as a TP or turbine but you do routinely get 200 knots. Lastly, in this part of the country where I live, winter weather is more easily topped in a TN making ice avoidance a lot easier. In the summer, flying in the teens gets you above the haze layer where you can see convective weather (and avoid it) from more than 100 miles away.
I would not push a TN plane on anyone but there are perks and advantages that many do not consider. I like the vertical envelope possibilities that the NA does not offer. When things are running fine you cannot beat it. When things break you curse!![:D]
Brian,
I can agree with all you wrote! To me the speed is not an important topic. I use the plane to fly to work - when that little glider field with the short grass runway in VMC, 35 minutes instead of 3.5 hours of driving … and the ten times every year that I fly longer trios like to the Mediterranea (2 hours) or to southern Greece (5 hours) … the difference in speed is not important to me, and I almost nevery fly higher than 16.000, FL160 here.
(Why should I hate somebody with a different airplane type???)
Ah, you are the one who gets all tailwinds! For me, it is always opposite. Still few times I got lucky, not yet 300 knots club lucky, but respectable.
Hey Thomas, I did not say I ALWAYS get tailwinds. But I did say you can manage the headwinds optimally and sometimes turn a headwind into a tailwind.
Alexis: For your mission you do not need a turbo. It is just that simple. Each pilot needs to look at their missions and choose the optimal plane to fly them. For me, the turbo is right on the fence with my missions. I do not need it as much as I used to by I am not getting rid of it just because I moved!
I certainly did not in my almost 5 years of TN ownership. In fact, I only ventured up as far as FL 190 on two flights: One was briefly to top some clouds over the Rockies and the other was on a relatively short flight from Santa Barbara to Scottsdale AZ to enjoy some substantial tailwinds. I never, not once, went into the 20’s. But the benefits of the TN were in its great performance in the 16,000 - 17,500 range. Loved the airplane.
1 Like