Mooney_Driver wrote:
The very first batch with the 1.0 and ETT avionics can’t be upgraded.
What exactly is stopping them? As long as someone will sell you the necessary avionics, you can do it. You might have to tear everything out and start from scratch, basically, but it should be doable. You probably wouldn’t do that because of the expense. And it would take time.
Peter wrote:
As regards the maintenance cost thread, it’s not hard for an owner to post figures, which will then settle the argument pretty well.
You know it’s not that simple since approach to maintenance is a huge factor.
Flyer59 wrote:
You can reduce RPM from 2700 to 2500 without losing any MP, below 2500 both MP ad RPM are reduced.
(SR22)
So I was right when I wrote that this mod gives you more control (allows you to set setting that you couldn’t with the two lever system).
I find this arrangement baffling. I would think that people expect a certain position to correspond to a single setting. While with this arrangement, how you got there matters. That doesn’t seem very intuitive to me. I read somewhere, I have no idea whether it’s true, that this mechanism comes from Continental.
Well, you know: it works. While it does not give you all the combinations of MP and RPM you might want, it is completely sufficient.
By “mod” you mean the modification to a three lever system, right? While i like improving the plane i would never invest in that. If i want less rpm than 2500 i simply pull the lever back. So?
As regards the maintenance cost thread, it’s not hard for an owner to post figures, which will then settle the argument pretty well.
I think there is always some in built, rose tinted optimism by private owners on what the true, medium term maintenance budget will look like. I certainly have experienced it myself, even though my previous complex aircraft didn’t spring me many surprises – but when it did, it was usually in units of €5k. It is one of the nice things about vintage two seaters, the surprises, if any, are in units of €500. Even so I underestimate my maintenance spend most years by around 30-50%, except now the overrun is in hundreds of euros.
Having said this, there may be a real case of apples and oranges here? Put another way, other than the CAPS maintenance, is it fair to suggest that a SR22T shouldn’t be on average more expensive than other turbocharged big Continental single engine complex aircraft? Some aircraft are less easy to spanner because of the time it takes to unwrap them and take the inspection panels out, or access critical systems, while others are easier.
Perhaps EuroGA should build an anonymous database where maintenance by sub class (eg Turbo SEP 6 cylinders, etc) could be derived, with a sense of standard deviation for some types.
You can’t fly with high MP and low RPM in a Cirrus which means it’s noisier and a tad less efficient than other aircraft. I typically fly with max allowed MP and very low RPM for low noise and better efficiency. Not possible in a Cirrus.
Other planes have hundreds of ways to configure e.g. 65% BHP. The Cirrus only has one. (Not entirely true because of the mixture and LOP).
It’s one of those simplifications that are highly arguable.
achimha that seems fair, although the three blade scimitar prop might help. Do many cruise at 2200RPM over square? I tend to find that 2400RPM is a reasonable compromise.
Flyer59 wrote:
@ AviathorNo, it is not well described in the POH
Are you talking to me? I cannot remember having written a word.
Flyer59 wrote:
I do. I just think you don’t know much about Cirrus aircraft.
I’ll take the opinion of someone who has no vested interest in the matter over someone who is in bed with the manufacturer and obviously not objective, any day.
There’s no good reason for me to fly with high MP and low rpm. LOP it’s fastest with around 2600 rpm, at 2500 it already gets a bit slower. I mostly fly with 2580 rpm which seems to be the optimum for the four blade prop.
I’ve flown one SR22 with the three lever conversion and did not have the feeling it is worth the money. Or i would have invested it.
Flyer59 wrote:
There’s no good reason for me to fly with high MP and low rpm.
You can look at the cruise performance table for any 3-lever airplane and you’ll see that for the same %BHP, the lower the RPM, the lower the fuel flow. One reason is certainly less friction.
Lower RPM also means less noise both within the cabin and outside.
Yes, but as I said, s little over 2500 rpm gives me the best efficiency LOP, and that’s how i will always fly. Outside noise is not a factor in cruise, and inside it’s not a factor either, becasue you fly SR22s with ANR headsets only.
There’s simply a difference between these theoretical aspects and real world flying.
I’ll take the opinion of someone who has no vested interest in the matter over someone who is in bed with the manufacturer and obviously not objective, any day.
Then that’s a difference between us. I prefer the opinion of people who understand the airplane.
(As a journalist ‘ll simply ignore the “in bed” remark, that’s better for our discussion which should solely be based on facts). A more entertaining answer would have been: I know why I prefer this bed ;-)
