Talk Me Out of a Cirrus

kaiser said:
I wonder whose engine maintenance budget would be higher between a Seneca, Turbo 310, or a Duke... it's got to be close to a tie.
Click to expand...
Seneca has 8 cylinders to care for. The others have 12...
 
I like these "Talk me out" of anything....
 
WDD said:
Cost of a FIKI Turbo Cirrus got to be less than all the engine expenses of a twin.
Click to expand...
Sure about that? Look at the initial price. Cirri are not inexpensive to purchase and that difference will pay for a lot of maintenance and fuel.

I guess it depends on how many hours you fly and how long you keep the plane.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Sure about that? Look at the initial price. Cirri are not inexpensive to purchase and that difference will pay for a lot of maintenance and fuel.

I guess it depends on how many hours you fly and how long you keep the plane.
Click to expand...
Not sure at all. Just enjoying suggesting ways for someone else to spend his money.
 
kaiser said:
I wouldn't mind that one... but also hangar size :(((
Click to expand...
Oh, right. The primary constraint. Beech 18s are outside cats, right?
 
Cirrus jets are about the same wingspan as a Seneca.
 
Racerx said:
Seneca has 8 cylinders to care for. The others have 12...
Click to expand...
kaiser said:
Seneca has 12 - they are Conti TSIO-360 (which are 6 cyl), and similar amount of turbos.
Click to expand...
To be fair, seneca 1s are io-360s, and have a single engine service ceiling of something like 4000 ft. They're good trainers, but that's about it. 2+ are the baby continental turbo 6 cylinders. Still not my first choice of motor, but I've heard from a couple people that they hold up well if not abused.
 
kaiser said:
I wonder whose engine maintenance budget would be higher between a Seneca, Turbo 310, or a Duke... it's got to be close to a tie.
Click to expand...
The 310R post you replied to isn’t a turbo. The turbo twin Cessnas have their own maintenance challenges on top of all the normal twin Cessna shenanigans. But I am curious how these planes all compare. I can say that the Seneca and 310 people I know all love their planes.
 
tspear said:
Plane selection can help with motion sickness.
1. Look for planes with higher wing loading, like a Cirrus. Higher wing loading reduces how much the plane gets bumped around by wind/turbulence. Get one which climbs fast to get out of the bumps (SR22T), get A/C to keep cold air blowing on her face.
2. Go pressurized and get out of the bumps ASAP and stay high as long as possible, practice slam dunk approaches.
Click to expand...
Good advice... But even a pressurized turbine bird isn't immune to bumps at altitude, especially if you fly somewhere where there were thunderstorms in the previous day.
NealRomeoGolf said:
My understanding is 310s are inadvertant ice, not known ice. I want known ice.
Click to expand...
Earlier 310s aren't FIKI (the "full deice" package), but that's not to say that they're any less capable - It's merely a quirk of FAA certification.

The 310 is a CAR 3 certified airplane (CAR = Civil Aviation Regulations, the precursor to today's FAR/14 CFR regulations), not a FAR 23 certified airplane. CAR 3 did not have any requirements for flight into icing. It's not that the 310 wasn't good enough to fly into icing conditions, it's that there were simply no regulations that addressed it. Generally speaking, that means that flying a CAR 3 airplane into icing isn't illegal unless it was prohibited after the fact.

That ambiguity led to different manufacturers taking different actions. Some did not address it at all - I think this may have been the case with the Twin Comanche, maybe @Kristin can comment further as I'm sure she knows more about all of this than I do. Some others retroactively prohibited flight into icing, which I think was generally done via an AD mandating a POH modification and placard prohibiting flight into known icing conditions.

EDIT: Kristin covered it nicely here: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/cessna-310r.67501/post-1361174

Cessna, FWIW, addressed it on the 310 by getting the 310 certified IAW 14 CFR 23.1419 starting with S/N 310R0801 per the TCDS (3A10). I don't know whether they required a placard in the older planes or just left it ambiguous.

So, 310s have two icing protection systems. The older "full deice" system, and the newer FIKI system. You can tell the difference between them, though there are exceptions to the following here and there the general rule is:

"Full deice" has an alcohol windscreen and boots on only the outboard section of the wing and the horizontal stab: (Note the two small spray bars at the base of the windscreen)

img.axd.jpeg

FIKI has a heated panel on the windscreen, a boot on the vertical stab, plus a deice boot on the stub wing between the engine nacelle and the fuselage:

img.axd.jpeg

This is an "all or nothing" thing - Just the presence of a v-stab boot doesn't make it FIKI. OTOH, a missing heated windscreen strip doesn't allow FIKI but it doesn't mean the airplane wasn't certified FIKI - It seems a lot of those have been removed, and I believe they're somewhat hard to come by IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Well....it's Tuesday... Am I flying dad's Cherokee Six to Fabtech or can I bum a ride in a Seneca?
 
charheep said:
I hope at least the flight was nice.
Click to expand...
My first time to Atlanta - FTY in this case. Didn't get an approach out of it but the cloud cover made the place less hot. Then had to hop over to SC. Bumpy as all get out down low.
 
Racerx said:
Well....it's Tuesday... Am I flying dad's Cherokee Six to Fabtech or can I bum a ride in a Seneca?
Click to expand...
So the big hold up right now (besides my indecision) is that the Seneca in question is currently placarded that it isn't approved for known ice. I believe it is a mistake and have told them I am not moving forward until the placard is gone and it is legal FIKI. I believe it is a paperwork error. We are sorting it out.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
My first time to Atlanta - FTY in this case. Didn't get an approach out of it but the cloud cover made the place less hot. Then had to hop over to SC. Bumpy as all get out down low.
Click to expand...
Its kinda nice adding a new airport to the list.
 
Go fly a Cirrus then go fly a Columbia 400/TTX

You’ll end up with the Columbia

Ask me how I know
 
charheep said:
Not that I will ever get one, but I would love to hear your reviews on both.
Click to expand...
I feel the Columbia side stick is much much better than the Cirrus.

That translate to an overall better flying experience.

The speed difference is noticeable and the fit and finish (I have an early model Columbia) was much better
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
So the big hold up right now (besides my indecision) is that the Seneca in question is currently placarded that it isn't approved for known ice. I believe it is a mistake and have told them I am not moving forward until the placard is gone and it is legal FIKI. I believe it is a paperwork error. We are sorting it out.
Click to expand...
Got anything else in the hopper to look at?
 
Seneca might fit the mission but gosh do I hate the way they fly, like a junk dump truck.
 
Skymac said:
Seneca might fit the mission but gosh do I hate the way they fly, like a junk dump truck.
Click to expand...
Almost as bad as a PA-32, right? 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top