Cirrus G5 Turbo Review

narchee said:
The single engine ceiling of 8k or so is incredibly unimpressive. I will just leave it at that. I'm glad you enjoy your 310 though. Everybody has their own requirements and what they like. To each their own.
Click to expand...

What is the ceiling of a cirrus with one engine inoperative? BTW, there are 310's that have single engine service ceiling well into the teens if you need that capability.
 
I don't have a Cirrus by the way... but arguing that a 310 is safer is ridiculous. Really. Argue that the Cirrus is too expensive, or you think it is ugly, or you don't like the owners, whatever. But trying to argue the 310 is safer makes you look silly.
 
narchee said:
I don't have a Cirrus by the way... but arguing that a 310 is safer is ridiculous. Really. Argue that the Cirrus is too expensive, or you think it is ugly, or you don't like the owners, whatever. But trying to argue the 310 is safer makes you look silly.
Click to expand...

Safer depends on the circumstances and the odds of encountering those circumstances. A chute is great if you're not over inhospitable terrain.

Lake Michigan in the winter perhaps? Crossing the Gulf of Mexico? (Ted's done it in a twin.) OEI ceiling doesn't matter in those circumstances but even if the chute gets you down safely you're still going to probably die. Some parts of south Florida (think Everglades) you're probably going to have a bad time of it. In the Rockies, especially in winter, either one is probably bad unless you have a turbo twin. Coming down under the chute on the side of a rock probably won't end well either.

On the other hand, if you fly over mostly benign areas the chute is great option and the need for recurring OEI practice is not required.

What kind of flying do you do? Where do you fly? That should ALWAYS be the first part of assessing risk. All other answers depend on it.

Blanket statements like "Cirrus is safer than a 310" (or "310 is safer than Cirrus") with no qualifiers are just inaccurate at best.

John
 
kenjr said:
No joke. I seriously think this guy comments on every damn thread. 850+ posts since July of this year? Are you kidding me?
Click to expand...

Narchee is obviously the latest troll with no experience to join, or else the lates incarnation of a previous troll.
 
jsstevens said:
Safer depends on the circumstances and the odds of encountering those circumstances. A chute is great if you're not over inhospitable terrain.

Lake Michigan in the winter perhaps? Crossing the Gulf of Mexico? (Ted's done it in a twin.) OEI ceiling doesn't matter in those circumstances but even if the chute gets you down safely you're still going to probably die. Some parts of south Florida (think Everglades) you're probably going to have a bad time of it. In the Rockies, especially in winter, either one is probably bad unless you have a turbo twin. Coming down under the chute on the side of a rock probably won't end well either.

On the other hand, if you fly over mostly benign areas the chute is great option and the need for recurring OEI practice is not required.

What kind of flying do you do? Where do you fly? That should ALWAYS be the first part of assessing risk. All other answers depend on it.

Blanket statements like "Cirrus is safer than a 310" (or "310 is safer than Cirrus") with no qualifiers are just inaccurate at best.

John
Click to expand...

If I'm flying over the Gulf in a Cirrus I'd have a raft so I'm going to survive.

Over the mountains? I'll also survive by picking the appropriate spot to pull the handle and looking on the G1000 synthetic vision to choose a good spot (a valley).

Over large expanses of frigid water in winter? Neither please. Have someone take you in a REAL plane :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Narchee is obviously the latest troll with no experience to join, or else the lates incarnation of a previous troll.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I guess this means you have no further intellectual arguments to offer.

:nono:
 
narchee said:
:rolleyes:

I guess this means you have no further intellectual arguments to offer.

:nono:
Click to expand...

I didn't realize you made an intellectual argument to respond to. A single engine service ceiling of 8k is just fine east of Denver, and by managing your weight and/or adding turbos you can increase it further.

On the Cirrus, you'll be in the water in a raft to hopefully get found (SAR is a lot harder than you think, and not 100% successful) while I'll be flying overhead on one engine to land. Then I can fly over the Great Lakes in the winter without concern, while you're driving, going the long way, or chartering a "real" plane.

So, where's the intellectual argument?
 
OP, thanks for the nice review!

I think both the Cirrus and C310 are pretty darn good airplanes. I always enjoy a good single v. twin debate, knock yourselves out guys! :)

As someone involved in the care and feeding of 1971 C177RG and two 1978 PA28s, I'll say this.

I think there are real advantages that come with flying an airplane that doesn't remember two dollar avgas.

As these airplanes get old a lot of little stuff wears out. Doors don't fit as well as they used to, and door handles and locks break. Wing ribs can have issues. Push to talk switches wear out. Plastic rots. Fuel tanks have issues as they age. On and on.

You can take an old airplane, overhaul an engine, put in a fancy gps, add new paint and interior. You have a really nice looking old airplane. It's still an old airplane with a nice gps and paint job. It's going to have lots of little things and occasional big things breaking, or at least aggravating you.

Life is short, I can sure see the appeal of a brand new airplane for those with the mission and the money.

I can also the appeal of a fully rebuilt airplane, such as the AOPA and Skyport Cessnas or the Nextent jets. Those might be the best buys of all in their respective classes.

Edited to add: The only civilian twin I have any time in is the Dutchess. It flies pretty well on one 180hp engine. I was thinking about this 'Big Blue Banana' thing the OP mentioned in his review.

Even if you assume that your Dutchess can't maintain level flight on one engine on the day you have an engine failure in cruise, I promise you that your 'Big Blue Banana' will be a LOT bigger than that of any single engine airplane, from a CT to a PC-12.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
I didn't realize you made an intellectual argument to respond to. A single engine service ceiling of 8k is just fine east of Denver, and by managing your weight and/or adding turbos you can increase it further.

On the Cirrus, you'll be in the water in a raft to hopefully get found (SAR is a lot harder than you think, and not 100% successful) while I'll be flying overhead on one engine to land. Then I can fly over the Great Lakes in the winter without concern, while you're driving, going the long way, or chartering a "real" plane.

So, where's the intellectual argument?
Click to expand...

That's better. I was worried you were going to go full retard on me.

Okay I will give you flying over water. The rest of it though I would feel safer in a Cirrus.


 
Jim, I agree with your points about a brand new or recently restored airplane. Much like cars - some want new, others accept extra MX that comes with used. Even if my net worth was 100x higher than it is, I wouldn't see myself buying new, but that's because of my preference to restore something and make it my own.

Plus, I just don't like what's for sale today.
 
narchee said:
That's better. I was worried you were going to go full retard on me.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one suggesting my G1000 w/SV will find the valley for me in the Rockies so I can pull the chute and live.

If you're going to make an argument for a "real plane", that would be the better location for it. Especially in winter, that's just a humorous theory at best.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I am really getting tired of the multiple posts of variations of that youtube. Sometimes its better to not say anything than to sling an insult.
Click to expand...

I'd argue it'd be better to ban trolls, but the MC doesn't do that here.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I wasn't the one suggesting my G1000 w/SV will find the valley for me in the Rockies so I can pull the chute and live.

If you're going to make an argument for a "real plane", that would be the better location for it. Especially in winter, that's just a humorous theory at best.
Click to expand...

Oh I've practiced this with a G1000/SVT many times. In the Rockies ;) There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I'd rather have a cirrus with a chute. As you know, being an expert and all, if the engine goes out suddenly depending on how you are you have a few minutes to decide where you're going down and this is the same with a Cirrus. If you're VMC great you aim to not put down on the top of a ridge. If you're IMC, use the SVT to steer yourself towards a valley if you can then pull the handle. This is the one place where a weak 310 on one engine is no better (probably worse) than a single with no chute.

Go ahead and argue against that all you want. But then you have indeed gone full retard in spite of my best efforts.

:rofl:
 
Jaybird180 said:
I am really getting tired of the multiple posts of variations of that youtube. Sometimes its better to not say anything than to sling an insult.
Click to expand...

Duly noted. However, why not call him on it? He has been repeatedly spewing ignorant garbage all over this place. I primarily use this place to gather information and knowledge and guys like this interfere. I stand by what I said in that post.
 
narchee said:
This is the one place where a weak 310 on one engine is no better (probably worse) than a single with no chute.
Click to expand...

On that, I agree unless you've got a RAM turbo 310, especially RAM IV T310R. Note I've been pointing out "east of the Rockies." Naturally aspirated piston twins offer their best safety benefits in the flatlands. Only full retard Cirrus fanboys have argued with me on that.

But I would not be arrogant enough to suggest that SV will save me, just that it will improve my odds.
 
James_Dean said:
Duly noted. However, why not call him on it? He has been repeatedly spewing ignorant garbage all over this place. I primarily use this place to gather information and knowledge and guys like this interfere. I stand by what I said in that post.
Click to expand...

Yep. The reason I minimize actual aviation talk here is because of the high participation of such trolls or otherwise willfully ignorant zealots.

But it's a great place to talk boats.
 
James_Dean said:
Duly noted. However, why not call him on it? He has been repeatedly spewing ignorant garbage all over this place. I primarily use this place to gather information and knowledge and guys like this interfere. I stand by what I said in that post.
Click to expand...

Its more effective to argue facts versus slam character. Some things he says can simply be a matter of poor verbiage/ choice of words/ communication or honest misunderstanding. I think there is a post somewhere where he was called and accepted correction. Its better we fix it inside our community than have another smoking hole in the ground due to his own misunderstanding or preaching it.

Lord knows, Ive said my share of dumb ****.
 
narchee said:
:rolleyes:

I guess this means you have no further intellectual arguments to offer.

:nono:
Click to expand...

I am going to go with Ted, the engineer with experience in the aircraft engine manufacturing industry, on this one. Sorry.
 
CTLSi said:
Twin engine planes are not built for redundancy. They are built for horsepower. Most of them can barely fly with one engine (remember all the dead weight with an engine out). And unless you know how to handle landing with one engine on one side of the plane pulling like a gyro, you won't like the crash landing anyway.
Click to expand...

:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:
 
I don't know, I think that video gets funnier every time I watch it.
 
PPC1052 said:
I am going to go with Ted, the engineer with experience in the aircraft engine manufacturing industry, on this one. Sorry.
Click to expand...

LMAO!

Don't be sorry. You're a Ted fanboi and prefer to let him do your thinking for you. That's okay. I'm sure he is very famous. At least here is. I've never heard of him outside POA come to think of it... But I will take your word for it that he is an AMAZING aircraft engine engineer.

;)
 
narchee said:
LMAO!

Don't be sorry. You're a Ted fanboi and prefer to let him do your thinking for you. That's okay. I'm sure he is very famous. At least here is. I've never heard of him outside POA come to think of it... But I will take your word for it that he is an AMAZING aircraft engine engineer.

;)
Click to expand...

Well... There are some pretty knowledgeable and astute people who run the Twin Cessna Flyer association and they seem to have found some value in Ted's opinions. I know I've found him to be a wonderful CFI with a pretty wide field of contacts.

http://www.twincessna.org/forum/pastissues/Oct2013-Final.pdf


"Ted DuPuis is a TTCF member and also is currently an engineer at a turbine aircraft engine company. He previously worked as a product development engineer at Lycoming Engines, focusing on engine testing/calibration, fuels, certification, and operations. He holds CP-AMEL & ASEL-IA, CFI, CFII, MEI ratings with most of his 2,000 hours in pistion twins, and instruction specialties in engine management. Ted is also the founder, president, and chief pilot for Cloud Nine Rescue Flights(www.cloudninerescueflights.org)."

No idea what your CV looks like, but his is pretty damn solid.

Eggman
 
James_Dean said:
No idea what your CV looks like, but his is pretty damn solid.

Eggman
Click to expand...

Thanks for that yes it's pretty solid.

Doesn't change my preference for a SR22 over a Cessna 310 though. :D

(My CV ain't too shabby either I just prefer to maintain a lower profile ;) )
 
PPC1052 said:
I am going to go with Ted, the engineer with experience in the aircraft engine manufacturing industry, on this one. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Bingo...me too.:yes:

Now, other than keeping the CHTs low....what else can we do to improve engine life? :dunno:...Ted?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Bingo...me too.:yes:

Now, other than keeping the CHTs low....what else can we do to improve engine life? :dunno:...Ted?
Click to expand...

I have two stickies in Maintenance Bay that are good places to start. :)
 
narchee said:
It doesn't matter because you can pull the handle and live.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

So what would happen if you were to pull the chute on your Cirrus, and there are 40 knot winds on the ground? Is there any way to disconnect the chute from the airplane once you are on the ground? If there isn't, you're gonna be in for one heck of a ride!
 
Groundpounder said:
If there isn't, you're gonna be in for one heck of a ride!
Click to expand...
Probably you would emerge quite bruised but possibly still much better off than if you did not have this chute. But everything at the same time - some failure plus 40 kts winds, plus say .. church's steeple on your way down - we can keep piling such misfortunes ....
 
Last edited:
jmp470 said:
The people that buy these planes do so because they can... saving $$$ might not be their primary concern.

If all planes were free, how would you rate the Cirrus???
Click to expand...

If all planes were free, I definitely wouldn't buy a Cirrus, (And I love them)!
 
jmp470 said:
If all planes were free, how would you rate the Cirrus???
Click to expand...
Does it include free operating cost too?
That could change the answer drastically.
Without such free upkeep Cirrus would be a tremendous gift and very high on my list.
 
Last edited:
The 150 knot IAS is, I believe, for half flaps. It makes a huge difference over pre G5 aircraft which were 119 for 50% flaps.

Cirrus aircraft have already come down on a steep side of a mountain in the Canadian Rockies, a tall antenna tower, a truck and in fairly windy conditions. So far the results in terms of passenger safety have been excellent. People imagine many horrible scenarios but they haven't happened yet. Compared to the alternatives the record looks very good.
 
olasek said:
Does it include free operating cost too?
That could change the answer drastically.
Without such free upkeep Cirrus would be a tremendous gift and very high on my list.
Click to expand...

I hear the shoot repack is like what, 10K on these. And that is every 2? 4? years...
 
New planes are frightfully expensive, but I'm glad somebody still buys them. Otherwise we would all be flying orphaned products.
 
Nice plane and write up OP.

But I'd probably cheap out on a CompAir 7 or 8 for 1/6th the cost, and go with turbine STOL performance and figure the saved $500,000 will buy a lot of kerosene.

And you can put a BPS in one if that's your bag. :wink2:
 
Phillip said:
I hear the shoot repack is like what, 10K on these. And that is every 2? 4? years...
Click to expand...
You are probably close but I think the repack for the newest generation of Cirrus is every 10 years. But in operating costs versus performance numbers this is a very lean aircraft.

EDIT: I checked, yes, once per 10 years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top