Cirrus G5 Turbo Review

narchee said:
Depends what you mean by "nice". Some of us like modern interiors with glass not just a pretty plane on the outside and bragging rights over two engines...

310's are low in price because they are junk pure and simple sorry just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hmm.... You know any cirrus that has this capability and redundancy? Didn't think so. Cirrus are amazing aircraft and I applaud them, but you can get every bit of that capability and more without trying up a huge chunk of capital in a depreciating asset.

I could have gone either way, and I chose a 310. YMMV.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 109
James_Dean said:
Hmm.... You know any cirrus that has this capability and redundancy? Didn't think so. Cirrus are amazing aircraft and I applaud them, but you can get every bit of that capability and more without trying up a huge chunk of capital in a depreciating asset.

I could have gone either way, and I chose a 310. YMMV.
Click to expand...

You have a nice set up but what is the fuel burn on that?

Oh and in case you are a hawk fan...Go Cyclones! :wink2:
 
Cykoguy said:
You have a nice set up but what is the fuel burn on that?

Oh and in case you are a hawk fan...Go Cyclones! :wink2:
Click to expand...

@5-8k Go fast mode is 190kts on 28gph. LOP will get 175kts on 22. If you zoom in on the pic I posted it is doing 185kts on 26gph.

Remember though, the post I responded to was about that 310's "are junk without glass". I bought an extremely well maintained and updated 310 for a small fraction of what a new Cirrus goes for. I fully admit that I'm going to have higher operating costs. In exchange for that I have a much lower point if entry and more capability. It was also important for me to check some experience boxes for insurance purposes to get into turbines someday. Multi and retract time were important as I've already got hundreds of hours of fixed gear high performance time.

I'm going to spend $50k - $80k per year all in to run my plane 150 - 200 hours. A guy buying a new Cirrus is going to have $50k/ in depreciation without moving it to say nothing about the cost of capital. Again, YMMV but the difference in fuel burn is peanuts in this game.


And I went to both ISU and Iowa so I'm fine cheering for either team.
 
Do you really need a yaw damper on a little 4 seat piston?

Seems cool, but for the price and performance you could do better. If you have a 206 (especially a 550 powered U206) you already have more airplane, especially on amphibs!

If I wanted to go fast and had that kind of money to burn,

.watermarked_2af00e8d3721464bb8a7a951ab869327.jpg

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_921305_2001+Turbine+Thunder+Mustang.html

And just put the wife/girlfirend and/or kiddies on Alaska or Virgin

Or you MUST bring them on your flying adventures, a turbine C210 with a GNS530W and HSI.

BTW, saying a airplane is worthless without glass shows a great deal of inexperience, and screams poor situational awareness and dependence on automation IMO.
 
Last edited:
The Cirrus SR22T G5 is an astounding product. All carbon fiber, the latest tech in every way except the glass. The Garmin G1000 is old tech by glass standards. The new Garmin G3X is 10.5 inches, touch interface, way more integrated and menu smart. And I am surprised the Cirrus didn't put in the GTN750 navcom, or did they?

The Chinese own Cirrus now. The Chinese own Mooney now too. We won't see this kind of advancement in aircraft design unless and until the FAA gets their asses out of the way and get Part 23 rewritten like they are compelled to by law.
 
narchee said:
Nice review.

So you can go to full flaps at 150 indicated? Also, what is the maneuvering speed? Must have been bumpy coming in that fast so low if the ramp temperature was 105. What's the headroom like lets say compared to the 206?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed this earlier.

They increased the flap speeds significantly on the G5, so yes, as I understand it 150 indicated.

Maneuvering was 140 I believe.

It was a little bumpy, not too bad (I wouldn't have wanted to be the student in a 172 with no air at 3:30 when we left though:D), it handles bumps a little worse than my 206 but goes through them faster which helps. I would say it rides very nice in turbulence.

Nothing compares to the interior room of a 206 except much larger aircraft. I would say it was equal to the best I've seen in a go fast airplane, much better for me than the PA46 line for example. The other thing that really helps with ergonomics is the side stick. Nothing in front of you or between your legs is really nice.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Airframers and salesmen aren't interested in what's good for engines, they're interested in selling airplanes. Cirrus engine reliability hasn't been stellar by any means, and I view their recommended engine operation practices as part of the reason. CHTs are only part of the story, but I will say the Cirrus has excellent cooling.

This hasn't changed from the 1960s, by the way. Power cruise on the Duke was something like 79% power leaned to 1650F TIT. The airframe OEMs will always show you what it can do, but the price you pay to operate at limits vs. goals will typically be high. What ends up happening is that a lot of first owners fly hard, and the 2nd, 3rd, etc. owners are more cost and reliability conscious.

So, I wouldn't recommend the Cirrus method of engine management.
Click to expand...
If this type of "by the book" engine operation was hard on the equipment me thinks you would see it reflected in the overhaul statistics. I don't hear anyone complaining that their big-bore Cirrus engines aren't making the distance.
 
I love Cirrus airplanes but 724K Is a lot of money to spend on one airplane.

You could buy a good one for half of that!
 
$724K to eat from airport vending machines. What are people thinking?:D
 
Cirrus is nice but I'd rather buy a used Baron with modern panel and invest the difference.
 
James_Dean said:
Hmm.... You know any cirrus that has this capability and redundancy? Didn't think so. Cirrus are amazing aircraft and I applaud them, but you can get every bit of that capability and more without trying up a huge chunk of capital in a depreciating asset.

I could have gone either way, and I chose a 310. YMMV.
Click to expand...

To me, your panel is cluttered and not elegant, where as I see the Cirrus panel as elegant and clutter free. Even the side yoke frees up space. But, what's beautiful about America, we have choices.
 
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???
 
skynewbie said:
Cirrus is nice but I'd rather buy a used Baron with modern panel and invest the difference.
Click to expand...

So after watching your shenanigans on multiple websites I can confidently predict that you will never own a plane and most likely don't have two pennies to rub together let only invest.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Just for fun you could order a SR22T with cloth interior (micro-fiber)
Click to expand...
I would stick with leather but dropped this "T". The plain SR22 is good to FL180 - plenty of altitude/speed for me.
 
bnt83 said:
I agree Ted, all the arguments over speed brakes, damaging crankshaft counterweights using prop as a brake and avoiding chops-&-dops at all costs just thrown out the window by a sales pitch.
Click to expand...

I wasn't there but I'm guessing the point to that was to show if you need to slow down in a hurry you can. Full flaps at 150 indicated was most likely the biggest factor to the rapid slow down not the prop.
 
jmp470 said:
To me, your panel is cluttered and not elegant, where as I see the Cirrus panel as elegant and clutter free. Even the side yoke frees up space. But, what's beautiful about America, we have choices.
Click to expand...

We sure do. What you call clutter, I call redundancy. You can have your elegance, I will keep my alternator(s), vacuum pump(s), battery(s), radar, and traffic system(s). Again, ymmv. I've had enough failures to scare me out of single source failures. I'd also mention that my chute has a prop on it.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 48
James_Dean said:
We sure do. What you call clutter, I call redundancy. You can have your elegance, I will keep my alternator(s), vacuum pump(s), battery(s), radar, and traffic system(s). Again, ymmv. I've had enough failures to scare me out of single source failures. I'd also mention that my chute has a prop on it.
Click to expand...

You also have twice the chance of an engine failing and the statistically provable high probability of dying when that engine fails because the 310 is woefully underpowered on one engine.

I'll take my chances in the cirrus thank you and enjoy the high tech uncluttered panel and the new interior smell.
 
narchee said:
You also have twice the chance of an engine failing and the statistically provable high probability of dying when that engine fails because the 310 is woefully underpowered on one engine.

I'll take my chances in the cirrus thank you and enjoy the high tech uncluttered panel and the new interior smell.
Click to expand...

Is the Cirrus "woefully underpowered" with one engine out? Like I've said all along, different strokes for different folks. I've made my choice after having significant failures in a single. BTDT. I'll take the second engine. I'll commit to the recurrent training to help limit the risk.

My 310 will almost never fly at gross and then will only do so with a looonnngggg strip. My window of risk between Vmc and flying away at blue line is very small and I have to rely on my training to make my risk durning that phase of flight no more than those flying a single. Not more than two days ago I had a CFI induced engine failure at 500 ft after departure and we flew away just fine.

Eggman
 
James_Dean said:
Is the Cirrus "woefully underpowered" with one engine out? Like I've said all along, different strokes for different folks. I've made my choice after having significant failures in a single. BTDT. I'll take the second engine. I'll commit to the recurrent training to help limit the risk.

My 310 will almost never fly at gross and then will only do so with a looonnngggg strip. My window of risk between Vmc and flying away at blue line is very small and I have to rely on my training to make my risk durning that phase of flight no more than those flying a single. Not more than two days ago I had a CFI induced engine failure at 500 ft after departure and we flew away just fine.

Eggman
Click to expand...

I'm not against twins, I like the new diamond 42's! I also like the eclipse 500 / 550. And I would take your 310 too. So don't think I dislike them, but when it comes to fit and finish, I like the Cirrus. I LOVE the parachute, as it gives you 1 additional option, that has worked almost 100% of the time it has been used.

I've talked to the wife about a twin, but, eliminating the chute is big for me.

I fly with my wife and 3 kids... If something were to happen to me, I want them to have an out... and she has no interest in getting her license, but loves flying with me. She did fly with an instructor to do some landings, just in case and did the AOPA program for spouses. But, she has no desire to fly so I'm not going to force my hobby on to her. So the chute is vital in my situation, IMO.

I've never jumped out of an airplane with out a main and a reserve and with 100 jumps, I have to desire to do so. Flying a plane is no different in my mind.
 
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.
 
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...
How do gyro's pull?
 
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...

lmfao

Can I see your multiengine certificate? How many twins have you flown?

There are a WHOLE lot of twins that climb better on ONE engine than my Flybaby does.
 
narchee said:
the 310 is woefully underpowered on one engine.
Click to expand...

As a clarification to those who are paying attention: this is not correct. Any piston twin isn't going to have the sort of OEI climb you see on a turbine. But for someone east of the Rockies, a 310 is actually not at all bad on one, and better than many other piston twins. Probably in that category of better climb than Jesse's Flybaby.

However, any twin requires a commitment to recurrent OEI training. Without that, you are better off in a single. It's not that it's that hard, but things happen quickly.
 
Jaybird180 said:
IIRC, that where the fully loaded G3 was priced. I wonder how much the same bird costs now?
Click to expand...

Cirrus has all the prices and options on their site. This one was $760K. There was about $25K in price increase to go to the new model plus normal increases, chute, carbon fiber spar, etc.
 
For history buffs...

In 2003 a well equipped SR22 was about $389k.

I opted for a factory demo with about 165 hours (but with a new engine and prop after a taxi mishap in Duluth) for $330k.

Sold it in 2007 with about 600 hours for $290k less commissions, so I was not as burned by depreciation as many.

Great plane, and met great people, and I still frequent the COPA site on occasion. Still, would not own another. Maintenance costs were very high. All in over $200/hr to fly the darn thing. Not being among the "super-rich" (though lots of Cirrus owners are), and flying only as a hobby, Light Sport fits my needs much better now.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
just add CTLSi to your ignore lists. It makes visiting the forum much more enjoyable.
Click to expand...

No joke. I seriously think this guy comments on every damn thread. 850+ posts since July of this year? Are you kidding me?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
But for someone east of the Rockies, a 310 is actually not at all bad on one, and better than many other piston twins. Probably in that category of better climb than Jesse's Flybaby.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VKq0lCHWyJY

I wish you success in your future aviation endeavors and sincerely hope you gain the experience to go with your propensity to dispense advice.
 
So....it's not just low CHTs that affect engine life? :yikes:

What else could there be....? :hairraise:
Ted DuPuis said:
Airframers and salesmen aren't interested in what's good for engines, they're interested in selling airplanes. Cirrus engine reliability hasn't been stellar by any means, and I view their recommended engine operation practices as part of the reason. CHTs are only part of the story, but I will say the Cirrus has excellent cooling.

This hasn't changed from the 1960s, by the way. Power cruise on the Duke was something like 79% power leaned to 1650F TIT. The airframe OEMs will always show you what it can do, but the price you pay to operate at limits vs. goals will typically be high. What ends up happening is that a lot of first owners fly hard, and the 2nd, 3rd, etc. owners are more cost and reliability conscious.

So, I wouldn't recommend the Cirrus method of engine management.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top