First Flight in a Cirrus- A question and a question

[Rex Kramer]

It was a little awkward. I was on the right side and didn't have a stable position. I could understand how it would feel intuitive on the left side.


BTW- the left seat of this airplane seemed to fit me like a glove.

I've never flown a Cirrus (or a Corvalis for that matter). Are there supports/rests for the flying arm built into the seat or side frame?

 

[CMTowner]

My thoughts here are that since it is already too late for the purchasing of fuel, I would find out what this person's tastes are for either beverage or food, and pick up something and give it to them as a sign of appreciation for the experience.

Sometimes it is great to be in the right place at the right time. I've had a few quick flights this way before.

 

[Jaybird180]

I've never flown a Cirrus (or a Corvalis for that matter). Are there supports/rests for the flying arm built into the seat or side frame?

Arm rest on the door. I think the Corvalis has a standard yoke but

 

[Dr. O]

Not to steal Kimberly's thread, Rotor and wing, but if the molar fits you get to wear it.. Seems you have a live nerve there, maybe I didn't use enough no-vocane... Are you one of those feeding at the public trough?

Kim, don't let a little pushing and shoving in the boys room throw you off... The big Cirrus is a serious cross country machine... I enjoyed reading about your flight...

denny-o

 

[Jaybird180]

Not to steal Kimberly's thread, Rotor and wing, but if the molar fits you get to wear it.. Seems you have a live nerve there, maybe I didn't use enough no-vocane... Are you one of those feeding at the public trough?

Kim, don't let a little pushing and shoving in the boys room throw you off... The big Cirrus is a serious cross country machine... I enjoyed reading about your flight...

denny-o

Hey Kim- Looks like you've got another leg humper

 

[RotorAndWing]

Not to steal Kimberly's thread, Rotor and wing, but if the molar fits you get to wear it.. Seems you have a live nerve there, maybe I didn't use enough no-vocane... Are you one of those feeding at the public trough?

denny-o

Same to ya Doc. How many perfectly good teeth have you ruined in order to make the bucks? How many bogus fillings have you done? After all, we all know how low life and dishonest Dentist are, right?

The point I'm trying to make here is you paint with a broad brush. So I tried it back at you and geez, look at the reaction, huh? Seems you don't want to be painted in a disparaging way either.

FYI I went into public service because I enjoy promoting Aviation Safety and I'm trying to do my part. I don't really need the job, I thought it would be a fitting end to a long and successful career in aviation.

 

[Pa28-140]

Wow! I have to applaud the generosity of many of you. I have a few hundred hours of PIC in an SR22 and take people with me whenever possible. Everyone seems to love the Cirrus, but I haven't had so much as an offer for a cup of coffee. I need to start hanging out with a better class of people, huh?

 

[dmccormack]

Wow! I have to applaud the generosity of many of you. I have a few hundred hours of PIC in an SR22 and take people with me whenever possible. Everyone seems to love the Cirrus, but I haven't had so much as an offer for a cup of coffee. I need to start hanging out with a better class of people, huh?

Wow -- that's amazing!

I've bought many lunches, pumped lots of 100LL on my card, and done hours of cleanup. Isn't that what we're supposed to do....?

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Now I'm confused. Perhaps a post got deleted, but the OP asked about what to do for a pilot who let him go fly in his plane.

I responded with what I did for a Piper pilot who let me (as a pax) inside his plane - I bought him steak.

Not sure what sparked some arguments - I was just replying to the OP's question and offering friendly advice.

 

[Pa28-140]

Wow -- that's amazing!

I've bought many lunches, pumped lots of 100LL on my card, and done hours of cleanup. Isn't that what we're supposed to do....?

Like I said, I need to hang out with a better class of people....like you. If I fly to PA, I'll be sure to take you for a Cirrus ride and take you up on that offer of coffee.

 

[dmccormack]

Like I said, I need to hang out with a better class of people....like you. If I fly to PA, I'll be sure to take you for a Cirrus ride and take you up on that offer of coffee.

I'm sorry you have to fly that far to encountered manners!!!



But I'll be happy to take you up on that offer anytime! Then I'll take you up in the Chief, for comparison sake...

 

[Pa28-140]

I'm sorry you have to fly that far to encountered manners!!!



But I'll be happy to take you up on that offer anytime! Then I'll take you up in the Chief, for comparison sake...

That's a deal! I'd love to fly in an Aeronca Chief.

 

[peppy]

BTW, local fella who owns a manufacturing plant has one of the Cessna version of the Cirrus. Second annual now at roughly 400 hours... First was under warranty by Cessna and all the shop the factory uses found were usual items at 235 hours, change the oil, etc..

Cessna makes the Corvalis. It is different form the Cirrus. For the other poster who wondered, the Cirrus has a side yoke while the Corvalis has a true joystick.

 

[Jaybird180]

The Corvalis is a Certified Lancair.

 

[SkyKreuzer]

Hi George, Thanks for inspiring me to join Pilot's of America and more importantly, thank you for flying with me in Zephyr. Although it was a short flight I think we made the best of it. It was a lot of fun!

Our return flight to Potomac Airfield from Stafford Regional with both your instructors in the passenger seats included a short hiatus to the local training area where I provided you a hands-on steep turn maneuver demonstration. You then duplicated the maneuver and with a little coaching performed your first steep turn remarkably well. It was mighty impressive to watch you complete 2 360° turns at 3000ft msl. You learned how to use bank angle (after establishing initial pitch and power) to maintain and stabilize altitude 'round the turns. Very well done indeed! While waiting for clearance back into restricted airspace I also demonstrated slow flight and recovery for you. On the way back you had the controls again to fly us back toward the field. I'm glad you enjoyed the experience and hope you continue your training with inspired enthusiasm and vigor. I'm confident you will become a great pilot in no time.

Yes, I am a private pilot, frequently told by instructors that I should really be and would make an excellent instructor. I'm currently working on the ratings that are required. You hit the nail on the head; your experience in Zephyr can be logged in your logbook for memory's sake only as part of total flight time, not as pilot in command (ratings required) and not as dual instruction (instructor required). For cross-logbook verification my name and certificate number are helpful but my signature is not necessary. My last name by the way is Zurmuhlen. The time you logged cannot be included while calculating your training hours. You should note the steep turns as part of the time you were at the controls of the Cirrus SR22 Zephyr.

For the record: Someone correctly commented that the Cirrus is a serious cross country IFR platform. Zephyr is powered by the Continental IO550-N7B / 310HP @ 2700 rpm. however, at low altitudes producing +200knt ground speeds w/90% power during shallow descents in a tailwind of 15knts is common play even for the normally aspirated power-plant w/a standard cruise setting of 2480rpms as we were on this flight. My aircraft has exceeded 250 knots in ground speeds on numerous occasions and fortunately the SFRA speed restriction is based on indicated airspeed.

I honestly love to fly (I say that out loud every time I leave the ground) and share the experience with others, including both pilots and willing passengers. Carpe diem! I seized this opportunity to fly while helping out your instructors and you at the same time. I considered this another 'perfect excuse' to defy gravity and did not expect to share my expenses with you. Thank for thinking of it but I would rather you spend the money on your flight training.

The regulations on sharing are clear (quoted below). A private and or commercially certified pilot may share expenses on any flight. The operative words in the regulations are "share", "compensation" and "hire". To 'share' expenses the pilot in command must contribute his/her pro-rata share of fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. His equal share can easily be calculated from the recurrent expenses (oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees) while the others share can be be calculated by fuel alone. Additionally, the rated pilot may exercise the privileges of commercial certification for 'compensation' and/or 'hire' only when he/she is employed through a part 135 operation.

Thank you for the flattering comments. I totally enjoyed flying with you and hope we can do it again real soon, but w/me in the right seat as your co-pilot.

KEEP YOUR WINGS KLEEN
SkyKreuzer


_____________________________________________________________

NOTE: For private/personal flight operations sharing expenses is regulated under:

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.

 

[Jaybird180]

Who's George (LOL)???

And yes, I logged it.

 

[Ted]

For the record: Someone correctly commented that the Cirrus is a serious cross country IFR platform. Zephyr is powered by the Continental IO550-N7B / 310HP @ 2700 rpm. however, at low altitudes producing +200knt ground speeds w/90% power during shallow descents in a tailwind of 15knts is common play even for the normally aspirated power-plant w/a standard cruise setting of 2480rpms as we were on this flight. My aircraft has exceeded 250 knots in ground speeds on numerous occasions and fortunately the SFRA speed restriction is based on indicated airspeed.

While everyone likes seeing high ground speed numbers (and GS is what matters for how far you can go that day, as well as for how fast your brain needs to keep up), TAS is level flight is a true objective means of aircraft performance. After all, you don't descend to a destination, at least not the whole way. I was getting 310 kts GS in the Cheyenne yesterday in a descent 10 kts shy of the barber pole. Of course, in level flight the plane was doing 235 KTAS. I had a substantial tailwind. I've gotten 250 kts GS in the 310 up at 15,000 ft in level flight (naturally aspirated). Also, a major tailwind.

Speeds quoted in any form of descent at 90% power really aren't a good measure of a reasonable speed. 90% power is not a good power setting for just about any piston engine, especially something turbocharged. It's not a new thing for manufacturers to be trying this - the Beech Duke, for instance, had something like a 79% max continuous power cruise setting, on a turbocharged 380 HP engine, leaned out. The engines never did well.

The Cirrus is a reasonably capable IFR platform, primarily because of its autopilot and avionics (although one can offer varying criticisms of the avionics for a multitude of failures). Calling it a "serious IFR platform" is an overstatement at best.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

The Cirrus is a reasonably capable IFR platform, primarily because of its autopilot and avionics (although one can offer varying criticisms of the avionics for a multitude of failures). Calling it a "serious IFR platform" is an overstatement at best.

Why just "reasonably?" I think it's a great IFR airplane. With dual AHRS and the GFC700 it's a great machine in the clouds. I feel just as comfortable busting through clouds in it if not more than the Mooney.

 

[Ted]

Why just "reasonably?" I think it's a great IFR airplane. With dual AHRS and the GFC700 it's a great machine in the clouds. I feel just as comfortable busting through clouds in it if not more than the Mooney.

I view the Mooney as a "reasonable" IFR platform, too. Note that this isn't an insult to the plane. Personally, I'd rather take the Mooney in the clouds, though.

With both, you still have a lot of things that should keep you grounded, and the Cirrus has some more significant fuel compromises than I ever had in the Mooney that I flew, I'm not sure about yours.

My views on singles for hard IFR don't need repeating, either.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

With both, you still have a lot of things that should keep you grounded, and the Cirrus has some more significant fuel compromises than I ever had in the Mooney that I flew, I'm not sure about yours.

The Mooney I fly burns about the same as the SR20 in cruise at 65% power. I flight plan 10.9 - 11.2 GPH below 10,000 feet in the Mooney (231). The only real difference is that the Mooney holds 22 more gallons.

I'm curious what you would consider a serious IFR platform to be.

 

[Ted]

The Mooney I fly burns about the same as the SR20 in cruise at 65% power. I flight plan 10.9 - 11.2 GPH below 10,000 feet in the Mooney (231). The only real difference is that the Mooney holds 22 more gallons.

So, that equates to an extra 2 hours of fuel (assuming full tanks). That gives you a lot more options when flying IFR, especially in situations where you can have widespread low IFR to deal with.

I'm curious what you would consider a serious IFR platform to be.

My definitions are probably more restrictive than yours. As far as criteria, I want to see an airplane that has the capability to deal with ice and thunderstorms. So, FIKI is a requirement, as is on-board radar (not XM), and preferably a stormscope as well. I'll take radar over the stormscope. With that, I'd like to see something that can handle turbulence well. That's something of a personal tolerance, of course, but I've been surprised at just how bumpy a Cirrus is.

Avionics, I want to see some form of redundancy where a single-point failure won't cause me to lose a number of vital components, or cause me to lose everything in my field of view. Yes, I'm a CFII and have no problems shooting an approach to minimums looking over at the panel on the other side. That doesn't mean it's desirable.

For me personally, I want a second engine.

It's possible to find A36s that have all of these items I listed (other than the extra engine). If I were looking for a piston single for IFR, that's probably what I'd go for. In fact, I have some clients who have an A36 with all of those items except for the de-ice. So in the winter, they stick to VMC conditions.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

So, that equates to an extra 2 hours of fuel (assuming full tanks). That gives you a lot more options when flying IFR, especially in situations where you can have widespread low IFR to deal with.

I see what you're getting at and I agree. However in the SR20 I specifically plan different outs than in the Mooney that allow me to complete the flight safely given widespread low IFR conditions. In IFR weather, I never plan more than 5 hours in the Mooney including reserves to add some cushion. 3.5 - 4 hours in the SR20.

My definitions are probably more restrictive than yours. As far as criteria, I want to see an airplane that has the capability to deal with ice and thunderstorms. So, FIKI is a requirement, as is on-board radar (not XM), and preferably a stormscope as well. I'll take radar over the stormscope. With that, I'd like to see something that can handle turbulence well. That's something of a personal tolerance, of course, but I've been surprised at just how bumpy a Cirrus is.

At that point it becomes so expensive to equip a piston single you mind as well just buy a multi.

I suppose everyone's definition is different because it is mission oriented. Personally I don't have much desire to take a light piston single in the ice or close enough to thunderstorms to really need on-board radar. I'm not objecting to having the equipment if it's installed, just not a requirement for my mission usually.

In terms of turbulence, I actually find the Cirrus to have a pretty smooth ride over the last 200 hours instructing in it. I find it hard to keep the airplane perfectly trimmed (especially aileron trim if you move it from neutral) but I haven't noticed an unusually hard ride even through some moderate turbulence.

I haven't heard many issues with G1000 reliability resulting in a total failure. The only problem we've had is an AHRS2 failure in the Phenom a few months ago which required the copilot's PFD to draw data from AHRS1. It actually switches automatically.

 

[Ted]

I see what you're getting at and I agree. However in the SR20 I specifically plan different outs than in the Mooney that allow me to complete the flight safely given widespread low IFR conditions. In IFR weather, I never plan more than 5 hours in the Mooney including reserves to add some cushion. 3.5 - 4 hours in the SR20.

Right, and that sort of limitation applies to all aircraft. However, in the Aztec I've got 6 hours of fuel (actually a bit more, but I plan for 6). 4 hour legs usually get me where I want to go. That extra 2 hours of fuel allows me to not only have fuel to get where I want to go, but have far more options for alternates or in case of problems.

If I had 4 hours of fuel, then I've only got 2 hour legs to have that same 2 hour cushion. As far as a "serious IFR platform," range and fuel are important.

At that point it becomes so expensive to equip a piston single you mind as well just buy a multi.

I didn't want to say it, but...

I suppose everyone's definition is different because it is mission oriented. Personally I don't have much desire to take a light piston single in the ice or close enough to thunderstorms to really need on-board radar. I'm not objecting to having the equipment if it's installed, just not a requirement for my mission usually.

I agree, and while you can equip an A36 that way, it's not something I'd go for - I'd stick to the twins. However, in looking at something objectively, I try to look at the overall capabilities of the aircraft and how well it can get a desired mission accomplished with reliability and safety. To consider something a "serious" platform implies that level of high reliability of mission completion and safety. You can get a Cirrus FIKI, but I've already stated my thoughts on a Cirrus in icing conditions. And around thunderstorms? No, that seems like a bad idea in general. You can't get on-board radar for one anyway (at least not that I know of), so you're stuck with Eye-DAR, XM, and a stormscope. In the twins I fly, the need to cancel missions due to weather is rare enough that I can count it on one hand over 1300 hours of twin time, flying mostly on long trips all year long.

So, is the Cirrus a reasonable IFR platform? Sure. Good avionics, good autopilot, and it's pretty easy to fly. On a simple IFR day, no reason why you couldn't fly it in one. Is it a serious one? No, I think that's overstating its capabilities. Kinda like saying that any of the planes I fly are suitable for severe icing. That would be bad.

In terms of turbulence, I actually find the Cirrus to have a pretty smooth ride over the last 200 hours instructing in it. I find it hard to keep the airplane perfectly trimmed (especially aileron trim if you move it from neutral) but I haven't noticed an unusually hard ride even through some moderate turbulence.

My experience has been different overall. The couple Cirrus rides I've had have been surprisingly bumpy. However, the Cirrus may do better than the Mooney, which I recall as being particularly harsh, but it's been a while since I flew a Mooney. I've flown the 310 and Aztec both through worse turbulence from my seat than any other aircraft, but that's been on days when I've heard airline pilots crying for mommy on the radio.

I haven't heard many issues with G1000 reliability resulting in a total failure. The only problem we've had is an AHRS2 failure in the Phenom a few months ago which required the copilot's PFD to draw data from AHRS1. It actually switches automatically.

And overall it's probably pretty reliable. I think the G1000 would be much better if it had 4 screens instead of 2, though. That way you could have one screen fail and only lose 25% instead of 50% of the screen abilities, and still have the important stuff right in front of you. Most of the bigger systems in truly serious aircraft (the ones that if they aren't flying, ain't nobody flying) I see have 4 or 5 screens.

 

[SkyKreuzer]

Who's George (LOL)???

George is frequently used by pilots to reference the autopilot. In your case George, it can be confusing flight deck chatter when you share the same first name as the autopilot.

 

[ronnieh]

Yep, what Ted said. Serious and reasonable are different. I have heard the term "hard IFR" on this board to describe a 1000 foot thick layer 1200 feet off the deck.

 

[Ted]

Yep, what Ted said. Serious and reasonable are different. I have heard the term "hard IFR" on this board to describe a 1000 foot thick layer 1200 feet off the deck.

Correct. For me, it's when you pop in about minimums, and stay in until about minimums on the approach in. And then add some storms or ice.

 

[SkyKreuzer]

Wow! I have to applaud the generosity of many of you. I have a few hundred hours of PIC in an SR22 and take people with me whenever possible. Everyone seems to love the Cirrus, but I haven't had so much as an offer for a cup of coffee. I need to start hanging out with a better class of people, huh?

I get the same treatment... guess they figure we can afford the plane we don't need the tips. I fly charity missions for Angel Flight, Pilots and Paws, the The Papillon Club of America Rescue Trust (PCART) and just Saturday two personal charity airlifts that included a medical rescue from ITH for a friends daughter in need and a couple of love lost soles who were rejected by their dates to waiting on a lonely frigid patio bench at the OXB FBO for a ride back home.

I never solicit compensation but appreciate the gifts when they come my way.

KEEP YOUR WINGS KLEEN!
SkyKreuzer

 

[SkyKreuzer]

The Corvalis is a Certified Lancair.

The real story is Lancair begets Columbia whom begets Corvallis. The experimental kit planes division of Lancair is still operating but the assembly lines for all the proud previous owners of the totally composite airframe have ceased production manufacturing operations. Cessna recently acquired the reins and is doing a bang-up job of promoting the airframe w/wonderful new technologies. The turbo version COL400 engines were plagued by cylinder failures that lead Columbia to hardship honoring their 5 year new plane no-strings warranty. Bet you bottom dollar we'll never see another warranty like that one.

KEEP YOUR WINGS KLEEN
SkyKreuzer

 

[SkyKreuzer]

Kim, don't let a little pushing and shoving in the boys room throw you off... The big Cirrus is a serious cross country machine... I enjoyed reading about your flight...

For the record: Someone correctly commented that the Cirrus is a serious cross country IFR platform. Zephyr is powered by the Continental IO550-N7B / 310HP @ 2700 rpm. however, at low altitudes producing +200knt ground speeds w/90% power during shallow descents in a tailwind of 15knts is common play even for the normally aspirated power-plant w/a standard cruise setting of 2480rpms as we were on this flight. My aircraft has exceeded 250 knots in ground speeds on numerous occasions and fortunately the SFRA speed restriction is based on indicated airspeed.

I'm guessing this was an SR22 turbo, given the speeds you have listed. Just something to think about - at 90-100% power, a lot of airplanes will go faster than what most people get out of them... for a while, until the engines start having issues. There's a reason why 65% is something of the standard for cruise to get maximum service life out of engines, especially turbo'd engines (be it turbocharged or turbonormalized). I'm telling you this mostly because I don't want you to go buy a plane with an expensive engine, run it at 90-100% power, and then wonder why you're having expensive engine problems.

OK... seems we're taking my comments to the chopping block to portray my power-plant management as reckless and/or abusive!? While this may be intended for the masses I'll take it as an personal attack. In my defense, Zephyr and I are nearly in a dead tie for hours at 1685.3 vs my advantage with 1693.0 since new. Being my first aircraft out of initial pilot training Zephyr is now a 9 year old non-turbo SR22 legacy G1 with a partial glass panel (GlassPack or 6pack w/MFD). I've yet to experience any major engine failures. The engine, which actually receives compliments and praise from the check pilots that flight test him at the annuals, runs exceptionally well. Matter of fact they wonder and comment how my old legacy G1 bird has noticeably more power and pep than the new G3 FIKI Turbos they see daily. The last compressions taken November 3 2011 were 73, 74, 73, 76, 75, 76 at 1653.3hrs which can be referenced by downloading our online Maintenance Logbook. The engine has been scoped and shows no signs or indications of abusive operations. I expect we will blow right through the "dreaded" TBO next year. I'm not sure why there seems to be such the over emphasis placed on power settings. For me, a mechanically apt pilot, I listen for the sweet spot purr and monitor the important things that first indicate a real problem, #1 being the CHT's and if I were of the turbo variety #1 would be the TAT's. The power settings are resultant computations that vary widely and are affected profusely by the current conditions and therefore rank them appropriately lower on my management checklist. CHT's are a direct indicator of engine happiness and my engine CHT's are stable in cruise averaging at 282°F.

The return flight from Stafford to Potomac is only 15 minutes. We start level at 3k over Stafford were we activate a very long straight in WAAS RNAV Rwy 6 approach to Potomac. A gradual 'shallow' decent keeps us above Quantico's class D and below National's class B while flying the final to the glide slope intercept inside CRROL @ 1400ft. The manufacturer's recommended cruise setting for the IO550N 7B model is 240hp at 2500rpm. Below those recommended settings, on that evening, with the cold temps and steady tail winds created a resultant 90% power that produced ground speeds reaching 203 knots momentarily using only 2480 rpm. The engine was purring away, telling me it was quite happy. To fly my Cirrus by your numbers of 65% power I would need to reduce the throttle to 1900 rpm or less which would result in considerably lower speeds, reduced performance a sluggish feel no pilot likes. I only use full throttle to 300-500 ft AGL during take offs which consistently produces 102-105% power, it was 107% on this particular flight indicating we had an exceptionally perfect evening of conditions for exercising an aircraft engine. Maybe it is noteworthy that all of us in this thread have never destroyed an engine and leave it at that.

KEEP YOUR WINGS KLEEN!
SkyKreuzer

 

[Ted]

OK... seems we're taking my comments to the chopping block to portray my power-plant management as reckless and/or abusive!? While this may be intended for the masses I'll take it as an personal attack.

You can choose to do so, but that wouldn't be correct.

I'm not sure why there seems to be such the over emphasis placed on power settings.

Because service history has shown that they do have an impact.

For me, a mechanically apt pilot, I listen for the sweet spot purr and monitor the important things that first indicate a real problem, #1 being the CHT's and if I were of the turbo variety #1 would be the TAT's. The power settings are resultant computations that vary widely and are affected profusely by the current conditions and therefore rank them appropriately lower on my management checklist. CHT's are a direct indicator of engine happiness and my engine CHT's are stable in cruise averaging at 282°F.

You should note that most of these engines (actually, all of the ones I've seen) can be detonating and well on their way to certain oblivion without giving any signs to the pilot (unless one has an engine monitor). I've seen them run quite happily making rated power in severe detonation with the CHTs skyrocketing right up until the point where they start shooting fire out of the exhaust and/or stop running entirely. The fact that you have a good engine monitor and good cooling helps you significantly in this regard.

I congratulate you on having good compressions and good engine life. The fact that you are naturally aspirated does help, because you aren't able to maintain 90% power for very long.

The return flight from Stafford to Potomac is only 15 minutes. We start level at 3k over Stafford were we activate a very long straight in WAAS RNAV Rwy 6 approach to Potomac. A gradual 'shallow' decent keeps us above Quantico's class D and below National's class B while flying the final to the glide slope intercept inside CRROL @ 1400ft. The manufacturer's recommended cruise setting for the IO550N 7B model is 240hp at 2500rpm.

I calculate that at 77% power given your rating of 310 HP @ 2700 RPM, which is a more sane power setting for cruise for a naturally aspirated engine.

Below those recommended settings, on that evening, with the cold temps and steady tail winds created a resultant 90% power that produced ground speeds reaching 203 knots momentarily using only 2480 rpm.

So what you're telling me here is that you've had one instance where with the combination of trading potential energy for kinetic, running with higher power thanks to cold air, and having the winds push you along, you had a nice ground speed.

This is not indicative of the true performance of the aircraft. I can get a 200 kt GS in a 172 with good enough tailwinds (and I've had winds strong enough where that would be possible).

The engine was purring away, telling me it was quite happy.

Again, while I am sure it was happy in this case, keep in mind that appearances can be deceiving.

To fly my Cirrus by your numbers of 65% power I would need to reduce the throttle to 1900 rpm or less which would result in considerably lower speeds, reduced performance a sluggish feel no pilot likes.

Oddly enough, most pilots manage to run 65%-75% power with your engine or an equivalent at normal RPMs without having to pull the throttle back at typical cruise altitudes (assuming naturally aspirated). On my IO-520s, I have no issues running 2300 RPM, full throttle, and getting in that range.

I only use full throttle to 300-500 ft AGL during take offs which consistently produces 102-105% power, it was 107% on this particular flight indicating we had an exceptionally perfect evening of conditions for exercising an aircraft engine. Maybe it is noteworthy that all of us in this thread have never destroyed an engine and leave it at that.

I have destroyed more than one engine (intentionally, it used to be my job). The record books show many other people who have destroyed engines (unintentionally), and I'm sure some people on this forum have had the unpleasant feeling of an unintentional engine failure. The advent of modern engine monitors does help in running higher power settings happily, but it is worth noting that you're still quite able to toast things.

My point was not to attack you, and if you took it as such I apologize. However, the Cirrus, like all aircraft, has its limitations. To call it a "serious IFR platform" I believe is giving it more credit than it deserves. If you disagree, that's fine.

"Not everyone believes what you do."
"My beliefs do not require them to."

 

[SkyKreuzer]

I congratulate you on having good compressions and good engine life.

Thank you.

Again, while I am sure it was happy in this case, keep in mind that appearances can be deceiving.

Detonation, more severe than preignition, can happen at any time. The causes are many but there are none that I have reviewed that would not produce noticeable performance deterioration.

On my IO-520s, I have no issues running 2300 RPM, full throttle, and getting in that range.

I can't do a full throttle cruise in a cirrus. I gather your may be unfamiliar w/Cirrus SR models that all have a unique throttle lever that works the throttle and propeller governor from a single center console quadrant lever. The propeller governor control cable is terminated on a cam follower plate which is integral to the throttle control lever. This connection allows the propeller speed to be mechanically adjusted to the throttle setting. Under this arrangement, the propeller is set to 2700 RPM for full forward throttle takeoff and climb, 2500 RPM for mid to full throttle cruise, and approximately 1900 RPM at lower power. This eliminates the propeller lever and mechanically dictates the power settings for the conditions

I have destroyed more than one engine (intentionally, it used to be my job). The advent of modern engine monitors does help in running higher power settings happily, but it is worth noting that you're still quite able to toast things.

I prefer to never destroy an engine. Having destroyed multiple engines for work sort of makes you a knowledgeable source for information on how they fail. I will heed your warnings with a healthy respect to the best of my ability and hope to never experience a catastrophic engine failure.

My point was not to attack you, and if you took it as such I apologize. However, the Cirrus, like all aircraft, has its limitations. To call it a "serious IFR platform" I believe is giving it more credit than it deserves. If you disagree, that's fine.

I agree w/you in part. My G1 does not have the TKS ice system but it is a solid IFR environment and for me is very manageable in hard IMC. It was Dr O that commented the Cirrus is a serious IFR platform. My honest opinion is that the Cirrus requires FIKI TKS to give the pilot a better chance of escaping an unintentional icing encounter and Avidyne's Entegra R9 Avionics Flight Deck w/dual IFD's that operate on completely redundant systems to make it a great IFR machine

Entegra R9 Avionics Flight Deck

Dual IFD5000s
Dual GPS
DFC100 Attitude-Based Digital Autopilot
Dual digital VHF
FMS900w
Keyboard
Dual ADAHRS
MLB700
Synthetic Vision​

I appreciate your thoughts and the chance to evaluate opinions in a healthy discussion about engine management, It's all good my friend.

​

KEEP YOUR WINGS KLEEN
SkyKreuzer

 

[Ted]

Detonation, more severe than preignition, can happen at any time.

You may have your definitions confused. Preignition is more serious than detonation. Preignition typically follows detonation (actually in what I've seen, always). Detonation comes first. Saying it can happen at any time is perhaps an exaggeration. It typically happens at high power settings when leaned out, with higher CHTs and IATs.

The causes are many but there are none that I have reviewed that would not produce noticeable performance deterioration.

Having detonated engines to failure, I can assure you that they were making rated power quite nicely right up until the point when they didn't. This was accompanied by a very noticeable BANG typically. I would have another look at detonation were I you.

I can't do a full throttle cruise in a cirrus. I gather your may be unfamiliar w/Cirrus SR models that all have a unique throttle lever that works the throttle and propeller governor from a single center console quadrant lever.

I am familiar with the Cirrus single throttle/prop lever, which is actually one of the aspects of the plane that I dislike. What I am not familiar with is the exact calibration of throttle position to throttle position, but I would suspect you are operating closer to full throttle than you suspect. In other words, you should be achieving your 75% power quite easily. Being naturally aspirated, you will lose power with altitude, so you're running at lower power settings anyway.

I agree w/you in part. My G1 does not have the TKS ice system but it is a solid IFR environment and for me is very manageable in hard IMC. It was Dr O that commented the Cirrus is a serious IFR platform. My honest opinion is that the Cirrus requires FIKI TKS to give the pilot a better chance of escaping an unintentional icing encounter and Avidyne's Entegra R9 Avionics Flight Deck w/dual IFD's that operate on completely redundant systems to make it a great IFR machine

With TKS and the higher end avionics, sure, you've got a reasonable IFR machine, as I said. It's still a machine that has a number of limitations for a serious go-places airplane.