Trending Cause of Cirrus SR 22 NA/Turbo Engine Failures

Lgchris

Lgchris

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
7
Display Name
Display name:
Lgchris
Hello,

Of the engine failures, is there anything specific trending that has been causing them?

Is it the mags that go bad? Fuel pumps? Turbo? Etc..

I'm not asking about fuel starvation or pilot error but a mechanical/electrical or other issues that seem to be the highest percentage cause of the failures.

Thanks!
 
Kind of an open ended question. I have a few hundred Cirrus hours and don't know of any engine failures first hand, but am aware of damage being done to engines mostly due to poor operation, namely poor CHT / fuel flow management

Many (though not all), people transitioning to a Cirrus haven't flown powerful planes before, they're coming from C172 and PA28 and engine operation for these bigger planes is not intuitive to many. The transition course covers *A LOT* of engine operation material, but not everyone does the transition.. in summary, I directly know of at least a few planes needing premature work due to poor CHT handling

-flying around 400 CHT or higher (you don't get an alert until 420)
-climbing at Vx and Vy, instead of the advised 120 - 130 IAS climb
-improper boost pump use

People also tend to "ride these planes hard" because they like to go fast, IE, the engines hang out for hundreds of hours at 85% power.. this is within the POH, but naturally flying an engine at 30 inches and 85% power is going to put more wear on it than someone who's flying at 65% power..

But honestly, it's not really a "Cirrus" issue, it's more just inadequate understanding of engine operation that hurts these planes. There's a video out there of a guy flying a late 90s Saratoga.. video is fine but when he pans by the panel the dude is in cruise around 410* CHT and 18-19 gph flow

Cirrus also advises LOP operation, but many don't actually know what this is and have an incorrect understanding that LEAN=HOT.. so what they do is try and outsmart the POH and instead fly it "rich of peak" (but really right around peak) at the 19-20 gph regime, and end up wondering why their CHT is high and they're needing early top work
 
I think its simplistic to blame a large percentage of Cirrus engine failures to poor engine management.

I am still a COPA member and peruse all the reports of engine failure. Many, many seem to come out of nowhere apparently from a plane being operated conservatively. It's hard to blame a loss of oil pressure, let's say, on "riding the airplane hard".

There are lots and lots and lots of Cirrus' out there, flying lots and lots and lots of hours, most without incident. But the large number of hours being flown can make it seem like failures are more common than they actually are, at least in terms of rate of failure.

That said, it does superficially seem like a lot of engine failures in the Cirrus fleet. If the OP is truly interested, lots of discussions on this over on the COPA forum.
 
On COPA, somebody spent a lot of time searching through NTSB accident reports, and was unable to determine even how many engine failures there are, because there's no standardized wording in the reports. And moreover, there's no requirement for an engine failure to be reported, unless it causes an accident. So nobody knows.

But overall, for SRXX engine failures, I got the impression from the discussions that pilot-induced causes are most common (e.g., tangling the headset cord into the mixture knob during take off), maintenance-induced failure might be second most common. Engine failure due to manufacturing or design defects is uncommon enough that there's specific trend I've seen mentioned. I don't recall anything that's really specific to Cirrus SRXX, as compared to other aircraft that use the same engines.
 
FastEddieB said:
There are lots and lots and lots of Cirrus' out there, flying lots and lots and lots of hours, most without incident. But the large number of hours being flown can make it seem like failures are more common than they actually are, at least in terms of rate of failure.
Click to expand...
this is a very good point, and it's worth people keep in mind that Cirrus uses the same big bore Continental that's been used in many other planes

as far as riding them hard, that could have something to do with owning solely vs being part of a club or renting.. there is a small club here with a handful of members flying a turbo G5 that I was a part of, the club organizer, not the owner, but the guy who took care of maintenance etc, would routinely download engine data and send a group shaming email.. it was surprisingly common to see how often people would fly for hours on a long cross-country right around or just above 400* .. if I recall correctly that plane ended up needing a substantial amount of engine work by around 800 hours

There was another plane that was in a two-person partnership.. it needed a substantial amount of engine work about 600 hours and it was determined that one of the owners routinely climbed at Vx (!) up to cruise altitude
 
I read “engine failures” in the OP as in-flight failures as opposed to things like increased maintenance or cylinder repair.

He can correct me if I’m wrong.
 
Have there been many engine failures in SR22s? None come to MY memory, but I'm not 100% clued in to Cirrus pulls/crashes/in-flight failures. Since I operate basically the same engine(s), it'd be noteworthy.

The question as-asked does seem to presuppose some batch of these. Is that grounded in reality?
 
schmookeeg said:
Have there been many engine failures in SR22s? None come to MY memory,
Click to expand...

I know of at least a handful. Pilots flying along, only to have oil pressure drop to zero and then the engine stop/seize. Other where power was lost right after takeoff. Others where power was lost for unknown reasons in various phases of flight.

Rick Beach is the accident guru on COPA, and I’m sure somewhere there’s a list of all the engine failures that led to accidents.
 
I read accident reports pretty regular. Don’t think I’ve ever seen a true failure that wasn’t caused by poor maintenance or operation. On the turbo models most of the problems come from intercooler pipes blowing off or oil lines being left loose or turbo housing failures. There have been lots of chute pulls for people claiming their engine was running rough or loss of oil pressure only to have everything check out fine on the test stand. The ones I have seen from actual engine failure are either rebuilt engines that weren’t done properly or oil starvation. I’m sure there are some factory failures as it is a complex machine and things happen, just don’t think there is enough to be a “trend”.
 
Grum.Man said:
There have been lots of chute pulls for people claiming their engine was running rough or loss of oil pressure only to have everything check out fine on the test stand.
Click to expand...

That seems to imply poor engine management, or worse, that they made up the facts around the power loss.

Many things that can cause rough running or even power loss are transient issues that won’t show up subsequently on a test stand.

In a few minutes I’ll summarize a few causes from Rick Beach’s 2014 list. I don’t think that violates any internet protocols.
 
Last edited:
Here's that list, with permission from the author, Rick Beach of COPA, last updated in 2017.

Important note about the list: "Note that engine problems that did not result in a CAPS deployment are not included in this review; that work is for someone else at another time." So, engine failures where the plane was successfully landed are not included, nor are engine failures where CAPS was not deployed, including both injury and fatal accidents. So this list is only a subset of total Cirrus engine failures - the total list would certainly be much longer.

2007, Sydney, Australia -- loss of engine power due to in-flight loss of blanking cap from the fuel pressure test port, hence maintenance induced failure (SR22 IO-550N)

2009, Elkin, NC -- total loss of engine power due to the failure of the No. 2 piston as a result of a fatigue crack of undetermined origin (SR22 IO-550N)

2009, Hamilton Island, Australia -- suspected fuel pump issue, but I don't have a copy of the ATSB report on this one (SR22 IO-550N)

2011, Cross City, FL -- loss of engine power due to a fractured camshaft due to a fatigue crack (SR22 IO-550N)

2011, New Orleans, LA -- loss of engine power due to detonation of the No.2 cylinder from a clogged fuel injector nozzle. (SR20 IO-360ES)

2012, Andros Island, Bahamas -- loss of engine power due to loss of oil pressure, as yet not reported, but suspected engine maintenance (SR22 IO-550N)

2012, Itu, Brazil -- loss of engine power due to failed fuel pump (SR20 IO-360ES)

2012, Pickens, SC -- loss of engine power due to fractured crankshaft, consistent with the application of insufficient torque on the cylinder through bolts by maintenance personnel. (SR22 IO-550N)

2012, Show Low, AZ -- loss of engine oil, likely due to loss of oil feeder line due to removal of the supercharger by maintenance personnel (SR22 IO-550N)

2012, Gilgandria, Australia -- loss of engine oil due to high oil consumption of about 0.5 quarts per hour (1 quart per 2 hours) (SR22 IO-550N)

2013, Tappahannock, VA -- loss of engine power due to failure of engine crankshaft top rear trailing forward counterweight retaining plate, consistent with service advisory about high-power low RPM operation below 2300 RPM (SR22 IO-550N)

2013, Texarkana, AR -- loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion (SR22T IO-550K)

2014, Buckhannon, WV -- partial loss of engine power due to improper in-flight fuel mixture management (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Fort Hall, ID -- loss of engine power due to dual magneto failure due to stripped gear teeth (SR22 IO-550N TN)

2014, Nogales, Mexico -- loss of engine power, cause TBD (SR20 IO-360ES)

2014, Louyang, China -- loss of engine power, cause TBD (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Burlington, MA -- loss of engine power, cause maintenance improper tightening of engine through bolt (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Nishikata, Japan -- loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion (SR20 IO-360ES)

2014, Lexington, NC -- loss of engine power, cause maintenance improper tightening of engine through bolt (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Hampton, SC -- loss of engine power, cause faulty oil pressure transducer led to pilot reducing engine power (SR22 IO-550N)

2015, Maui, HI -- loss of engine power, cause fuel exhaustion due to failure to transfer from ferry tanks to wing tanks (SR22 IO-550N)

2015, Lake Wales, FL -- loss of engine power, cause oil starvation likely due to stuck oil control rings(SR20 IO-360ES)

2015, Fayetteville, AR -- loss of engine power, cause fatigue failure of cross fitting from oil cooler (SR22 IO-550K)

2015, Jefferson, NC -- loss of engine power, cause undetermined after successful test run of engine (SR22 IO-550N)

2015, Watertown, WI -- loss of engine power, cause fuel starvation (SR22 IO-550N)

2016, Laguna Pueblo, NM -- loss of engine power, cause fuel exhaustion (SR22 IO-550N)
 
Tantalum said:
Kind of an open ended question. I have a few hundred Cirrus hours and don't know of any engine failures first hand, but am aware of damage being done to engines mostly due to poor operation, namely poor CHT / fuel flow management

Many (though not all), people transitioning to a Cirrus haven't flown powerful planes before, they're coming from C172 and PA28 and engine operation for these bigger planes is not intuitive to many. The transition course covers *A LOT* of engine operation material, but not everyone does the transition.. in summary, I directly know of at least a few planes needing premature work due to poor CHT handling

-flying around 400 CHT or higher (you don't get an alert until 420)
-climbing at Vx and Vy, instead of the advised 120 - 130 IAS climb
-improper boost pump use

People also tend to "ride these planes hard" because they like to go fast, IE, the engines hang out for hundreds of hours at 85% power.. this is within the POH, but naturally flying an engine at 30 inches and 85% power is going to put more wear on it than someone who's flying at 65% power..

But honestly, it's not really a "Cirrus" issue, it's more just inadequate understanding of engine operation that hurts these planes. There's a video out there of a guy flying a late 90s Saratoga.. video is fine but when he pans by the panel the dude is in cruise around 410* CHT and 18-19 gph flow

Cirrus also advises LOP operation, but many don't actually know what this is and have an incorrect understanding that LEAN=HOT.. so what they do is try and outsmart the POH and instead fly it "rich of peak" (but really right around peak) at the 19-20 gph regime, and end up wondering why their CHT is high and they're needing early top work
Click to expand...

There is a lot of anecdotal data out there on operating these engines. I rent and I operate the engines as the company I rent from asks me to run them, which coincides with Cirrus recommended operating procedures. That is 75% 75 degrees rich of peak or 65% 50 degrees lean of peak. Or I use the markers in the G6 which is pretty much the same. On hot days you have to watch the CHTs, I'm typically Vy until comfortably clear of obstacles then about a 120 knot cruise climb full rich until 5,000 then lean to the top of the green band until I reach my altitude. On real hot days I might climb at 130 to keep chts down.

I read the stories, some run at 75% or more lean of peak, or whatever. There are a lot of science experiments going on out there.
 
On my Avidyne NA SR22, the procedure was to “normalize” the EGT’s after takeoff, then gradually lean in the climb to keep the EGT bars “zeroed”. This assumes the fuel flow was properly set at full throttle.
 
PaulS said:
That is 75% 75 degrees rich of peak or 65% 50 degrees lean of peak.
Click to expand...
Interesting, the G5 POH I have for the 22T shows cruise recommendation of 30.5 in manifold pressure or less and lean of peak technique with 18.3 FF for 85% and 16.4 for 75%, or alternatively using turbine inlet temperature and leaning until peak, then continuing to lean until 75° less than peak value

I typically operate right around, or just a hair under 30 in and around 16.3.. in my experience that yielded around 72 to 73% power
 
Maybe they have revised or changed that in later versions or for the G6 but this is what I have, 2013:
IMG_20200308_105327.jpg
 
FastEddieB said:
2013, Tappahannock, VA -- loss of engine power due to failure of engine crankshaft top rear trailing forward counterweight retaining plate, consistent with service advisory about high-power low RPM operation below 2300 RPM (SR22 IO-550N)
Click to expand...
Curious how this happens, with a linked blue and black knob I'm curious how somebody generates a high power low RPM situation like this..?
 
Hoo boy that's a lot of MIF on that list. What a hobby.
 
Tantalum said:
Maybe they have revised or changed that in later versions or for the G6 but this is what I have, 2013:
View attachment 83430
Click to expand...

I'm flying an NA, but, I did fly a T last week, I was told to pull back as your picture showed, and shoot for TIT of 1635 or less as a final point, lean of peak. The CHTs were consistently about 330 for that flight.
 
Thanks everyone for the replies, I really appreciate them!

Most of my time is in Pipers & Cessnas but thinking about buying a Cirrus.

Do Cirrus SRxx have 2 fuel pumps (one mechanical on the engine and one electric) like pipers do? I saw a couple of fuel pump issues listed above and hopefully, both fuel pumps didn't fail at the same time on the Cirrus
 
Lgchris said:
Do Cirrus SRxx have 2 fuel pumps (one mechanical on the engine and one electric) like pipers do? I saw a couple of fuel pump issues listed above and hopefully, both fuel pumps didn't fail at the same time on the Cirrus
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are certain flight operations where both are required, and there is a notice in the POH that the electric alone may not be sufficient to keep the engine running

It's same big Conti that's on a Mooney, Bo, etc., the difference is there are thousands of Cirrus sold and flying presently.. so engine issues seem worse

They're a great plane, very fast, capable, safe, modern.. if you have the money and the mission I can't imagine buying something else (unless you need to haul lots of people or fly off unimproved strips, or have some other specialized mission)
 
Lgchris said:
Do Cirrus SRxx have 2 fuel pumps (one mechanical on the engine and one electric)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what it has. They are connected in series -- see the diagram below. The electric one is normally used during takeoff, landing and switching tanks, but the emergency checklist calls for turning it on in case of in-flight engine failure.

(By the way, you can download a POH for free from Cirrus - that might help you figure out how the plane is similar to what you're used to.)


upload_2020-3-8_14-40-38.png
 
"loss of engine oil, likely due to loss of oil feeder line due to removal of the supercharger by maintenance personnel (SR22 IO-550N)"

An IO-550N has a supercharger?
 
NoHeat said:
On COPA, somebody spent a lot of time searching through NTSB accident reports, and was unable to determine even how many engine failures there are, because there's no standardized wording in the reports. And moreover, there's no requirement for an engine failure to be reported, unless it causes an accident. So nobody knows.
Click to expand...

The data is there, in the NTSB records, but there are no reliable flags or keywords one can search on. It takes, basically, reading the accident reports and assigning the causes.

Which I've done, for Cirrus accidents through 2018.
_______________________________|_Cirrus_|_C-210_|_Beech 36_|
_Engine Failure - Undetermined_|__6.7%__|__9.4%_|___8.2%___|
________ Engine Internal_______|__3.7%__|__8.6%_|___6.6%___|
_________Exhaust/Turbo_________|__1.0%__|__0.5%_|___1.3%___|
_________ Fuel - Engine________|__2.0%__|__0.3%_|___3.0%___|
_________Fuel - System_________|__0.0%__|__1.7%_|___0.7%___|
____________Ignition___________|__1.3%__|__0.5%_|___0.0%___|
________Fuel Exhaustion________|__1.7%__|__9.9%_|___2.3%___|
________Fuel Starvation________|__1.0%__|__5.4%_|___9.2%___|
_______Fuel Contamination______|__0.3%__|__0.7%_|___0.3%___|
___________Oil System__________|__2.3%__|__1.6%_|___1.3%___|
___________Carb Mech___________|__0.7%__|__0.9%_|___0.7%___|

("Carb Mech" includes fuel injection issues.)

The "Cirrus" column summarizes ~300 Cirrus accidents since 2004. The "C-210" column are Cessna 210 accidents from 1998 through 2015. The "Beech 36" column is the Beech Model 36 from 1998 through 2014.

In both cases, foreign accidents, or accidents in the US involving non-N-Numbered aircraft are eliminated. The analysis includes about 300 Cirrus and Beech accidents, and almost twice as many C-210 cases (570).

I'm not seeing a lot to pick at, as far as the Cirrus is concerned. The engines themselves are doing fine, and the fact that there are fewer "Undetermined Engine Failures" just means that more are being attributed to specific systems.

Certainly not all engine failures make the NTSB record; it's not required to report them until certain damage or injury thresholds are met. But these are high-performance aircraft. They're not as likely to set down without damage after an engine failure than something like a Cub.

On that note, I've been told that the NTSB sometimes lists Cirrus CAPS activations as an incident...which means they don't get entered in the accident database.

Ron Wanttaja


 
donjohnston said:
"loss of engine oil, likely due to loss of oil feeder line due to removal of the supercharger by maintenance personnel (SR22 IO-550N)"

An IO-550N has a supercharger?
Click to expand...

A few owners had an aftermarket supercharger installed. The Cirrus factory never sold a plane with one, as far as I know.
 
Tantalum said:
Curious how this happens, with a linked blue and black knob I'm curious how somebody generates a high power low RPM situation like this..?
Click to expand...

That’s a really good point.

The way the throttle and prop are linked, the first bit of travel reduces RPM while the throttle plate remains nearly fully open. But beyond that point, about 2,500 RPM IIRC, power is reduced along with prop RPM. So it is hard to see how you could get high power @ 2,300 rpm.

As an aside, a company I flew for wanted RPM reduced to 2,500 at 1,000’. I think they thought that was easier on the engine. But I think it actually resulted in higher combustion chamber pressures - these engines are designed to run indefinitely and happily at 2,700 RPM. But it was their plane, so I dutifully followed their procedures.
 
FastEddieB said:
That’s a really good point.

The way the throttle and prop are linked, the first bit of travel reduces RPM while the throttle plate remains nearly fully open. But beyond that point, about 2,500 RPM IIRC, power is reduced along with prop RPM. So it is hard to see how you could get high power @ 2,300 rpm.

As an aside, a company I flew for wanted RPM reduced to 2,500 at 1,000’. I think they thought that was easier on the engine. But I think it actually resulted in higher combustion chamber pressures - these engines are designed to run indefinitely and happily at 2,700 RPM. But it was their plane, so I dutifully followed their procedures.
Click to expand...
I think there are some people who added a separate prop control as a mod. I wonder if it was one of those?
 
Guys - forgive this rather random late addition - I’m from a rotary helicopter background - just curious why Cirrus would not have a turbine engine , as an option in one of their planes . - greater reliability / performance etc ( forget the jet )
Always wondered
 
Chris G Foreman said:
Guys - forgive this rather random late addition - I’m from a rotary helicopter background - just curious why Cirrus would not have a turbine engine , as an option in one of their planes . - greater reliability / performance etc ( forget the jet )
Always wondered
Click to expand...

That would be another certification of a whole new plane. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't thought about it, but they have their hands full just making what they have now.
 
Chris G Foreman said:
Guys - forgive this rather random late addition - I’m from a rotary helicopter background - just curious why Cirrus would not have a turbine engine , as an option in one of their planes . - greater reliability / performance etc ( forget the jet )
Always wondered
Click to expand...

They do. This one:
Screen Shot 2022-06-03 at 9.33.23 AM.png
 
The new 22 I flew a bit went through 3 mags in under 200hrs. Aside from that it was pretty good.
 
Tantalum said:
naturally flying an engine at 30 inches and 85% power is going to put more wear on it than someone who's flying at 65% power.
Click to expand...
Why would you conclude that? If CHTs are kept at 380 or below, and ICP is moderate, the cylinder doesn't know the difference between 85% power and 65% power... temperature and pressure are all the metal "experiences" and if you keep those nominal, per GAMI and Advanced Pilot Seminar criteria, you should get long cylinder life.

Paul
 
PaulMillner said:
Why would you conclude that? If CHTs are kept at 380 or below, and ICP is moderate, the cylinder doesn't know the difference between 85% power and 65% power... temperature and pressure are all the metal "experiences" and if you keep those nominal, per GAMI and Advanced Pilot Seminar criteria, you should get long cylinder life.

Paul
Click to expand...
Ideally, yes. But I venture many people aren't operating their engines as optimally as they should.. when you're dialed back to 55% power the engine is more tolerant of operator error and willy nilly leaning techniques
 
Tantalum said:
Ideally, yes. But I venture many people aren't operating their engines as optimally as they should.. when you're dialed back to 55% power the engine is more tolerant of operator error and willy nilly leaning techniques
Click to expand...

55% is really low, most people want more than that from their engine, or else why would they buy a higher performance plane.

They should just get a 180 instead of a 22, take off with it at full throttle, climb, and cruise at full throttle, because some altitude will decrease % of power for the pilot. I don't own a 22, never even sat in one, but if I did own a 22, I guarantee you it would rarely be down to 55%...75% would be a more likely cruise choice.
I have some turbo time, 55% was a descent speed maybe, but usually even then I used more power, till I was low and getting ready to join the pattern.
 
Whitney said:
55% is really low, most people want more than that from their engine, or else why would they buy a higher performance plane.

They should just get a 180 instead of a 22, take off with it at full throttle, climb, and cruise at full throttle, because some altitude will decrease % of power for the pilot. I don't own a 22, never even sat in one, but if I did own a 22, I guarantee you it would rarely be down to 55%...75% would be a more likely cruise choice.
I have some turbo time, 55% was a descent speed maybe, but usually even then I used more power, till I was low and getting ready to join the pattern.
Click to expand...

75%, full rental power, at least for me it is. The best thing about the 22 is FIKI. It works well and opens up more days would otherwise be a no go.
 
NoHeat said:
Yes, that's what it has. They are connected in series -- see the diagram below. The electric one is normally used during takeoff, landing and switching tanks, but the emergency checklist calls for turning it on in case of in-flight engine failure.

(By the way, you can download a POH for free from Cirrus - that might help you figure out how the plane is similar to what you're used to.)
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, in the TSIO-550, the electric pump is 'armed' for takeoff and landing, but it doesn't latch (activate) until fuel pressure decreases to a certain value (I don't recall the value off the top of my head, but it's basically zero). So the electric pump is pretty much never used except at higher altitudes, where you turn on Vapor Suppress and the same pump is used at 1/2 pressure.

One of the discussions with this engine is that if an engine has a 'hiccup' on departure, the electric pump will latch. If the mechanical pump is not actually failing, the combination of both of these pumps being active at the same time floods the engine and it quits.

Of course, only the more recent Cirrus have the TSIO-550. I don't know if this was an issue with the IO-550 or the TN-550s that were used for a period of time.
 
Whitney said:
55% is really low, most people want more than that from their engine, or else why would they buy a higher performance plane.

They should just get a 180 instead of a 22, take off with it at full throttle, climb, and cruise at full throttle, because some altitude will decrease % of power for the pilot. I don't own a 22, never even sat in one, but if I did own a 22, I guarantee you it would rarely be down to 55%...75% would be a more likely cruise choice.
I have some turbo time, 55% was a descent speed maybe, but usually even then I used more power, till I was low and getting ready to join the pattern.
Click to expand...
Sure if you have turbo, you might as well use it. But at 10,000 to 12,000 ft where I tend to cruise I find the naturally aspirated engines struggle to make over 60%.. and to the point of the thread, people who like to operate around 75% to 85% need to be more aware of temps (egt/chat), etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top