My opinion has been well documented here...run don't walk! I purchased a new Cirrus in 2007 and 5 aircraft later I have yet to own or fly one that has all systems working as advertised! I contract fly for another Cirrus owner and his 2 year old $670,000 turbo has had an electrical issue since new that neither Cirrus service centers or the factory can fix... and now they are wanting him to pay the up charge to warranty replace the aircraft since it will be 2 years newer! This aircraft has had the alternators replaced 8 times! If you are looking for an airplane look at the Cessna 350/400...Rob here has a great example and seems pleased from everything I have read. I'd much rather have Cessna standing in my corner.
yes Just test fly a 350 or 400 first. If you are set on a Cirrus go for the 22 T, that is the first Cirrus that competes well with the 400. 2006-2008 400's the best right now, it might be another year before the Cessna Corvalis tt's are up to the 2006-2008's. If you have AOPA membership read this thread, I posted a couple times. http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=70856 this is also a great fair video of both... http://www.myflyguys.com/home/TwoTurbos.aspx [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z4l8E9EcI4[/ame]
Let me add to the disappointment.... I just found out FROM CIRRUS that the TBO on their "turbo" package is 2000 hrs as advertised; however, what is not mentioned in that claim or advertisement is that you'll need a top end overhaul around 1000 hours to make it! Can you imagine what the cost of mistakes and down time will be for the new Kestrel? It staggers the mind. Just be thankful the Cirrus jet appears DOA.
most 400's nead a top end by 1,000 too unfortunately. the Cirrus has the TCM too? It is related to the engine design and nothing with Cirrus or Cessna.
My first plane was an SR22. I didn't like it. The best, most bang for the buck plane out there is a Turbo Normalized G36 Bonanza. That's what I bought next. Now start reading.
what is the cruise? how much can it carry? although you can't use those extra 2 seats, how much more insurance? case closed. seriously, Bo's are so popular and have high resales for a reason. there is an entire generation that only wants to buy the best of what steel can offer and the 36 and Mooney both are solid planes for those people.
Cruise depends on altitude and fuel flow. I'm 185 @ 10K. 200 at 17K. I can haul 1000lbs 1000 miles. 1400lb useful load.
MPH or KTS? GPH? LOP or ROP? I thought the useful was between 1,000 to 1,100? http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/beechcraft/hawker-beechcraft-g36-bonanza.html
Knots LOP 17gph Turbonormalizing adds 400lbs useful. It's not factory. www.taturbo.com www.beechtalk.com
very cool! now we're talking. those are great numbers. I'm faster at 197 kts 10k and 215 kts 18k all 17 gph LOP, but your load is 400 better (2 big adults more!). The 400 is still 3 men or 2 men/2 females-kids and almost full fuel for 900 nm IFR reserves. Only 2 hours 400-450 nm with 4 FAA adults IFR. Supposedly the only reason the 400 didn't get 200 more pounds was the brakes and we're one of the few GA planes with Utility rating. A few people are thinking about a brake mod and getting 200 pounds under normal. That would be awesome 4 FAA adults full fuel.
On the surface it does look like a great compromise aircraft; however, when the doors won't stay closed, the roll trim servo needs replacement each annual, the spring cartridge goes bad on the take off roll and you need to carry more alternators than quarts of oil the plane certainly loses its luster. I was days from signing for a Columbia 400 when the "rumor" of a pending bankruptcy reared its head. The Cirrus sales guy was relentless that Columbia was dead...I should have thought ahead. If Cessna had the 350/400 line it would have been a no brainer. Also, don't take Rob's comment lightly there is a real difference with the 350/400 being certified into the utility category. Rob, I didn't "know" that about the 400 and the turbo install, but I did kinda wonder if that wasn't the case as I typed the original comments.
When I was looking at airplanes I was thinking that a turbo Arrow would fit my needs very well. I researched all the specs and was trying to make sure I did the right thing. A 231 Mooney was also on the short list... Both the Arrow and the 231 were powered by the 200 hp six cylinder Continental turbo. I was talking to a dealer who was a Piper/Mooney/Cessna dealer. He said... "I'll sell you what you want, but if you buy either the Mooney or the Piper, where do you want me to deliver the load of cinder blocks?" I was taken aback and said "I'm buying an airplane, what do I need a load of cinder blocks for?" His reply was... "If you buy that turbo Continental you are going to have the engine out of the airplane in less than 1,000 hours for an overhaul, and you're going to need a a bunch of blocks to keep the nose weighed down while the engine is out!!!!" I went with the 540 Lycoming and never had an issue in the 1700 hours that I had it... I can't tell you how many times I stopped at airports and saw turbo Arrows and Mooney 231's with no prop and a load of bricks in the cowling. Maybe because I was noticing it, but it sure made an impression on me. Turbo motors are fine, but you have got to be realistic about the life. If you use them hard you are going to use them up. Interesting to see some things don't change. I would have thought that they would have gotten closer to a 2,000 hr tbo on the bigger 300 hp engine, but I guess that isn't the case.
Yes, the 400 is a little faster. My standard mission is full fuel, 4 adult and all the bags. That'll keep me airborne for 4 hours. I can add tip tanks and extend that to 7 hours but I can't go that long without taking a leak.
Turbo Charged and Turbo Normalized are not the same thing. Also, how long your motor lasts depends on how you run it. TC run ROP. My motor runs LOP.
right on, if I had 3 kids along with my wife or constantly taking another couple with my wife for 1,000 nm trips I would be all over the G36 like yours. perfect plane it sounds like for that mission! Jennie is only about 125, we only have 1 daughter and tubes are tied, and we do couple trips 90% all within 500 nm (New Orleans, San Antonio/Austin, Big Bend, NM, Colorado, Kansas, and Arkansas). For the one or two trips a year I need to go 500+ nm with 700+ pounds of live weight then we just suck it up with a gas stop. As you know though East to West trips you usually get 250-300+ kts up high one way and 150-160 kts the other way down low. now for the low blow, is there any certified 4 seat single piston plane sexier than the Columbia? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
correct. The 300-350 non-turbo guys are getting full TBO. we're not happy about the top ends, we know they are being run hard, but actually in the 400 they aren't run hard as some other planes with the engine. We run max 36 MP/2600 RPM/41-42 GPH. Typical cruise LOP 31 MP/2450 RPM/16.8 GPH. We are working hard with TCM to see if our engines can be run differently to get full TBO, no answers yet, but evidently neither Columbia/Cessna and TCM worked as closely as you would expect writing the POH and coming up with a best practices for engine care. We have guys running from ROP to LOP, 22-34 MP, and 2200-2600 RPM. Hasn't been any differences in engine life between all the settings except you get a few extra hundred hours coming down on power from 85% to 60% or so. There is a bad low RPM range about 2250 for each plane you want to avoid that vibrates and hurts the cam.
4 Seater? No. You have a beautiful airplane. My close friend has one just like it in red. Here's mine
LOL, look who has that problem now. I have heard last few years getting parts from Cirrus has been tough.
what do you mean? I was seeing the picture when I responded this morning. never mind, I saw it was just linked. no image tags, use Manage Attachments.
