Turbo vs Non-Turbo

GaryP1007

GaryP1007

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
113
Location
Chandler, AZ
Display Name
Display name:
GaryP1007
Curious to hear from people in the Western half of the US relative to the real life limitations for non-turbo flying. Clearly I understand the obvious but what I am wondering is how pilots in this forum who don't have a turbo still execute on their mission and how much of a PIA it is or isn't.

I live in Arizona and am contemplating Cirrus Sr22's in both turbo and non-turbo designs.

Thanks.
 
I'm in San Diego and for a few years I was flying SR22T and SR22TN, one of which was an absolutely beautiful dry lease from one of our own PoA members here.. anyway, I'm also a member of Plus One and they don't have any turbo'd planes.. up until this year I was flying a mixture of both, about 120 hrs/year (as much as I love the Cirrus, to near fanboy status, I am now flying multis.. eventually I'd like to buy an Aztec)

My observations:
GaryP1007 said:
Cirrus Sr22's in both turbo and non-turbo
Click to expand...
--there's a g1 NA SR22 in our club that I fly as my "go-to" and it's been to Lake Tahoe (6,264 elev) and Big Bear (6,752 elev) many times, including the sweltering hot summer months. Many departures where right near the max performance limits of the plane's envelope and it performed exactly as advertised in the POH. Personally, if you plan right it's generally a non-event. Never had any "yikes" moments.. climb rate was still generally decent, again, exactly as the POH said it would be. For these though I do a full power run up to get the mixture set right (NA). Plan the departure right, and runway permitting I'll keep the climb super shallow until I get 100+ KIAS before starting the climb out. I want to say I was still getting 300-500 fpm. Cirrus really did a nice job designing the plane!

The Turbo planes at these airports (including a trip to Telluride (9,078 elev) sort of felt like cheating. You basically punch it, get 100% of your power, and off you go. The climb is only marginally different (air is still thinner after all)

The biggest thing I miss with an NA plane, and why if (err, when) I buy it will be turbo is that I max out on altitude around 10-11K.. the SR22 will go higher, but there's no real speed advantage.. the sweet spot seems to be that 8K-10K neighborhood. It sort of just feels like "wasted displacement" to have this nearly 10 liter engine up there that's barely coughing out 60% power at those altitudes. There's nobody up at 16K-17K and the air tends to be much smoother.. crossing the rockies at 17K is basically a non event. And given the altitude constraint you do have to plan your routes a bit more carefully around the mountains and be more vigilant of the winds

The g1 SR22 settled in around 168-172 TAS at the 8K-10K range. The T and TN I flew were in the 180-185 neighborhood.. obviously going faster as you go higher

Oh.. one more thing
--the NA planes are super easy to fly. The T and TN required very careful baby sitting of the CHTs.. meaning, that on hot days you would occasionally need a step climb stop at 10K to cool them down. The G5 SR22T I was flying loved to seriously over boost on take off so you had to be very ginger with the throttle. Flying at higher altitudes you also have some vapor lock and other considerations to be cognizant of

But, given the choice I would always pick turbo!
 
Tantalum said:
I'm in San Diego and for a few years I was flying SR22T and SR22TN, one of which was an absolutely beautiful dry lease from one of our own PoA members here.. anyway, I'm also a member of Plus One and they don't have any turbo'd planes.. up until this year I was flying a mixture of both, about 120 hrs/year (as much as I love the Cirrus, to near fanboy status, I am now flying multis.. eventually I'd like to buy an Aztec)

My observations:

--there's a g1 NA SR22 in our club that I fly as my "go-to" and it's been to Lake Tahoe (6,264 elev) and Big Bear (6,752 elev) many times, including the sweltering hot summer months. Many departures where right near the max performance limits of the plane's envelope and it performed exactly as advertised in the POH. Personally, if you plan right it's generally a non-event. Never had any "yikes" moments.. climb rate was still generally decent, again, exactly as the POH said it would be. For these though I do a full power run up to get the mixture set right (NA). Plan the departure right, and runway permitting I'll keep the climb super shallow until I get 100+ KIAS before starting the climb out. I want to say I was still getting 300-500 fpm. Cirrus really did a nice job designing the plane!

The Turbo planes at these airports (including a trip to Telluride (9,078 elev) sort of felt like cheating. You basically punch it, get 100% of your power, and off you go. The climb is only marginally different (air is still thinner after all)

The biggest thing I miss with an NA plane, and why if (err, when) I buy it will be turbo is that I max out on altitude around 10-11K.. the SR22 will go higher, but there's no real speed advantage.. the sweet spot seems to be that 8K-10K neighborhood. It sort of just feels like "wasted displacement" to have this nearly 10 liter engine up there that's barely coughing out 60% power at those altitudes. There's nobody up at 16K-17K and the air tends to be much smoother.. crossing the rockies at 17K is basically a non event. And given the altitude constraint you do have to plan your routes a bit more carefully around the mountains and be more vigilant of the winds

The g1 SR22 settled in around 168-172 TAS at the 8K-10K range. The T and TN I flew were in the 180-185 neighborhood.. obviously going faster as you go higher

Oh.. one more thing
--the NA planes are super easy to fly. The T and TN required very careful baby sitting of the CHTs.. meaning, that on hot days you would occasionally need a step climb stop at 10K to cool them down. The G5 SR22T I was flying loved to seriously over boost on take off so you had to be very ginger with the throttle. Flying at higher altitudes you also have some vapor lock and other considerations to be cognizant of

But, given the choice I would always pick turbo!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughtful and helpful response.
 
I have owned both a Turbo Arrow III, and an Arrow II (technically still own it, actually.) I do mountain flying in and over the Sierras. I cannot recall a single flight I couldn't have made without the turbo. Theoretically, I could make a 16K MEA over the mountains that I could not make in the Arrow II, but in practice, I'm not going to be nearly that high in IMC anyway. MX costs for the Turbo Arrow were significantly more than for the non-turbo. It's true a lot of that was an artifact of the Continental TSIO 360 which is problematic, but my turbocharger also went out on a flight back from the coast. It lasted until the plane got on the ground. The A&P said it was within seconds of grenading. You can figure two turbochargers for every engine overhaul. I'll take a NA hands down. One less failure mode. A lot less expensive. A lot more peace of mind.
 
My NA twin still makes 500fpm at FL180. Turbos would be nice but they haven't hampered my mission out here.

If I had a hot/high/heavy combo mission as my typical, I'd be looking for turbos. Lots of 15 and 16K MEAs up this way. So far I skate by.

I'd do the Turbo (either the TC or the earlier TN) if I was looking at SR22s, personally.
 
schmookeeg said:
My NA twin still makes 500fpm at FL180. Turbos would be nice but they haven't hampered my mission out here.

If I had a hot/high/heavy combo mission as my typical, I'd be looking for turbos. Lots of 15 and 16K MEAs up this way. So far I skate by.

I'd do the Turbo (either the TC or the earlier TN) if I was looking at SR22s, personally.
Click to expand...
Thanks. What twin do you fly?
 
schmookeeg said:
Baron with 550s. 1900# useful load and small fuel tanks = excess performance as the default mode.
Click to expand...
What do you realistically see for range profile and typical true airspeeds?
 
Ah yes, the comanche 400 approach to boosting. The market spoke on that (260tc outsold it) but i like that soviet russia solution to old and new problems. :cheers:
 
This is an easy question for you to answer being in Arizona. Get over to Scottsdale, there are two outfits that rent 22s, both have turbo and NAs, at least one has a turbo normalized 22. Take each one out and try it out. I fly the 22 na regularly, it's actually supposed to be faster below 10,000 feet. But right as covid hit last year I checked out the 22T at Scottsdale and I really liked it. Not too much difference flying compared to the NA 22, but that climb rate just stayed at 1500 fpm right up to 10k, the NA, not as spritely in the climb. If you are willing to suck oxygen, you can get some impressive speed in the turbo for an SE piston.
 
Tantalum said:
What do you realistically see for range profile and typical true airspeeds?
Click to expand...

136 gallon tanks = right about 5 hours absolute endurance including climb. ~10,000' altitude and 20"/2400 will see 200kt or a hair under. So I plan 800nm as my range. PDX to LAX is my typical mission, so this squeaks in with comfy reserves. 18"/2400 will see about 185-190 and add 30 minutes to endurance, but... well.... I don't use that setting as often as I should. $6 avgas will see me doing that again :D
 
hindsight2020 said:
Ah yes, the comanche 400 approach to boosting. The market spoke on that (260tc outsold it) but i like that soviet russia solution to old and new problems. :cheers:
Click to expand...

Not sure if that holds true with light twins. A 550 equipped 310 will out sell a stock turbo 520 of the same model. That upgrade is on my dream list.
 
I've flown my NA 182 to Leadville several times. I've also been into Aspen, which is even more challenging coming from the SE. Getting out of Aspen I had to circle over the town for about 15 minutes before I had enough altitude to head south. If I flew in and out of those airports regularly, I'd want something with a little better climb, although I'd probably opt for a higher HP conversion before I'd want the added hassle of a turbo. I think a turbo looks a lot better on paper than it's really going to be for most people. How often are would you really want to fly in the flight levels without a pressurized aircraft? The answer for most is not very often. If I lived in Denver and wanted to go to Seattle quite a bit, then it might make sense as it's quite difficult if not impossible to make the MEAs, but if that were my mission I probably wouldn't be looking at single engine turbo or not.
 
PaulS said:
This is an easy question for you to answer being in Arizona. Get over to Scottsdale, there are two outfits that rent 22s, both have turbo and NAs, at least one has a turbo normalized 22. Take each one out and try it out. I fly the 22 na regularly, it's actually supposed to be faster below 10,000 feet. But right as covid hit last year I checked out the 22T at Scottsdale and I really liked it. Not too much difference flying compared to the NA 22, but that climb rate just stayed at 1500 fpm right up to 10k, the NA, not as spritely in the climb. If you are willing to suck oxygen, you can get some impressive speed in the turbo for an SE piston.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am doing that. Clearly if cost were no issue the turbo performs well.....I just wanted to get some opinions from people who fly out here as to the work arounds for NA if I want to use the airplane to get places.
 
Tantalum said:
The Turbo planes at these airports (including a trip to Telluride (9,078 elev) sort of felt like cheating. You basically punch it, get 100% of your power, and off you go. The climb is only marginally different (air is still thinner after all)
Click to expand...

I flew out west last year in July my 2006 G2 NA. Stopped at Rock Springs, WY on the way to Oregon. It was hot. Rock Springs is 6,746'. I thought, thank goodness I'm landing instead of taking off. The next morning it was cooler and no big deal. A little longer roll than at the home airport at 1,040' MSL.



Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
 
GaryP1007 said:
Yes, I am doing that. Clearly if cost were no issue the turbo performs well.....I just wanted to get some opinions from people who fly out here as to the work arounds for NA if I want to use the airplane to get places.
Click to expand...

I loved the turbo, but the NA works great too. It depends on where you will be flying. In your neck of the woods, the turbo would have benefits of getting over those mountains and hills. But the NA is not a slouch. It really comes down to your intended mission and whether you want the extra costs associated with the turbos. The Cirrus pilot owners association has great info on this subject too, it might be worth the membership fee if you are seriously investigating this. But definitely fly each model.
 
PaulS said:
I loved the turbo, but the NA works great too. It depends on where you will be flying. In your neck of the woods, the turbo would have benefits of getting over those mountains and hills. But the NA is not a slouch. It really comes down to your intended mission and whether you want the extra costs associated with the turbos. The Cirrus pilot owners association has great info on this subject too, it might be worth the membership fee if you are seriously investigating this. But definitely fly each model.
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot. Where are you located?
 
Based in Salt Lake flying 172/Tiger/Cherokee planes you have to be a little creative with flight planning but it’s not bad at all. Flying to Denver involves routing over WY following I80. If needed I can cruise at 11.5 with no issues. Been into Bryce Canyon (7600 feet). The climb is lethargic but doable. Did that in a 150 also. Solo with camping gear. Do not recommend :rolleyes:

For my missions it’s a non-issue. Just need to plan the flight keeping in mind performance limitations.

If you are wanting to fly direct over the rocks (and having a chute would make that kinda sorta okay except any potential rescue might take a while) then you may want that turbo.
 
@Tantalum knocked it out of the park with his response. My thoughts exactly.

A couple things I can add: think about how you really feel about climbing at sub-500 fpm. When it’s just a theoretical discussion on paper, it’s easy to take the position “eh, it’ll still do my mission”, and it will, probably. But actually living with 300-500fpm climbs, in my experience, can drive a person crazy. Feels very lethargic and can be disconcerting depending on the terrain / airport environment. Also, it is possible to just simply top out - last summer I couldn’t get out of the bumps, hot, heavy, and at 13,000’. My wife is turning green and the plane just won’t go higher. Would have paid for a turbo right then and there.

Another comment: if you’re using the turbo to try to get above weather, for instance to climb to a high MEA like we have (minimum 11k), you better be FIKI because there will almost always be below freezing temperatures somewhere between ground level and that altitude, if there is weather.

Finally, it can depend on the mission a little. Turbo for high altitude and speed is a different thing than a turbo for high altitude takeoff performance. If your goal is takeoff performance, like short strips and high elevation, there’s no replacement for a turbo. If you just want to get way up for speed, you do have to confront the question of “how often are you going far enough AND have favorable winds to climb at 16,000+ AND not have passengers that don’t mind the nose cannulas” to bother. Maybe it’s all the time, maybe it’s actually very rare.

FWIW, if I were buying an SR22, it’d be turbo and FIKI for sure.
 
I fly a TSIO-550 - I appreciate the power, but I am constantly aware of the fact that a busted turbo oil line/fitting or bearing seal could put all the engine outside the airplane in moments. Or one of those intake hoses slipping/bursting could turn it into a very-not-smooth-running NA engine.
 
Arizona specific: when Flagstaff hits 80° that’s a very very very hot day there. At least in the eyes of the FAA. It certainly is a vast departure from an FAA standard day.

having flown lots of non-turbo aircraft in and out of Flagstaff I’m certainly familiar with the phrase of the little engine that thought it could. A 250-300 foot per minute climb does absolutely nothing to provide inspiration and gives you great concern.

now I have the turbo Lance and effortlessly climb out of there at 1000 feet a minute even on a “hot” day.
 
GaryP1007 said:
Curious to hear from people in the Western half of the US relative to the real life limitations for non-turbo flying. Clearly I understand the obvious but what I am wondering is how pilots in this forum who don't have a turbo still execute on their mission and how much of a PIA it is or isn't.

I live in Arizona and am contemplating Cirrus Sr22's in both turbo and non-turbo designs.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I believe a NA SR22 will do fine.
 
I have owned 2 SR22s - one a G2 NA and later a G3 TN and I would recommend turbo if you can swing it. I actually upgraded mostly for FIKI (no FIKI before G3) and speed but the climb and especially hot and high climb performance was much appreciated. The only downsides of turbo are cost (higher MX expense) and as Tantalum pointed out you have to pay attention to temps because they can get hot. But other than that they are actually easier to manage than NA because you only mess with the mixture twice in a flight instead of a bunch of times with the NA planes.
 
RudyP said:
But other than that they are actually easier to manage than NA because you only mess with the mixture twice in a flight instead of a bunch of times with the NA planes.
Click to expand...
This is a good point, it's either full rich or leaned..! But yeah turbo is certainly the way to go
 
No one complains of having too much power.....get the turbo.

098C8616-7121-419E-851A-7893FC7AC51B.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rgbeard said:
having flown lots of non-turbo aircraft in and out of Flagstaff I’m certainly familiar with the phrase of the little engine that thought it could. A 250-300 foot per minute climb does absolutely nothing to provide inspiration and gives you great concern.
Click to expand...

Exactly. On paper it’s easy to be like “250-300 fpm? Well, you’re still climbing and will get there eventually,” but actually climbing out like that is awful. Feels like you’re right on the edge and one little gust of wind will drop you right out of the sky. Hate that feeling. Especially in a fast plane like a Cirrus, that kind of climb rate is sooooo flat.
 
If I was buying a Cirrus SR-22 it would be one of the older turbonormalized (TN) versions with the Avidyne/dual 430 panel that can be upgraded (unlike the later G1000). The 430s would come out and be replaced with a GTN 650/750 pairing. I think the TN package was done for Cirrus by Tornado Alley?
 
The problem with the older ones is the lower gross weight, G5 and further have a 200 lb increase in gross weight..

OP did not mention his mission profile so the 200 lb may be inconsequential
 
Tantalum said:
The problem with the older ones is the lower gross weight, G5 and further have a 200 lb increase in gross weight..

OP did not mention his mission profile so the 200 lb may be inconsequential
Click to expand...

Higher weight and higher flap speed. Being able to go 50% flaps at 150 knots makes managing the airplane much easier.
 
PaulS said:
Higher weight and higher flap speed. Being able to go 50% flaps at 150 knots makes managing the airplane much easier.
Click to expand...
Yup, the G5 turbo I was flying really made a lot of things feel like cheating..
 
Tantalum said:
The problem with the older ones is the lower gross weight, G5 and further have a 200 lb increase in gross weight..
Click to expand...

Trouble is, the used prices go waaaay up when you start getting to that generation. My wallet starts to whimper anytime I look at all but the rattiest of G3s, let alone later. :)
 
Tantalum said:
The problem with the older ones is the lower gross weight, G5 and further have a 200 lb increase in gross weight..

OP did not mention his mission profile so the 200 lb may be inconsequential
Click to expand...

...And no FIKI on pre-G3
 
kayoh190 said:
Trouble is, the used prices go waaaay up when you start getting to that generation. My wallet starts to whimper anytime I look at all but the rattiest of G3s, let alone later
Click to expand...
Sort of shows where the demand lies as well. The G3 and then G5 really do skyrocket

RudyP said:
And no FIKI on pre-G3
Click to expand...
Yeah the g3 was really the turning point.. lots of changes come to think of it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I want to say that the fuel tanks got bigger, the wing was changed (spar and dihedral), and the gear was adjusted so it sits taller

Look at a g1, g3 and g5 on the ramp next to each other and the g1 really looks demonstrably different
 
Tantalum said:
Sort of shows where the demand lies as well. The G3 and then G5 really do skyrocket

Yeah the g3 was really the turning point.. lots of changes come to think of it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I want to say that the fuel tanks got bigger, the wing was changed (spar and dihedral), and the gear was adjusted so it sits taller

Look at a g1, g3 and g5 on the ramp next to each other and the g1 really looks demonstrably different
Click to expand...

You are correct. The G3 got 11 more gallons, from 81 to 92 useable; I double checked with the Steel history booklet on Cirrus. I haven't flown a G3, but I have flown a G5. I noticed it stood a little higher than the G1 & G2 models just from the pre-flight, most notably when checking the oil.
 
If I were to ever own an SR22, I'd want the turbo. You're just leaving too much on the table not getting the turbo, and you really lose very little down low with economy. The ice protection is also one of the very best that exists in light airplanes. While the NA SR22s can handle DA, they are relatively sluggish compared to some of their competition (550 Bonanzas and Mooneys).

Another awesome turbo to look at, if you can afford it, are the TN Bonanzas by Tornado Alley. They are faster than the SR22Ts.

Of course, there are also Columbia/TTx and Mooney Acclaims too.

schmookeeg said:
Baron with 550s. 1900# useful load and small fuel tanks = excess performance as the default mode.
Click to expand...

Backdoor turbo - over engined NA. Lots of value to that. 550 powered Bonanzas, especially 4 seaters, are similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top