Able to leap IFR Minimums in a single bound

[Jaybird180]

I’ve been reviewing the capabilities for the SR22 GTS. It will carry 649lbs of payload with fuel for 3hrs with 45 min reserve at 75% power for a speed of 170kts (based on sales literature). My expected longest trip is a straight line distance of 468nm. If I fly this via IFR with planned requirements of Departure + Climb to altitude >Approach + Missed> Climb to altitude> Proceed to alternate + Missed > 45 mins thereafter for cruise to VFR landing, I do not forsee having enough fuel.

I know the requirements for alternate vary based on reported weather +- 1hr, but I’m planning for worse case. I would really like to fly to destination (3hrs, no wind) attempt landing using a suitable Instrument approach, have enough fuel to go missed TWICE before proceeding to alternate, going missed once, then proceeding to VFR conditions. Yes, I would have to be an underperforming IR pilot for this to occur, but isn’t this a reasonable and prudent safety margin?

Or does it seem that the GTS is lacking fuel capacity for this mission?

 

[rpadula]

Have you tried running the numbers at a lower power setting? 65%? 55%? And with POH data, not marketing fluff.

 

[TMetzinger]

I can't tell if that 3:00 fuel capacity is full fuel or not. I suspect it's not.

What you have to do is either:
Figure out what you need to carry, and then figure out if you need to make refueling stops to operate within your comfort zone.
or
Figure out how much fuel you need to make a non-stop flight within your comfort zone, and then limit your payload based on that.

The end. You'll find that the marketing numbers are probably BS, but that the ones in the AFM should be pretty good, and that you can save significant amounts of fuel by slowing down.

Your legal planning minimums for fuel are:
Fuel for the trip
Fuel for a missed approach and transit to your alternate (where by definition, you should have somewhat better weather - at least 600' and two miles for standard alternate minimums)
45 minutes extra at normal cruise.

In my experience (and this is in the eastern US - I fully expect it will be different elsewhere), weather that's both bad and widespread enough to require an alternate a significant distance away is probably bad enough that I don't want to fly in it in a single-engine piston-powered airplane. I can't think of more than two occasions in the last five years where the weather required an alternate, and I couldn't find 600-2 or better within 10 minutes of flying time. On those occasions, I cancelled one flight, and on the other I planned for a fuel stop so that I'd have LOTS of fuel.

600-2 is pretty ugly when you think about it, yet we instrument pilots routinely fly down to 200 and less than a mile.

I'm not trying to tell you "don't worry" - I am pleased to see you thinking this way, it's a good attitude. When you are close to taking your IR checkride, look back and see what you think of this situation. and take advantage of the fact that in our neck of the woods you can get actual IMC experience during your training.

 

[Jaybird180]

3h:45m and 649lbs payload is full gross weight, hence why I used that scenario. I also project that its 3h to cover the distance in a no-wind (not likely) situation.

 

[tonycondon]

easy. buy a 182RG

 

[Ted]

It ends up requiring picking your alternates carefully, and do some good flight planning. Some days, the answer is simply no, you can't go. Days when you need an alternate (and the closest legal alternate might be an hour away) can make this more difficult.

On one of my flights up to Canada, I had 8 people plus luggage in the Navajo. As you might expect, this meant that I couldn't take full fuel, and I was going to a place with virtually no airports. I was able to plan the flight, very carefully, to make sure I was both safe and legal. I was also keeping a very close eye on my planned fuel burn and GS vs actual.

 

[Ted]

easy. buy a 182RG

Excellent idea. I'd much rather do a 182RG or a Mooney vs a SR22.

 

[TMetzinger]

3h:45m and 649lbs payload is full gross weight, hence why I used that scenario. I also project that its 3h to cover the distance in a no-wind (not likely) situation.

But could you take 400 lbs of "stuff" and an extra 229 lbs of fuel? That's another two hours or so, probably.

All the faster piston singles are set up so that they can take one average person, a small amount of stuff, and the remaining payload in fuel. That's because for the majority of owners the trips are single-pilot, and they get value by being able to travel nonstop. Or you put more people/stuff in and take fuel out, and make shorter trips or fuel stops.

 

[Jaybird180]

Have you tried running the numbers at a lower power setting? 65%? 55%? And with POH data, not marketing fluff.

I don't have fuel flow vs speed data to make those calculations. I do not have a POH available to me.

 

[Jaybird180]

But could you take 400 lbs of "stuff" and an extra 229 lbs of fuel? That's another two hours or so, probably.

All the faster piston singles are set up so that they can take one average person, a small amount of stuff, and the remaining payload in fuel. That's because for the majority of owners the trips are single-pilot, and they get value by being able to travel nonstop. Or you put more people/stuff in and take fuel out, and make shorter trips or fuel stops.

This is a hypothetical for 3 adults, a little baggage and fuel. We'd get there, no problem in VFR conditions (day or night). I'm a little sad that it can't meet my 1hr fuel minimum but I think I can reduce that by 15 minutes in this case.

If in IFR conditions, I would have a tough time staying legal without a fuel stop. Then I have lost the time savings benefit of doing it in one hop.

 

[TMetzinger]

This is a hypothetical for 3 adults, a little baggage and fuel. We'd get there, no problem in VFR conditions (day or night). I'm a little sad that it can't meet my 1hr fuel minimum but I think I can reduce that by 15 minutes in this case.

If in IFR conditions, I would have a tough time staying legal without a fuel stop. Then I have lost the time savings benefit of doing it in one hop.

It's still faster than driving or flying commercial, right? Keep in mind a minimum of 90 min wasted time at the departure airport (checkin/TSA) for commercial flight, and 30 min at destination airport (baggage)

 

[COFlyBoy]

This is a hypothetical for 3 adults, a little baggage and fuel. We'd get there, no problem in VFR conditions (day or night). I'm a little sad that it can't meet my 1hr fuel minimum but I think I can reduce that by 15 minutes in this case.

If in IFR conditions, I would have a tough time staying legal without a fuel stop. Then I have lost the time savings benefit of doing it in one hop.

It does seem like it has short legs. I think a lot of the currently marketed traveling machines are really focused on taking 1 or 2 people cross country. 3 is pushing it in a 4 place plane.

OTOH, a Turbo retract Saratoga can go 6 hours with your 3 people at 155 kts. 3:12 vs 2:55 in the Cirrus.

My Cherokee 6 could carry 6 people, 6 hours of fuel and do that trip in 3:50.

 

[poadeleted20]

With all the devices they install in that SR22, you end up trading payload for equipment. The airplane can hold 92 gallons usable fuel (over 5 hours' worth at normal cruise), but then you have less than 600 lb available payload. That's a choice you have to make -- do you want the ability to haul three adults plus baggage almost 500nm IFR with reserves, or do you want all the goodies and gadges you get with an SR22? Sure, you can a single-engine plane built 30 years ago which will haul 650 lb 500 nm with IFR reserves, but it won't have de-ice, the Perspective integrated flight system, a BRS parachute, 170 knot cruise, XM weather and stereo, and all the comforts of a 21st century luxury vehicle. The choice is yours.

 

[Jaybird180]

With all the devices they install in that SR22, you end up trading payload for equipment. The airplane can hold 92 gallons usable fuel (over 5 hours' worth at normal cruise), but then you have less than 600 lb available payload. That's a choice you have to make -- do you want the ability to haul three adults plus baggage almost 500nm IFR with reserves, or do you want all the goodies and gadges you get with an SR22? Sure, you can a single-engine plane built 30 years ago which will haul 650 lb 500 nm with IFR reserves, but it won't have de-ice, the Perspective integrated flight system, a BRS parachute, 170 knot cruise, XM weather and stereo, and all the comforts of a 21st century luxury vehicle. The choice is yours.

+1 for the Experimental Category

 

[poadeleted20]

+1 for the Experimental Category

Well, if you have the time and skill to build a single-engine plane which has all the equipment, speed, and comfort of an SR22 along with the range and payload you want, more power to you. I'll see you in six years when you finish building it -- assuming you can find a design which has all that. Until then, you'd best be willing to compromise.

 

[Ted]

+1 for the Experimental Category

If you were to overload an experimental on weight, you'd probably like the result about as much as you would in a certified aircraft.

Personally, if I built an experimental, I'd build the main structure hell for stout, so that my real weight concerns would end up having to do with performance rather than structural integrity. And then I'd overpower it.

 

[Jaybird180]

Well, if you have the time and skill to build a single-engine plane which has all the equipment, speed, and comfort of an SR22 along with the range and payload you want, more power to you. I'll see you in six years when you finish building it -- assuming you can find a design which has all that. Until then, you'd best be willing to compromise.

Although I believe I have the skill, I have lost the interest in building or assembling much of anything. Last week, when I finally got my long awaited lawn aerator and saw I had to assemble it....

 

[poadeleted20]

Although I believe I have the skill, I have lost the interest in building or assembling much of anything. Last week, when I finally got my long awaited lawn aerator and saw I had to assemble it....

Well, there are still certified production planes which will do what you want, but they have either turbine engines or two engines (or both).

 

[Ted]

Well, there are still certified production planes which will do what you want, but they have either turbine engines or two engines (or both).

Bingo. My Aztec has 6 hours of range (running LOP), which equates to 930 nm before the fans stop turning, and I can put lots of weight in, even with full fuel. The 310 is 5 hours (also running LOP), giving me 875 nm, and a good weight allowance.

Of course, you go to something like a Cessna 340 and now you're back to two people and luggage.

 

[Pa28-140]

I’ve been reviewing the capabilities for the SR22 GTS. It will carry 649lbs of payload with fuel for 3hrs with 45 min reserve at 75% power for a speed of 170kts (based on sales literature). My expected longest trip is a straight line distance of 468nm. If I fly this via IFR with planned requirements of Departure + Climb to altitude >Approach + Missed> Climb to altitude> Proceed to alternate + Missed > 45 mins thereafter for cruise to VFR landing, I do not forsee having enough fuel.

I know the requirements for alternate vary based on reported weather +- 1hr, but I’m planning for worse case. I would really like to fly to destination (3hrs, no wind) attempt landing using a suitable Instrument approach, have enough fuel to go missed TWICE before proceeding to alternate, going missed once, then proceeding to VFR conditions. Yes, I would have to be an underperforming IR pilot for this to occur, but isn’t this a reasonable and prudent safety margin?

Or does it seem that the GTS is lacking fuel capacity for this mission?

I have been flying SR22s, both turbo and non-turbo for seven years now. Based on the useful load you are talking about, it sounds like you are talking about having about 66 gallons of fuel on board. In a non-turbo at cruise altitude, my experience has been that you will burn between 11-14 gallons per hour. Running lean of peak will probably get you about 65% or so of power. If you are not already on the COPA site, I strongly suggest you join. There is a huge, huge wealth of knowledge and experience there. Make sure you understand "THE BIG PULL". It is very important for maintaining a healthy engine.

A couple of months ago I flew a brand new SR22 for four hours with a Cirrus maintenance guy. My fuel burn was between 11.2-12.3 gph. Pretty nice when you consider I was getting 170 knots TAS. I also fly a nearly new C-182 and am lucky to get 145 knots TAS at 14.5 gph. You do the math. The Cirrus is an awesome airplane and way too easy to fly. When I win the lottery, I will absolutely own one. Until then, I just fly them for other folks. For the nay sayers of Cirrus.....I just dismiss it as another kind of penis envy

 

[poadeleted20]

Gordon's experience differs from mine. Fuel flow to get 170 KTAS at lower altitudes is more like 15.5 gph running LOP. To get those kinds of speeds on 12 gph in an SR22 you're going to be up near the flight levels, and it will be more like 160-165 KTAS, not 170, according to my SR22 POH.

But with typical empty weights around 2300 lb, if you put 650 lb in the cabin, that leaves 450 lb for fuel, or 75 gallons. That's about 4:50 at 15.5 gph, which should be enough for a 500nm leg at 170 KTAS with a decent IFR/alternate reserve. The only question then is how much Jaybird and his friends weigh, and how much baggage they want to take with them, and how much optional equipment (like air conditioning) he wants.

 

[TMetzinger]

This may be a better way to describe what I tried to say earlier.

You own an airplane. You want to go as far as possible with just you and your overnight bag in it. You fill the tanks, do the W&B, and find you have 400+ lbs of payload left. Wouldn't that annoy you? You'd probably say "why didn't they put bigger fuel tanks in this thing?".

That's why you see these airplanes with 90+ gallons of fuel, and full-fuel payloads of 300 lbs. They give you maximum flexiblity to balance fuel/range and people/stuff.

 

[John Collins]

My experience with the SR22TN limited us on most trips to 60 gallons and two people. To fill the tanks, it was really only possible to carry the pilot. The limiting factor is the maximum weight that the parachute is rated for. I suspect that the airframe could easily carry another 400 pounds if it were legal. I know of a Cirrus salesman who had no inhibition in loading four 200 pounders and filling the tanks. I wouldn't fly with him, but from all reports of those that did, the airplane handled the weight easily from a performance point of view.

 

[poadeleted20]

My experience with the SR22TN limited us on most trips to 60 gallons and two people. To fill the tanks, it was really only possible to carry the pilot. The limiting factor is the maximum weight that the parachute is rated for.

I'm not sure I follow you. There is no maximum weight limitation for the CAPS short of MGW, which I assume is the same for the TN as it is for the T and normally aspirated versions (3400 lb). If so, that SR22TN you're flying would have to have an empty weight of over 2600 lb for it to be unable to carry more than the one pilot with full tanks, and that's about 300 lb more than SR22's usually weigh.

 

[bbchien]

Jaybird, you need to consider Cessna 210. 170 knots @ 15 gph, and 800 in the cabin and more duration than you can stand. (Useful loads>1500 are quite common; I have seen 1580).

In IMC, being near the end of your fuel is NOT a nice place to be. Fro me, the whole last HOUR of fuel is for me to get down. And flying the Rockies, I demand 90 minutes of reserve- I wanna get all the way to GJT without a sweat, that's when I miss at ASE, and EGE is "not a make".

Payload and excess fuel are the key. With this sort of pofile you can make your trip even with a 30 knot headwind. OVERbuy range and payload capability. One day it will save your butt.

And as a bonus, the 210 does not normally ignite with runway loss of control.

 

[John Collins]

I'm not sure I follow you. There is no maximum weight limitation for the CAPS short of MGW, which I assume is the same for the TN as it is for the T and normally aspirated versions (3400 lb). If so, that SR22TN you're flying would have to have an empty weight of over 2600 lb for it to be unable to carry more than the one pilot with full tanks, and that's about 300 lb more than SR22's usually weigh.

The SR22TN I flew was a 2008 model with everything on it including the EVS. The empty weight is 2509 lbs, useful load is 891 lbs. If you put in 92 gallons, that is an additional 552 lbs, leaving 339 for pilot and passengers. I am 190 and my customer is 215, which would put us over gross by over 60 pounds. Add an oxygen load and TKS fluid and ... With 60 gallons, we could limit the fuel load to 480 pounds leaving a payload of 411 pounds. The 2009 model year was heavier because of the addition of known ice (larger tanks and more TKS surface covered). The TN version is at least 75 pounds heavier than the NA version. To carry three people, we had to limit the fuel load to 35 to 40 gallons or a total of two hours plus a little extra fuel onboard.

 

[bbchien]

Yup. Later model Cirri have suffered from empty weight creep.....bigtime.

Think, CENTURION for that mission.

 

[poadeleted20]

Jaybird, you need to consider Cessna 210. 170 knots @ 15 gph, and 800 in the cabin and more duration than you can stand.

One really cannot compare a C-210 to the SR22 GTS. One is a 1960's-designed all-aluminum retractable single with features typical of that era, and the other is a 21st century composite fixed-gear design with every bell, whistle, comfort, and convenience item known to the industry. IOW, apple v. orange.

 

[Jaybird180]

Jaybird, you need to consider Cessna 210. 170 knots @ 15 gph, and 800 in the cabin and more duration than you can stand. (Useful loads>1500 are quite common; I have seen 1580).
....
Payload and excess fuel are the key. With this sort of pofile you can make your trip even with a 30 knot headwind. OVERbuy range and payload capability. One day it will save your butt.

And as a bonus, the 210 does not normally ignite with runway loss of control.
...
Think, CENTURION for that mission.

One really cannot compare a C-210 to the SR22 GTS. One is a 1960's-designed all-aluminum retractable single with features typical of that era, and the other is a 21st century composite fixed-gear design with every bell, whistle, comfort, and convenience item known to the industry. IOW, apple v. orange.

Ron, your argument is much more sensible than what I was feeling about Dr Bruce's suggestion:

I trained in a Cessna. What would my friends and family think about "flying in one of those little Cessnas".

If they feel that way, they can just keep their ash on the ground.

But its much more fun shared.

 

[poadeleted20]

One really cannot compare a C-210 to the SR22 GTS. One is a 1960's-designed all-aluminum retractable single with features typical of that era, and the other is a 21st century composite fixed-gear design with every bell, whistle, comfort, and convenience item known to the industry. IOW, apple v. orange.

To expand on that a bit, go back to what I said in post #13 about "de-ice, the Perspective integrated flight system, a BRS parachute, 170 knot cruise, XM weather and stereo, and all the comforts of a 21st century luxury vehicle." All those items which are in the Cirrus but not the 210 have weight. Throw all that in the 210, and it would suffer the same payload/range tradeoff fate as the SR22.

For an interesting discussion of features and weight, see Budd Davison's article "Keeping It Light" in the November 2011 Sport Aviation.

 

[tonycondon]

well i guess it just depends on if you want a plane that looks pretty (cirrus) or can complete the mission you described (182RG or 210)

 

[bbchien]

My point is that the Cirrus as he has spec'd it is marginal for his mission. Maybe an early 2004 Cirrus would be better. All those gizmos don't help you when what you really needed was MORE FUEL.

I say, you can load up a piston single with all sorts of great stuff- and it is great stuff. The only thing holding me back in the Seneca is my payload at 200 undergross. I want to be able to fly away OEI.

A piston single doesn't fly away so good on no fuel. Choose engines, and fuel (and consequently payload) first. Choose enhancements, second.

Choose: Oh darn, my persepctive went down

vs.

Oh darn, I'm running on fumes.

Choice isn't too tough to make.

FIKI C210s with good APs have useful loads in excess of 1400 lbs, usually, and carry up to 120 gallons of fuel (94 usually IIRC).

 

[Ted]

well i guess it just depends on if you want a plane that looks pretty (cirrus) or can complete the mission you described (182RG or 210)

Bingo.

I've still yet to see anyone give me a good argument for the Cirrus. It's a plane with success derived from marketing rather than merit.

 

[John Collins]

Bingo.

I've still yet to see anyone give me a good argument for the Cirrus. It's a plane with success derived from marketing rather than merit.

I own a Bonanza and wouldn't consider owning a Cirrus, but except for the Turbo versions that are overly payload challenged, they are very capable aircraft. They are fast, have excellent systems, excellent support and reasonable payload. As far as payload is concerned, they are in the same category as other late model aircraft, most of which are payload challenged. The earlier versions of the Pipers, Mooney's, Cessna's, and Beechcraft all had better payload than the later models.

If the Turbo model of the SR22 had an extra 200 pounds of useful, it would have very typical payload flexibility. As I understand it, a primary problem to increasing the maximum gross weight is a result of the parachute limitation.

 

[Jaybird180]

Honestly, the "mission" can be accomplished in a C172S with LR tanks, but the non-pilot organisms won't sit still the extra 1.25h

 

[Anthony]

With all the devices they install in that SR22, you end up trading payload for equipment. The airplane can hold 92 gallons usable fuel (over 5 hours' worth at normal cruise), but then you have less than 600 lb available payload. That's a choice you have to make -- do you want the ability to haul three adults plus baggage almost 500nm IFR with reserves, or do you want all the goodies and gadges you get with an SR22? Sure, you can a single-engine plane built 30 years ago which will haul 650 lb 500 nm with IFR reserves, but it won't have de-ice, the Perspective integrated flight system, a BRS parachute, 170 knot cruise, XM weather and stereo, and all the comforts of a 21st century luxury vehicle. The choice is yours.

My Tiger has more payload with FULL fuel (51 gals as you know) than this Cirrus with partial fuel. Those boxes, leather, and sound proofing must way an awful lot! Yikes.

 

[gismo]

3h:45m and 649lbs payload is full gross weight, hence why I used that scenario. I also project that its 3h to cover the distance in a no-wind (not likely) situation.

That 75% power setting is what's killing your range. If you want to go far try slowing down 10-15 Kt.

 

[Ted]

That 75% power setting is what's killing your range. If you want to go far try slowing down 10-15 Kt.

In the Aztec and the 310, by going from a ROP to LOP setting, I ended up with about a 30% fuel savings for 8% speed decrease. Gives me much more range, both hours and miles.

 

[gismo]

In the Aztec and the 310, by going from a ROP to LOP setting, I ended up with about a 30% fuel savings for 8% speed decrease. Gives me much more range, both hours and miles.

Technically you got a 20-25% fuel savings from slowing down and a 5-10% saving from going LOP (the LOP fuel saving % might be higher if you were running way ROP but that likely wouldn't be necessary at the lower power needed to go 8% slower while still ROP).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer and proponent of LOP as SOP in cruise but I see no need to exaggerate the fuel savings. There are lots of good reasons to operate LOP and to me the extended range and increased economy are just icing on the pie.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This is a hypothetical for 3 adults, a little baggage and fuel. We'd get there, no problem in VFR conditions (day or night). I'm a little sad that it can't meet my 1hr fuel minimum but I think I can reduce that by 15 minutes in this case.

Do you have a 1 hour fuel minimum, or not?

If you do, you don't "reduce it by 15 minutes in this case." Always do the right thing, not the convenient one, if you want to be a safe pilot. I can't imagine *reducing* my personal fuel minimum because I had *more passengers* entrusting me with their lives.