Next on the checkout list - SR22 or PA46

Fearless Tower

Fearless Tower

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16,473
Location
Norfolk, VA
Display Name
Display name:
Fearless Tower
So, I'm thinking about the next airplane to add to the resume....

My flying club has two SR22s and a PA46.

The Cirrus requires completing the CSIP transition course and the PA46 requires 10 hrs in type. A fairly substantial financial committment for, so I can do one, but not both.

Basically looking for another fast x-country airplane to have as an option.

Thoughts?
 
I'm sure that I'm not being partial, but you really need to get checked out in the Malibu. You have to have a pressurized cabin.

Kevin
 
Wet? I still say the PA46 sounds like fun. Plus it has an air stair.
 
Last edited:
The PA46 would be cool. Don't see too many of those for rent.

However, sit in the left seat first. I sat in one at a show, and it was a pretty tight fit and not all that comfortable.
 
Kelvin said:
Wet? I still say the PA46 sounds like fun. Plus it has an air stair.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is wet.

I do like the air stair and the idea of learning a pressurized airplane and the de-ice stuff. The CFI who does both checkouts is trying to tell me to do the Cirrus - he mentioned the W&B window in the Malibu was pretty tight.
 
Hard choice. PA46 can fit more people, fly a little faster, and is pressurized. On the other hand the SR22 has a BRS.
Is the SR22 that the club has turbocharged? And what kind of avionics do both planes have?

If you have no need for the two extra seats and pressurization I'd recommend the Cirrus because it's safer. But my opinion is also biased because I like the Cirrus.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
There is a statement you don't see on this board very often...
Click to expand...

I'm referring to it's BRS. Not to many aircraft can survive a mid-air.

If you ignore crashes that were caused by pilot error the Cirrus will almost never appear on NTSB reports with a fatal sign next to it.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
Is the SR22 that the club has turbocharged? And what kind of avionics do both planes have?
Click to expand...
Our SR22s are non-turbo

The Malibu has an older style IFR GPS and HSI - no 'glass panel' stuff. The Cirrus has the standard PFDs and dual 430s.

To me it seems the choice is getting checked out in and starting to learn glass panel stuff (I have virtually zero experience flying glass) vs learning pressurization/de-icing and starting to build some experience flying in the flight levels. Both airplanes seem like good platforms to keep you on your toes as far as staying ahead of the airplane.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Our SR22s are non-turbo

The Malibu has an older style IFR GPS and HSI - no 'glass panel' stuff. The Cirrus has the standard PFDs and dual 430s.

To me it seems the choice is getting checked out in and starting to learn glass panel stuff (I have virtually zero experience flying glass) vs learning pressurization/de-icing and starting to build some experience flying in the flight levels. Both airplanes seem like good platforms to keep you on your toes as far as staying ahead of the airplane.
Click to expand...


Andrew, I did contemplate this myself. BUT, having logged about 4hrs or so in a SR-20 at a different FBO at MYF, I'd suggest going with the PA-46. here's my theory:

Cirrus:
it's NOT worth the 250+/h they're asking. They fly great and have lots of toys inside, but in the end, you're paying almost 3x a regular cessna and only getting a few more knots out of it.

Oh, I also am not sure if Plusone mandates you do the Cirrus checkout program, which runs an "easy" $600.. YIKES!:mad2:

the PA-46:
bigger, more advanced systems and will allow you to gain more experience in area's you are not familiar with.

Infact, I am looking at getting checked out in her, too. What GPS does she have inside exactly 89B?94?
 
Myfpilot said:
Cirrus:
it's NOT worth the 250+/h they're asking. They fly great and have lots of toys inside, but in the end, you're paying almost 3x a regular cessna and only getting a few more knots out of it.
Click to expand...

Guess that depends on the Cessna?

I cruise (in my normally aspirated sr22) at 170 TAS at 7-9k feet burning about 14 GPH.

182 - 25 knots slower
173 - 45 knots slower

That's more than a few :)

having said that...I'd LOVE the air stairs, pressurization etc. NICE
 
I'd go with the PA-46! That seems like a lot of money for a cirrus. Pressurization and de-ice sounds much cooler than a fast 4 seat single. Our mooneys are $155 an hour and will basically do the same thing as the cirrus
 
I'd do the PA46. $268 for a 4-pax single sounds a bit much. I think there might be a Baron for rent around here for somewhere close to that rate.

Plus, the PA46 just 'looks' cooler IMHO.
 
A friend of mine bought into a PA32R. I have a few hours in type, but the insurance company wanted the "checking out" CFI to have something like 250 hours total RETRACT time (along with a certain amount of time in type). My goodness.

Getting time in the PA46 will build up your total RETRACT time for things like this. An SR-22 will not.

PA46 is my vote.
 
Between the two, I'd go for the PA46 and get the pressurization, de-ice, etc. Although remember that it's not going to give you a whole ton more useful load than the SR22, nor will it give you much more speed.

Keep in mind, however, that the PA46 works its (one) engine very hard. Dr. Bruce posted the numbers a while back on PA46 engine failures. It wasn't a pleasant number.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind, however, that the PA46 works its (one) engine very hard. Dr. Bruce posted the numbers a while back on PA46 engine failures. It wasn't a pleasant number.
Click to expand...

Interesting....any idea if that is a design issue or more a matter of pilots abusing the engine/turbo
 
Here is another way to look at it, you can always find an SR-22 to rent, but how often do you see a rental PA-46? So perhaps you should go with the Malibu as this might be the only place where you'd get to fly it.
The same comparison goes to glass cockpit vs pressurization.
 
If it were me - I'd be going with the Malibu. It will introduce you to a whole different level of capability. I'd much rather have Malibu hours in my logbook then SR22.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting....any idea if that is a design issue or more a matter of pilots abusing the engine/turbo
Click to expand...

There's probably a combination. However, a pressurized piston single means that one engine is trying to feed bleed air to pressurize the cabin, and also provide power to make the plane fly. It is tightly cowled, which tends to run the cylinders hotter, and my understanding of Piper's recommended engine operation (Kevin can chime in here more) is that it tends to recommend a higher percent power output (on an already high-power engine) than what you'd typically find on a piston twin. Operate conservatively, keep your cylinders cool, and you shouldn't have any issues.

That said, I'm not a big fan of the Cirrus operation philosophy of 85% power LOP, either.

If a PA46 was what I had available to me, I'd definitely fly it. But if I was purchasing something in that market, I'd go for a Cessna 340 with a RAM package on it any day.
 
Go for the Malibu..its basically a nice capable single engine PA31...plus its a real FIKI airplane
 
If W&B is truly a consideration (vs. just the normal know-nothing BS that is inherent in most internet threads) get a copy of the POH and do the math. Bear in mind that the PA-46 is equipped with very large fuel tanks, and for most "normal" trips the plane can be safely operated with only partial fuel loads.

It's a fact that the airplane demands a lot from its single engine, but that's true of the other pressurized singles as well. It's also a fact that when Piper initially certified the airplane, they recommended a cruise altitude of FL250 and high-power LOP ops. Those parameters have since been revised, and the engines are now subject to less stress. The amount of additional reliability that has been obtained as result of these changes is anybody's guess.

Fearless Tower said:
The CFI who does both checkouts is trying to tell me to do the Cirrus - he mentioned the W&B window in the Malibu was pretty tight.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
(vs. just the normal know-nothing BS that is inherent in most internet threads)
Click to expand...

At least we're snappy dressers. ;)

It's a fact that the airplane demands a lot from its single engine, but that's true of the other pressurized singles as well. It's also a fact that when Piper initially certified the airplane, they recommended a cruise altitude of FL250 and high-power LOP ops. Those parameters have since been revised, and the engines are now subject to less stress. The amount of additional reliability that has been obtained as result of these changes is anybody's guess.
Click to expand...

You'd know more about the operational aspect of the pressurized piston singles than me, but it seems that none of them are known for getting good service life out of their engines. PA46, P210 come to mind first. I don't know what people are getting out of their Lancair IV-Ps, but I suspect that and the Evolution will be subject to decreased engine life for many owners.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
At least we're snappy dressers. ;)

So noted. I've always been a big admirer of Cole-Hahn combat boots.

You'd know more about the operational aspect of the pressurized piston singles than me, but it seems that none of them are known for getting good service life out of their engines. PA46, P210 come to mind first. I don't know what people are getting out of their Lancair IV-Ps, but I suspect that and the Evolution will be subject to decreased engine life for many owners.
Click to expand...

I agree that the record isn't stellar, but the PA-46 seemed to be far-and-away worse than the others. In fairness, not all of its problems were directly related to the engine, but to components in the engine compartment, such as the early shaft seal issues that were attributable to the A/C compressor drive. It will be interesting to see how the new guy's 550 STC works out on the P-210's. Early reports are encouraging, but that's nothing new in this smoke and mirrors industry.
 
wabower said:
I agree that the record isn't stellar, but the PA-46 seemed to be far-and-away worse than the others. In fairness, not all of its problems were directly related to the engine, but to components in the engine compartment, such as the early shaft seal issues that were attributable to the A/C compressor drive. It will be interesting to see how the new guy's 550 STC works out on the P-210's. Early reports are encouraging, but that's nothing new in this smoke and mirrors industry.
Click to expand...

It seemed to me like the engine itself was probably not the issue so much as the installation specifics. Piper is pretty bad about providing the worst cowling they can for engines without exceeding the limits. I would believe that Cessna did a better job, and the IV-P/Evolution haven't been around enough to establish a track record like the PA46 and P210.

I'd think a 550 could have some advantages, simply because it should be able to run lower peak cylinder pressures for the same power output. But as you said... smoke and mirrors.

I still want to put GTSIO-520s in the 310. Failing that, 550s.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It seemed to me like the engine itself was probably not the issue so much as the installation specifics. Piper is pretty bad about providing the worst cowling they can for engines without exceeding the limits. I would believe that Cessna did a better job, and the IV-P/Evolution haven't been around enough to establish a track record like the PA46 and P210.
Click to expand...

Is it a tradeoff with aerodynamic performance, or is it just a really difficult engineering problem?
 
wabower said:
If W&B is truly a consideration (vs. just the normal know-nothing BS that is inherent in most internet threads) get a copy of the POH and do the math.
Click to expand...
I have crunched the numbers - it can be tight from a CG standpoint.

Kind of like the difference between a C210 and a PA32. You can fill a 210 up and unless you are carrying something really unusual, the CG is probably going to be within the envelope. The PA32, not so much. You really need to crunch the numbers and be more methodical on where you put stuff. At any rate, the only negative that I would say about the PA46 so far is that the baggage space is pretty tiny. While it does have a nose baggage compartment, the main baggage area is considerably smaller than a PA32.
 
If you want to fly in the weather (I'm assuming the malibu has the radar pod) including ice and in/around storms, fly the Malibu. It's fast enough that the boots will be effective enough to get you out of the ice. I don't know if I'd fly a piston ANYTHING in the flight levels, but 14k-17k sure. I just don't think I could handle climbing for that...much...time, but to each his own.

Two things I see in this thread that I just want to point out.
1) There's nothing magical about the flight levels. You set your altimeter differently but that's it. The plane doesn't know it's in a different class of airspace.

2) Glass isn't the biggest deal. It took me about half of a sim session to get comfortable and proficient enough with the Proline 21 to fly single pilot. You can't place enough importance of developing and maintaining a solid scan. Glass just makes the IMC flying a little bit easier because of the display/orientation. But you'll learn it quickly enough when it comes time to fly that type of airplane.

So as long as the CG issue isn't a factor, I'd say fly the PA46.
 
Fearless Tower said:
True and the thought has crossed my mind, but I'd prefer to be building PIC time right now
Click to expand...
Then it's PA-46. I don't know if my 150 hours should tell you this, but the CFI who signed me off for Complex said that insurance providers look at retract time. He suggested that I total it separately in logbook. Surely an hour in PA-46 means more to them than an hour in SR-22.

Prices bite a bit, sadly. My local FBO still has that Grumman twin for $258/hr. It may even be faster than PA-46, or perhaps not.
 
chucky said:
Is it a tradeoff with aerodynamic performance, or is it just a really difficult engineering problem?
Click to expand...

I think it has typically been laziness on the part of the engineers at the aircraft manufacturers. It was easier to design a simple cowl (and tighter = higher performance). So they took engine limits as goals, and ran engines hot in a number of cases.

The aftermarket cooling upgrades are usually very simple and don't hurt aircraft performance any. It was just paying attention to details.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I think it has typically been laziness on the part of the engineers at the aircraft manufacturers. It was easier to design a simple cowl (and tighter = higher performance). So they took engine limits as goals, and ran engines hot in a number of cases.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. I figured I'd let someone else be the first person to use the word 'lazy', though. :D
 
chucky said:
Yeah, that's what I was wondering. I figured I'd let someone else be the first person to use the word 'lazy', though. :D
Click to expand...

To be fair, it might have been management that was lazier than engineering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top