When the airframe life limit is rapidly approaching, it won’t be a six figure asset anymore. Unlike the old planes we hang new engines on, these things have an expiration date that will reduce the owners willingness to invest in upgrades or maintenance, and the market value will predictably collapse.

I think that it won't be the chute repacks that will be the issue as these aircraft approach their life limit, assuming that the limits are not further extended (which they may very well be). 12000 hours is a long time ... that's 60 years of flying 200 hours/year. I also think that's the limit on the wing, not the whole airframe (could be wrong on this stuff however).

But it's also 6 TBO cycles of 2000 hours each. Engine overhaul costs exceed chute costs by a multiple; so owners will stop overhauling or replacing engines between 10-12,000 hours before they stop with the chute, IMO.

But either way, that's a long way off for most of the Cirrus fleet.

Chuck, below are the cruise performance tables from my SR22T G5 POH. According to the POH, the numbers are:

8,000 75% 16.4gph 171 KTAS (ISA)
12,000 75% 16.4gph 175 KTAS (ISA)
16,000 75% 16.4gph 185 KTAS (ISA)

With A/C, you need to subtract 2kts and with the EVS (Enhanced Vision System) you need to subtract 1kt.

In my bird (I have both A/C and EVS installed) I will see 168-169 KTS at 8,000 (pretty much right on book).

At 18,000 ft, I'll typically see right around 190KTS but at 78-80% power which is 17.2gph. If you interpolate the book numbers and subtract 3kts for A/C and EVS, that's pretty much book values as well.

Surprising to see those numbers, I’m 10-15kts faster than each of those while still LOP in my TAT Lancair, I thought the Cirrus Turbo was closer in performance than that

Chuck, below are the cruise performance tables from my SR22T G5 POH. According to the POH, the numbers are:

8,000 75% 16.4gph 171 KTAS (ISA)
12,000 75% 16.4gph 175 KTAS (ISA)
16,000 75% 16.4gph 185 KTAS (ISA)

With A/C, you need to subtract 2kts and with the EVS (Enhanced Vision System) you need to subtract 1kt.

In my bird (I have both A/C and EVS installed) I will see 168-169 KTS at 8,000 (pretty much right on book).

At 18,000 ft, I'll typically see right around 190KTS but at 78-80% power which is 17.2gph. If you interpolate the book numbers and subtract 3kts for A/C and EVS, that's pretty much book values as well.

Yeah, my Columbia 400 LOP number from the manual at 18000 and 16gph is 207kts at standard temperature.

In reality, it's more like 203-204kts, but that's a pretty happy number.

The book says it can do 220kts at 21gph, at 18000, but I've never found any reason to run it that hard or burn that much gas.

Making it 70 bucks per flight hour just for the existence ... oouch.

How likely do you think that will be? Most likely on a trainer than a personal plane.

Since Beech's have been around longer than Cirrus', I started there. I did at search on Bonanza 35 models on Controller and found only 2 over 6,000 hours and those were ~60 years old.

I did a search for all Beech single pistons over 10,000 hours and found 1. There could easily be more that are not currently for sale.

I found one Cirrus for sale on Controller with over 4,000 hours and it is coming up on 5,000 hours. It's a 2000 SR20, owned by a flight instructor.

There are 6 more over 3,000 hours. Probably more that are not for sale.

It will happen, but it will take a long time for most to get that many hours.

Yeah, my Columbia 400 LOP number from the manual at 18000 and 16gph is 207kts at standard temperature.

In reality, it's more like 203-204kts, but that's a pretty happy number.

The book says it can do 220kts at 21gph, at 18000, but I've never found any reason to run it that hard or burn that much gas.

Tornado Alley claims better performance with their turbo normalized installations than with the factory turbo.

True?

Jg

John,

I don't know about the performance but have found George to be forthright. As you know he's a data guy. There are also wing changes in the newer models that I assume would impact performance as well but don't remember. I'd ask for the data and draw your own conclusions.

I will say that the photos that I saw of the two different installations favored TAT. I believe George has posted photos here of those dating back to 2012 or 2013.

I made my own decision because of the upgraded spar, higher flaps and approach speeds and improved avionics of the next generation model available in 2013. I had zero issues with my turbo install and the performance was excellent. It flew lean of peak flawlessly with excellent cylinder head variances.

Why would they get scrapped when they get to their third repack?

I can outperform Lancairs with TSIO engine package, on fuel consumption and takeoff roll and climb rate

I think TaT Has a compelling argument, continental has a compelling value/price

Nothing about TaT is low cost, it’s all quality engineering and quality components, as is true with most things in life you get what you pay for

There was a time when Cirrus customers got the choice of TN or TC, and AOPA did an article with a comparison:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... rrus-sr22t

My take is that a pilot who wants a lower-cost airplane, likes GAMI/TaT, and doesn't need too much useful load might get the best price/performance from a Tornado Alley Turbo Cirrus.

On the other hand, Cirrus has evolved in lots of great ways over the years, and there's an argument that the newest Cirrus that fits the budget is the one to get.

This is true. Aviation Consumer did an article on this. It is somewhere in the vicinity of 10 knots. This delta increased with altitude. The TSIO engine struggles to stay cool when it is hot and heavy. The average Cirrus customer does not factor this in. If they did they would have demanded they keep the TAT available. This deathblow was not allowing the TAT to use glass panel for engine monitoring.

I really like the Cirrus, but using the same basic setup as a turbo 210, bonanza, or Malibu is a step backwards of about 30-50 years.