PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
s that supported by statistics
Given that – other than activities like exercise that make you healthier – not doing something is always safer than doing it, I would say yes… :-)
The old vs new aircraft is never about utility, same as old vs new car.
I’ve gotten myself into more than one hairy situation w.r.t. icing even though I do not depart in or into adverse weather so yes, I think that makes a huge difference. Also 310hp turbo hp gives great climb rates through weather and good speeds at altitude even with strong headwinds. The chute is an extra ace up your sleeve, changing the risk assessment of missions over SEPs without it. Yes, S22T offers a lot more mission capability than C82T in that regard.
Even though you won’t have the turbo I think the dispatch rate is good in that one. But what is your mission? If you fly shorter legs, then you could probably stay in some ice since you have two hours of deice fluid anyway. Not the best thing but should work. Like someone else said here I think you will definitely be able to stay at FL150, mant NA SEPs will go there(eventually). The Cirrus G5 is a great aircraft!
Although my flying for business has been reduced a bit at the moment and I mostly fly in sunny Spanish weather for the time being I can confirm that with an SR22T or SR22TN (as in my case) you don’t have to worry too much about the enroute weather. You will likely be above most of it.
Interestingly I’ve not had to use a lot of TKS in my flights. I mostly push it overboard for testing the system at the runup point. That is probably because enroute one is in VMC.
For IFR I would not recommend a normally-aspirated SR22. It doesn’t provide the same value. For recreational purposes that might be different. I’m glad I went with the turbo-normalized system.
I fly enroute IFR in a normally aspirated SR22 without many problems. I have no interest in flying above FL200 in aircraft without pressurization and maybe i have to plan a bit more conservative than Stephan but really the FL175 my a/c is certified for is enough for most flights, also 310 hp are enough even without the turbo.
In four years i have used TKS twice. Once for 30 minutes in IMC over Greece in FL160, once for a couple of minutes climbing on top.
Alexis wrote:
In four years i have used TKS twice. Once for 30 minutes in IMC over Greece in FL160, once for a couple of minutes climbing on top.
How many flights under IFR have you performed and in which weather conditions? There is a big difference between using an aircraft for occasional pleasure flights when the situation is right and using it as a means of transport where flying is frequent throughout the year and cancelling or postponing are very rare.
Alexis wrote:
In four years i have used TKS twice. Once for 30 minutes in IMC over Greece in FL160, once for a couple of minutes climbing on top.
I fly SR22G5 and I have needed TKS about twice a month, at the same time I have never needed it more than 20min, cant see situation where you are in danger of running out of fluid with little altitude and route planning.
About 25 percent of my ca. 120 h/year “occasional pleasure flights” (:-)) were partly in IMC, some longer ones mostly in IMC. If that wording means to imply that my flights are not important enough to risk my life, then this assumption is correct.
I do not fly IFR when the freezing level is below the MSA and if icing conditions are forecast. On many of such days i prefer to fly VFR.
Most SR22 NAs are flown mostly IFR, just like the turbo models. I have no wish to fly in FL250 in unpressurized aircraft, because i find that too uncomfortable and dangerous, but that’s a decision everybody must make for himself. I would fly a turbo model if i thought i need it, but i prefer the lower maintenance cost and the higher life expectancy of the engine.
Other than that the “NA” is a perfectly fine IFR airplane with good capabilities. Like all other airplanes it’s a tradeoff.
There has been no flight i (personally) would have done in a T/TN which i could not do in my NA.
PS: I have just rented a G5 here in California which the owner (a professional pilot) bought new and without ANY TKS system, because he “does not fly in icing conditions”. He prefers the lower weight and the higher cruise speed.
Is the Baron, not turbo equipped in the actual production (and thus with a limited ceiling despite two engines), a wide-mission-capable machine ?
This is off topic for a Cirrus thread but I would use TKS on about 50% of my IFR flights, and even then I am looking at a “random date despatch rate” of not more than 75% which is basically scrapping a flight if there is embedded convective activity. People who use TKS say 2x a year are clearly flying in almost CAVOK conditions prevailing in the terminal areas, plus VMC or VMC on top enroute. That is OK but the despatch rate in N Europe will be well below 75%.
I don’t see having a turbo would change the above significantly because you would still turn the TKS on in IMC anywhere near or below 0C. With a turbo you would merely use a lot less fluid… And the FL250 ceiling would improve the despatch rate a lot because you can generally outclimb warm front wx (which typically has tops FL200-250), plus almost any non frontal stratus cloud.
I have just paid the final amount to CAV so should be getting my full TKS stuff soon 
(another thread)
