Peter wrote:
According to John Deakin, I think that refers to the aluminium, but still it is probably a bit more than 400F. I have a book of his somewhere, with some diagrams.
I (or rather, Google) found this (by Mike Busch):
http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_59_egt_cht_and_leaning-198162-1.html
I do not like to see CHT above about 400°F, which is the temperature at which the aluminum alloy from which your cylinder head is made loses one-half its tensile strength. (The strength decreases rapidly as the temperature rises above 400°F.) For legacy aircraft, I recommend a maximum target CHT of about 380°F just to provide a little extra cushion, and consider any CHT above 400°F to be grounds for “doing something right now” to get it down. (For modern designs like the Cirrus and Diamond, reduce those CHTs by 30°F or so.)
Though I don’t agree with the last sentence, or at least I think it lacks substantiation. Why would a “modern design” be any different?
But yes, the concern is about the aluminum, not the steel. But another problem is the different dilatation of the steel cylinder walls as opposed to the aluminum cylinder heads when heated.
I guess he means that that newer designs tend to have much better and more refined cooling. Thus, a CHT of say 380 somewhat “masks” a situation where internal cylinder pressures are actually quite high already which should be avoided.
@Rwy20: if I climb out with the SR22T to FL200 and do that ROP, then I will be climbing out for about 20-30 minutes at full power at a lower airspeed (= less cooling) than if I would fly the same aircraft horizontal for 30 minutes at full power. Indeed, if the CHT remains below 380 F and the TIT goes max to 1600, then I would not see the difference other than that in horizontal flight, the engine gets better cooling and that I might have to slow down in order not to go over the Never Exceed Speed.
Yes, that is more or less what I am thinking and what I wrote in my initial reply. The remark about telling us the tail number was tongue in cheek, hence the smiley. 
But I have now also seen your post on COPA which includes the tail #. 
I am sure you will consider this limitation:
Vo 3400 Lb
KIAS 133
KCAS 135
Operating Maneuvering Speed is the maximum speed at which full control travel may be used. Below this speed the airplane stalls before limit loads are reached. Above this speed, full control movements can damage the airplane.
Manoeuvring speed talks about full deflection of the control surfaces and abrupt. That is not what we do when we turn around a turning point, isn’t it?
@AeroPlus Va also protects you from gust loads, which are more prevalent at low level.
Of course, with lots of (gusty) wind and at low altitude, Va is the speed. And if that is the case, the lower Va speed against the handicapped speed of the aircraft will make us loose the game. That is all fine. But in smooth air, Va is about abrupt and full deflection. At least, that is how I understand it. Without flaps, the SR22 can take 3.8 G and I will have to see how smooth the air is and what can be done safely within the margins, staying safe and keeping the aircraft in one piece.
I would think that for gusty winds, this is the speed that should interest you:
VNO KIAS 177 KCAS 180
Maximum Structural Cruising Speed is the speed that should not be exceeded except in smooth air, and then only with caution.
177 KIAS should leave a lot of margin even for an air race.
Cirrus does not specify a Va in their POH, I think because it is a design speed.
There has to date not been a single in-flight breakup of a Cirrus, AFAIK.
