There’s a lot of misinformation in this thread, I think. The main one is that “Cirrus engines” (something that does not exist) break more often than the same engines in other airplanes types. For example the IO-550 is installed in many types, from Mooney to C-210, and the engine failure rate per flight hours is very much the same. Also, a 550K engine (turbo) cannot be compared to a 550N (normally aspirated). Many of the 550Ns in the SR22 reach their TBO without changing any cylinders. The 550 Turbo engines break at the same rate as they do in Cessnas and Mooneys, at least this is the opinion of COPA.
There have been some engine failures lately but for most of these cases the reasons are not clear yet/are not published. The last one in Germany was a clear maintenance failure, the oil line from the Turbo to the Oil Cooler was loose after an SB on these parts was carried out.
As mh correctly stated: in the Turbo models the cylinders are considered consumables today. Many of them need one or more new cylinder around 1000 hours. That’s one reason why used “NA” are very rare and why they are sold for premium prices – to pilots who don’t care about flying in FL250 on oxygen (with all the associated risks). I am one of those, and although I looked at some "T"s, i deliberately bought an NA version.
It is currently totally acceptable for an engine to fail every 7,000hrs
Do you have a reference for that figure? If it was true then GA would be dead, with huge numbers of pilots killed in forced landings.
The more generally discussed figure for Lycos is an MTBF of 50k hrs which ensures that the vast majority of GA pilots will never see an engine failure in their entire flying career.
BTW, the alternators on Lycos are standard commercial vehicle (24V) parts. I don’t know what Conti use. I do know some/all use gear driven alternators and they have issues with the drive gear, which needs an engine rebuild (due to debris).
Moreover, there is probably a big difference in engine issues between an SR22 and SR22T – much as one has on all other aircraft where a T is an option. Of course T owners say cylinders are consumables, which is fine so long as one doesn’t come off (a) between Annuals and (b) in flight.
If I were to pay $1m for an aircraft now, it could only be the DA42-VI – there is no chance I’d buy a new Cirrus
That is a fair point in Europe but the USA doesn’t have the same issues:
1) Fuel Availability – not an issue
2) FADEC – nobody really cares unless they get more MPG
3) Improved sensors & electronics – nobody cares; extra bits are seen to reduce reliability
4) Improved ancillary parts (starters, alternators etc) – no evidence automotive ones are more reliable
Peter – there is no “special trouble” that is Cirrus related. But I confess to having asked a leading question.
That trouble also appears on Bonanzas, Mooney Acclaims et al – and is down to poor technology and manufacturing. It’s not a coincidence that most owners will take a reman / factory engine and have it rebuilt to (proper) tolerances in order to (hope to) get book TBO. The cylinders are considered “consumables” just because build quality is crap. Not horsepower. How much logic does it have to justify that by “cylinders are consumables”? Well… what if it “consumes itself” in flight? I guess it’s ok, they are so cheap nowadays right?
Still waiting on the Diesel failure data beyond word-of-mouth. Or at least anecdotal data like say sales ads “Centurion 2.0, twice overhauled”.
there is no “special trouble” that is Cirrus related
Yes – said “much as one has on all other aircraft where a T is an option”.
The cylinders are considered “consumables” just because build quality is crap.
The build quality is probably consistent IAW the drawings. But putting a turbo on this type of engine and taking it up to FL150 or whatever, still making 75% power, but the air is < 50% as dense, is going to not make it last very long. I don’t think anybody argues that these turbo engines are working pretty close to the edge, and in some airframes / mission profiles they get pushed beyond that.
That is one reason I bought a non turbo plane. And 14 years later I have not yet found anybody with a TB21 who made TBO (ignoring the “cylinder = consumable” position). There are certainly times I would like FL250 (like last week, LDLO-EGKA) but I don’t want to pay the price the rest of the time. And I am sure SR22T sales are driven similarly – there is a lot of extra perf.
It’s not a coincidence that most owners will take a reman / factory engine and have it rebuilt to (proper) tolerances in order to (hope to) get book TBO
Actually they tend to send them to a trusted engine shop for stuff like dynamic balancing and making sure everything is assembled properly. Just as I would do if I bought a new Lyco engine.
Still waiting on the Diesel failure data beyond word-of-mouth.
You won’t get it, largely due to many/most being in FTO hands and they don’t publicise it because it’s very bad for business. If you speak to an engineer working for a company doing both Diamond and the old stuff, you get the rundown, straight from the horse’s mouth.
When a fuel injector came out of a local one, and broke the fuel line on its way out, that wasn’t exactly publicised (details posted here).
Also, for a usable comparison, you need to correlate with mission profiles, and these differ substantially, in the current state of the market.
I think if one was to make a general comment about diesels in Europe, the fuel cost savings are widely reported by owners as being roughly equal to the extra maintenance issues. And that is where the fuel is half the price! The major Cirrus market is the USA, where avgas costs no more. If a diesel SR22 is not likely to deliver an overall operating cost saving in Europe it certainly won’t deliver it in the USA. Also Cirrus need to focus on just selling more stuff, following the huge declines in recent years, from their boom days.
Peter wrote:
But putting a turbo on this type of engine and taking it up to FL150 or whatever, still making 75% power, but the air is < 50% as dense, is going to not make it last very long.
How come? The MP would be the same as at FL50 (say) for the same rpm. Do turbonormalised engines really wear out faster than normally aspirated ones? That would be counterintuitive to me. (Except that the turbo itself could wear out, of course.)
Cirrus is unique, as Mooney, Cessna, Piper, Robin, Diamond all have diesels in their production or pipeline – Cirrus don’t. Regarding the 1:7000hr failure rate, the number I think was quoted by a diesel manufacture as 1:6,500. I’ll need to look it up but it sounds about right.
Regarding Flyer59’s comment about the German engine failure after maintenance, this is my point – the more often the mechanic and engine stay in different rooms, the less likely there will be a failure. These old WW2 engines we fly, require a lot of maintenance.
How come? The MP would be the same as at FL50 (say) for the same rpm. Do turbonormalised engines really wear out faster than normally aspirated ones? That would be counterintuitive to me. (Except that the turbo itself could wear out, of course.)
Reasons might include:
If you have an engine which has been optimised for a good power to weight ratio, and push it hard, things will start to wear faster, or break…
Water cooled FADEC engines have an advantage here, but I reckon if you look at the total population of the Lyco/Conti fleet, you won’t find much of it at FL150-200 or more. Most of it is used for hacking around, $200 burger runs, with well known issues dominating (the #1 being corrosion via lack of use 
). Also most PPL training is done with them; again no high altitude / high perf use. This means that in the principal market (USA) the demand for diesels is low.
Cirrus is unique, as Mooney, Cessna, Piper, Robin, Diamond all have diesels in their production or pipeline – Cirrus don’t.
Which of these are actually selling anything?
Robin are not in the USA; they don’t even have an FAA TC. Mooney and Piper are selling approximately zero, zilch, nothing. Cessna have IIRC abandoned the diesel market.
I think Cirrus are being realistic.
Peter wrote:
I think Cirrus are being realistic.
I think Diamond has the small European market for a diesel aircraft already locked up, with a European built product and European based support – which the diesel needs. That’s fine, nobody else cares about diesels. I find their smell, complexity and extreme ownership costs unattractive. Not something I’d want on my plane, particularly as my O-320 has to the best of my knowledge never had the cylinders off, ever, since being manufactured before many people now flying were born.
Diesels do have an interesting theoretical advantage for larger engines, above 300 HP, that would otherwise (with an aircooled gasoline engine) require a radial with 7 or 9 cylinders. I don’t think many people need such an engine, not enough anyway to justify development.
2014, 350HP V8 Diesel in Cirrus.
Company has job ad for tester dated June 2016. Maybe not dead yet?
I’ve flown a nice, loaded SR22T recently and it couldn’t climb at full power because it was getting hot. Next, it couldn’t descend because it was getting cold. For someone coming from liquid cooled diesel this is strange (to put it lightly).
I’ve flown a nice, loaded SR22T recently and it couldn’t climb at full power because it was getting hot. Next, it couldn’t descend because it was getting cold. For someone coming from liquid cooled diesel this is strange (to put it lightly).
Mine is turbo-normalized. I take off and climb straight to FL200 for cruise and in many cases descend after about 2.5 hrs from FL200 to almost sealevel in more or less one go. My CHT stays well below 400 and my EGT and TIT stay within regular limits. My climb is full power, full rich. My climb is with power pulled back a bit to keep speed around 150 kts. Should I worry?
