high altitude single engine

[glexdriver]

Hi all,
me and my wife are thinking to buy a single engine airplane. We are looking to the SR-22 or the cessna 400. I was looking at their websites and both claim altitudes well above 10.000 ft. I would like to know? Are these airplane presurized in some way? or they really just on oxygen bottles? I will ask this question to them but I would like to hear from you the real story.

[vanHorck]

to my knowledge neither are pressurised.

Up to 18000 ft you can use canulla's for oxygen, a good system being Mountain High O2 which feeds oxygen ondemand (pulse). It is a fully automatic setting which requires only a small bottle. The downsize is it runs on 2 AA batteries, so you must make sure you alwys have spare ones.
Above 18.000 you ll formally need oxygen masks which are less comfortable.

Many unpressurised planes fly in the 12.000 to 25.000 band, because the air is generally more smooth, it is more fuel efficient, faster and generally above the weather.

To practically fly there however, life is a lot easier with an IR rating

[S-Works]

I fly my Cessna well above 10,000ft frequently. Book ceiling is 18,000 but it will go to FL200 on a good day.

I just use a MH Oxygen kit and canulla.

There is a gain to be had by increase in TAS and lower fuel consumption as well as getting clear of weather that would normally deny a non de-iced single from flight.

However for a non turbo engine the loss of ambient pressure means a lower performance even allowing for the increase in air density and the lowering of back pressure on the exhaust so you need to find the perfect cruise level for each type. My Cessna the perfect balance of altitude and performance is FL120. Getting into the Turbo types like the 400 or SR22 that level moves higher. I am not sure what the full throttle height for them is but would imagine it is around FL120-140.

[SNS3Guppy]

Above 10,000 isn't exactly high altitude.

I spent much of my 1,000 hours in 172's above 10,000...and that's not really what you'd call a high altitude airplane. When flying from fields with density altitudes that were often close to 10,000' in the summer, and actual elevations starting at 5,000 on up. A light airplane, even a normally aspirated airplane, shouldn't have any problem flying above 10,000'.

Are you looking for altitude or speed as your primary concern? Ten grand won't get you over much weather, and certainly not convective weather...it will generally get you closer to icing conditions and put you in weather. TAS increase isn't that significant above ten to make it much of a big increase.

The SR22 choice would have to be more one of comfort or speed, than choosing for it's altitude capability. Just about anything can go above ten thousand. I've taken a little Cessna 150 to nearly 18,000 before...so certainly you can expect ten grand all day long in a Colombia or Cirrus. The real question then is what are your goals once you get there?

[scooter boy]

I may be completely biased on this (as we all are) but...

IMHO for high altitude performance in a single there is only one manufacturer that is worth considering and that is Mooney.

The factory installed TKS deicing system is FIKI certified (unlike any other single) and is extremely effective. This is a single engined piston aircraft that you can cross frontal systems with.

In the Ovation 2 (non-turbocharged) you can make FL200 at MTOW.
This will get you over most of the weather except the really convective stuff.

The Acclaim will give you FL250 which will get you over slightly more weather but with a far higher fuel burn.

These airframes are not only sleek and very aerodynamically evolved but also very rugged, time proven and superbly efficient, more so than anything else out there.

I've had a TKS equiped ovation 2 for almost 5 years and have no regrets.

The only thing I wish for is weather radar, IMHO the stormscope on its own is inadequate for flying through lumpy bumpy weather with.

I have no financial interest in the Mooney Airplane Company and this is based on my opinions of having flown (been flown in and trained in) lots of other stuff over the previous 10 years.

SB

[IO540]

Of course there is also the TB20 or the turbocharged TB21

Not made anymore but there are a number of potentially very fine 2002 specimens on the market, and Socata remains very much in business making the TBM850.

The TB2x, with full TKS, is certified for flight into icing, but only on a G-reg, not on an N-reg (because the FAA requires two alternators, etc).

Do bear in mind that full TKS costs about 50-70kg and a turbo costs another ~50kg. While the basic TB20 (20k ceiling) has a 500kg payload, the TB21 with full TKS is really only a 2-seater albeit a highly capable one. These payload tradeoffs will apply to every other type, too, so one needs to define one's mission profile carefully. For a start, most of this mission capability is not usable without the full IR unless one just wants to takeoff from Norwich and zoom up in circles over Anglia

glexdriver - check your PMs.

[Cobalt]

Back to the original question - Colucessna 400, SR22 Turbo and Turbo-Mooneys all come with built-in oxygen systems as standard equipment.

If you have the sort of money to buy a $600k+ aircraft new and want to fly long legs with more than one passenger I recommend you also look at six-seaters (Saratoga, Bonanza) as they will actually give you decent range with four people on board.

Any aircraft that can take full fuel and fill all seats has tanks that are too small .

In Europe I agree with IO540 that having a Turbo is only worth the expense and the payload penalty if you are a regular high-above-the-weather flyer, which in practice means instrument rated.

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by IO540

and zoom up in circles over Anglia

No idea why anyone would do THAT

C.

[B2N2]

Wasn't on your list but the DA-50 will be pressurized:
Diamond Aircraft

[IO540]

Indeed, but the DA-50 is what in the software business is called "vapourware", and currently anything from Diamond, including their current products, is in more or less that category because it is pretty obvious that the future of the company itself is not exactly assured.

Just seen yet another DA40 taxi in, followed closely by a couple of fire engines. Very sad for the businesses, and the private owners, who trusted this bunch of double glazing salesmen.

Diamond knew exactly what they were doing when they sold the DA40-180 avgas version only in the USA.

To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, do you feel lucky enough to be a beta tester for yet another product, especially one coming out of a company whose cash flow must by now be clutching at every straw they can find.

[glexdriver]

thanks for all the replays.
What we are looking for is an airplane with good altitude capacity (up to 180) able to fly in icing condition, and IFR rated.
Up to now the SR22 meet all these need. About the cessna 400 is not clear if the oxygen is built in like on the SR22, and if it has some sort of anti-icing.

[englishal]

Is the SR22 cleared for known icing? - I didn't know that.

Diamond knew exactly what they were doing when they sold the DA40-180 avgas version only in the USA.

And this is a fine aeroplane...flies very well and the XL version cruises at 150 kts at 9 USG per hour. Coupled with WAAS enabled synthetic vision and you have a really great IFR machine.

Maybe it is a EU/US thing bit all the Diamonds I have flown in the USA are amazing pieces of kit, extremely well made and people are still buying them.

[172driver]

The Cessna 400 was until recently the Comumbia 400 and I think you'll probably get more info about this bird on the US part of Pprune or on any US GA forum (Avweb, etc). I don't think there are loads of them around Europe.

If pressurization is something you'd like to have, then you could also be looking at a C210P. While nowhere near as fast as a Mooney or Cessna 400 (and of course second hand) these are very capable machines.

[FullyFlapped]

thanks for all the replays.
What we are looking for is an airplane with good altitude capacity (up to 180) able to fly in icing condition, and IFR rated.
Up to now the SR22 meet all these need. About the cessna 400 is not clear if the oxygen is built in like on the SR22, and if it has some sort of anti-icing.
5th November 2008 15:53

Hmmm .. tricky one : single engine, turbo-charged for high ceiling, fully de-iced, fast, carries huge load (6 seats) - where are you going to find one of those ?

Pssst - wanna buy my 210 ?

[glexdriver]

actually I never told that I need 6 seats. Most of the flights will be 2 person and a bag each.

[PlasticPilot]

The remarks about FIKI certification makes me feel the need to ask if it's sensible to fly in any icing with a single engine, given their performance...

IMHO, FIKI and piston does not go well together.

[Thud105]

I flew a Columbia 400 in 2005. If you do buy one may sure it has the (optional) speed brakes.

[n5296s]

the DA-50 is what in the software business is called "vapourware",

The prototype looked pretty solid at San Jose today. It's a gorgeous aircraft, the rightful successor to the TR182 and the 210 (and the P210, given that it will now apparently be pressurised). But it's also true that you can't have one yet - the salesman was talking about 2010.

As for the stability of Diamond... have you seen what's going on with Mooney? Sadly, the only companies you can count on right now are Cessna and Cirrus. Everything else is a gamble - it even looks as though Eclipse will go under.

Also at San Jose was the DA42-L360, with two IO360s. I didn't get a chance to sit in it but I guess they must have made the console a bit wider to accomodate six levrs instead of two. They were saying it will ship in Q1/09, with the DA42-NG (with the Austro engine) later in the year. That would be the plane I would buy if I was in the market for one (which unfortunately isn't very likely at the moment, although my TR182 is more than fine for anything I plan to do anyway).

You really can't blame Diamond for the problems at Thielert. Curiously, there was also a stand at the Expo showing the Thielert engines, under another name (I forget what) with "manufactured by Thielert" underneath.

n5296s (or maybe oe-v50)

[IO540]

As for the stability of Diamond... have you seen what's going on with Mooney? Sadly, the only companies you can count on right now are Cessna and Cirrus. Everything else is a gamble - it even looks as though Eclipse will go under.

Indeed but there is a difference between buying a new design plane and buying an older / established one.

The former would be a major problem if the manufacturer goes bust - lack of warranties for a start, and if it is a slightly unusual type with unusual parts (like Thielert engines) then the plane might actually have to be scrapped.

The latter is a lot less bad because what matters then is whether the spares operation has value as a business, and most spares operations have such a huge value that their future is assured.

I fly a 2002 TB20 which has been dead since 2002, but the spares operation will always go on, and the whole plane is easy to work on, and all the bits of relevance (engine and accessories, avionics, electrics) are standard American parts anyway. Importantly, there is a large base (c.2000) going back to 1979 so there is a sufficient demand for airframe parts (which aluminium planes past c. 15yrs start to need) and this keeps the spares operation in money. Nobody buys Lyco engine parts from Socata!

I guess Mooney would be in the same category - a huge and well aged base generating a constant demand for parts. And it is a bog standard piece of aluminium with American avionics and an American engine; all off the shelf items.

But if Thielert goes bust (very likely) and if Diamond were to also hit the rocks, the existing diesel fleet would be doomed because it is not likely that the TC owner would get a new engine certified. But obviously it does depend on when (if) anything happens. Diamond must be getting close to having the new engine sorted, certification wise if not field tested....

You really can't blame Diamond for the problems at Thielert. Curiously, there was also a stand at the Expo showing the Thielert engines, under another name (I forget what) with "manufactured by Thielert" underneath.

The interesting thing, having read some summary of the events at Thielert as reported in the European press, is that the Thielert issues (the fraud, etc) were well publicised in Europe years before they appeared in the UK press. Obviously Diamond were aware of them from day 1. But Diamond's business is selling planes! They obviously made an early decision to cover their options and quietly develop another engine ASAP.

[421C]

thanks for all the replays.
What we are looking for is an airplane with good altitude capacity (up to 180) able to fly in icing condition, and IFR rated.
Up to now the SR22 meet all these need. About the cessna 400 is not clear if the oxygen is built in like on the SR22, and if it has some sort of anti-icing.

The Cirrus is available with TKS deicing - but it is not certified for flight in known icing (FIKI).

The distinction is that a non-FIKI aircraft has to exit icing conditions immediately upon encountering them, and should not enter "known" icing conditions. This latter definition is subject to some interpretation - it certainly means conditions where other aircraft have reported icing, and may mean conditions where the forecast has a high degree of likelihood that icing will occur.

My impression is that the lack of FIKI in the Cirrus is not just a technicality. Anecdotally, I believe the Cirrus wing design, whilst very efficient, is particularly poor at handling icing conditions. I am sure the TKS helps overcome this disadvantage, but I have no idea how closely it brings the airplanes capability to true FIKI levels.

The remarks about FIKI certification makes me feel the need to ask if it's sensible to fly in any icing with a single engine, given their performance...

IMHO, FIKI and piston does not go well together.

Icing is not a binary condition of not-present/safe vs present/danger. It is a continuum from the many times you are in visible moisture below 0C with no trace of icing, to severe conditions that must be exited in any aircraft.

A FIKI certified piston aircraft is safe in a wide range of conditions that a non-FIKI certified one isn't. It makes planning easier, actual flight easier and staying legal easier. The cost and complexity of certified deice equipment is not just a cosmetic...it adds a lot to the capabilities of a piston aircraft. Of course, the value of such a capability is very personal and every lack of capability has a "work-around" some pilots will swear by and therefore say the capability is not that important. If you don't mind being uncertain about a winter trip outcome in advance, planning all sorts of contingencies and becoming an amateur meteorologist wrt cloud tops, perhaps pushing the legal boundary a bit in flight, and being prepared for the (albeit remote) chance of requiring an ATC deviation that needs some explaining afterwards then you don't need FIKI certification in a single.

But it is a myth that "icing and piston aircraft don't go together". In practice, there are a lot of prolonged icing conditions that a FIKI aircraft will handle perfectly safely, and relatively few it can't - most often convective weather you would need to avoid icing or no icing.

Glexdriver, it sounds as if you want an aircraft to do longish IFR trips with 2 people and bags. What you will find is that pilots use everything from a 172 to a Citation to do such trips, and often people swear that their plane is the ideal solution.

I think the Cirrus and Cessna 400 are brilliant modern designs, and the development that goes into these aircraft is fantastic - the Cirrus Perspective is just fab. They are rightly best sellers because the price point and "new" aircraft status attracts a lot of buyers. They are not all weather transport aircraft, but great for leisure trips. To give you an example - if you had a holiday home in southern Europe and wanted to commute to it from northern Europe, a Cirrus is fine if the certainty of getting there is not critical, because in practice you will get there almost all of the time. However, if you wanted to use it for business travel in the winter, or to get to a ski resort at weekends, it won't do.

The other factor is cabin comfort. For regular long trips, the noise/vibration and oxygen requirement is not ideal in a typical single. A cabin-class, pressurised aircraft like the Piper Malibu is a very big improvement in this respect. In comparison, the Cessna P210 is a bit cramped and dated.

With a $500k budget, if my main requirement was fun/leisure with occasisonal touring, I think a Cirrus or C400 would be great. The more I needed long range trips, the more compelling a used Malibu would be.

brgds
421C