Engine Reliability

[AndrewM]

I am currently between planes and pondering the future... another DA40, a DA40NG or make a move to Cirrus? Just as background I originally stepped into a DA40 for all reasons everyone on this forum are well aware of. I reviewed probably much of the same safety data and reviews as all of you have. The only reason I am thinking about Cirrus is because of FIKI. I will likely be moving to Boston (used to be in Florida) so my thinking was there would likely be more potential encounters with ice than down in FL. However let me be very clear, I would never even contemplate going into known ice, even with an SR22 equipped with FIKI. This would just be a safety feature from my perspective. I am proud to be a wimp.

I also took a good look at the new Cirrus conversion training, and then also some of the recurrent training that is available at nearby fields specific to Cirrus (eg: KBED). All seemingly very impressive.

Anyhow, I joined COPA to see what is discussed on that forum. Set up google alerts on Cirrus just to see what news comes up regularly.

Obviously there are many more SR22's on the market and in the air at any point in time, however I am kind of perplexed to see the number of accidents that continually occur, almost every other week. Pilot error... sure we all now that is usually the issue, however the other item that has really surprised me, especially recently, are the number of apparent engine failures with the SR22's. And not old dogs either... some near new machines, as well as some older ones.

And the other point that really has caught my interest is that there have been several accidents and fatalities recently where the pilot(s) were highly experienced, current and so on. In fact from what I have read these guys were super experienced.

I have not had the time to collect, collate and crunch all the data as some of you are extremely good at doing, so it may well be this is just simply my perception right now at the moment, and may be an unfair perception at that, however do any of you see fundamental differences between the SR22 engines and our "bullet proof" lycomings in terms of (a) complete engine failures and (b) general reliability? I know many of the SR22 turbos are always caught up in premature top overhalls and so on. But what I am seeking to really understand incidence of engine issues that compromise safety in flight. Is there a summary somewhere that one of you can point me to? Thanks in advance.

[TimS]

No summary that I am aware of.
The SR22 Turbo (all variants) run the engine much closer to design limits. This has detrimental effects on engine life. Even the non-turbo version of the SR22 you are getting 310 HP from 540 cubic inches. This means you are pushing about 0.60 HP per ci. While in the SR20 you are closer to 0.55 HP per ci, and the DA-40 runs about 0.50 HP per ci.
A closer comparison to the DA40 is the SR20. In which case you will see the engine incidents is about the same. The DA-40 is running 180HP while the SR20 is running 200HP.
Last point, if on COPA, you will likely see SR22 users tend to run the engines harder, while DA-40 and SR20 users as a general rule pull the power back more.

Tim

[CFIDave]

Large Continental engines (e.g., IO-550s) used by Cirrus/TTx/Bonanzas/Barons and other aircraft may need top-end overhauls about every 500 hours. It's often due to cylinder exhaust valves that fail. A difference between Lycomings vs. Continentals is that Lycoming exhaust valves are hollow, filled with liquid sodium that's designed to conduct heat away from the valve face, whereas Continental valves are solid metal without this feature.

[Steve]

Timely...

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p ... ost1975877

Steve

[Rich]

Timely...

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p ... ost1975877

Steve

That'll buff right out (the devil made me say that).

[Antoine]

Andrew, I believe that engine reliability alone can't be the main factor driving your decision. Especially if you intend to stay in relatively harmless weather. A reasonably proficient pilot will safely bring the aircraft back down - or worst case pull the chute.

Here is my take at the Cirrus vs DA40 decision. The Cirrus is a much more capable plane, flown by people who tend to take on more demanding missions and possibly accept more of a weather challenge. It is entirely up to you to reduce this risk factor.

The fact that you do not want to fly in icing would make me suggest you look for a non-FIKI plane. they are less expensive and have better useful load, and they still have TKS for the inadvertent encounter.

These non-FIKI planes will force you to stay out of harm's way because the non-FIKI TKS system has too little endurance for it to be useful on a full cross country in icing. It is only here to save your bacon in case you briefly hit ice.

The CIrrus is more dangerous on tricky landings (side yoke) and go arounds (torque). It is also a plane that entices the pilot to fly autopilot asap.
This is something you can again address by deliberately hand flying as much as possible and training.
If you have a few hundred hours, the intention of training a lot with the COPA folks and stick with your prudent weather minima, the Cirrus will bring you:

- a more comfortable cabin
- 20% more speed (vs DA40-180)
- better useful load
- better ice protection

Yes the engine is more fragile and more expensive to operate, but take a normally aspirated one and you'll minimize the problem (and add to useful load). Depending on what your required payload is, I think a non FIKI G3 will be a very nice upgrade.
You may want to look at a 1'000 hour or so plane that did not yet get a top overhaul, have that done by a good shop and have all accessories refurbed at this occasion for maximum peace of mind.

Did I just recommend a Cirrus ?!? Mammaaaaaaa

[CFIDave]

Grossly oversimplified, I like to tell people "The Cirrus is a better passenger's airplane; the Diamond is a better pilot's airplane." If you want to use the plane principally for transportation where you'd like to get somewhere in speed and comfort (typically for business), get a Cirrus. But if you really enjoy flying, get a Diamond.
(unless you want to step up to a DA42-VI or DA62, then you get the best of both worlds with a Diamond)

[AndrewM]

Did I just recommend a Cirrus ?!? Mammaaaaaaa

Antoine; thanks for your comments, as always. However, I am wondering if something is wrong with you...

Next you will be recommending the DA40 NG??

[Rich]

With respect to engine comparisons there are two conflated issues here. Maintenance costs and likelihood of having the beast quit when you need it. The big Continentals lose on both counts to the IO-360-M1A, in particular. No contest.

In all the accident reports, I see NO accidents where power loss of the latter is on play, yet lots for the SR22. Chute or not, it ruins your day to one degree or another. (The NG is another matter.)

(A side comment: We fly the -M1A with far higher knock margins than the conti's. "What?" you may ask?. Well the -M1A has minimum Octane of 91, the conti's, 100. But of course market forces dictate that we all fly with 100.)

Over time the contribution of weather has become less of an issue with the Cirri in accidents. For both models it is stall spins and for the SR22, power failures get mixed in.

When weather + chute is involved, it seems that instrument failure is commonly involved (tongue firmly in cheek here, folks).

[darryljtaylor]

Large Continental engines (e.g., IO-550s) used by Cirrus/TTx/Bonanzas/Barons and other aircraft may need top-end overhauls about every 500 hours.

This couldn't be further from the truth. While CMG cylinders tend to require maintenance more than a Lycoming, it is not a common event to do a "top-end" every 500 hours. "Top ends" are very rare when you have a mechanic that understands how to evaluate a cylinder.