Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?


Thanks,

Matt

Matt,

some thoughts that come to mind (and be aware what you paid for this
information ;-)):

- seems that the track record of Cirrus as a company points towards a
more stable situation. While the recent cash inflow to Lancair may have
corrected this, undoubtably the Cirrus airplane and the company are way
more proven in the market place. The SR22 is out there flying in
numbers, the Lancair isn't. How much of a consideration that is, I'm
not sure, but I wouldn't want to end up with an orphaned 350k-$
product.

- I have only flown the Cirrus, but it seems to me that visibility in
the Cirrus is much better than in the Lancair.

- How much is the parachute playing into the WAF (wife acceptance
factor) equation for you?

- icing protection: Any chance it will be available in a certified
variant for the Lancair? It isn't for the Cirrus, AFAIK.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
>
> Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
> Columbia 350.
>
> Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.

"Sandstone" > wrote in message
...
>> Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
>>
>> Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
>> Columbia 350.
>>
>> Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>
> Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
> Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
> of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
> always the most popular one.

I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind your conclusion. Obviously, you
(we) can compare numbers from the respective websites, but beyond that, how
did you come to your conclusion?

KB

"Sandstone" > wrote in message
...
> > Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
> >
> > Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
> > Columbia 350.
> >
> > Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>
> Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
> Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
> of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
> always the most popular one.

In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a two
hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.

Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My guess is
that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less expensive
is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).

According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is, comparatively,
somewhat unstable.

Certainly Cirrus spends a hell of a lot more on advertising, don't they?

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandstone" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
> >>
> >> Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
> >> Columbia 350.
> >>
> >> Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
> >
> > Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
> > Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's
kind
> > of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product
isn't
> > always the most popular one.
>
> I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind your conclusion. Obviously, you
> (we) can compare numbers from the respective websites, but beyond that,
how
> did you come to your conclusion?
>

Yes, indeed.

I've ridden in a Columbia 300 and was quite impressed, but never in a
Cirrus.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Sandstone" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
>>>
>>>Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
>>>Columbia 350.
>>>
>>>Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>>
>>Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
>>Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
>>of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
>>always the most popular one.
>
>
> In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a two
> hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.
>
> Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My guess is
> that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less expensive
> is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin,

Incorrect. http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/avionics/pfd/

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "Sandstone" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
> >>>
> >>>Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
> >>>Columbia 350.
> >>>
> >>>Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
> >>
> >>Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
> >>Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's
kind
> >>of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product
isn't
> >>always the most popular one.
> >
> >
> > In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a
two
> > hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.
> >
> > Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My
guess is
> > that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less
expensive
> > is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin,
>
> Incorrect. http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/avionics/pfd/

Hmmm...I thought they use the Garmin1000. Or is that just Cessna?

So why is Cirrus selling three times as many (??) aircraft?

Matt,

> Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
> uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).

They both use a combo of Garmin GNS transceivers and the Avidyne Entegra
displays. Exactly the same, though Lancair installs them in portrait
orientation, while in the Cirrus they are in landscape. Both do NOT use the
Garmin G1000.

>
> According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is, comparatively,
> somewhat unstable.

Huh? Never heard that..

> Certainly Cirrus spends a hell of a lot more on advertising, don't they?
>

I think they compare.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt,

> So why is Cirrus selling three times as many (??) aircraft?
>

I think it's even more than that.

The reason is simple: They can make them. Lancair has had a certified
plane for years - but couldn't (can't?) produce it in numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
>
>Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
>Columbia 350.
>
>Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

I have flown the SR22 (one time), but not the 350. I enjoyed my
flight in the SR22. The interior is much like an auto in terms of fit
and finish. Nothing like the Pipers/Cessnas I am used to flying. The
plane handled well. Also, it only took me a few minutes to get used
to the sidestick. It is nice to have a clearer view of the panel than
a yoke provides.

You can download Pilots information manuals from both Cirrus and
Lancair's websites. Here's a few interesting facts I captured from
the info.

Both planes use a Cont IO-550-N, 310hp @ 2700rpm

@ 8000ft PA and standard temp:
SR22 @ 2700rpm @ 22MP = 183ktas on 18.6gph
L350 @ 2700rpm @22MP = 191ktas on 17.4gph

The L350 has 98 gallons useable vs 81 for the Cirrus. If the numbers
in the manuals are correct and ignoring taxi, takeoff, and climb
allowances, the Lancair has a no wind, no reserve range of 1075 nm vs
796 for the Cirrus. That is a substantial delta.

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
> >
> >Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
> >Columbia 350.
> >
> >Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>
> I have flown the SR22 (one time), but not the 350. I enjoyed my
> flight in the SR22. The interior is much like an auto in terms of fit
> and finish. Nothing like the Pipers/Cessnas I am used to flying. The
> plane handled well. Also, it only took me a few minutes to get used
> to the sidestick. It is nice to have a clearer view of the panel than
> a yoke provides.
>
> You can download Pilots information manuals from both Cirrus and
> Lancair's websites.


I have, but I'd like some "objective" and outside opinions.

> Here's a few interesting facts I captured from the info.
>
> Both planes use a Cont IO-550-N, 310hp @ 2700rpm
>
> @ 8000ft PA and standard temp:
> SR22 @ 2700rpm @ 22MP = 183ktas on 18.6gph
> L350 @ 2700rpm @22MP = 191ktas on 17.4gph
>
> The L350 has 98 gallons useable vs 81 for the Cirrus. If the numbers
> in the manuals are correct and ignoring taxi, takeoff, and climb
> allowances, the Lancair has a no wind, no reserve range of 1075 nm vs
> 796 for the Cirrus. That is a substantial delta.

Thanks for the lowdown, Nathan.

The 300 that I rode in was also very comfortable but what struck me is how
smooth it was. I fly a Beech 36 (which is what I'm looking to trade...I need
more room than the B36 on many flights, but only two on the rest) and it was
similar in that it is quite stable it is...like riding in a big car.

While both Cirrus and Lancair are spin-resistant, the Lancair is supposedly
spin recoverable and is certified without the recovery parachute. I'd say
that's a positive. Hell, they look identical (to my eye, maybe not the eye
of an aeronautical engineer).

How did the Cirrus ride?

One thing I'd like to see is a turbo model (for those of us at 6,000 feet
with 14,000 terrain all around) for the Cirrus to compare to the Lancair
400.

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
> >
> >Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
> >Columbia 350.
> >
> >Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>
> I have flown the SR22 (one time), but not the 350. I enjoyed my
> flight in the SR22. The interior is much like an auto in terms of fit
> and finish. Nothing like the Pipers/Cessnas I am used to flying. The
> plane handled well. Also, it only took me a few minutes to get used
> to the sidestick. It is nice to have a clearer view of the panel than
> a yoke provides.
>
> You can download Pilots information manuals from both Cirrus and
> Lancair's websites. Here's a few interesting facts I captured from
> the info.
>
> Both planes use a Cont IO-550-N, 310hp @ 2700rpm
>
> @ 8000ft PA and standard temp:
> SR22 @ 2700rpm @ 22MP = 183ktas on 18.6gph
> L350 @ 2700rpm @22MP = 191ktas on 17.4gph
>
> The L350 has 98 gallons useable vs 81 for the Cirrus. If the numbers
> in the manuals are correct and ignoring taxi, takeoff, and climb
> allowances, the Lancair has a no wind, no reserve range of 1075 nm vs
> 796 for the Cirrus. That is a substantial delta.
>

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/compare/

I notice they left out the Lancair line from their comparison, instead
comparing apples and oranges.

Not very reassuring.

Matt Barrow wrote:
snip...
> that's a positive. Hell, they look identical (to my eye, maybe not the eye
> of an aeronautical engineer).


Lancair stands taller.

>> Here's a few interesting facts I captured from the info.
>>
>> Both planes use a Cont IO-550-N, 310hp @ 2700rpm
>>
>> @ 8000ft PA and standard temp:
>> SR22 @ 2700rpm @ 22MP = 183ktas on 18.6gph
>> L350 @ 2700rpm @22MP = 191ktas on 17.4gph
>>

How does this work? The same Engine/MP/RPM has 1.2 gph difference.
Methinks someone is fibbing. Al





"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
>> >
>> >Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
>> >Columbia 350.
>> >
>> >Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>>
>> I have flown the SR22 (one time), but not the 350. I enjoyed my
>> flight in the SR22. The interior is much like an auto in terms of fit
>> and finish. Nothing like the Pipers/Cessnas I am used to flying. The
>> plane handled well. Also, it only took me a few minutes to get used
>> to the sidestick. It is nice to have a clearer view of the panel than
>> a yoke provides.
>>
>> You can download Pilots information manuals from both Cirrus and
>> Lancair's websites.
>
>
> I have, but I'd like some "objective" and outside opinions.
>
>> Here's a few interesting facts I captured from the info.
>>
>> Both planes use a Cont IO-550-N, 310hp @ 2700rpm
>>
>> @ 8000ft PA and standard temp:
>> SR22 @ 2700rpm @ 22MP = 183ktas on 18.6gph
>> L350 @ 2700rpm @22MP = 191ktas on 17.4gph
>>
>> The L350 has 98 gallons useable vs 81 for the Cirrus. If the numbers
>> in the manuals are correct and ignoring taxi, takeoff, and climb
>> allowances, the Lancair has a no wind, no reserve range of 1075 nm vs
>> 796 for the Cirrus. That is a substantial delta.
>
> Thanks for the lowdown, Nathan.
>
> The 300 that I rode in was also very comfortable but what struck me is how
> smooth it was. I fly a Beech 36 (which is what I'm looking to trade...I
> need
> more room than the B36 on many flights, but only two on the rest) and it
> was
> similar in that it is quite stable it is...like riding in a big car.
>
> While both Cirrus and Lancair are spin-resistant, the Lancair is
> supposedly
> spin recoverable and is certified without the recovery parachute. I'd say
> that's a positive. Hell, they look identical (to my eye, maybe not the eye
> of an aeronautical engineer).
>
> How did the Cirrus ride?
>
> One thing I'd like to see is a turbo model (for those of us at 6,000 feet
> with 14,000 terrain all around) for the Cirrus to compare to the Lancair
> 400.
>
>
>
>
>

Aviation Consumer has a story on the Lanceair 400 this month. I haven't read
all of it but just a quick look at it showed a bunch of comparison to the
SR-22




"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
>> >
>> >Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
>> >Columbia 350.
>> >
>> >Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>>
>> I have flown the SR22 (one time), but not the 350. I enjoyed my
>> flight in the SR22. The interior is much like an auto in terms of fit
>> and finish. Nothing like the Pipers/Cessnas I am used to flying. The
>> plane handled well. Also, it only took me a few minutes to get used
>> to the sidestick. It is nice to have a clearer view of the panel than
>> a yoke provides.
>>
>> You can download Pilots information manuals from both Cirrus and
>> Lancair's websites.
>
>
> I have, but I'd like some "objective" and outside opinions.
>
>> Here's a few interesting facts I captured from the info.
>>
>> Both planes use a Cont IO-550-N, 310hp @ 2700rpm
>>
>> @ 8000ft PA and standard temp:
>> SR22 @ 2700rpm @ 22MP = 183ktas on 18.6gph
>> L350 @ 2700rpm @22MP = 191ktas on 17.4gph
>>
>> The L350 has 98 gallons useable vs 81 for the Cirrus. If the numbers
>> in the manuals are correct and ignoring taxi, takeoff, and climb
>> allowances, the Lancair has a no wind, no reserve range of 1075 nm vs
>> 796 for the Cirrus. That is a substantial delta.
>
> Thanks for the lowdown, Nathan.
>
> The 300 that I rode in was also very comfortable but what struck me is how
> smooth it was. I fly a Beech 36 (which is what I'm looking to trade...I
> need
> more room than the B36 on many flights, but only two on the rest) and it
> was
> similar in that it is quite stable it is...like riding in a big car.
>
> While both Cirrus and Lancair are spin-resistant, the Lancair is
> supposedly
> spin recoverable and is certified without the recovery parachute. I'd say
> that's a positive. Hell, they look identical (to my eye, maybe not the eye
> of an aeronautical engineer).
>
> How did the Cirrus ride?
>
> One thing I'd like to see is a turbo model (for those of us at 6,000 feet
> with 14,000 terrain all around) for the Cirrus to compare to the Lancair
> 400.
>
>
>
>
>

Assuming 2700 @ 22" is 75%, both are ROP, but one could be more so than
the other.

Peak EGT should be around 15.5gph, seems to me.

"Al" > wrote in message
news:1120585632.e6282c89befb86f01d2984b2fbd4c5b8@t eranews...
> >> Here's a few interesting facts I captured from the info.
> >>
> >> Both planes use a Cont IO-550-N, 310hp @ 2700rpm
> >>
> >> @ 8000ft PA and standard temp:
> >> SR22 @ 2700rpm @ 22MP = 183ktas on 18.6gph
> >> L350 @ 2700rpm @22MP = 191ktas on 17.4gph
> >>
>
> How does this work? The same Engine/MP/RPM has 1.2 gph difference.
> Methinks someone is fibbing. Al

Or leaning differently

Lancair offers the TCM "Platinum" engine option, though I don't know if that
would be the difference. Lancair also "recommends" running LOP.

A buddy of mine who flys big helicopters for Erickson has been looking
for a partly-completed Legacy kit. I don't know how the Legacy
compares to the Columbia, but here's an interesting story.

The other week, he flew down to an airport near Fresno to talk to a
man who had a kit for sale and they had a long talk. What floored my
friend was the Legacy's engine-out rate of descent: 2000 fpm.

This is a guy who's had numerous engine failures in 22,000 hours
flying big rotary-wing craft, and as a helicopter-driver, he considers
the club's Cherokee 235, which the rest of us regard a powered flying
anvil, to be a "floater," but 2000 fpm in a plane that comes over the
fence at 100 kt.struck him as challenging.

He told me he'd decided to sacrifice a little speed and was going to
start looking at RVs

How fast does a Cirrus come down when the fan's off? I can't find the
data on the Web.

Lancair owners are invited to comment..

Don

Don Tuite wrote:

> A buddy of mine who flys big helicopters for Erickson has been looking
> for a partly-completed Legacy kit. I don't know how the Legacy
> compares to the Columbia, but here's an interesting story.

Legacy is 2 seats / 300 Knots (Check Reno race results)
Columbia is 4 seats / 200 Knots

http://www.airrace.org

> The other week, he flew down to an airport near Fresno to talk to a
> man who had a kit for sale and they had a long talk. What floored my
> friend was the Legacy's engine-out rate of descent: 2000 fpm.

Short narrow wings, and not a very wide body...

> This is a guy who's had numerous engine failures in 22,000 hours
> flying big rotary-wing craft, and as a helicopter-driver, he considers
> the club's Cherokee 235, which the rest of us regard a powered flying
> anvil, to be a "floater," but 2000 fpm in a plane that comes over the
> fence at 100 kt.struck him as challenging.

Piper 4 seater, nowhere in the same speed class as a Legacy that has 100
more horses...

> He told me he'd decided to sacrifice a little speed and was going to
> start looking at RVs
>
> How fast does a Cirrus come down when the fan's off? I can't find the
> data on the Web.

As fast as the chute will allow...

> Lancair owners are invited to comment..

Lancair Super ES has better glide ratio. Not an owner but spent a good
bit of time in the right seat of a supercharged one that has managed to
keep its 3 blades turning...

I don't think Cirrus and Lancair spin the same props, but I could be
wrong...

Don,

> I don't know how the Legacy
> compares to the Columbia,
>

Uh, not at all. One is certified, the other isn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Al,

> How does this work?
>

Marketing departments?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Don,
>>I don't know how the Legacy
>>compares to the Columbia,
>
> Uh, not at all. One is certified, the other isn't.

One retracts its gear and one doesn't...

Already eluded to the seating arrangements of the 2...

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:28:51 -0500, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Don,
>>>I don't know how the Legacy
>>>compares to the Columbia,
>>
>> Uh, not at all. One is certified, the other isn't.
>
>One retracts its gear and one doesn't...
>
>Already eluded to the seating arrangements of the 2...

Lancair also makes a Legacy FG.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Sandstone" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
>>>>>Columbia 350.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>>>>
>>>>Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
>>>>Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's
>
> kind
>
>>>>of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product
>
> isn't
>
>>>>always the most popular one.
>>>
>>>
>>>In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a
>
> two
>
>>>hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.
>>>
>>>Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My
>
> guess is
>
>>>that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less
>
> expensive
>
>>>is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin,
>>
>>Incorrect. http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/avionics/pfd/
>
>
> Hmmm...I thought they use the Garmin1000. Or is that just Cessna?
>
> So why is Cirrus selling three times as many (??) aircraft?

I'm sure whoever can answer that question definitively for Lancair can
make a lot of money.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
>>uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).
>
>
> They both use a combo of Garmin GNS transceivers and the Avidyne Entegra
> displays. Exactly the same, though Lancair installs them in portrait
> orientation, while in the Cirrus they are in landscape. Both do NOT use the
> Garmin G1000.
>
>
>>According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is, comparatively,
>>somewhat unstable.
>
>
> Huh? Never heard that..
>

That impression may be driven by the fact that the only approved way to
recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deply the parachute. Cirrus has
not, to my knowledge, demonstrated spin recovery capability any other
way (not saying it's not possible -- just hasn't been demonstrated or
approved)

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> > Matt,
> >
> >
> >>Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
> >>uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).
> >
> >
> > They both use a combo of Garmin GNS transceivers and the Avidyne Entegra
> > displays. Exactly the same, though Lancair installs them in portrait
> > orientation, while in the Cirrus they are in landscape. Both do NOT use
the
> > Garmin G1000.
> >
> >
> >>According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is,
comparatively,
> >>somewhat unstable.
> >
> >
> > Huh? Never heard that..
> >
>
> That impression may be driven by the fact that the only approved way to
> recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deply the parachute. Cirrus has
> not, to my knowledge, demonstrated spin recovery capability any other
> way (not saying it's not possible -- just hasn't been demonstrated or
> approved)

IIRC, only their test pilots could recover and at that only after several
turns. A Lancair can recover in one turn. Also, IIRC, that's two turns
faster than most others.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
>>>>uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).
>>>
>>>
>>>They both use a combo of Garmin GNS transceivers and the Avidyne Entegra
>>>displays. Exactly the same, though Lancair installs them in portrait
>>>orientation, while in the Cirrus they are in landscape. Both do NOT use
>
> the
>
>>>Garmin G1000.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is,
>
> comparatively,
>
>>>>somewhat unstable.
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? Never heard that..
>>>
>>
>>That impression may be driven by the fact that the only approved way to
>>recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deply the parachute. Cirrus has
>>not, to my knowledge, demonstrated spin recovery capability any other
>>way (not saying it's not possible -- just hasn't been demonstrated or
>>approved)
>
>
> IIRC, only their test pilots could recover and at that only after several
> turns. A Lancair can recover in one turn. Also, IIRC, that's two turns
> faster than most others.
>
>

Maybe so but the Cirrus is supposedly "spin resistant." How hard did
those test pilots have to work to get into the spin in the first place?
I don't recall hearing of any non-test-flight Cirrus spin incidents
resulting in either crashes or parachute deployments.

Personally, I'm not in the market for a $400K plane so I haven't put
much thought or research into it. However I do know that another
"feature" of the Cirrus chute is that you have to have it overhauled
every 10 years, the price is projected to be around $10K. How much
longer until lots of Cirri out there start reaching that time? It'll be
interesting to see what it really ends up costing and how hard it is to
get done.

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Sandstone" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
> >>>>>Columbia 350.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
> >>>>
> >>>>Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
> >>>>Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's
> >
> > kind
> >
> >>>>of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product
> >
> > isn't
> >
> >>>>always the most popular one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a
> >
> > two
> >
> >>>hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.
> >>>
> >>>Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My
> >
> > guess is
> >
> >>>that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less
> >
> > expensive
> >
> >>>is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin,
> >>
> >>Incorrect. http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/avionics/pfd/
> >
> >
> > Hmmm...I thought they use the Garmin1000. Or is that just Cessna?
> >
> > So why is Cirrus selling three times as many (??) aircraft?
>
> I'm sure whoever can answer that question definitively for Lancair can
> make a lot of money.

I'm sure they know why...in addition to it being much the same reason that
VW sells more cars than BMW (Cirrus sells to a lower cost market), and that
Lancair just completed a 144,000sf addition to it's manufacturing plant.
Also, Lancair was a bit later (?) getting into the certified market. Also,
Cirrus has distributors all over the US, Lancair has four.

What I'm asking is: What is the market perceptions?

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >
> > IIRC, only their test pilots could recover and at that only after
several
> > turns. A Lancair can recover in one turn. Also, IIRC, that's two turns
> > faster than most others.
> >
> >
>
> Maybe so but the Cirrus is supposedly "spin resistant."

All non-military-fights planes are supposed to be "spin resistant", more or
less. Cirrus is the first to receive certification that was "spin
resistant", but non-recoverable, hence the chute.

> How hard did
> those test pilots have to work to get into the spin in the first place?

Probably recreating the scenario indicated from accident records.

> I don't recall hearing of any non-test-flight Cirrus spin incidents
> resulting in either crashes or parachute deployments.

There was a long thread in here about them several months back.

> Personally, I'm not in the market for a $400K plane so I haven't put
> much thought or research into it. However I do know that another
> "feature" of the Cirrus chute is that you have to have it overhauled
> every 10 years, the price is projected to be around $10K. How much
> longer until lots of Cirri out there start reaching that time? It'll be
> interesting to see what it really ends up costing and how hard it is to
> get done.

Quite!

Matt,

> Cirrus is the first to receive certification that was "spin
> resistant", but non-recoverable, hence the chute.
>

Not again. That statement is false, and you know it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Xyzzy,

> That impression may be driven by the fact that the only approved way to
> recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deply the parachute.
>

Not again. Please.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> Not again. That statement is false and you know it.

You might want to talk to Cirrus and help them correct their manuals
then, because the Pilot Operating Handbook for the SR-22 says that the
only method of spin recovery is activating the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe
Parachute System). Here's an article from AOPA that talks about it:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html

Here are some excerpts from the POH, quoted for your information:
"Spins
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or
certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and
demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus
Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section).
Because of this, if the aircraft "departs controlled flight," the CAPS
must be deployed."

also

"Do not waste time and altitude trying to
recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.
Inadvertent Spin Entry
1. CAPS ..................................................
................................Activate
Revision A1"

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Ben,

does it say "non-recoverable", anywhere?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

>> That impression may be driven by the fact that the only approved way to
>> recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deply the parachute.

>Not again. Please.

My apologies, when you said "Not again. Please." to a statement that
"the only approved way to recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deploy
the parachute", I read that to mean that you disagreed with the
statement. If you meant something else, please clarify, as the POH
clearly indicates that the only approved way to recover from a spin in
the SR-22 is with the CAPS.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Ben,

I said "Not again, please" to this:

> Cirrus is the first to receive certification that was "spin
> resistant", but non-recoverable, hence the chute.

This statement says that the Cirrus is "non-recoverable" from a spin.
Which was never, ever proven, either way. Thus, the statement is false.
That process of proving it was exactly what Cirrus sought to eliminate
from certification with the chute. We just don't know how the Cirrus
reacts to "standard" spin-recovery techniques - and certainly we don't
"know" in the sense of scientific research required for certification.
Yet, Cirrus bashers just love to claim the Cirrus would not recover
from a spin when applying "standard" recovery techniques - which they
simply don't and can't know. The subject has been debated to death
here, hence my comment.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Ben,
>
> I said "Not again, please" to this:
>
>> Cirrus is the first to receive certification that was "spin
>> resistant", but non-recoverable, hence the chute.
>
> This statement says that the Cirrus is "non-recoverable" from a spin.
> Which was never, ever proven, either way. Thus, the statement is false.
> That process of proving it was exactly what Cirrus sought to eliminate
> from certification with the chute. We just don't know how the Cirrus
> reacts to "standard" spin-recovery techniques - and certainly we don't
> "know" in the sense of scientific research required for certification.
> Yet, Cirrus bashers just love to claim the Cirrus would not recover
> from a spin when applying "standard" recovery techniques - which they
> simply don't and can't know. The subject has been debated to death
> here, hence my comment.
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH
>

The ONLY "demonstrated and approved" method of spin recovery is activation
of the CAPS.

It says so in the POH.
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/sr22/pdf/20880-001InfoManual.pdf

Hi Thomas,

I'll help you with your memory. Please see your following post:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.owning/msg/64cab0e92eab8e64

Glad to be of service!

Regards,

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:24:33 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:

>Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Sandstone" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>

>>
>> So why is Cirrus selling three times as many (??) aircraft?
>
>I'm sure whoever can answer that question definitively for Lancair can
>make a lot of money.

Sirrus was first to the market place, they have had time to do a good
deal of advertizing, They have a large support/dealer program, and a
bit head start over Lancair. Myself, I prefer the Lancari to the
Sirrus, but then again, I'm building a Glasair III.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Gig,

> The ONLY "demonstrated and approved" method of spin recovery is activation
> of the CAPS.
>

Exactly what I'm saying.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ben,

> Glad to be of service!

Well, you weren't. But you are playing nice little tricks.

I posted "Not again. Please" twice. Once here

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.owning/msg/64cab0e92ea
b8e64

as you say. But that's not the post you were originally referring to.
You were referring to:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.owning/msg/c059b24e787
ec71f

as shown by your original post here:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.owning/msg/abfdfe62222
dcae4

Glad to be of service to YOUR memory. Are we having fun yet? Ah, the
little games people play on Usenet...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Hi Thomas,

To clear up a little misunderstanding, I'm responding directly to your
thread here. Sorry you didn't follow the conversation elsewhere in the
thread, but that's ok, some people have trouble tracking what they've
said, and I'm glad to help out when you get lost.

On July 7, you wrote (in response to another):
>>Xyzzy wrote:
>> That impression may be driven by the fact that the only approved way to
>> recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deply the parachute.
>Not again. Please

You are in error. Despite your 'Not again' statement, the only
approved method from Cirrus to recover from a spin in their aircraft is
to deploy the CAPS.

Here are some excerpts from the POH, quoted for your information:
"Spins
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or
certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and
demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus
Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section).
Because of this, if the aircraft "departs controlled flight," the CAPS
must be deployed."

also

"Do not waste time and altitude trying to
recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.
Inadvertent Spin Entry
1=2E CAPS ..............................=AD...........=AD.Ac tivate
Revision A1"

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding, I am sorry for making
things too complicated for you. I usually write for a more experienced
audience and sometimes I'm just not sensitive to the special needs some
others have.

Best regards,

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Reference Message:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.owning/msg/ab328f04e69dba6=
7?hl=3Den&

Ben,

> You are in error. Despite your 'Not again' statement, the only
> approved method from Cirrus to recover from a spin in their aircraft is
> to deploy the CAPS.
>

I'm not in error. I never doubted that with one word.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ben,

> You are in error. Despite your 'Not again' statement, the only
> approved method from Cirrus to recover from a spin in their aircraft
> is
> to deploy the CAPS.
>

I'm not in error, since I never stated anything even remotely saying I doubt that.

> I hope this clears up your misunderstanding, I am sorry for making
> things too complicated for you. I usually write for a more
> experienced
> audience and sometimes I'm just not sensitive to the special needs
> some
> others have.

Well, whoever you normally write for, I hope you're showing a remotely civilized
attitude to them. You sure don't here. Thanks for giving a clear impression of what
kind of person you are.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Hi Thomas,

When you said 'Not again. Please.' in response to Xyzzy's post that
the approved Cirrus spin recovery was via the CAPS, I guess I took that
to mean that you disagreed with the statement. When I posted the
manual excerpt in another branch of this thread, it seemed to me that
you were denying your post existed because I responded to a different
branch. I tried to clarify by responding to your original one. Thread
lawyers are a pain, but it appeared that you decided to adopt that
role.

Sorry for any offense, just trying to clarify a misunderstanding. If
by 'Not again. Please.' you meant something other then implying that
Xyzzy was in error, let me know. You used the exact same text to
respond to the suggestion that a spin was unrecoverable in the SR-22,
so the implication was that you found both to be incorrect. I don't
think I was the only person who read your post that way. Please keep
in mind that on Usenet, all we have to go on is what you write. Vocal
tone, facial expression, hand gestures... all of the unconscious cues
we use to decipher meaning in conversation are gone, so the typed
message is all we have. ...and yours appeared to say that the approved
Cirrus spin method was not chute deployment.

Best regards,

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Ben,

> Sorry for any offense, just trying to clarify a misunderstanding.
>

No, you aren't. You're trying to be condescending - and you succeed. If
that's to be your role here, so be it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Sandstone" > wrote in message
...
>
> Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
> Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
> of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
> always the most popular one.
>
>

I have just recently demo'ed both the SR22 gts and the Columbia 350 & 400.
I agree-- the Columbia is a better product! The Columbia has a bigger fuel
capacity & better range vs payload capability. What I do NOT like about the
SR22 is that it is neutrally stable -- i.e. if you put it in a bank, dive,
climb, etc., it tends to stay in that configuration. Not very safe for when
you are in the soup and have no visual clues. The Columbia has a better
control feel and balance with it side "stick" vs. the SR22's side "yoke".

Cameron

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:56:25 -0400, "cameron" >
wrote:

>
>"Sandstone" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
>> Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
>> of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
>> always the most popular one.
>>
>>
>
>I have just recently demo'ed both the SR22 gts and the Columbia 350 & 400.
>I agree-- the Columbia is a better product! The Columbia has a bigger fuel
>capacity & better range vs payload capability. What I do NOT like about the
>SR22 is that it is neutrally stable -- i.e. if you put it in a bank, dive,

You just described a good portion of the high performance aircraft
available including Bonanzas. That's why you find nearly any one of
them that is going to be used IFR has a good autopilot.

It does take some getting used to, but after a while the near neutral
stability feels quite natural. Makes 1702s and Cherokees feel down
right slugish though.<:-))

>climb, etc., it tends to stay in that configuration. Not very safe for when
>you are in the soup and have no visual clues. The Columbia has a better
>control feel and balance with it side "stick" vs. the SR22's side "yoke".

This one feature alone would send me to the Columbia. the side stick
feels natural, the side yoke (half a yoke) doesn't, at least to me.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Cameron
>

i have flown a Cirrus 500+ hrs and find it to be very passenger
friendly / pilot neutral. what i mean is that non-aviation passengers
like the interior, the parachute, xm radio in the headsets - you get
the picture. as a pilot the plane is OK to fly but difficult to keep
in trim unlike several other planes i have flown. The discussion about
Cirrus and spins is not current. Cirrus has shown spin recovery in
doing their JAA flight tests but chose not to go that route in the US
where it was not necessary.

i currently fly a Lancair Legacy discussed earlier in this forum. The
plane is kit-built so the best glide speeds vary but the 13.3 to 1
glide ratio is respectable ( a little better than 2 nm per 1000 ft
altitude lost ) this is nowhere near the 2000 ft per minute descent
rate erroneously described. many owners have installed full feathering
props (like used in twins) and have glide ratios over 20 to 1. These
planes climb between 2 - 3K ft/min and cruise at 235 kts so there is
not alot of time spent under 10,000 ft.