Airshares SR-20

[Guy Elden Jr.]

After last week's great flight down to Atlanta and back to NJ, I've begun to
seriously investigate upgrading "my" aircraft to an SR-20. By "my" I mean
that I currently rent, and for long distance flights meant more for vacation
like the one to Atlanta, I rent a 172SP. I'm very happy with the planes I
get to rent, as each (of the two available) is equipped with GPS, moving
map, and autopilot, and one even has an HSI that automatically syncs up with
the magnetic compass... a very handy gauge on really long flights.

I spoke with someone at the Airshares office at Caldwell, NJ, and got a good
overview of the price structure for the SR-20. They don't actually have one
available there yet, as there isn't enough interest at the moment. But I
don't qualify for the SR-22 yet... I have about 195 total hours, and their
insurance requires 350 + active pursuit of an instrument rating (which,
incidentally, I earned a few months ago). So I'm really only lacking the
flight hours, and the SR-20 sounds like a great way to move up without
stepping up too much in too short a time.

I'm curious what experiences any SR-20 flyers out there have had on both
short hops, sightseeing trips, and on longer distance trips as well. I want
some extra speed, and I like the fact that it can carry a bit more of a
payload than a 172SP, but since I haven't flown one, much less to a faraway
destination, I don't know if it will really be worth the hassle of the
upgrade. I'm interested in hearing how well it performs, how comfortable it
is, how useful it is as compared to 172s, Warriors, etc.

Thanks!

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[ArtP]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 00:07:03 -0500, "Guy Elden Jr."
> wrote:


>I'm curious what experiences any SR-20 flyers out there have had on both
>short hops, sightseeing trips, and on longer distance trips as well. I want
>some extra speed, and I like the fact that it can carry a bit more of a
>payload than a 172SP, but since I haven't flown one, much less to a faraway
>destination, I don't know if it will really be worth the hassle of the
>upgrade. I'm interested in hearing how well it performs, how comfortable it
>is, how useful it is as compared to 172s, Warriors, etc.

When it works, it is a roomy, automated, and slightly faster, and much
more expensive 172. I get 130 knots at 9 gph. It carries 540 lbs with
full fuel and will fly for 5 hours with reserves.

[Dan Luke]

"ArtP" wrote:
> >I'm curious what experiences any SR-20 flyers out there have had...
>
> When it works, it is a roomy, automated, and slightly faster, and
> much more expensive 172. I get 130 knots at 9 gph.

That seems awfully slow. Is that TAS? What altitude?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[ISLIP]

>'m interested in hearing how well it performs, how comfortable it
>>is

After 24 years owning a 172 I brought a SR20. There is NO GOING BACK!
The cabin is 49" wide - about 9 " wider than the 172, and the lack of a yoke
makes it seem even larger. I'm 6'3" and very comfortable in it, and, with seat
back there is still a lot of room in the rear.
I had a 430, S-Tec and engine monitor in the Hawk but there is no comparison
with the panel & 10 " MFD of the Cirrus.
I usually file 147KT @ 10.6GPH and have flown x-cty in the mid 150's but the
time savings isn't worth the extra fuel to me.
Art P has had problems with his Cirrus - more so than the 1000+ other owners,
but not that after 3 years of owning ( and complaining), he STILL owns/flys it.
Problems - sure - it's a new design. But. Cirrus has been very good at support.
Cirrus owners & pilots have a web site-CIRRUSPILOTS.ORG with both public &
member forums if you want more info

John
SR20 N468JP

[ArtP]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:36:24 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"ArtP" wrote:
>> >I'm curious what experiences any SR-20 flyers out there have had...
>>
>> When it works, it is a roomy, automated, and slightly faster, and
>> much more expensive 172. I get 130 knots at 9 gph.
>
>That seems awfully slow. Is that TAS? What altitude?

That is TAS and at any altitude. At lower altitudes I am limited to
23" mp or less (65% so I can run LOP), at higher altitudes the mp is
limited by the altitude and the fact I can't run full throttle without
running at max rpm (the throttle is connected to the prop governor and
can't be overridden so if you run at full throttle you run at max
rpm).

[ArtP]

On 02 Dec 2003 15:21:06 GMT, (ISLIP) wrote:


>Art P has had problems with his Cirrus - more so than the 1000+ other owners,
>but not that after 3 years of owning ( and complaining), he STILL owns/flys it.

We have had it less than 2 years. We tried to sell when it was one
year old and the insurance company doubled the rates and added the
requirement of yearly factory training and yearly IPC given in an
SR20. It cost $240,000 but we couldn't get enough for a year old plane
to pay for a new 172.

As for flying it. The first year we flew 168 hours (25 hours of that
was flying to the authorized service center), the 2nd year we only
flew 60 hours. It is just to unreliable for anything but spur of the
moment flying (I gave up on Angel Flight since I don't have enough
faith in the plane to make a commitment).

[Andrew Gideon]

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:

> I spoke with someone at the Airshares office at Caldwell, NJ, and got a
> good overview of the price structure for the SR-20. They don't actually
> have one available there yet, as there isn't enough interest at the
> moment. But I don't qualify for the SR-22 yet... I have about 195 total
> hours, and their insurance requires 350 + active pursuit of an instrument
> rating (which, incidentally, I earned a few months ago). So I'm really
> only lacking the flight hours, and the SR-20 sounds like a great way to
> move up without stepping up too much in too short a time.

I thought about Airshares for a while. I still have it in the back of my
brain. But, at least for now, I decided to go the "club route" instead.
I'm in a club which includes a 182 and a 182RG, as well as a couple of
172s.

The down side, as compared to the Cirrus, is that none of these are a
Cirrus. That is one hell of a nice airplane. I even deliberately avoided
the open house Airshare had at CDW a little while ago, knowing what would
occur if I went.

But, just to be mean to myself, what are they planning to charge for their
-20s?

- Andrew

[Jeff]

the SR20 only has a 200 HP engine.
now if it was able to pull the landing gear up, I am willing to bet his
speed would increase by quiet a bit.

Dan Luke wrote:

> "ArtP" wrote:
> > >I'm curious what experiences any SR-20 flyers out there have had...
> >
> > When it works, it is a roomy, automated, and slightly faster, and
> > much more expensive 172. I get 130 knots at 9 gph.
>
> That seems awfully slow. Is that TAS? What altitude?
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

[Jeff]

the SR20 and 22 are cool looking airplanes, but for the price, I will stick to my
$90,000 , 150+ kt, 200 HP Turbo Arrow III with the lower insurance rates :)

I still think it would be fun to fly one of those tho.

Jeff

ArtP wrote:

> On 02 Dec 2003 15:21:06 GMT, (ISLIP) wrote:
>
> >Art P has had problems with his Cirrus - more so than the 1000+ other owners,
> >but not that after 3 years of owning ( and complaining), he STILL owns/flys it.
>
> We have had it less than 2 years. We tried to sell when it was one
> year old and the insurance company doubled the rates and added the
> requirement of yearly factory training and yearly IPC given in an
> SR20. It cost $240,000 but we couldn't get enough for a year old plane
> to pay for a new 172.
>
> As for flying it. The first year we flew 168 hours (25 hours of that
> was flying to the authorized service center), the 2nd year we only
> flew 60 hours. It is just to unreliable for anything but spur of the
> moment flying (I gave up on Angel Flight since I don't have enough
> faith in the plane to make a commitment).

[Jay Honeck]

> As for flying it. The first year we flew 168 hours (25 hours of that
> was flying to the authorized service center), the 2nd year we only
> flew 60 hours. It is just to unreliable for anything but spur of the
> moment flying (I gave up on Angel Flight since I don't have enough
> faith in the plane to make a commitment).

That is truly sad. You must be terribly disappointed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[ArtP]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:33:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> As for flying it. The first year we flew 168 hours (25 hours of that
>> was flying to the authorized service center), the 2nd year we only
>> flew 60 hours. It is just to unreliable for anything but spur of the
>> moment flying (I gave up on Angel Flight since I don't have enough
>> faith in the plane to make a commitment).
>
>That is truly sad. You must be terribly disappointed.

I am, and as a first time owner and low hour pilot (IFR, commercial,
but only 420 hours) it is beginning to sour me on flying.

[Montblack]

("Andrew Gideon" wrote)
> But, just to be mean to myself, what are they planning to charge for their
> -20s?


Price <g>

[2002]
In April, at Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, Florida, Cirrus announced:
The new SR20 ver 2.0, an all-electric aircraft, will be available in 2003

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aboutus/timeline/index.html
[2002] Sun 'n Fun announcement link (above)

Have the 20s gone all electric yet? Is it an option? Is it still to come?

I haven't kept up ...

Where are they at with diesel plans? HP? 20-D? 22-D?

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[[email protected]]

On 1-Dec-2003, ArtP > wrote:

> When it [SR-20] works, it is a roomy, automated, and slightly faster, and
> much
> more expensive 172. I get 130 knots at 9 gph. It carries 540 lbs with
> full fuel and will fly for 5 hours with reserves.


According to the Cirrus website, the SR-20 cruises at 156 kts at 75% power.
We all know that "book" speeds are sometimes a tad optimistic, but 26
kts???. I get better than 130 kts on 9 gph in my Arrow, with a lot more
useful load.

If I bought an SR-20 and it only gave me 130 kts at best cruise performance,
I'd demand my money back!

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> According to the Cirrus website, the SR-20 cruises at 156 kts at 75%
power.

What's the fuel flow at 75% power? For a 200 hp engine, my guess is that
it's significantly more than 9 gph. Or conversely, it seems likely that the
9 gph isn't 75% cruise.

> If I bought an SR-20 and it only gave me 130 kts at best cruise
performance,
> I'd demand my money back!

Art didn't say 130 knots was his "best cruise performance". He said that's
what he gets at 9 gph. I assume he used that figure because that's close to
the fuel flow in a Cessna at normal cruise settings (with a 160 hp engine),
and so gives a rough apples-to-apples comparison between the airplanes.

Pete

[[email protected]]

On 2-Dec-2003, "Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> What's the fuel flow at 75% power? For a 200 hp engine, my guess is that
> it's significantly more than 9 gph. Or conversely, it seems likely that
> the 9 gph isn't 75% cruise.

> Art didn't say 130 knots was his "best cruise performance". He said
> that's what he gets at 9 gph. I assume he used that figure because that's
> close
> to the fuel flow in a Cessna at normal cruise settings (with a 160 hp
> engine), and so gives a rough apples-to-apples comparison between the
> airplanes.


In my Arrow, which like the SR-20 has a normally aspirated 200 hp engine, I
can true 135 kts at 65% with a fuel flow of around 9.4 gph. 9 gph would
probably be about 60%, give or take a little. Since for a given airframe
airspeed varies as the cube root of applied power, assuming equal propeller
efficiency (and that's a good assumption with a constant speed prop) 130 kts
at 60% would correspond to 140 kts at 75%, which, not surprisingly, is
almost exactly what I get in the Arrow. (141 kts to be precise.) That is
still a far cry from the 156 kt "book" 75% cruise speed for the SR-20.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Jeff]

My fuel flow, at 65% power, for my 200 HP T-Arrow is about 12 gph , but at 65%
power I cruise at 150 KTAS (or better - I plan for 150 tho) and can fly non-stop
for 700 NM - But this is also flying at 8000-13000 ft.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> What's the fuel flow at 75% power? For a 200 hp engine, my guess is that
> it's significantly more than 9 gph. Or conversely, it seems likely that the
> 9 gph isn't 75% cruise.
>
> > If I bought an SR-20 and it only gave me 130 kts at best cruise
> performance,
> > I'd demand my money back!
>
> Art didn't say 130 knots was his "best cruise performance". He said that's
> what he gets at 9 gph. I assume he used that figure because that's close to
> the fuel flow in a Cessna at normal cruise settings (with a 160 hp engine),
> and so gives a rough apples-to-apples comparison between the airplanes.
>
> Pete

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> [...] 130 kts
> at 60% would correspond to 140 kts at 75%, which, not surprisingly, is
> almost exactly what I get in the Arrow. (141 kts to be precise.) That is
> still a far cry from the 156 kt "book" 75% cruise speed for the SR-20.

That's a number that a) is a lot closer to the published value than the one
you were originally complaining about, and b) is extrapolated by you, not an
actual reported value. You'll notice another SR20 owner reported nearly 150
knots on 10.6 gph. A variety of other differences could easily account for
the rest of the airspeed variability.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> My fuel flow, at 65% power, for my 200 HP T-Arrow is about 12 gph , but at
65%
> power I cruise at 150 KTAS (or better - I plan for 150 tho) and can fly
non-stop
> for 700 NM - But this is also flying at 8000-13000 ft.

First of all, 12 gph for 130 hp sounds to me like a lot of gas. I can get
the fuel flow on my 270 hp engine down to 12 gph at around the same power
setting (60-65%). You might want to double-check your engine gauges.

Secondly, turbocharging isn't a fair comparison (you as much said this),
since you get to enjoy full power operations at the higher altitudes where
true airspeed increases.

Pete

[Jeff]

I have a shadin fuel flow monitor, it is pretty consistant with the airplanes
fuel flow gauge. I can lean it out more but that is best power setting. since I
only fly at 65% power, I dont want to lose what I have by skimping on the fuel
mixture. Plus this is a power setting, its not 65% due to altitude or fuel flow,
I set power (2400 RPM / 30" MP) for 65% then lean for best power.

the engine in the t-arrow is a cont. 6 cylinder, fuel injected, the normally
aspirated one is a 4 cylinder lycoming. why piper stopped making the T-arrow I
dont know, I think its alot better the the normally aspirated one (I have fown
both). But if it came down to buying a new airplane, An arrow or a SR20, the
arrow new is 271k (standard listing) - I think the sr20 would win out. Piper is
going to have to do something or cirrus is going to put alot of hurt on them and
other companies.


Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My fuel flow, at 65% power, for my 200 HP T-Arrow is about 12 gph , but at
> 65%
> > power I cruise at 150 KTAS (or better - I plan for 150 tho) and can fly
> non-stop
> > for 700 NM - But this is also flying at 8000-13000 ft.
>
> First of all, 12 gph for 130 hp sounds to me like a lot of gas. I can get
> the fuel flow on my 270 hp engine down to 12 gph at around the same power
> setting (60-65%). You might want to double-check your engine gauges.
>
> Secondly, turbocharging isn't a fair comparison (you as much said this),
> since you get to enjoy full power operations at the higher altitudes where
> true airspeed increases.
>
> Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> That seems awfully slow. Is that TAS? What altitude?
>

See the latest issue of Aviation Consumer for a comparison of the DA40
and the SR20. Average speed seems to be 145 to 150 knots TAS, at around
10 gph.

ArtP is quite well known here for not liking (his) SR20.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jeff,

> I am willing to bet his
> speed would increase by quiet a bit.
>

5 knots max, Cirrus says.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Montblack,

> Have the 20s gone all electric yet? Is it an option? Is it still to come?

They are all electric now. Avidyne Entegra PFD is an option.

>
> Where are they at with diesel plans? HP? 20-D? 22-D?
>

sma insists that Cirrus is going with their absurdly overpriced 230 HP
engine. I have doubts. The Thielert 300-hp is still at least two years from
certification, I guess. A Diesel Cirrus might use the longer wings of the
22, even with lower HP than the 22 now has. Everybody seems to agree that
it will be named the -21.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dan Luke]

"ArtP" wrote:
> >That seems awfully slow. Is that TAS? What altitude?
>
> That is [130K] TAS and at any altitude.

Dang! My 172RG will do 136 KTAS at 6,000' on a standard day, full
throttle, 2,500 RPM.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Montblack]

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
> > Where are they at with diesel plans? HP? 20-D? 22-D?
> >
>
> sma insists that Cirrus is going with their absurdly overpriced 230 HP
> engine. I have doubts. The Thielert 300-hp is still at least two years
from
> certification, I guess. A Diesel Cirrus might use the longer wings of the
> 22, even with lower HP than the 22 now has. Everybody seems to agree that
> it will be named the -21.


Original post asked: what are they planning to charge for their -20s?

Looking back, I thought it said: What are they planning to *change* for
their -20s?

My answer was Price.

Doh!

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Guy Elden Jr.]

> But, just to be mean to myself, what are they planning to charge for their
> -20s?

I assume you mean Airshares, in which case here are the details (if/when
they actually get an SR-20 on the line at CDW) :

$5000 - "license" fee (one-time payment - not sure exactly how it works, but
I think it's creditable for future "license" payments if you continue to
renew / upgrade)
$780 / month + $80 / hr for 75 hours of time per year... or
$975 / month + $80 / hr for 100 hours per year.

That is of course all-inclusive... you don't pay for gas, oil, maintenance,
hangar, etc. And the person I spoke to there said (IIRC) that the contract
you sign (1 year) has an exit clause if you want to bail out... 90 days
notice.

I think I'd personally be much happier in a private share with up to 5 other
pilots on an SR-22, but that's doubtful to happen.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[John Roncallo]

ArtP wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 00:07:03 -0500, "Guy Elden Jr."
> > wrote:
>
>
> When it works, it is a roomy, automated, and slightly faster, and much
> more expensive 172. I get 130 knots at 9 gph. It carries 540 lbs with
> full fuel and will fly for 5 hours with reserves.

According to the specs this aircraft will do 156 KTAS 8000' 75%

Are we being BS'd. I usually find Cessna and Piper aircraft to make
there published numbers.

John Roncallo

[Andrew Gideon]

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:

> I think I'd personally be much happier in a private share with up to 5
> other pilots on an SR-22, but that's doubtful to happen.

Why not? If Airshares finds enough business at CDW, there are obviously
people interested in the product.

FWIW, one of the interesting things about the club I've joined is the number
of people that "graduate" into ownership. As I understand it, many do so
in groups.

- Andrew

[ArtP]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:15:41 GMT, John Roncallo
> wrote:


>According to the specs this aircraft will do 156 KTAS 8000' 75%
>
>Are we being BS'd. I usually find Cessna and Piper aircraft to make
>there published numbers.

On COPA (www.cirruspilots.com), even the staunch supporters
acknowledge that the plane won't do the POH numbers.

[ISLIP]

Sorry Art, but I disagree.
Returning from Danbury Ct to Islip NY, 3500' -2C full throttle 16.6 GPH
TAS +161KT
This is only the second time I've done this as Avgas is too expensive just to
save a few minutes.
YOU can fly @ 130KT & 9 GPH - I can do that at less than 9gph.
It's not that the Cirrus is slow, it's that you choose to fly it slowly. Not
all of the SR20 s will do the 160 kts, but most of them will be above 155KTs
unless the pilot CHOOSES to fly slower, or lean of peak, to achieve the lesser
fuel burn

John
SR20

[ArtP]

On 05 Dec 2003 03:11:39 GMT, (ISLIP) wrote:

> most of them will be above 155KTs
>unless the pilot CHOOSES to fly slower, or lean of peak, to achieve the lesser
>fuel burn

And according to the discussions on COPA LOP also gives longer engine
life.

[ArtP]

On 05 Dec 2003 03:11:39 GMT, (ISLIP) wrote:

>Sorry Art, but I disagree.
>Returning from Danbury Ct to Islip NY, 3500' -2C full throttle 16.6 GPH
>TAS +161KT

I should point that the discussion was about normal cruise not full
throttle, maximum RPM.

The POH says that at full throttle you should have gotten 163 knots at
14 GPH, which certainly points up the inaccuracy of the POH numbers.
While the difference between 161 and 163 is minor the difference
between 14 GPH and 16.6 GPH is 20%.

[ISLIP]

>certainly points up the inaccuracy of the POH numbers.

I don't disagree. However,the numbers for lower speed & fuel flow are accurate
enough not to be a problem.
The disparity in claimed vs actual performance is no worse than that of Cessnas
or Grummans that I've flown.
For that matter, the the EPA fuel figures for all my cars have always been
unattainable

John
SR20