new twin concept from Cirrus

[Kingfish]

I'd read several references about Cirrus developing the P-Jet, which I
assume would seat four including pilot. This got me thinking about
other segments they might explore. Considering the success of their
SR20 & SR22 series, what are the chances of a SR-derived twin? A
four-place fixed-gear composite twin (or, potentially a stretched
6-place variant) available with either the IO-360 or IO-550 if you
really wanna boogie.
My guess is such a plane with the 310hp motors should have a 210-220kt
cruise based on the Baron's advertised 200kt cruise with 300hp Contis.
The 200hp engines would make for a 180-190kt cruiser, based on the
Seminole's advertised 168kt cruise with 180hp Lycomings. The CAPS
system might be an even bigger selling point in a twin considering the
Vmc rollover potential, although that situation normally happens right
after takeoff and the acft may not have gained enough altitude for the
system to be effective. Let the pocket-protector types figger out how
to make it work at low alts. They'd also have to ditch the single lever
power controls (which I've read many pilots don't care for) and add
separate prop controls, or some kind of electric feathering control.
I don't think a Cirrus twin is too much of a stretch considering how
quickly they've caught up to Cessna after only 6(?) years building
certified acft. If the Klapmiers can make a business case for a twin I
think they'd sell quite well, even considering the cost of 100LL right
now. Hmmm, maybe Thielert diesels...

<rambling mode off>

[Darkwing]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'd read several references about Cirrus developing the P-Jet, which I
> assume would seat four including pilot. This got me thinking about
> other segments they might explore. Considering the success of their
> SR20 & SR22 series, what are the chances of a SR-derived twin? A
> four-place fixed-gear composite twin (or, potentially a stretched
> 6-place variant) available with either the IO-360 or IO-550 if you
> really wanna boogie.
> My guess is such a plane with the 310hp motors should have a 210-220kt
> cruise based on the Baron's advertised 200kt cruise with 300hp Contis.
> The 200hp engines would make for a 180-190kt cruiser, based on the
> Seminole's advertised 168kt cruise with 180hp Lycomings. The CAPS
> system might be an even bigger selling point in a twin considering the
> Vmc rollover potential, although that situation normally happens right
> after takeoff and the acft may not have gained enough altitude for the
> system to be effective. Let the pocket-protector types figger out how
> to make it work at low alts. They'd also have to ditch the single lever
> power controls (which I've read many pilots don't care for) and add
> separate prop controls, or some kind of electric feathering control.
> I don't think a Cirrus twin is too much of a stretch considering how
> quickly they've caught up to Cessna after only 6(?) years building
> certified acft. If the Klapmiers can make a business case for a twin I
> think they'd sell quite well, even considering the cost of 100LL right
> now. Hmmm, maybe Thielert diesels...
>
> <rambling mode off>
>

If I was in the market for a light twin I would take a long hard look at the
Diamond twin, seems like a nice aircraft and uses what, 8 GPH *total* or
close to it!

----------------------------------------------
DW

[Kingfish]

Yeah, I thought about the DA42, but the Cirrus would have a big speed
advantage, hypothetically. The Diamond site says 12.5gph at 80% power
which I think gives you around 170kts based on their range circle. I
couldn't scroll down to read the whole spec page so I don't know what
they're advertising for cruise speed of the diesel engined plane. I
didn't see anything on Diamond's page about the IO-360 engined DA42
either. That is a cool looking plane though.

[john smith]

I don't see any economic advantage to adding a twin to their product
line. Their singles already offer "twin-like" speeds without the expense
of the second engine and systems. I don't see any evidence that there is
demand for a new piston twin.
The development and certification costs alone would require that the
selling price be in the VLJ range.

[Kingfish]

John S. wrote:

>>>I don't see any economic advantage to adding a twin to their product
line. Their singles already offer "twin-like" speeds without the
expense
of the second engine and systems. I don't see any evidence that there
is
demand for a new piston twin.<<<

All good points and tough to argue. It was more of a "what if"
excercise. I'm sure if there was a good business case for a twin
Klapmier would be all over it.

>>>The development and certification costs alone would require that the selling price be in the VLJ range. <<<

Not so sure about that, though. Diamond's DA42 Twinstar lists for under
500k.

[Mike Schumann]

I would be putting my money on a diesel engine. That would be huge in
Europe. With the price of gas going up in the US, it would be a big hit
here also.

Mike Schumann

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'd read several references about Cirrus developing the P-Jet, which I
> assume would seat four including pilot. This got me thinking about
> other segments they might explore. Considering the success of their
> SR20 & SR22 series, what are the chances of a SR-derived twin? A
> four-place fixed-gear composite twin (or, potentially a stretched
> 6-place variant) available with either the IO-360 or IO-550 if you
> really wanna boogie.
> My guess is such a plane with the 310hp motors should have a 210-220kt
> cruise based on the Baron's advertised 200kt cruise with 300hp Contis.
> The 200hp engines would make for a 180-190kt cruiser, based on the
> Seminole's advertised 168kt cruise with 180hp Lycomings. The CAPS
> system might be an even bigger selling point in a twin considering the
> Vmc rollover potential, although that situation normally happens right
> after takeoff and the acft may not have gained enough altitude for the
> system to be effective. Let the pocket-protector types figger out how
> to make it work at low alts. They'd also have to ditch the single lever
> power controls (which I've read many pilots don't care for) and add
> separate prop controls, or some kind of electric feathering control.
> I don't think a Cirrus twin is too much of a stretch considering how
> quickly they've caught up to Cessna after only 6(?) years building
> certified acft. If the Klapmiers can make a business case for a twin I
> think they'd sell quite well, even considering the cost of 100LL right
> now. Hmmm, maybe Thielert diesels...
>
> <rambling mode off>
>

[john smith]

> >>>The development and certification costs alone would require that the
> >>>selling price be in the VLJ range. <<<

> Not so sure about that, though. Diamond's DA42 Twinstar lists for under
> 500k.

I have not looked closesly, but I believe there is a large parts
commonality between the DA-40 and the DA-42.
This is similar to the Adam 500 and the Adam 700.
Anytime you can leverage existing parts into a new design, you reduce
costs.
The seat attach fittings on the current King Air's are the same as the
Twin Beech model 18's.

[Nathan Young]

On 9 May 2006 07:26:35 -0700, "Kingfish" > wrote:

>I'd read several references about Cirrus developing the P-Jet, which I
>assume would seat four including pilot. This got me thinking about
>other segments they might explore. Considering the success of their
>SR20 & SR22 series, what are the chances of a SR-derived twin?

It would be great to see more light twins in the market, especially
more fuel efficient ones, but I don't think Cirrus will develop a
twin. Here is why.

In my mind, people buy twins for a few reasons:
#1. Safety (whether real or perceived)
#2. Useful load / size
#3. Coolness factor
#4. Performance improvement over single

For Cirrus to develop a twin, they would have to tap a market large
enough to offset their development costs.

Refering to the above points (wrt to market).
#1. Cirrus already is capturing a big chunk of the safety market b/c
of the chute. Personally, I would rather have two engines, but there
are a lot of pilots (and spouses) who like the chute.

#2. Useful load/cabin space. The twin will always be able to haul
more, but Cirrus could introduce a 6 seat single with a bigger engine
(310->350hp) to cover part of this requirement.

#3. Coolness factor. Two props is cool, but so is a glass plane and
cockpit. Of course, I guess two props, a glass plane, and glass panel
would be coolest then!

#4. Performance improvement. The SR22 is already pretty fast -
faster than most singles. They could add turbo (instead of another
engine) to get another 20-30 kts to compete against the light twins
speed and climb.

Because the SR22 is such a capable plane, I think that the available
increase in market to Cirrus for developing an SR-twin is quite small.
Since the Baron, Seneca, AdamA500, and DiamondTwin are in production,
and are all capable planes, it would make for tough competition.

I would love to be proven wrong, and see Cirrus or Lancair introduce
something at Oshkosh, but I think both of these companies are better
(financially) to focus on derivatives of their current product line
than introducing a new product.

[Dan Luke]

"Kingfish" wrote:
> If the Klapmiers can make a business case for a twin I
> think they'd sell quite well,

I doubt it. Look at the market for used twins: it's a wasteland.

Small market + enormous development & certification costs = no twin from
Cirrus.

If I had to guess about the next big news drom Cirrus, I'd say it will be
something forward of the firewall.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Kingfish]

All good points. Probably the best argument against the twin is that
Cirrus' singles are so damn fast already. I read recently about a
turbonormalizer STC for the SR22 that boosts the cruise up to 200kts.
Not a cheap mod for an extra 15kt on the top end, but the climb is
probably pretty impressive past 8k feet. I think the next big thing
could be diesels, and a Thielert or SMA might be a nice addition to a
fast airframe.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Kingfish" > wrote:

> All good points. Probably the best argument against the twin is that
> Cirrus' singles are so damn fast already

nah - people seem to wants twins for night over-the-mountains and for hauling
more stuff

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

Ah, a jet and a twin based on the single-engine design - and with
Thielerts. Now where have I heard that idea before? <g>

Hint: www.diamondaircraft.com

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

> I think the next big thing
> could be diesels, and a Thielert or SMA might be a nice addition to a
> fast airframe.
>

I may have reported this here already, but I live in Hamburg, Germany,
home of the Thielert group. And at the Hamburg airport, I have seen
what seemed to be a prototype of an SR-22 fitted with the big 350-HP
Thielert. So there's hope, I guess. From what I hear, Cirrus has pretty
much given up on SMA. But I may be wrong...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kingfish]

Thomas B wrote:

>>>I have seen what seemed to be a prototype of an SR-22 fitted with the big 350-HP Thielert. <<<

I kinda figured that would be the next evolution of that airframe. Did
the cowling look like it was modified?

>>Now where have I heard that idea before? <g>

Hint: www.diamondaircraft.com <<<

Reference my second and third posts re the DA-42

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>I don't see any economic advantage to adding a twin to their product
> line. Their singles already offer "twin-like" speeds without the expense
> of the second engine and systems. I don't see any evidence that there is
> demand for a new piston twin.

The purpose of a twin is load capacity.

> The development and certification costs alone would require that the
> selling price be in the VLJ range.

And the maintenance $$ on those is a lot higher.

[Matt Barrow]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> John S. wrote:
>
>>>>I don't see any economic advantage to adding a twin to their product
> line. Their singles already offer "twin-like" speeds without the
> expense
> of the second engine and systems. I don't see any evidence that there
> is
> demand for a new piston twin.<<<
>
> All good points and tough to argue. It was more of a "what if"
> excercise. I'm sure if there was a good business case for a twin
> Klapmier would be all over it.

I suspect he's up to his eyeballs already.

[Matt Barrow]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> All good points. Probably the best argument against the twin is that
> Cirrus' singles are so damn fast already. I read recently about a
> turbonormalizer STC for the SR22 that boosts the cruise up to 200kts.
> Not a cheap mod for an extra 15kt on the top end, but the climb is
> probably pretty impressive past 8k feet.

That's the main purpose of turbonormalizing, climb performance; and much
better "high and hot" performance.

There's a significant difference between tubronormalizing and
turbosupercharging and evidently that's what Cirrus is going after.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.net...
>I would be putting my money on a diesel engine. That would be huge in
>Europe. With the price of gas going up in the US, it would be a big hit
>here also.
>
It was my (mis?)understanding that a diesel is, HP/lb, heavier than a
standard aircraft engine, especially when getting into the higher (over 250)
HP models. Correct?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO


Does it tell you something about our times
when a representative of the Taliban is
welcome on the Yale University campus
but representatives of our own military
forces are not? - Tom Sowell, May 1, 2006

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

> Did
> the cowling look like it was modified?
>

Just a little. Some louver-type ventilation and such. But the engine is
heavier than the TCM.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> It was my (mis?)understanding that a diesel is, HP/lb, heavier than a
> standard aircraft engine, especially when getting into the higher (over 250)
> HP models. Correct?
>

Not necessarily, but the big Thielert at 350 HP is heavier than an IO-520/550.
60 pounds or so.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Markus Voget]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>> It was my (mis?)understanding that a diesel is, HP/lb, heavier than a
>> standard aircraft engine, especially when getting into the higher
>> (over 250) HP models. Correct?
>
> Not necessarily, but the big Thielert at 350 HP is heavier than an
> IO-520/550. 60 pounds or so.

On the other hand, the diesel airplane will typically require less fuel in
order to complete the same mission as the avgas airplane. The saved fuel
weight can offset some or all of the weight penalty of the heavier engine.

Of course this does not apply when topping off the tanks - but in that
case, the diesel airplane gains a lot in range.

So it looks like there is a free lunch after all - at least when not
counting the acquisition costs! :-)


Greetings,
Markus

[Montblack]

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
> I may have reported this here already, but I live in Hamburg, Germany,
> home of the Thielert group. And at the Hamburg airport, I have seen what
> seemed to be a prototype of an SR-22 fitted with the big 350-HP Thielert.


Clipboard and a white lab coat are all you'll need. Go poke around and
report back.

Thanks. :-)


Montblack
In this country we call it pulling a "Rockford".
http://www.timstvshowcase.com/rockford.html

[Thomas Borchert]

Markus,

> On the other hand, the diesel airplane will typically require less fuel in
> order to complete the same mission as the avgas airplane.
>

Yes, but fuel is not usually stored at the very front end of the plane (think
CG).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Montblack,

> Clipboard and a white lab coat are all you'll need. Go poke around and
> report back.
>

I was more vague than I could have been because I have been asked to...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Montblack]

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
> I was more vague than I could have been because I have been asked to...


http://www.snowcrest.net/donnelly/piglatin.html
"isthay ouldshay orkway" :-)


Ontblackmay

[Kingfish]

Matt B. wrote:

>>>There's a significant difference between tubronormalizing and
turbosupercharging and evidently that's what Cirrus is going after.<<<

I don't think the turbo mod was from Cirrus, it was aftermarket. Other
than limiting boost to produce a maximum manifold pressure of X
(turbonormalized engine), what other significant differences are there
between the two systems?