C J Campbell wrote:
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

It's telling that the article starts with flyover noise comparisons and
prop clearance. It's a poorly done attempt at a smear and shouldn't be
taken seriously by anyone with the ability to recognize obvious bias.

I have no vested interest in either aircraft, although I instruct in
both Cessna and Cirrus products. The Cirrus is an "interesting
airplane," and overall the value for the average prospective owner
(let's say, private pilot with an instrument rating) undergoing the
average mission (regional travel, 100-300 hours of flight time per year)
is just not there with the Cessna products anymore. Single-engine
piston airplane sales trends reflect this.

As a Cirrus Standardized Instructor, I have my own set of issues with
the SR-20 and SR-22. The cited article barely hints at the real
problems (which are NOT the chute or the composite airframe), and it
reads much like it was written by a person who has flown neither
aircraft. I believe that over time the Cirrus product will improve and
flourish, while the Cessna line has been taken as far as it can go,
G1000 or no.

In summary, if you operate from short/unimproved fields, the Cirrus is
not a realistic choice for you. If you want to rocket along at 180+
knots with a fairly advanced (although not overly redundant) avionics
package, the SR-22 might fit you like a glove.

Side note, the SR-22 is among the most spin-resistant airplanes on the
market today. Spins in the SR are a red herring - think electrical
system and avionics redundancy if you want to dive into the real can of
worms.

-Ryan