Airshares SR-20

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.

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.

"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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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