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).

"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

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,

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


5 knots max, Cirrus says.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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)

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