Cirrus or Lancair?

Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?


Thanks,

Matt

Matt,

some thoughts that come to mind (and be aware what you paid for this
information ;-)):

- seems that the track record of Cirrus as a company points towards a
more stable situation. While the recent cash inflow to Lancair may have
corrected this, undoubtably the Cirrus airplane and the company are way
more proven in the market place. The SR22 is out there flying in
numbers, the Lancair isn't. How much of a consideration that is, I'm
not sure, but I wouldn't want to end up with an orphaned 350k-$
product.

- I have only flown the Cirrus, but it seems to me that visibility in
the Cirrus is much better than in the Lancair.

- How much is the parachute playing into the WAF (wife acceptance
factor) equation for you?

- icing protection: Any chance it will be available in a certified
variant for the Lancair? It isn't for the Cirrus, AFAIK.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.

"Sandstone" wrote in message
...
Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.

I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind your conclusion. Obviously, you
(we) can compare numbers from the respective websites, but beyond that, how
did you come to your conclusion?

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

"Sandstone" wrote in message
...
Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's
kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product
isn't
always the most popular one.

I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind your conclusion. Obviously, you
(we) can compare numbers from the respective websites, but beyond that,
how
did you come to your conclusion?


Yes, indeed.

I've ridden in a Columbia 300 and was quite impressed, but never in a
Cirrus.

"Sandstone" wrote in message
...
Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.

In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a two
hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.

Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My guess is
that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less expensive
is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).

According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is, comparatively,
somewhat unstable.

Certainly Cirrus spends a hell of a lot more on advertising, don't they?

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Sandstone" wrote in message
...

Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.


In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a two
hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.

Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My guess is
that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less expensive
is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin,

Incorrect. http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/avionics/pfd/

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

"Sandstone" wrote in message
...

Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's
kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product
isn't
always the most popular one.


In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a
two
hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.

Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My
guess is
that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less
expensive
is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin,

Incorrect. http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/avionics/pfd/

Hmmm...I thought they use the Garmin1000. Or is that just Cessna?

So why is Cirrus selling three times as many (??) aircraft?

Matt,

So why is Cirrus selling three times as many (??) aircraft?


I think it's even more than that.

The reason is simple: They can make them. Lancair has had a certified
plane for years - but couldn't (can't?) produce it in numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Barrow wrote:

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...

Matt Barrow wrote:


"Sandstone" wrote in message
...


Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.

Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
Columbia 350.

Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's

kind

of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product

isn't

always the most popular one.


In the case of VHS vs. Beta, people chose VHS because they could tape a

two

hour show on one tape -- somewhat of a wise decision.

Why people would choose Cirrus vs. Lancair is a different issue. My

guess is

that they are perceived to be identical, but the Cirrus being less

expensive

is the primary. Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin,

Incorrect. http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/avionics/pfd/


Hmmm...I thought they use the Garmin1000. Or is that just Cessna?

So why is Cirrus selling three times as many (??) aircraft?

I'm sure whoever can answer that question definitively for Lancair can
make a lot of money.