Cirrus SR22 demo flight

Last week I went for an hour-long CFI demo flight in an SR22-GTS. What
an amazing airplane! Huge difference from the Lance I currently fly. A
comfy car-like leather interior, and the presentation from the two
Avidyne panels was just incredible. The takeoff roll was short (only 2
aboard with less than full fuel) and the climb - 1000fpm @ 110kts.
4500ft showed 185ktas. I'm still not sold on the single lever power,
but I know Cirrus did that to simplify engine control.

I can see Cirrus overtaking Cessna as the largest producer of GA
aircraft fairly soon. IMHO A plane that goes nearly as fast as a Baron
with one engine and fixed gear will appeal to more people than dated
designs like Saratogas, Skylanes, Bonanzas (fill in the blank) or even
light twins. While these are all good airplanes they can't compare to
new technology. I figure unless you actually need the two extra seats,
and how often do 6 pax acft fly with all seats full anyway, this seems
like a great alternative. First year insurance is a tad steep though. I
suspect after a few years with more acft in the fleet and more training
in type the accident rate will go down and hopefully the premiums too.
You'd think the rates would be less than a comparable retract, but that
remains to be seen. Not sure how many Columbia 350/400s Lancair is
selling, but I think both companies are on to something. Now if I could
just scrape together $400K...

$400K for an airplane that uses 1940 engine technology?

Paul,

$400K for an airplane that uses 1940 engine technology?


So what's your choice, for 400k?

Also, some people spend that much for a plane that, in addition, has a
60s design (can you say Mooney?).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

1969 Arrow for 1/8 of that cost - at least the airframe sort of matches
the engine technology.

$400K for an airplane that has to be preheated when the temperature
falls below 32F? Ugh

Paul,

1969 Arrow for 1/8 of that cost - at least the airframe sort of matches
the engine technology.


Have you flown the Cirrus? Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in
comparison. You'll forget the engine real soon.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Does it suck $350,000 worth of rocks?

I'm intrigued by the Cirrus, but I don't see myself buying one within
the depreciation window. It's my understanding that, on average,
planes stop heavy depreciation after about 7-8 years, but that's just
something I heard. It seems like new planes are for people with money
to throw away, but different folks get different things out of their
purchases. My wife and I buy cars that are between 1.5 and 2.5 years
old, just after the wildest depreciation has ended. We get essentially
new cars for a LOT less then the new price, plus any lemons have been
weeded out, initial recalls have been taken care of, and the little
stuff that inevitably goes bad with a brand new device has already been
cleaned up.

I'd definately apply the same logic to airplanes personally, but if I
were a corporation that could see a tax benefit out of having a clear
capital depreciation scale because I have millions I make elsewhere,
then sure, the Cirrus might be logical, but otherwise, as an individual
buyer, I'd wait a little longer.

This is completely aside to the nervousness I about the design of the
cirrus. Personally, I'm not sure I want a plane who's first recovery
technique for everything is 'pull the silks'. Parachute deployment
seems like it should be a last step, not a first. It looks like a very
nice plane, of course. Maybe in the next few years I'll 'grow out of'
those concerns. I'd love to try out that avionics package and the view
looks incredible, but not until they've come down a little in price.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Have you flown the Cirrus?

I have. My first flight in one involved bailing out the pilot, who
botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me
understand why the accident rate was what it was.

Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison.

Wrong comparison. The right comparison is a 1965 S-model Bonanza with
the IO-550. Which does NOT suck rocks. And a REALLY nice one, decked
out and with everything in great shape, is still less than half the
cost of the new Cirrus.

All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I
fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.

You'll forget the engine real soon.

No you won't. At least I couldn't. Oh, they've done everything they
could to put a modern false face on the engine - but it's still
obsolete technology. You set up the engine monitor with lean assist
mode, and it all looks modern. So you advance the power lever until
you see 75%, and you start pulling back the mixture. The EGT's peak,
the bars turn blue, and eventually, about 30-40 degrees LOP, the thing
flashes "BEST ECONOMY" at you. But now you look at the power gauge and
you have a lot less than 75% power going. Now what? Advance the power
lever, I guess. Now where are you relative to peak? Guess you'll have
to restart the leaning process. Enrich to peak and a bit more, reset
the lean assist, relean. And then watch the %power gauge fluctuate in
LOP operation - and I don't mean 1-2%, I mean more like 5-10%.

It's real obvious that you're dealing with ancient engine technology
with a digital false face grafted on. Better than nothing, I suppose -
but no better than the Bonanza with a JPI at a fraction of the price.

Michael

Well, the Arrow gets 140 knots on 150 hp (75%) with 1000 lbs useful
load, and of course it's a prehistoric cabin design, but early Bonanzas
weren't any faster until they beefed up the engine, which doesn't count
in my view of aeronautical efficiency. I've flown a couple of the
newer designs (though not the Cirrus) The creature comforts are really
fine, they fly well, the glass panel is awesome, the skin is smooth
(though I'm not sure how smooth it'll be in 40 years after sitting
outside half the time).

It just doesn't make any sense to me, in spite of all of the above, to
invest that much depreciable money in a plane that cools off every time
I reduce power, has to be preheated all winter, burns a quart of oil
every 10 operating hours, and requires a manual mixture adjustment.
Many of the changes are admittedly much more than cosmetic, but the
engine is still a fairly important component of the system.