2017 Cirrus SR-22T G6 $993,000 !

Honestly I only make about 100K a week but if I was making 200K a week I'd probably buy the new SR22T
 
MetalCloud said:
Annnnyway I love Teslas but.... back on track

I doubt there'd be a parachute for a larger jet, if they go that route.

Maybe a pressurized Multiengine?
Click to expand...

Quit trying to bring the thread back on topic.
It's against the rules dontchano.
 
deonb said:
Why is there a limit? The Ares drogue parachutes were tested with a 50'000 lbs payload from a C-17. (Presumably at higher than stall speed).
Click to expand...

CAPS and other high speed deployment parachutes use a slider to delay full opening until the chute can handle the airspeed once deployed. The slider keeps the suspension lines bundled in a tighter group to keep reduce the opening shock on the canopy. Terminal velocity for a skydiver is around 120 mph and the full deployment of the canopy is delayed until the airspeed falls enough to allow the slider to slide down the suspension lines

One thing to keep in mind with parachutes is that the larger you get the heavier the chute will be. According to NASA the Ares packed weight is 1,250lbs:

CAPs I believe is 65 ft in diameter and supports a 3800 lbs load, however, I couldn't find a packed weight of the assembly.

The G12 at 64 ft diameter is closest to the CAPs sized parachute and the assembly weight is 125 lbs for the full packed assembly alone but doesn't have the load carrying capability that CAPS does. Max suspended weight is 2,200 lbs.

A single G11 Cargo parachute weighs in at 250 lbs fully packed and has a 100 ft diameter and is good for 5,000 lbs max suspended weight. Which is double for only a 36 ft increase in canopy diameter.

Some light reading:
Ares info here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090023542.pdf

Cargo Parachute info here: http://www.millsmanufacturing.com/p.../14-products/45-g-12-cargo-parachute-assembly
 
Cirrus sizes the chute and rocket to fit the aircraft and MTOW. The chute for the SR22 is different than the one for the SR22T (3600lb MTOW). The one for the jet is larger yet (6000lb MTOW). The slider mechanism is designed to make sure the chute clears the airframe fully before deploying according to Cirrus training. The useful load for all models likewise increase with the weight of the aircraft. If Cirrus makes a larger jet no doubt they will find a way to get the required chute into it.
 
FloridaPilot said:
IF Cirrus decides to make bigger jets, it would be interesting to see if they would still go with a parachute or not. A parachute can't provide enough drag in flight.
Click to expand...

You mean a bigger jet would be too fast for the chute to be able to be deployed?

If that's the case, I would think maybe they would go to a two chute system.

The main BRS would deploy at indicated speeds of lets say 130 knots and lower, while the supplemental chute would deploy at a much higher speeds to slow the air craft down so that the main BRS could deploy. The added weight of the chute should not be an issue when you are into Turbine land as they can make some serious power.
 
Short version:
Don't bother with a turbocharged airplane unless you're needing it consistently for high density operations or you're flying a pressurized airplane.

Long version:
I've flown some Cirrus. I've flown the Mooney Acclaim Type S. Flown some turbocharged Bonanzas and Cessnas. They all have one fatal problem. The damn things don't even have pressurization.

YMMV but I always feel that a turbocharged airplane without pressurization is pointless unless you're trying to operate in the Rocky mountains or something. Most of them really are kind of fuel hogs and aren't that fast or efficient until you cruise at a high altitude. Problem is you have to climb to that high altitude and drag all that damn heavy turbo gear up there every time. As a result you burn more fuel.

Many of your trips won't be long enough to justify climbing to that high altitude. So you'll be cruising down low and going slower than a cheaper normally aspirated airplane would be going.

Wow, perfect, you finally have that trip long enough to justify climbing way up high. Now try to get your wife and kids to happily use O2.

Oh. You'll also have to deal with filling that damn O2 all the time. Just so that you can fly high. Just because you have to do that because you bought a turbocharged airplane.

I'm not a turbo hater. There is just a time and a place. Pressurization is awesome. Suddenly turbos make sense (because they pressurize your cabin) and you can cruise up in the flight levels without having to jack around with filling O2 bottles or wearing masks. You're also way more comfortable.

Malibu is a WAY better airplane than a million dollar SR22.
 
RudyP said:
Believe it or not there is a market of affluent pilots for whom $1-3 M isn't crazy money and who want something nice, new, easy to fly, comfortable and don't spend 6 hours every day on the internet debating the paper performance differences of airplanes built when we were all in diapers.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those guys that looks at this thread and thinks, "Why not a King Air 90?" But you make an excellent point. At least for me, it's hard to wrap my mind around the kind of income we're talking about here. I have to remind myself that a brand new Cirrus buyer isn't someone that's making twice, three times, or even five times what I make. We're probably talking an order of magnitude or more. And when you get into that kind of money, I can start to understand.

The poor man's version of this is how my attitude about cars has changed over the years. Like PoA with airplanes, I would pore over the numbers, put a heavy emphasis on reliability, and always thought to buy a year or two used. But as I got older and began to make more money, I started allowing myself to sacrifice some of the rational in favor of the emotional. If I want new, I'll buy new, depreciation be damned. I know that a German car is gonna cost me in MX down the road, but if it's what I want, who cares?

So I imagine it's the same with people making the kind of money to buy a new Cirrus. They want new. They want a chute. We all know it's a very nice airplane. A million bucks is what it's going to take, so a million bucks it is.
 
When you are talking about a dual turbine jet...why have a parachute? There is really no purpose to have one because Turbines are the most reliable. But you guys just might be right because Cirrus built their brand on it so it will probably be on there. Also the parachute repack every ten years as well.
 
midcap said:
You mean a bigger jet would be too fast for the chute to be able to be deployed?

If that's the case, I would think maybe they would go to a two chute system.

The main BRS would deploy at indicated speeds of lets say 130 knots and lower, while the supplemental chute would deploy at a much higher speeds to slow the air craft down so that the main BRS could deploy. The added weight of the chute should not be an issue when you are into Turbine land as they can make some serious power.
Click to expand...

Weight is ALWAYS an issue for airplanes, even a small jet. Anything that reduces useful load is important. If the chute and explosives to deploy it weigh 200 lbs that is like having to leave one adult passenger or 35 gallons of fuel behind all the time.

It could be that the CAPS chute is now such an integral part of Cirrus marketing and brand association that they could not exclude it, but looking at it dispassionately I suspect the twin jet accident statistics don't support the need for a chute.
 
CC268 said:
Vans RV-8 is all a man will ever need!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah! Love my RV-8! But, having a partnership share of a T-28 is pretty cool too.

Now, if I had a million dollars, what'd I do (besides two chicks at the same time) is get a pressurized Aerostar, a 700P, maybe a 602P... I'd have plenty of $$ left over for gas and maintenance. Or maybe a Skyraider...
 
I am still finding it hard to buy a new Cirrus when you could get a Malibu for 1/2 the price and have a plane with pressurization, Icing Boots, and a 60 mile glide range at altitude.
 
FloridaPilot said:
There is really no purpose to have one
Click to expand...
... I mean frankly, strictly speaking isn't this true in general about the chute? A competent pilot will not get into a spin in IMC, will know how to establish best glide and land or ditch, etc. The only time I feel like you MUST have a chute is some catastrophic structural failure like the wing falling off, but that's probably about as likely to happen as is the chute not working when needed. The main reason these planes have chutes I believe is marketing, it set them apart from the crowd and like others have said there is a big perceived safety advantage to having that chute for the non flying public, wives (husbands), families, etc. that come flying with us. Mooneys have backwards tails, Cirrus have chutes, Cessnas wings are on top, etc. (speaking in hyperbole but you get the point that it's one of their defining characteristics)

I think Cirrus will make a very concerted effort to have the chute in all their projects since it's a key component of their brand, IMHO

Speaking of competent pilots and chutes, this is just sad:
poor guy ended up VFR into IMC and lost control and crashed... which kind of tells me that the chute isn't the get out of jail free card many think it is
 
midcap said:
I am still finding it hard to buy a new Cirrus when you could get a Malibu for 1/2 the price and have a plane with pressurization, Icing Boots, and a 60 mile glide range at altitude.
Click to expand...
I think it ultimately just comes down to that many people with that kind of disposable income simply *like* the plane and have fallen in love with it

It's not a bad thing, the Cessna / Piper market feels "old" and it's nice to see a new brand being successful. There have been many fledgling startups that can't seem to get off the ground (Adam Aircraft, we'll see about Icon, Panthera, etc.). Hopefully more players enter the market to help lower the costs and give the legacy Cessna Piper folks some pressure to keep up. I left Mooney out since I think they're unique enough to always attract a certain buyer, but they'll probably at some point need to think of some kind of clean sheet game changing design as well
 
GRG55 said:
Most CNG vehicles are dual fuel. They won't leave you stranded or sitting around for long periods of time waiting to refill.
Click to expand...

Well, some are, especially the ones that are conversions. The Honda Civic is a CNG-only vehicle I believe. I do agree that when equipped as dual-fuel, it's a non-issue altogether, similar to the hybrid-EVs.
 
midcap said:
I am still finding it hard to buy a new Cirrus when you could get a Malibu for 1/2 the price and have a plane with pressurization, Icing Boots, and a 60 mile glide range at altitude.
Click to expand...
If I ever decide to change what I normally fly, which is a Saratoga, the Malibu seems like almost a perfect choice for me. About the same speed, but great cabin, more room, ability to comfortably get high.

I just wonder how far a trip do you really need to take to justify getting into flight levels.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
midcap said:
I am still finding it hard to buy a new Cirrus when you could get a Malibu for 1/2 the price and have a plane with pressurization, Icing Boots, and a 60 mile glide range at altitude.
Click to expand...

You can't get a brand new Malibu (or whatever Piper is calling it these days) for 1/2 the price. To mere mortals like you and me, we think of this from the perspective of "What would I do with a million dollars?" The guys buying these new Cirri have an assload more than a million to spend, but the Cirrus fits their mission, they like the chute, and they like that it's new. I think some of the Cirrus drivers around here are too polite to come out and say it, but most of us simply don't make nearly enough money to understand - this thing is not much different than a car purchase to them.
 
kayoh190 said:
You can't get a brand new Malibu (or whatever Piper is calling it these days) for 1/2 the price. To mere mortals like you and me, we think of this from the perspective of "What would I do with a million dollars?" The guys buying these new Cirri have an assload more than a million to spend, but the Cirrus fits their mission, they like the chute, and they like that it's new. I think some of the Cirrus drivers around here are too polite to come out and say it, but most of us simply don't make nearly enough money to understand - this thing is not much different than a car purchase to them.
Click to expand...

You don't need money to understand the math.

What's more interesting to me is that Cirrus apparently has done the math and thinks a market size of single digits or just over for this top end model, helps their bottom line more than driving costs down and selling more inexpensive models.

This says something about the company and their long term goals, but I'm not quite sure what it is, yet. Still thinking about that.

I think the top end SR-22T detracts from their CirrusJet market. Or at least overlaps too much from a marketing perspective. Did they find not enough people signed on the dotted line for the jet?
 
citizen5000 said:
Cirrus sizes the chute and rocket to fit the aircraft and MTOW. The chute for the SR22 is different than the one for the SR22T (3600lb MTOW). The one for the jet is larger yet (6000lb MTOW). The slider mechanism is designed to make sure the chute clears the airframe fully before deploying according to Cirrus training. The useful load for all models likewise increase with the weight of the aircraft. If Cirrus makes a larger jet no doubt they will find a way to get the required chute into it.
Click to expand...

You are very close but the SR22 and SR22T have the same parachute. The bigger size came with the release of the G5 (both SR22 and SR22T). All prior versions have the 55ft parachute and all G5 and subsequent have the 65ft one. The SR20 has a different parachute as well so your overall point is correct.
 
jesse said:
Short version:
Don't bother with a turbocharged airplane unless you're needing it consistently for high density operations or you're flying a pressurized airplane.

Long version:
I've flown some Cirrus. I've flown the Mooney Acclaim Type S. Flown some turbocharged Bonanzas and Cessnas. They all have one fatal problem. The damn things don't even have pressurization.

YMMV but I always feel that a turbocharged airplane without pressurization is pointless unless you're trying to operate in the Rocky mountains or something. Most of them really are kind of fuel hogs and aren't that fast or efficient until you cruise at a high altitude. Problem is you have to climb to that high altitude and drag all that damn heavy turbo gear up there every time. As a result you burn more fuel.

Many of your trips won't be long enough to justify climbing to that high altitude. So you'll be cruising down low and going slower than a cheaper normally aspirated airplane would be going.

Wow, perfect, you finally have that trip long enough to justify climbing way up high. Now try to get your wife and kids to happily use O2.

Oh. You'll also have to deal with filling that damn O2 all the time. Just so that you can fly high. Just because you have to do that because you bought a turbocharged airplane.

I'm not a turbo hater. There is just a time and a place. Pressurization is awesome. Suddenly turbos make sense (because they pressurize your cabin) and you can cruise up in the flight levels without having to jack around with filling O2 bottles or wearing masks. You're also way more comfortable.

Malibu is a WAY better airplane than a million dollar SR22.
Click to expand...
One argument I've heard for the SR22T with FIKI is that without the turbo it could take a lot longer to climb up through a layer of ice, especially if it's started to accumulate at all on the air-frame.
 
MassPilot said:
One argument I've heard for the SR22T with FIKI is that without the turbo it could take a lot longer to climb up through a layer of ice, especially if it's started to accumulate at all on the air-frame.
Click to expand...
I've climbed out in icing conditions in a NA SR22 without any problems. The TKS does a pretty good job of shedding the ice.
 
kayoh190 said:
You can't get a brand new Malibu (or whatever Piper is calling it these days) for 1/2 the price. To mere mortals like you and me, we think of this from the perspective of "What would I do with a million dollars?" The guys buying these new Cirri have an assload more than a million to spend, but the Cirrus fits their mission, they like the chute, and they like that it's new. I think some of the Cirrus drivers around here are too polite to come out and say it, but most of us simply don't make nearly enough money to understand - this thing is not much different than a car purchase to them.
Click to expand...
I was not saying a brand new Malibu. You can however get a very nice one for 300k to 400k, and then spend whatever is needed to upgrade the avionics. Even if that is 100k more to make it like new, there is a lot of money left there to by AV gas.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
You don't need money to understand the math.
Click to expand...

True, but I think having the money changes how you react to the results of the math. Guys like me find it acceptable to buy used because we don't have the bankroll to insist on new. So we compare everything we see to what's possible on the used market. The million dollar Cirrus guys don't need to do that - they're comparing against the new certified market, and just under a million bucks is pretty much the entry point for a genuine transportation machine.
 
kayoh190 said:
True, but I think having the money changes how you react to the results of the math. Guys like me find it acceptable to buy used because we don't have the bankroll to insist on new. So we compare everything we see to what's possible on the used market. The million dollar Cirrus guys don't need to do that.
Click to expand...

I met a "Cirrus guy" who bought into the "leasebacks make it cheaper" sales pitch from somewhere and was pretty worried about making his payments once.

I think there's a spectrum of "million dollar Cirrus guys" and some of them aren't quite as wealthy as they should have been before signing the paperwork. Others, no worries, they could have that million dollars depreciate all the way to zero and it wouldn't move the needle on their personal finances.

But I still think that market is really small. How many top line aircraft did Cirrus ship last year?

I think they realized there's still a jump in financing the Jet. They extended the boarding ladder for that with the high priced 22. Buy it, finance it, pay on it a good while, then sell it and you're set for the down payment on the Jet for even bigger financing.

I think this high end single is all about numbers to pull people up into the jet who are financing the purchases. Just my best guess right now. I can't figure any other way to make the math work out for this top line single with a significant surplus of aircraft still in the used market that can do what the 22T does.

When those aircraft fall out of the maintainable fleet, then there's better numbers for this top of the line single. But I understand Cirrus tends to lead and be there when the market gets there.

They really need the TAA rule change for the Commercial to keep the lower end line moving at a high rate. I keep wondering when we'll see that. The removal of the retract requirement is coming, just not sure when.
 
RudyP said:
You are very close but the SR22 and SR22T have the same parachute. The bigger size came with the release of the G5 (both SR22 and SR22T). All prior versions have the 55ft parachute and all G5 and subsequent have the 65ft one. The SR20 has a different parachute as well so your overall point is correct.
Click to expand...

I am referring to the G5 and G6 and the SF50.
 
Art VanDelay said:
It certainly does look a lot more comfortable than the Cirrus but I still wouldn't feel good flying it at night with the family onboard.
Click to expand...

I tried to sit in the front in a Malibu and it wasn't particularly comfortable.

To get a similar level of avionics as in a SR22, you would have to buy a newer one. A new SR22T with deice, AC and active traffic is 740k. A New M350 is 1.2mil.
 
Tantalum said:
... ...The only time I feel like you MUST have a chute is some catastrophic structural failure like the wing falling off, but that's probably about as likely to happen as is the chute not working when needed.
Click to expand...

The CAPS manual expects a chute pull under these circumstances:

1) Mid-air collision (or collision with a drone or a bird strike)
2) Engine power loss/fail over hostile terrain, water, or densely populated areas with no assurance of a safe outcome
3) Engine fail due to fuel exhaustion
4) Engine fail during night flight
5) Loss of control due to component failure or icing or lightning strike
6) Inadvertent flight into IMC with no IFR training leading to disorientation and panic
7) Low altitude stall-spin
8) Major structural failure
9) Pilot incapacitation (heart attack) - brief passenger
10) Impossible turn
 
kayoh190 said:
You can't get a brand new Malibu (or whatever Piper is calling it these days) for 1/2 the price. To mere mortals like you and me, we think of this from the perspective of "What would I do with a million dollars?" The guys buying these new Cirri have an assload more than a million to spend, but the Cirrus fits their mission, they like the chute, and they like that it's new. I think some of the Cirrus drivers around here are too polite to come out and say it, but most of us simply don't make nearly enough money to understand - this thing is not much different than a car purchase to them.
Click to expand...

that is true, if it's just pocket change when why not.
 
citizen5000 said:
The CAPS manual expects a chute pull under these circumstances:
Click to expand...
Been a while since I've flown the Cirrus, but that's right, I do remember this list now.

There's no doubt it's a good safety feature, but part of me also feels like it's a little like going to the beach with a life preserver. Sure, you may get a heart attack during your swim, or you may get caught in a rip current and pulled away from shore, may get disoriented from a large set of swells, may panic, you may be struck and knocked unconscious by a wave runner, you may be out at night and get hit by a swarm of jelly fish, etc. All of those are situations were having a life jacket would probably help save your life..

But if flying was truly that dire then I would have thought the Cirrus fatality rate would be near zero, instead, it *was* at or above the legacy rate and only recently seems to have subsided after Cirrus revamped their training, etc.

I do think a lot of it is good marketing. How many pilots have lived to tell about power loss in flight (many, I think one poster here mentioned a while back he's had 5 so far in his career), the good pilotage there seems to be celebrated far less (or even not at all) compared to what happens when a parachute deployment occurs in a Cirrus, and how the chute "saved the day!!"

It's all very easy to cherry pick statistics to fit a narrative

Verdict: yes, it's an awesome safety feature... but it would have very little bearing on me actually buying a plane. My primary fear in flying is midairs and single engine over water or over hostile terrain. Having a chute in those cases is a benefit, but I'd rather have a second engine still turning to bring me home than land on the side of a remote mountain or go for a swim. In the case of a midair, I wonder what the chances are of surviving the initial impact AND the caps system being intact enough to use
 
Tantalum said:
In the case of a midair, I wonder what the chances are of surviving the initial impact AND the caps system being intact enough to use
Click to expand...
Seemed to work well for the Cirrus-helicopter midair at FDK.
 
Cirrus pioneered the BRS chute directly due to Alan Klapmeier's mid-air collision that almost killed him and did kill the other pilot. The expense and hassle to be first to put an all airframe parachute in the first SR20 nearly bankrupted the little company. The Klapmeiers were ridiculed for years for attempting to change the paradigm on safety. But over time the chute has saved hundreds.

It sounds corny but Cirrus really believes in their CAPS system. It's the main reason why they put one in their jet. Like the early SR20s piston singles with the first CAPS now the SF50 jet is the first and only jet to have an airframe parachute.

Some Cirrus customers may be buying because of CAPS. But the planes are good products despite the high price tag as born out by the sales numbers. Friends and family of Cirrus owners often will only fly because CAPS is present and that's a nifty baiting technique if you like getting your family and friends to go flying.
 
Tantalum said:
but I'd rather have a second engine still turning to bring me home than land on the side of a remote mountain or go for a swim.
Click to expand...

Yep, I used to think exactly the same way. Exactly. But after awhile of having that second engine and putting all the avgas through it , all the oil changes, spark plug changes, magneto issues, putting money aside for TBO etc, etc the overall simplicity of the chute started looking pretty good.
 
citizen5000 said:
Friends and family of Cirrus owners often will only fly because CAPS is present and that's a nifty baiting technique if you like getting your family and friends to go flying.
Click to expand...
Yep, ultimately without CAPS I am confident Cirrus would not be what they are today. They are capable planes, but CAPS is their game changer.

The multi-engine market is mostly dead because of various reasons, and the chute is another nail in that coffin. I applaud Diamond for the DA62... but I doubt that will ever earn legendary status like a Baron for example... maybe nothing else ever will again to be honest
 
Tantalum said:
... I mean frankly, strictly speaking isn't this true in general about the chute? A competent pilot will not get into a spin in IMC, will know how to establish best glide and land or ditch, etc. The only time I feel like you MUST have a chute is some catastrophic structural failure like the wing falling off, but that's probably about as likely to happen as is the chute not working when needed. The main reason these planes have chutes I believe is marketing, it set them apart from the crowd and like others have said there is a big perceived safety advantage to having that chute for the non flying public, wives (husbands), families, etc. that come flying with us. Mooneys have backwards tails, Cirrus have chutes, Cessnas wings are on top, etc. (speaking in hyperbole but you get the point that it's one of their defining characteristics)
Click to expand...

Many very experienced Pilots has gotten into a spin. IMO The chute is very useful at the piston level because engines are not as reliable compared to the Turbo Prop and Turbine level. When you are on the TP and Turbine level you are generally traveling at much faster speeds. The FAA didn't need Cirrus to test the jet parachute. Why do you think that is?

http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-says-cirrus-wont-have-to-test-jet-parachute-in-flight
 
Art VanDelay said:
But after awhile of having that second engine and putting all the avgas through it , all the oil changes, spark plug changes, magneto issues, putting money aside for TBO etc, etc the overall simplicity of the chute started looking pretty good.
Click to expand...
...and that's realistically the pragmatic element that pushes most people (and would probably push me too) when the reality of having a couple hundred thousand to spend on a plane comes into play. If the second engine is there only for an emergency then the long term maintenance and cost of hauling that "security blanket" around becomes expensive, or if money is no object then it at least becomes annoying. With single engine planes like the SR22 (and others) there really is not much performance to be gained from a small twin, only headaches, and the chute checks off the "what if" box to a satisfactory degree

My wife generally likes high wing planes, as do most people I fly with... but back when I flew the Cirrus that was hands down preferred by friends and family for various reasons (interior design feels modern, and kind of like a car), chute, etc.

Maybe I'm just bitter than a single engine four place piston plane approaches $1 mil :(... but the demand is clearly there to justify the pricing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top