Cirrus Intros '5th Generation' SR20, SR22

Looks like the CAPS had to be larger due to the weight increase.

I didn't know they went to a Carbon Fiber spar. I knew there was some debate and engineering work on it, but I thought they decided against it for engineering cost v benefit reasons.

The SR is looking more and more like my ideal airplane, but dayum! The price tag!
 
I made this comment in another post, but it seems the piston world has ONE innovator: Cirrus. Sadly Beech and Cessna just drag behind, only doing me too stuff when the market absolutely demands it.

I guess it all makes sense, they produce two piston single aircraft, that is all. If they don't sell they close. Everybody else is enamored with the jet and TP market and see pistons as a step up only.

Bravo for Cirrus they are quickly zooming in the perfect single engine piston aircraft.

I'm definitely going to check one out.
 
So with 1340 UL, the NA SR22 is now back where the Comanche 260C left off in 1972 :)

Now most buyers will just order TKS AND AC and the UL wil be right back where it started....

Every innovation from Cirrus further depresses the price on the prior 'G'. With any luck, the earlier G3 planes with Fiki TKS drop into my price range in a couple of years.
 
weilke said:
So with 1340 UL, the NA SR22 is now back where the Comanche 260C left off in 1972 :)

Now most buyers will just order TKS AND AC and the UL wil be right back where it started....

Every innovation from Cirrus further depresses the price on the prior 'G'. With any luck, the earlier G3 planes with Fiki TKS drop into my price range in a couple of years.
Click to expand...

FIKI and A/C are standard so included in the UL in the article.
 
stoked!!!

Now you can fly full seats(normal size adults, not midgets) plus baggage, decent range (3 hours + 45 min reserve), and take off undergross!!

I really want that plane. Its a shame it is only approx 800,000 plus taxes:mad2::mad2:
 
weilke said:
Cool. That makes it even better.
Click to expand...

OK, I have to recant, my bad.

I just called the Cirrus rep for Texas to clarify the article. He said FIKI is the standard form of TKS, but it and A/C are still options. So a turbo with A/C and FIKI has a useful of 1100 lb. and a N/A with the same is 1200. Still much better numbers than we saw before.

He said the FAA made them basically recertify the aircraft. The flap speeds for example are now 150 KTS. The parachute deployment speed is also much higher and it can be used at lower altitudes, he didn't have the exact number.

Stall speed is a couple of knots slower.

Performance should be about the same, SR22T 10K 17GPH 188 True, so moving right along.

Landing gear and brakes are also beefed up.

BTW 92 Gals capacity so range with full tanks is not an issue.
 
Alexb2000 said:
OK, I have to recant, my bad.

I just called the Cirrus rep for Texas to clarify the article. He said FIKI is the standard form of TKS, but it and A/C are still options. So a turbo with A/C and FIKI has a useful of 1100 lb. and a N/A with the same is 1200. Still much better numbers than we saw before.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Serves me right for trusting the article. :confused:
 
Standard TKS and FIKI are not the same...at least not to the FAA.
 
5G for the SR20 is just a higher price with no other benefits. Still no TIS (the active traffic is a $22,000 15 lb. option).
 
Alexb2000 said:
OK, I have to recant, my bad.

I just called the Cirrus rep for Texas to clarify the article. He said FIKI is the standard form of TKS, but it and A/C are still options. So a turbo with A/C and FIKI has a useful of 1100 lb. and a N/A with the same is 1200. Still much better numbers than we saw before.
Click to expand...

Makes more sense.

1200 UL with those options will still be great, 4 adults and fuel.

Well, now which of the local bank branches is the most isolated......
 
bbchien said:
Good changes, but no changes to that awful fuel system.
Click to expand...

If they just went through a pretty significant redesign of the wing structure to accommodate the higher UL that required what amounts to a recertification by the FAA, why do you think they didn't ‘fix’ it? I would bet that their research showed it’s not any more dangerous than any other plane that crash lands with its wings full of fuel. I think this point has been proven many times over by the Cirrus guys on the red board.
 
Last edited:
OK. I had to add one more thing about my conversation with the Cirrus Rep.

He was talking about changes to the flaps and that they can now be put in at 150 KIAS.

I said, "Wow, that's really high".

He said, "Yeah just like most Cirrus pilots I come into the airport way too fast".

It just gave me a chuckle thinking about all the stereotypical comments we read here about Cirri drivers. I guess now they are embracing and engineering around those issues.:D

Oh yeah, they beefed up the landing gear and brakes also.:D:D
 
Is the goal of an industry innovator to "be no more dangerous than the other designs" that are at least 50 years older than their whiz-bang offering?

mirage00 said:
If they just went through a pretty significant redesign of the wing structure to accommodate the higher UL that required what amounts to a recertification by the FAA, why do you think they didn't ‘fix’ it? I would bet that their research showed it’s not any more dangerous than any other plane that crash lands with its wings full of fuel. I think this point has been proven many times over by the Cirrus guys on the red board.
Click to expand...
 
Mirage000, the record (NTSB) shows that the aaverage GA aircraft in a runway LOC scenario, ignites into a fireball about 25% of the time. Cirri- 50%.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Oh yeah, they beefed up the landing gear and brakes also.:D:D
Click to expand...

Brakes seemed pretty effective on the SR20. At least they were good enough for our renter to smoke the tires for 500' feet before putting it through a chain link fence? Serious flat spots. $120K repair.
 
Is the goal of an industry innovator to "be no more dangerous than the other designs" that are at least 50 years older than their whiz-bang offering?
Click to expand...

+1. One would think that the great minds could do better.
 
wabower said:
Is the goal of an industry innovator to "be no more dangerous than the other designs" that are at least 50 years older than their whiz-bang offering?
Click to expand...

No, and cirrus is not.
 
Very nice aircraft! I'm looking forward to the Cirrus Jet. I believe it will be the best personal aircraft available.
 
jmp470 said:
Very nice aircraft! I'm looking forward to the Cirrus Jet. I believe it will be the best personal aircraft available.
Click to expand...

The objective of the G5 is to keep enough Cirrus afficionados tied to the brand until the jet comes out.
 
weilke said:
The objective of the G5 is to keep enough Cirrus afficionados tied to the brand until the jet comes out.
Click to expand...


I don't blame them one bit. But the Gen 5 SR22 looks nice. The wife just looked at it, she likes it a lot.

My ultimate goal is the Cirrus Jet! :yes:
 
bbchien said:
Mirage000, the record (NTSB) shows that the aaverage GA aircraft in a runway LOC scenario, ignites into a fireball about 25% of the time. Cirri- 50%.
Click to expand...


I don't believe those numbers. Please point me to a source. I have looked deeply into the accident data and haven't found this.
 
If I could afford the new SR22T then I could fly like my friend does in his V-tail. He is proud of the high landing gear extension speed and how things fly forward as he puts the gear down on final. He beats me up all the time about how he can come screaming in because of the ability to use the gear as speed brakes.

Alexb2000 said:
OK. I had to add one more thing about my conversation with the Cirrus Rep.

He was talking about changes to the flaps and that they can now be put in at 150 KIAS.

I said, "Wow, that's really high".

He said, "Yeah just like most Cirrus pilots I come into the airport way too fast".

It just gave me a chuckle thinking about all the stereotypical comments we read here about Cirri drivers. I guess now they are embracing and engineering around those issues.:D

Oh yeah, they beefed up the landing gear and brakes also.:D:D
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Is the goal of an industry innovator to "be no more dangerous than the other designs" that are at least 50 years older than their whiz-bang offering?
Click to expand...

I suspect you are correct on the fuel tank i.e. that it is just average. There are lots of engineering tradeoffs. Certainly the risk of death by fire is no higher in a Cirrus than other planes based on searches I have done of the NTSB data. In general burning to death is not how you are likely to die in a plane. People do but it isn't anywhere near the top of the list. Mid airs are similar. Their are an average of 8 fatal mid airs a year and on average 4 of those involved formation flying. Yet, as pilots, we are terrified we will have one.

Interestingly, at an NTSB conference in Washington in 2012, the SR22 was shown to have a lower than average fatality rate when compared to similar use airplanes. Specifically there was a category called personal flying which removed instruction and flight by professional pilots. The personal flight category has a much higher accident rate than GA overall and SR22 flight in that category was below average for fatalities.
 
Last edited:
Alexb2000 said:
Performance should be about the same, SR22T 10K 17GPH 188 True, so moving right along.

BTW 92 Gals capacity so range with full tanks is not an issue.
Click to expand...

Yikes. I can do 175 KTAS at that altitude on 12gph in the Mooney (89 gal useable). So the Cirrus is using nearly 50% more fuel to go about 7% faster.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yikes. I can do 175 KTAS at that altitude on 12gph in the Mooney (89 gal useable). So the Cirrus is using nearly 50% more fuel to go about 7% faster.
Click to expand...

But nowhere near the same comfort as the Cirrus ride.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yikes. I can do 175 KTAS at that altitude on 12gph in the Mooney (89 gal useable). So the Cirrus is using nearly 50% more fuel to go about 7% faster.
Click to expand...

Nobody beats a Mooney for efficiency. Sadly not important enough to buyers to keep them around.

BTW- Both numbers look impressive to me, I'm burning more to go slower than either one.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
How's that? What's more comfortable about a Cirrus than a Mooney?
Click to expand...
Just compare the internal cabin width at the elbow level ... close to 6" worth of difference.
Airbus makes a big deal in its advertising (and some airlines follow) that a A320 economy class passenger gets a paltry 0.7" extra room in width comparing to a 737, here we have almost 3" per passenger.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top