Cirrus SR22 2017 here are the REAL changes.

Just watched the video... eh. Cirrus planes are nice, fancy planes.

But the video didn't seem to be geared towards pilots. It seemed to be geared towards luxury car owners who might want to be pilots. The beginning sequence just reminded me of MTV's Cribs.

The avionics were impressive, and I'm a sucker for pretty lighting... but this lighting seemed to be much more fashion over function.
 
Exactly. And the avionics aren't exclusive to Cirrus...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RudyP said:
Fair enough and no one is forcing you or anyone else to buy new tech but for some of us it is nice to see a manufacturer in such a tiny industry pushing the boundaries further. Cirrus makes fewer planes in a year than Toyota makes cars in an 8 hour production shift but they improve the product every year and whether or not that is your cup of tea, I think it is good for GA and I am really glad they are doing it. Your opinion may vary.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and I can't quite understand why some people hate everything Cirrus. Even if you don't like the plane AT LEAST appreciate that they are doing well in GA. They know what their clients want and are giving it to them at 1 mm a pop.

mulligan said:
I'm thrilled with the changes and even more thrilled to be getting mine in a few weeks. Some only see avionics and lights but there are other smaller changes that I'm thrilled about. You can make fun of my choice of plane all you want. It will not bother me one bit when I'm up in the air with the latest technology and added safety of the chute.
Click to expand...

Congrats, can't wait to see the photos!!
 
Lol. In the first 2 quarters of 2016 mooney sold 2 entire planes to Cirrus 153. Cirrus does a great job marketing their sports cars. Maybe mooney can learn something from them.
 
The dig is basically this - they sell a flashy marketing driven but inferior product. That the chute turned out to be a marketing masterstroke (and yes saved some lives) but has had until recently a bad accident rate despite all the safety features.

That the construction has been a little slipshod.

That maybe without the chute the spin characteristics would have prevented certification.

But perhaps the biggest dig is it is the plane for pilots more interested in gadgets than a "pilots" airframe... pilots with more money than experience.

I'm not saying I buy into all of these things, but in some ways pilots don't like Cirrus drivers for the same reason they don't like BMW drivers....

And I've met a few who have expensive Cirrus airplanes that never bothered to fly a Bo or a Mooney or a TTx... how do you spend that kind of money without comparing?

Just what I've gleaned over time from various folks... some fair some less fair.

g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
The dig is basically this - they sell a flashy marketing driven but inferior product. That the chute turned out to be a marketing masterstroke (and yes saved some lives) but has had until recently a bad accident rate despite all the safety features.

That the construction has been a little slipshod.

That maybe without the chute the spin characteristics would have prevented certification.

But perhaps the biggest dig is it is the plane for pilots more interested in gadgets than a "pilots" airframe... pilots with more money than experience.

I'm not saying I buy into all of these things, but in some ways pilots don't like Cirrus drivers for the same reason they don't like BMW drivers....

And I've met a few who have expensive Cirrus airplanes that never bothered to fly a Bo or a Mooney or a TTx... how do you spend that kind of money without comparing?

Just what I've gleaned over time from various folks... some fair some less fair.

g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Don't you think you are generalizing just a little bit? There are plenty of Pilots out there that fly different airplanes and are attracted to the avionics that make flying safer. IMO it's about having more options in the cockpit. After doing some research myself the accident rates were mostly because of the pilot not using what was available to him/her.
 
ircphoenix said:
Just watched the video... eh. Cirrus planes are nice, fancy planes.

But the video didn't seem to be geared towards pilots. It seemed to be geared towards luxury car owners who might want to be pilots. The beginning sequence just reminded me of MTV's Cribs.

The avionics were impressive, and I'm a sucker for pretty lighting... but this lighting seemed to be much more fashion over function.
Click to expand...

That is the market they are targeting...and have for quite some time. Luxury car manufacturers like Tesla and Daimler are generally not targeting people who like to drive either. They are all going after the high net worth individual with a desire to own a technology platform, quiet, comfortable, fast, a vehicle that will keep him/her and the family safe, that appeals to the spouse (look how Cirrus has done its interiors) and, yes, carries some bragging rights at the country club.

In the old days that market was dominated by Bonanzas and Caddies. BMW upped the game long ago and Cadillac is now fighting to get back with cars like the CTS-V. Cirrus has upped the game too, and now owns that niche just below the single engine turboprops such as the Piper M600 and the TBM-900. Even the mighty Beechcraft didn't keep up.

I think Cirrus' strategy to bypass the turboprop step-up and try to move owners directly from an unpressurized piston single directly to a jet will be really interesting to watch.
 
Someone asked why so many detractors, so I attempted a summary. Of course I'm grossly generalizing. But those are the digs...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
The dig is basically this - they sell a flashy marketing driven but inferior product. That the chute turned out to be a marketing masterstroke (and yes saved some lives) but has had until recently a bad accident rate despite all the safety features.

That the construction has been a little slipshod.

That maybe without the chute the spin characteristics would have prevented certification.

But perhaps the biggest dig is it is the plane for pilots more interested in gadgets than a "pilots" airframe... pilots with more money than experience.

I'm not saying I buy into all of these things, but in some ways pilots don't like Cirrus drivers for the same reason they don't like BMW drivers....

And I've met a few who have expensive Cirrus airplanes that never bothered to fly a Bo or a Mooney or a TTx... how do you spend that kind of money without comparing?

Just what I've gleaned over time from various folks... some fair some less fair.

g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well I just checked 3rd quarter and wow, mooney sold 5 year to date compare to Cirrus 226. You talk accident rate. Look at the numbers of Cirrus vs the number of other manufacturers and when you break it down to hours flown and units I'll take the safety of the cirrus all day long.

And I have looked at and flown the other planes. My personal preference was the Cirrus. It has more head room, more shoulder room, has much easier ingress and egress than many I say in, the avionics are superior, the layout was more preferable, and seats were much more comfortable for long range flights. Of course these are just my observations. Oh, and for many years, many other observations as well as those sales figures are about the same since the Cirrus was introduced. A bunch of haters just because it's expensive and bad ass.
 
Wow, sensitive ;)

And "haters" makes you sound like a teenager...

Sales figures don't equal good taste either, just saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Umm,not really involved here and not taking sides, just curious,

What plane is in the little picture next to your name, Mr mulligan?

My first guess was cardinal but that wing brace thingie is there
 
Just finished an annual on a 2014 Cirrus. From a maintenance standpoint, I really like the airframe. It seems solid and easy to inspect. I like the TSIO-550 and from what I have seen, it doesn't have a higher failure rate than average.

Plus, that fancy leather interior smelled fantastic.

I wouldn't own one and I would want to become familiar with the spin limitations on it before flying one for work, but I see why a lot of people purchasing new want them. They are nice and comfortable for some serious long distance flying.

That video focused way too much on the shiny wingtip but it will sell airplanes to some people.

For those who want it, great, buy it! For me, I'll get a straight tail 182 with big tires for back country work or an older Mooney for serious travel.

There's a reason we have more than one style and manufacturer of small airplanes.
 
forsonsinc said:
Umm,not really involved here and not taking sides, just curious,

What plane is in the little picture next to your name, Mr mulligan?

My first guess was cardinal but that wing brace thingie is there
Click to expand...
Cessna 206. 5X the airplane a Cirrus is ;)

I jest. Only 4X the plane.
 
Last edited:
I didn't watch the video but is it still required to have the strobes on at all times. The only thing I don't like about cirrus is that they blind me at night when they taxi by.
 
Cool, but I still say the SR20 is the more exciting development for the 6-series Cirri.
 
mulligan said:
Well I just checked 3rd quarter and wow, mooney sold 5 year to date compare to Cirrus 226. You talk accident rate. Look at the numbers of Cirrus vs the number of other manufacturers and when you break it down to hours flown and units I'll take the safety of the cirrus all day long.

And I have looked at and flown the other planes. My personal preference was the Cirrus. It has more head room, more shoulder room, has much easier ingress and egress than many I say in, the avionics are superior, the layout was more preferable, and seats were much more comfortable for long range flights. Of course these are just my observations. Oh, and for many years, many other observations as well as those sales figures are about the same since the Cirrus was introduced. A bunch of haters just because it's expensive and bad ass.
Click to expand...
Can I have your 182 when you get an SR22?
 
I have flown cessna, piper, mooney, diamond, and bo before i bought the cirrus. I travel a lot and take the cirrus 90 percent of the time. I average 350 hours a year. By far the cirrus was most comfortable. It has an astounding safety record, and it looks great.

I know most hate cirrus. Which is odd as everyone seems to buy them. Then many say its not for real pilots. Yet most cirrus pilots ive met on copa have been flying planes long before cirrus first rolled out. My neighbor flys a P3 for customs and told me hes buying a cirrus. Guys got about 20k hours. But the moment he flies the cirrus he will no longer be a real pilot.
 
Plus the amount of training and resources Cirrus gives its pilots is unmatched. I don't see anyone else doing what Cirrus is doing. They are masters at advertising and really know how to market to a certain clientele.
 
jordane93 said:
Plus the amount of training and resources Cirrus gives its pilots is unmatched. I don't see anyone else doing what Cirrus is doing. They are masters at advertising and really know how to market to a certain clientele.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Training is top notch and a continuous thing. The culture of safety with cirrus and copa is awesome. I personally do IPC every 6 months and try to attend at least once per year to a cppp.
 
I don't think people "hate" Cirrus. I think that they hate the fact that they can't afford one, they hate people who won't shut up about owning one and they hate the red handle jokes because they stopped being funny about 3 years ago.

Just my opinion and its worth exactly what you paid for it. ;)
 
Nope, can afford one, don't want one. Sure the interior is nice and I get the chute thing. But it's fixed gear, tail looks funny, overpriced and I don't like how it handles... so no, it's not a dumb envy thing. More power to those that love em!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You've all ignored the most atrocious affront to piloting there is... the sidestick. I mean, granted, the autopilot is doing all the flying for you, but still. :stirpot:
 
Like mentioned here, the Cirrus is a wonderful airplane. I don't remember exactly how much time in the airframe I have but its in the neighborhood of 500 hours. I really can't say a whole lot of bad things about it - other than it gives some amateurs and overabundance of confidence.

Its the owners that get on your nerves.
 
One single thing Mooney could do to easily increase sales by a factor of 5 would be to add a chute. Is it pride stopping them?
 
Cluemeister said:
One single thing Mooney could do to easily increase sales by a factor of 5 would be to add a chute. Is it pride stopping them?
Click to expand...

No. Regulations are. Getting the chute and redesign certified probably is cost prohibitive. Raising their sales by a factor of 5 would be 5 aircraft to 25 aircraft. A significant improvement to be sure... but probably not enough to justify the design costs if they were to design it into a new airframe.
 
ircphoenix said:
No. Regulations are. Getting the chute and redesign certified probably is cost prohibitive. Raising their sales by a factor of 5 would be 5 aircraft to 25 aircraft. A significant improvement to be sure... but probably not enough to justify the design costs if they were to design it into a new airframe.
Click to expand...

There is an STCed BRS for the 182. Doesn't require recertification of the whole thing.
 
A 182 doesn't compete with SR22/TTx/Ovation/Acclaim.

The Mooney issue is they are up against the 61 knot single engine stall speed limit with the fast Mooney wing. You really now need the additional useful load to add the chute.

Any increase in useful load increases that stall speed. Wing redesigns are hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ircphoenix said:
You've all ignored the most atrocious affront to piloting there is... the sidestick. I mean, granted, the autopilot is doing all the flying for you, but still. :stirpot:
Click to expand...

Normally I'd agree with that. But, it's all about the AOA. That's what is important, I mean, look at all the comments and threads about AOA on POA. So it must be the #1 item most are concerned about and prefer, right?
 
mulligan said:
...
And I have looked at and flown the other planes. My personal preference was the Cirrus. It has more head room, more shoulder room, has much easier ingress and egress than many I say in, the avionics are superior, the layout was more preferable, and seats were much more comfortable for long range flights. Of course these are just my observations. Oh, and for many years, many other observations as well as those sales figures are about the same since the Cirrus was introduced. A bunch of haters just because it's expensive and bad ass.
Click to expand...

Exactly this for me. Never flew a TTx but don't care to. I didn't consider a mooney. It doesn't give me anything that the cirrus doesn't. Plus, with the limited sales I'd be worried about maintenance, parts, longevity, etc. Nice planes I'm sure, just no interest in one whatsoever.

The community, support, training programs, and so many other side benefits are another thing I love about the cirrus. It's a more enjoyable experience for my pax. And that makes aviation fun. My daughters are happy and comfortable and love flying with me.

People talk about those rich cirrus drivers with more money than brains need to take a look in the mirror and figure out what's wrong in their own lives. I don't give two flying f***s what someone on a forum thinks about me because of the type of airplane I fly.

Reminds me of Gibson vs fender vs custom builder debates. People get passionate then soon belligerent for some reason. It's dumb. We're all flying and living a life that we're fortunate to live.
 
You don't get to criticize the competition if you didn't even bother to go fly em... hard to even criticize those making criticisms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Pilots are a funny bunch. We ***** and ***** and ***** about everything - including when a new company comes in a makes a good product that sells. I'm mentoring a few pilots working through their private and they all lust after the Cirrus and two of them wanted to get their license simply because they read about the Cirrus.

Quit bitching and be happy that somebody is trying to keep aviation going. I hope they sell 10,000 of 'em and really hope they keep adding features and innovating.

Eggman
 
gsengle said:
You don't get to criticize the competition if you didn't even bother to go fly em...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's some bulls*** right there. I have no interest in them. That's why I didn't fly them. However I can critique them all day long if I want. And I did briefly: when I decided they weren't the planes for me.

Is that allowed? Is that ok?
 
ircphoenix said:
I wonder if that's increased sales of 182s by a factor of 5 overnight.
Click to expand...

The claim was that it would require re-certifying the airframe. It doesn't. I made no claim on the marketability of a stale design.
 
MetalCloud said:
That's some bulls*** right there. I have no interest in them. That's why I didn't fly them. However I can critique them all day long if I want. And I did briefly: when I decided they weren't the planes for me.

Is that allowed? Is that ok?
Click to expand...

It's allowed, it's ok. But it's not credible. It's heresay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To whom. Well if you say something is better, but you've not experienced the other options I'd say it's not credible to anyone...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
To whom. Well if you say something is better, but you've not experienced the other options I'd say it's not credible to anyone...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's the right plane *for me* not *for everyone*

So because I love my plane and I couldn't be happier with my decision ... I'm not credible because I didn't fly a mooney? Okaaaayyyyyyy

Fly whatever you want dude. I don't care.

And when you start with the old "I'm going to correct your grammar" defense means the conversation has jumped the shark and I've lost interest.

Good luck to you sir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top