CirrusSR-22 versus Columbia[Cessna] 400

DavidWhite said:
And how fast is the Sr22 at 65% power?
Click to expand...

168eseh.jpg


23ma79y.jpg
 
Last edited:
who flies a 22t at 65%? better at 80% and true outs at 183 kts @ 10,000 ft and only goes up from there until service ceiling.

Centurions are great for hauling loads, but no for going faster. And flown both cirrus and 210s
 
Inverted said:
I only have a few flights in a 210 but I remember the SR22 being about as fast in cruise.
Click to expand...

cirrusmx said:
who flies a 22t at 65%? better at 80% and true outs at 183 kts @ 10,000 ft and only goes up from there until service ceiling.

Centurions are great for hauling loads, but no for going faster. And flown both cirrus and 210s
Click to expand...

No problem as long as you can displace the heat and want to spend on fuel and maint.
 
Vno in the 210 is 165kts and can easily sit there on cruise. I wanna say thats at 75% power though.
 
yeah, at 80% chts dont go above 380F, tit is approx 1600F, fuel flow is 17 gph. not bad.


off topic.....but does anybody here actually do work during office hours?
 
cirrusmx said:
who flies a 22t at 65%? better at 80% and true outs at 183 kts @ 10,000 ft and only goes up from there until service ceiling.

Centurions are great for hauling loads, but no for going faster. And flown both cirrus and 210s
Click to expand...

NA SR22. I'm not talking turbo - if you want to talk turbo a T210 will match the speed of an SR22T and carry more while doing it.
 
NA SR22 may be as fast as a NA 210, dont know. But I was comparing a 210T of a friend with an sr22T that i frequently fly. Dont get me wrong, centurions are great for hauling and landing in shorts strips and off airport etc, while cirri are good for going faster, but not carrying. ie, If you are a 300# dude with equally sized associates or wife then a cirrus is pretty much useless. To each its own! but the point is that a sr22t is faster than a 210T.
 
steingar said:
Compare the retractable versus the fixed gear, you're usually looking at 10 knots, and that's comparing retractable to draggy gear. The gear on Cirrus and Corvalis is anything but draggy.
Click to expand...

Channelling Henning with a proportion of Ron Levy:
I think you are terribly mistaken. Without the Drag Coefficient data to backup that claim you cannot substantiate it.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
You can always manage a way to attach permanent ballast in the tail, either that or the AoI of the H Stab needs to be tuned so you don't run out of authority under design limit criteria. Here's my question, if you are flying an aircraft that cannot be flown to design limit criteria, are you flying an unairworthy aircraft? Accepting problems because you can't figure out a solution, mehhh.
Click to expand...

I think the avionics are back there. And then there's that CAPS thingy and it's associated attachment points.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I think the avionics are back there. And then there's that CAPS thingy and it's associated attachment points.
Click to expand...

No, way back in the tail, the further aft you put it the better, aft f the tail spar and it doesn't even cost an induced drag penalty.
 
spinfire said:
I've never flown an aircraft with wheel pants but from what I understand up here in the north you almost always need to take them off during the winter due to snow and ice getting crammed into the pants (very unpleasant sounding!). So you end up losing a lot of that nice drag reduction for a substantial part of the winter. Any wheel panted owners care to comment?
Click to expand...

You don't have to - Just keep it hangared and don't fly unless the runways/taxiways are plowed.

There are other concerns besides the pants with the Diamond on snow (and this would be the same with the Cirrus) due to the castering nosewheel. First off, there's the potential issues with directional control on slippery surfaces, at least somewhat more so than with steerable nose gear. But my bigger concern is getting the brakes heated up enough to melt snow that might get up into the brakes and then freeze once the plane is in the air, causing a landing with a wheel frozen and potentially leading to a loss of directional control and/or a blown tire on landing.
 
Ron Levy said:
Payload is insufficient to allow routine carriage of ballast unless you never put anyone or anything else in the back.
Click to expand...

Looks like Henning may have a point:
http://cirrustrader.com/static/content/about-us/43

Near bottom of page

website cited above said:
 Turbo SR22 G2, (2006 – 2007, some serial #2038-#2437)

In July 2006, Cirrus announced a major enhancement – a turbonormalized (Turbo) SR22. Some initial models were referred to as SE22 G2’s (Signature Edition) with custom graphics including the Klapmeier’s signatures. Still using the same Continental IO-550-N engine, Cirrus added a dual-turbo, intercooled, turbonormalizing system built by Tornado Alley, a company renowned for their turbonormalized systems used on numerous other aircraft.

To help with the forward CG shift and weight of the turbo equip-ment, Cirrus changed to a new Hartzell lightweight 3-blade composite prop and added a built-in plumbed oxygen system from Precise Flight with a 77-cubic-foot tank located in the tailcone, controlled from the front panel.

Since the turbonormalized engine permits higher altitude operation, the certified ceiling of these models was increased from 17,500 to FL250 (25,000 feet). Air conditioning was not an option on the SE22 or the initial Turbo SR22 G2’s.

Pilots have been very enthusiastic about the performance of the Turbo SR22 models. One issue however was the forward CG, particularly with two passengers and a little luggage. Cirrus issued an SB allowing installation of a 15-pound ballast weight in the tail of the airplane to improve the situation. Some owners have dealt with the issue on their own with baggage compartment loading. In any case, weight and balance is a bigger issue on the Turbo SR22 G2’s than on normally aspirated units, and should be reviewed against your needs.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added is mine
 
cirrusmx said:
around 85 kts should be an alright short final approach speed on the sr22t. 75 kts is too slow and if you get any sort of wind shear/gust you will get dangerously slow and the ground might just catch up to you. Cirrus lacks wing area unlike the single engine cessnas and thus demand a higher approach speed.
Click to expand...

It's not wing area alone, it's wing loading -- weight divided by wing area. The SR22 has a gross weight of 3400 lb spread over a wing area of 145 square feet -- that's only a touch more than the Grumman Tiger's wing area, but another 1000 lb of weight, and thus a much higher stall speed than the Tiger even though wing area is the same. The Cessna 182S maxes out at 3100 lb (300 less than the SR22) but has 174 sq ft of wing area. As a result, the wing loading of the SR22 is nearly 24 lb/sq ft compared to under 18 lb/sq ft for the C-182S. While the Cirrus has more advanced aerodynamics which make up for some of that, the result is still a stall speed in the landing configuration of 60 knots CAS for the SR22 vs 49 knots CAS for the C-182. And that makes a big difference in what you can and should do on final.

OTOH, that high wing loading also allows a lot higher cruise speed, so you do get someothing in return for accepting the higher stall and approach speeds.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
No, way back in the tail, the further aft you put it the better, aft f the tail spar and it doesn't even cost an induced drag penalty.
Click to expand...
Great idea, Henning -- now, what do you do when you put four people and baggage in the plane, and your installed ballast takes you out of aft cg?
 
I just spent the last hour hanging out with a fella who is the chief pilot for a company that manages 20 something cirrus's. Short final approach speed on a sr22t is 80kts.

I sat in one with the perspective system and he turned it on and walked me through it. Really cool stuff.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You don't have to - Just keep it hangared and don't fly unless the runways/taxiways are plowed.

There are other concerns besides the pants with the Diamond on snow (and this would be the same with the Cirrus) due to the castering nosewheel. First off, there's the potential issues with directional control on slippery surfaces, at least somewhat more so than with steerable nose gear. But my bigger concern is getting the brakes heated up enough to melt snow that might get up into the brakes and then freeze once the plane is in the air, causing a landing with a wheel frozen and potentially leading to a loss of directional control and/or a blown tire on landing.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing it, I've lived in the north and broken a lot of ice growing up and even off of tugs up north. Ice just isn't that strong. It may tear up the pant, but directional control you'll be able to maintain I'd suspect.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of pants though, I wonder how all that looked on FIKI trials?
 
Columbia doors feel more solid and seal better due to having pressure seals. Cirrus wins on ingress and egress. There is no door to duck under like on the Columbia. On the Cirrus an open door in flight is no big deal. That's a good thing since the will pop open if not adjusted properly. An open door on a Columbia is a serious matter.

Cabin width is about the same across the waist but the Cirrus feels roomier since it is wider at head level. View out is better in the Cirrus. I prefer the fit and finish on the Columbia but the G3 Cirrus dramatically closed the gap. If the Columbia is faster it is only by 5 kts. A 350 flown against a 22 was pretty much a dead heat.

I have never experienced a lack of elevator. The turbo models need to carry a little power since the composite prop acts like a speed brake. G2 turbos need a weight (18 lbs) in the tail especially if AC equipped.

Both are fine planes. When cost is considered I have found the Cirrus to be the better value. Compare flap hinges if you want to see why the Columbia costs more.

I haven't flown a Columbia in a long time but I remember it being a very stable IFR platform and easier to trim. The Cirrus seemed quicker in pitch and roll and thus felt a little more nimble. Trim on a Cirrus is an art form. Most Cirrus owners long for a Cessna style trim wheel.

Be careful comparing manufacturer's data. Lancair would always list speed in mph.

Most SR22T's are flown LOP at 17 gph which gives over 200 kts up high.
 
peppy said:
Columbia doors feel more solid and seal better due to having pressure seals. Cirrus wins on ingress and egress. There is no door to duck under like on the Columbia. On the Cirrus an open door in flight is no big deal. That's a good thing since the will pop open if not adjusted properly. An open door on a Columbia is a serious matter.

Cabin width is about the same across the waist but the Cirrus feels roomier since it is wider at head level. View out is better in the Cirrus. I prefer the fit and finish on the Columbia but the G3 Cirrus dramatically closed the gap. If the Columbia is faster it is only by 5 kts. A 350 flown against a 22 was pretty much a dead heat.

I have never experienced a lack of elevator. The turbo models need to carry a little power since the composite prop acts like a speed brake. G2 turbos need a weight (18 lbs) in the tail especially if AC equipped.

Both are fine planes. When cost is considered I have found the Cirrus to be the better value. Compare flap hinges if you want to see why the Columbia costs more.

I haven't flown a Columbia in a long time but I remember it being a very stable IFR platform and easier to trim. The Cirrus seemed quicker in pitch and roll and thus felt a little more nimble. Trim on a Cirrus is an art form. Most Cirrus owners long for a Cessna style trim wheel.

Be careful comparing manufacturer's data. Lancair would always list speed in mph.

Most SR22T's are flown LOP at 17 gph which gives over 200 kts up high.
Click to expand...

So you're saying both my initial solution of adding power and my secondary statement that if there is an issue there is going to be a ballast weight for the tail were both correct? Interesting what an hour trying to stall and spin a plane and an understanding of how things work can lead to the correct answers.

BTW, both the Cirrus and Columbia should have been pressurized IMO.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
So you're saying both my initial solution of adding power and my secondary statement that if there is an issue there is going to be a ballast weight for the tail were both correct? Interesting what an hour trying to stall and spin a plane and an understanding of how things work can lead to the correct answers.

BTW, both the Cirrus and Columbia should have been pressurized IMO.
Click to expand...

On a NA SR22 best over the number speed is about 78 less 1 kt for every 100 lbs under max gross. I haven't flown a turbo but people I trust say he numbers are the same but ou have to leave a touch of power in where you don't on the NA. Version. The reason s the prop. You are correct about the CG. The G2 turbo SR22 without the 18 lb tail weight SB done was the first one you could easily load outside of CG (too forward). Cirrus aircraft are very loading tolerant and hard to load out of CG with the exception just mentioned.
 
Henning said:
I'm not seeing it, I've lived in the north and broken a lot of ice growing up and even off of tugs up north. Ice just isn't that strong. It may tear up the pant, but directional control you'll be able to maintain I'd suspect.
Click to expand...

Having had to spend over two hours chipping, spraying with anti-freeze liquids, and sledgehammering to get trailer brakes released on a truck the morning after a snowy drive, I respectfully disagree. ;) And 1850 ft-lbs of torque wasn't enough to get the rig to move. So ice is stronger than you may think.
 
Ron Levy said:
Great idea, Henning -- now, what do you do when you put four people and baggage in the plane, and your installed ballast takes you out of aft cg?
Click to expand...

Is the CG range on the Cirrus so narrow as to go from nearly (or actually) out the front end to actually out the aft end like that? :dunno:

FWIW, the DA40 has had ballast in both the nose and the tail in certain configurations through its lifetime, but having one or the other hasn't made it overly difficult to load within limits. (FWIW, ours does not have either ballast and tends toward the fore end of the CG envelope, but that's easily fixed with a few pounds in the aft baggage compartment - My flight bag is enough.)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Is the CG range on the Cirrus so narrow as to go from nearly (or actually) out the front end to actually out the aft end like that? :dunno:

FWIW, the DA40 has had ballast in both the nose and the tail in certain configurations through its lifetime, but having one or the other hasn't made it overly difficult to load within limits. (FWIW, ours does not have either ballast and tends toward the fore end of the CG envelope, but that's easily fixed with a few pounds in the aft baggage compartment - My flight bag is enough.)
Click to expand...

I nearly flew the DA40 with a CFI that our combined weights would have put us forward CG limit. We had a 'disagreement' and shut down near the fuel pumps and didn't fly. He wasn't listening to my caution about the CG and I made a poor decision to disregard my own warning. Fate saved me that day.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Is the CG range on the Cirrus so narrow as to go from nearly (or actually) out the front end to actually out the aft end like that?
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. On the NA planes it is difficult to get out of CG. You can download the POH from Cirrus and check for yourself. The G2 turbos initially had issues because of the extra weight so far forward. The 18 lb tail weight puts the unloaded CG back towards the center of the range. The G3's are fine as far as I know (haven't flown one). Fuel quantity doesn't cause as severe of a CG shift as on some planes since fuel places weight in the center of the range.
 
peppy said:
Quite the opposite. On the NA planes it is difficult to get out of CG. You can download the POH from Cirrus and check for yourself. The G2 turbos initially had issues because of the extra weight so far forward. The 18 lb tail weight puts the unloaded CG back towards the center of the range. The G3's are fine as far as I know (haven't flown one). Fuel quantity doesn't cause as severe of a CG shift as on some planes since fuel places weight in the center of the range.
Click to expand...

That's kinda what I figured, hence my questioning of Ron's statement that a plane with the ballast installed plus four and bags would be out the aft end... It'd be interesting to find the empty weight/CG for a couple of Turbo/AC G2's with and without ballast and run some W&B scenarios.
 
dell30rb said:
I just spent the last hour hanging out with a fella who is the chief pilot for a company that manages 20 something cirrus's. Short final approach speed on a sr22t is 80kts.

I sat in one with the perspective system and he turned it on and walked me through it. Really cool stuff.
Click to expand...



with full flaps?
 
peppy said:
Yes. Cirrus teaches 80 over the numbers but 78-1kt per 100 lbs under max gross works better.
Click to expand...

All of this seems fast. Is it that different for the 22? The 20 has a VSo of 56 KIAS. I'm planning 75 KIAS for short final.
 
spiderweb said:
All of this seems fast. Is it that different for the 22? The 20 has a VSo of 56 KIAS. I'm planning 75 KIAS for short final.
Click to expand...

For the 22 VSo is 59 kts so add 3 kts to 75 and you get 78.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top