Help understanding Cirrus SR22

M

Martymccasland

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
205
Display Name
Display name:
M.McCasland
I sold my Grumman Tiger and am buying an A36 Bonanza. During the search I took a hard look at the Cirrus SR22 due, primarily, by how much my wife liked one we saw on a recent trip.

Step 1: I look at the W&B and see that 2 200 pound people in the front seat with full fuel put it at, or even slight above, gross.

Step 2: I see the once-every-120 months-chute repack of costing anywhere from $12-$17k. So that's a minimum $100/mo, month-in and month-out for nothing....

Step 3: I see the 215TAS cruise speeds in the TC version and think that's got to be the allure. Then I talk with a CFII that has done a good bit of Cirrus training and learn those speeds really don't kick in until you get it way high.

Assuming further I could use my plane 100% for business and get the 179 deduction, I'm still $350,000 out of pocket for a new Cirrus, that pretty quickly is 2 person airplane with full fuel.

Clearly I'm missing something as they've sold so many, any nicer airport I visit has 2-3 on the ramp, etc. What am I overlooking?

It's just trivia at this point as the A36 is our next plane, but the above lingering questions about the SR22 just keep sticking in my head for days -- like a puzzle.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, first off, the chute is an insurance policy. It does not need it because it didn't pass spin certification (which it did for JAA certification in Europe, and I can personally attest it recovers from spins just fine with normal counter spin inputs), it didn't need spin certification because it had the chute.

There is no SE plane that sees +200kt TAS until it hits high, O2 sucking altitudes with the exception of the Comanche 400 and maybe one of the big bore Mooneys.

Enjoy the Beech, I prefer it as well, but I find nothing particularly wrong with the Cirrus.

BTW, if you wanted a real performance plane that could haul a load and fuel, you would have bought a twin.;)
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Enjoy the Beech, I prefer it as well, but I find nothing particularly wrong with the Cirrus.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to knock Cirrus; I mean to knock my not understanding the niche Cirrus fills. Considering the numbers sold, the problem is me and certainly not the plane.

So who is the perfect Cirrus SR22 GTS owner? What's the niche that they are filling so well?
 
Martymccasland said:
I don't mean to knock Cirrus; I mean to knock my not understanding the niche Cirrus fills. Considering the numbers sold, the problem is me and certainly not the plane.

So who is the perfect Cirrus SR22 GTS owner? What's the niche that they are filling so well?
Click to expand...

Successful guy whose wife (and he) feels better about the plane having a parachute, it has saved lives. Also that it is a modern plane with a NASA foil that is efficient as well as benign and difficult to stall (spinning it actually took several tries and required an accelerated entry with a definite yank and kick to get it to break), all the modern goodies you could want in a panel, and an airframe that won't suffer from corrosion.
 
Martymccasland said:
I don't mean to knock Cirrus; I mean to knock my not understanding the niche Cirrus fills. Considering the numbers sold, the problem is me and certainly not the plane.

So who is the perfect Cirrus SR22 GTS owner? What's the niche that they are filling so well?
Click to expand...

Here is a guy who has a Cirrus. Note he had the sweetest swing in the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQdE_CoysLI
 
New cirrus will likely only cost you half what you quoted for the repack of the chute. While they were dumb enough to fiberglass the thing in on the first gen planes starting with the G2 you can remove the chute without needing to repaint the turtle deck saving a significant sum of money.
 
- you are comparing apples and pineapples. A G36 as tested by AOPA in this months magazine has a useful load of 1010lbs :confused: You have to compare a new Cirrus to a new Bonanza, not one 10 years old. You can up that useful load by 350lbs or so by adding a turbornormalizer (once you add tip-tanks, you lose your FIKI certification)

- If 10k every 10 years is money for you, then maybe a new airplane is not your thing. Btw. the cost to replace the backup battery on a G36 every 3 years is about the same as the chute repack when viewed over the same cycle.

- A G5 Cirrus SR22T has a useful of 1258 with either AC or TKS (as I understand it). Add the other, you are probably at 1180. With full fuel you have 617lbs payload. I dont know how that works with W&B, but if you truly have two 305 pounders who have to fly together, one of them is gonna have to crawl in the back (the only reason the full-fuel payload on the Bo is reasonable is because it takes so little fuel).
 
I look at the W&B and see that 2 200 pound people in the front seat with full fuel put it at, or even slight above, gross.
Click to expand...

Just a question, having not flown either a Cirrus or a Bonanza. Is there a way on these airplanes to get an accurate fuel reading when the tanks are not full?

I have flown a Duchess, and one thing I really liked about that airplane was the calibrated 'dip stick' that was built right in to the fuel tank. This made it easy to take on a partial fuel load with confidence.

I tend to think it's a good thing if full fuel in a GA airplane gives enough useful load for only two passengers, since most GA sorties only carry one or two people anyway.

On the other hand, if it's difficult to know how much fuel you have if your tanks are less than full, then partial fueling isn't really a safe option.
 
Last edited:
JimNtexas said:
Just a question, having not flown either a Cirrus or a Bonanza. Is there a way on these airplanes to get an accurate fuel reading when the tanks are not full?

I have flown a Duchess, and one thing I really liked about that airplane was the calibrated 'dip stick' that was built right in to the fuel tank. This made it easy to take on a partial fuel load with confidence.

I tend to think it's a good thing if full fuel in a GA airplane gives enough useful load for only two passengers, since most GA sorties only carry one or two people anyway.

On the other hand, if it's difficult to know how much fuel you have if your tanks are less than full, then partial fueling isn't really a safe option.
Click to expand...

Some tanks have 'tabs' inside the tank that signify a certain amount of fuel 'at the tab'. So you could "fill it to the tabs" and have X gallons where "top it off" would be Y gallons.

Other than that, it's a guessing game at best, in my (limited) experience.
 
Look in the tank and you'll see a metal tab the bottom of which indicates 30 gallons. If you can see gas sloshing around at all you have about half a tank (20 gallons). If you are the only one flying the plane, you can estimate the burn and it's easy to estimate to within a few gallons. If you're on a long trip where gas is scarce (Mexico), the fact that you can burn one tank dry helps in making an accurate estimate on the other tank.
 
hiflier said:
Look in the tank and you'll see a metal tab the bottom of which indicates 30 gallons. If you can see gas sloshing around at all you have about half a tank (20 gallons). If you are the only one flying the plane, you can estimate the burn and it's easy to estimate to within a few gallons. If you're on a long trip where gas is scarce (Mexico), the fact that you can burn one tank dry helps in making an accurate estimate on the other tank.
Click to expand...
I've found the fuel totalizing system in Cirri to be very accurate, but as they say in Russia -- "trust but verify" -- a calibrated dipstick is nice to have to back up the totalizer. A calibrated eyeball is a lot less reliable.
 
Martymccasland said:
I sold my Grumman Tiger and am buying an A36 Bonanza. During the search I took a hard look at the Cirrus SR22 due, primarily, by how much my wife liked one we saw on a recent trip.


Clearly I'm missing something as they've sold so many, any nicer airport I visit has 2-3 on the ramp, etc. What am I overlooking?

It's just trivia at this point as the A36 is our next plane, but the above lingering questions about the SR22 just keep sticking in my head for days -- like a puzzle.
Click to expand...

The bolded part answers the puzzle. :lol:
 
I know everyone keys on full fuel payloads, but once you figure out that you seldom if ever need full fuel in most planes it's not a big deal. Our 182 holds 5+ hours of fuel, the Conquest has about the same 5 hour capacity. John's bladder has a 2 to 2.5 hour capacity in most cases, so 3 hours is about the longest leg I fly.
I have a friend that bought a new 2008 or 2009 SR22GTS, whichever is the last year before FIKI, anyway he likes new stuff, he buys new boats, new cars, new jet skis, he just doesn't buy used. He can easily afford singles or twins, but he likes new and he does seem to like the chute. ;)
 
Martymccasland said:
...Step 1: I look at the W&B and see that 2 200 pound people in the front seat with full fuel put it at, or even slight above, gross....
Click to expand...

That's really a meaningless spec. What are the numbers with say, four hours of fuel onboard? Just because it can hold 100 gallons doesn't mean you need to carry that much. If a manufacturer wanted a specification such as that look good they'd just install smaller tanks.
 
weilke said:
If you don't want to buy a cirrus, don't let your wife sit in one.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth!

What the cirrus gives you is good speed, good payload, reasonable fuel burn, good range, easy ingress/egress, comfortable seats, good avionics and a good safety net if you screw the pooch.
 
weilke said:
If you don't want to buy a cirrus, don't let your wife sit in one.
Click to expand...


THAT!

Full disclosure I don't fly a cirrus but looked at a cirrus club. The ingress and egress is the easiest of any plane I've flown and the seats are the most comfortable I've sat it. Also IIRC the newer Cirrus aircraft have a higher useful load than the first generation birds.

On the other hand the A36 you are considering is a darn fine plane as well.
 
I would go with the Cirrus! The A-36 is a very nice plane, but lacks two doors up front and I didn't like crawling into the pilot seat. I did like the big access door for the family though. The Sr 22 is faster, if that matters. I also prefer the side stick, as it cleans up the lap. The chute is a great safety feature, in my opinion, as my wife preferred to sit in the back. This matters, as in the A-36 if she sat in the back, they ride the plane down if I croak, etc.
 
N747JB said:
I know everyone keys on full fuel payloads, but once you figure out that you seldom if ever need full fuel in most planes it's not a big deal. Our 182 holds 5+ hours of fuel, the Conquest has about the same 5 hour capacity. John's bladder has a 2 to 2.5 hour capacity in most cases, so 3 hours is about the longest leg I fly.
I have a friend that bought a new 2008 or 2009 SR22GTS, whichever is the last year before FIKI, anyway he likes new stuff, he buys new boats, new cars, new jet skis, he just doesn't buy used. He can easily afford singles or twins, but he likes new and he does seem to like the chute. ;)
Click to expand...

I rarely don't need full fuel, and often multiple loads, but my profiles aren't typical I guess. Bladder capacity is irrelevant when you drink Gatorade as you have a handy container to refill and stash in FBO refrigerators.:D
 
Henning said:
I rarely don't need full fuel, and often multiple loads, but my profiles aren't typical I guess. Bladder capacity is irrelevant when you drink Gatorade as you have a handy container to refill and stash in FBO refrigerators.:D
Click to expand...

How often on those full fuel flights do you need to fill the seats too? ;)
 
N747JB said:
That's what a wise man told me about 400 series Cessnas and he was right! :D
Click to expand...

The other day I was at the airport with my wife when Embraer was giving rides in the 100. I made certain to guide her right back out to our car without accidentally running into one of their sales guys ;) .
 
N747JB said:
I know everyone keys on full fuel payloads, but...
Click to expand...

The way to compare apples to apples is to figure fuel to distance. What's the payload with 700mi fuel?
Or, not quite as accurate, payload with 3 or 4 hours of fuel. That's not ideal when comparing aircraft with radically different speeds. 3 hours in a Bonanza is 500nm, 3 hours in a Cirrus GTS is 600nm.
 
Couple of factors that haven't been mentioned.

The A36 is a 6 seat retract, that means much more insurance and pilot qualifications. Cirrus keeps the buyer pool large by making it a four seat (now 5 ish) fixed gear.

The Bo is also a much more expensive airplane ~$700K, NA, no deice, no chute. Cirrus is $725 with a turbo, FIKI, and a chute. Take the Bo add FIKI TKS, TN, and tip tanks and you are pushing $900K (plus you lose the FIKI cert with the other mods.).

The Cirrus offers more safety, useful load, better avionics, more capability, more speed, less insurance, more warranty, all straight from the factory at ~20% less with similar equipment. The only compromise is less seating.

Game, set, match. That's why Beech is only selling around 20 units a year.
 
+1. Two sides to every story, including many issues not discussed here that would swing the pendulum towards the Bo.

Ron Levy said:
Nothing. It's a nice airplane, but like all planes, it does have its limitations, and you've pretty well nailed them. Enjoy your Bonanza.
Click to expand...
 
Alexb2000 said:
The A36 is a 6 seat retract, that means much more insurance and pilot qualifications. Cirrus keeps the buyer pool large by making it a four seat (now 5 ish) fixed gear.
Click to expand...

Not sure that that holds up for comparable hull values and comparable pilot hours in-type.
The G36 is quite payload limited and will rarely fly with more than 4 up. It is possible to insure 6-seaters as 4-seaters if so desired.

The Bo is also a much more expensive airplane ~$700K, NA, no deice, no chute. Cirrus is $725 with a turbo, FIKI, and a chute. Take the Bo add FIKI TKS, TN, and tip tanks and you are pushing $900K (plus you lose the FIKI cert with the other mods.).
Click to expand...

Apples to apples, with FIKI TKS and turbo, the Bo is 150k more. With the turbonormalizer, the Bo picks up 350lbs of useful load which puts both planes at par on that front.

The Cirrus offers more safety,
Click to expand...

Theoretically yes, practically this has yet to be borne out. At this point, the SR22 is as safe or unsafe as other high performance singles.


Game, set, match. That's why Beech is only selling around 20 units a year.
Click to expand...

That and the fact that they do a really sucky job at marketing their goods.
 
Martymccasland said:
I don't mean to knock Cirrus; I mean to knock my not understanding the niche Cirrus fills. Considering the numbers sold, the problem is me and certainly not the plane.

So who is the perfect Cirrus SR22 GTS owner? What's the niche that they are filling so well?
Click to expand...

The niche the Cirrus fills is people that step out of a Mercedes/BMW/Lexus luxury car and expect the same "feel" when they step into an airplane that costs three to five times as much.
 
I still think the trump card to *whine, sniff* "but it only has one engine, and if it stalls we'll all die!" is "don't worry, little lady, the plane comes complete with a parachute. In the unlikely event of an engine failure, simply pull the clearly-marked handle and breathe normally as we descend to a near-normal landing."

You can talk about fine leather seats 'til the cows come home, but the safety net hole-card is the seller.

LDJones said:
The niche the Cirrus fills is people that step out of a Mercedes/BMW/Lexus luxury car and expect the same "feel" when they step into an airplane that costs three to five times as much.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I still think the trump card to *whine, sniff* "but it only has one engine, and if it stalls we'll all die!" is "don't worry, little lady, the plane comes complete with a parachute. In the unlikely event of an engine failure, simply pull the clearly-marked handle and breathe normally as we descend to a near-normal landing."

You can talk about fine leather seats 'til the cows come home, but the safety net hole-card is the seller.
Click to expand...

No disagreement on the no-flyer selling point of the chute. But I've spent enough time with newbie pilots that are drawn to the fit-n-finish of the Cirrus over a "typical" GA interior. The chute just ups the ante on the spousal buy-in in favor of the Cirrus!
 
wabower said:
I still think the trump card to *whine, sniff* "but it only has one engine, and if it stalls we'll all die!" is "don't worry, little lady, the plane comes complete with a parachute. In the unlikely event of an engine failure, simply pull the clearly-marked handle and breathe normally as we descend to a near-normal landing."

You can talk about fine leather seats 'til the cows come home, but the safety net hole-card is the seller.
Click to expand...

I had to convince my wife that holding the parachute handle constantly while in flight wasn't necessary in the Cirrus. She was still a little unconvinced that there would be plenty of time for a pull. In all honesty, she would rather have that chute than any other option on a single. I really liked the Cessna 400 when I flew it, she said, "If we buy and airplane like that, it WILL have a chute".

So, you're absolutely right.
 
I chortle when thinking about how it might work if chutes had been standard issue for all these years and then some guy decided he could sell planes without them.

"Our studies have determined that the value of a chute is almost nil, and with our new plane the owner can save the considerable expense of buying and repacking the device, gain useful load, gain speed by reducing weight, and eliminate aft CG problems while eliminating the danger of a rocket firing in the hangar."

How many would he sell?
 
Alexb2000 said:
Couple of factors that haven't been mentioned.

The A36 is a 6 seat retract, that means much more insurance and pilot qualifications. Cirrus keeps the buyer pool large by making it a four seat (now 5 ish) fixed gear.

....
Click to expand...

And that's why it's never going to be a "safer" airplane, that's why it's got a chute. Take someone who hardly flys enough to be current, put them in a 160kt plane and you're going to need that "tap out" handle.


I think cirrus attracts people who have more money then aviation experience.

If you want speed in GA the smart money is in a experimental.

Buying new, I could never bring myself to buy a new plane, car, boat, maybe it was because I sold cars when I was 18, but there is no way in hell I could flush money like that, even if I was Bill Gates.
 
wabower said:
I chortle when thinking about how it might work if chutes had been standard issue for all these years and then some guy decided he could sell planes without them.

"Our studies have determined that the value of a chute is almost nil, and with our new plane the owner can save the considerable expense of buying and repacking the device, gain useful load, gain speed by reducing weight, and eliminate aft CG problems while eliminating the danger of a rocket firing in the hangar."

How many would he sell?
Click to expand...
It's sort of like if we decided to introduce 2-lane highways today. Cars will pass in opposite directions with mere inches of clearance at closing speeds up to 150mph. Only the skill and attentiveness of drivers will prevent head-on collisions. If the idea had not been ingrained at horse speeds they would be considered unthinkable.
 
So with that said the parachute offers nothing in terms of safety and is not a safety measure that should be added into general aviation?
 
LJS1993 said:
So with that said the parachute offers nothing in terms of safety and is not a safety measure that should be added into general aviation?
Click to expand...

Sure it adds slightly to safety, just not enough that it should be incorporated into the masses of GA.

IMO its just not worth the weight, complexity, PRICE$ and invincibility complex it builds in some pilots.

If you're that worried about crashing your plane I'd say it would be safer to just not fly.

OR buy a 1:1 wingloaded emergency square ramair parachute and just wear that (maybe also take some AFF courses and get your jumper A license).
 
LJS1993 said:
So with that said the parachute offers nothing in terms of safety and is not a safety measure that should be added into general aviation?
Click to expand...

The only aircraft directly comparable to the SR22 is the Columbia/Cessna 350/400 series. Depending on the year, Cirrus has sold between 10 and 100 times the number of Cessna 400s. The market clearly values this safety feature.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
IMO its just not worth the weight, complexity, PRICE$ and invincibility complex it builds in some pilots.

If you're that worried about crashing your plane I'd say it would be safer to just not fly.
Click to expand...

Uh, even if you aren't worried about crashing your plane it is safer to just not fly. Perhaps safety features build an invincibility complex in some pilots, but I'll keep my seat belts all the same when I drive.

I can control my own attitude. What I can't control is whether the engine happens to fail when I'm in an area with no place to land. Unfortunately I don't have $200k or $400/hr to spend on a Cirrus, so I just try not to think about it (not that any are available to rent nearby - few around here have that kind of money).

Tangential note on safety, but I was amused at the explanation of the aircraft owner when I pointed out that the shoulder harness in the plane I rented would simply fall off if I so much as breathed (1973 C172M). He explained that it was a lousy design, but any modifications he might make to the harness to get it to actually stay in place would just get him in trouble in the event that anything actually happened. This is what happens when you measure safety by the number of pages in the logbook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top