Cirrus vs Lancair

[jetsetter250]

I've been looking for a specific "Cirrus SR22 vs. Lancair IV-P" thread for awhile now and have yet to see the comparison made. Ideally I would even be interested in Cirrus vs Lancair Evolution.

Regardless, I think there are some obvious correlations to be made between these aircraft. They are both roughly similar in size and both meant for similar purpose, general commuter aircraft. The Lancair's claim to fame is a pressurized cabin, something all Cirrus owners have dreamt of for a small 4 seater commuter. Both are high performance, and both share similar avionics suites (at least with more modern conversions to the Garmin G900X). Lastly, they are both similarly priced on average.

That being said, I cant decide which one I would rather fly. The cirrus is obviously great due to comfort, practicality, ergonomics, and safety (if you side with the camp that says a parachute makes you safer and not more sloppy). The Lancair offers safety by way of "adversity avoidance". By that I mean flying above all the weather and traffic. There's not much going on at FL250 and this in and of itself is a safety feature in my opinion.

I am a heavy commuter and intend to fly upwards of 1000 mi. per week, maybe more. Both planes offer similar ranges and endurance, the biggest difference is handling and comfort. The cirrus has a nice bulbous cabin with dual entrance doors. The ergonomics of the avionics suite is ideal for quick data entry and situational awareness. The lancair without a G900X system is a bit more old-school (which is actually fine since I still fly with steam gauges). Although I imagine things could get a bit dicey in the lancair flying with ATC on approach.

One thing I'm not certain of is the performance edge the Lancair really has. Does 270kt beat the pants off 170kt considering climb/decent? I mean how often are we really going to hit the top of the IV's flight envelope? It's not like we need to hit FL250 every single day.

I know for a fact I am certainly not qualified to fly a plane like the Lancair yet, not even the Cirrus. My goal is to hire a PFI with experience in either and go for some coast to coast trips, and get maybe 200 hrs in before I go solo. We will practice LOTS of adverse conditions, especially landing/takeoff since thats where the majority of Lancair accidents happen.

A well equipped Cirrus SR22 should run about $500k. I can get a Lancair turboprop for that, although to be honest I dont really care about that since we're talking performance gains of mere 30kts or so. The biggest juicer is a piston Evolution will set me back 600-750k tops, marginally more expensive than the Cirrus, with all of it's advantages including pressurization. The only thing it's lacking is the chute, although I've heard it's possible to install one. The flight characteristics of the Evo are similar to the Cirrus, although still not quite the same. Some people dont even like the Cirrus's handling and feel, but I for one love it from my test rides.

Assuming money is no object, up to 700k, which would you rather have? A comfortable well-designed friendly Cirrus that cruises along at a decent rate, with solid range, and subject to all the tribulations of airspace below the flight levels? Or a somewhat faster, pressurized aircraft, with slightly more squirrley handling, totally unproven, but flying high and clear of everybody else at any time day or night?

[N707ZS]

How does the Columbia 350 compare with these two had a look at one in Madrid a few years ago.

[172driver]

With your budget, I'd probably try to find a PA46 Meridian. Although mostly out of your price range, you might be able to find one in the 700k range. Beautiful airplane and a real commuter (i.e. all-weather), which, IMHO, neither the Cirrus nor the Lancair are.

[jetsetter250]

Yes the Meridian is definitely the best airplane for the task at hand, unfortunately it is definitely out of my price range. I honestly dont even want to go over 600k for the Lancair since there's some possibility the piston might be attainable for this price. Nobody knows yet since none have been built yet.

I still feel the Cirrus is a reasonable all weather cross country flier. I intend to fly smart. I'm not going through blizzards or rain. Because of this a Cirrus will be limited on occasion. I dont want to be stuck in a hotel an extra day thanks to nature. At least in a Lancair I can power my through any inclement weather until it's clear again.

It's just those darn flight characteristics. I have a feeling the Cirrus will be more forgiving to a low time pilot (even one who will accrue lots of time in due fashion thanks to heavy commuting). I'm just not sure if the tradeoff is worth it. I can save 2 hours on a max range cruise in a Lancair, but does that 2 hours really feel like 2 hours considering the comfort of the Cirrus? If my buddy was in a Cirrus behind me, would he be coming in for approach by the time I reach my hotel? The savings in time need to be significant if I'm going to pass on the benefits of a Cirrus.

I really feel it's going to be a showdown between these two aircraft. I'm not interested in pressurized twins or older singles with more capacity. I really want a modern aircraft with all the bells and whistles, which is how I'm getting down to these 2 aircraft.

[flybymike]

A 200 hour checkout must be an all time record.

[Pilot DAR]

I dont want to be stuck in a hotel an extra day thanks to nature. At least in a Lancair I can power my through any inclement weather until it's clear again.

This statement makes my spidey senses tingle.

[India Four Two]

I was in California recently and while I was there, my wife and I took a flight in an SR22 from Van Nuys to Avalon on Catalina Island and back.

I did the take-offs from Van Nuys and Catalina, a touch-and-go off an ILS at Burbank and the final landing at Van Nuys. My instructor did the landing at Avalon, because I hadn't been there before, the runway was really rough and it would have been my first landing. I don't blame him for being cautious, since he didn't know me from Adam (that's the generic Adam, not the well-known Aerostar pilot. ;))

I thought the Cirrus was very easy to fly and very comfortable. In terms of its flying characteristics, a checkout to solo standard would be no more involved or time-consuming than a checkout in any high-powered SE aircraft. Probably easier, because the gear is fixed and there is no propeller control, just a throttle.

However, the systems and the avionics are a different matter. My instructor said that would take about 20 hours to get comfortable and I can easily believe him.

[Silvaire1]

The comparison strikes a slightly discordant note because the Lancair IV is a homebuilt, none of them are exactly the same, and the Cirrus is a production aircraft with a milder reputation. They don't seem directly comparable to me.

For what its worth, perhaps not much, I've flown in a Lancair IV with a very skilled owner/pilot, flown it a bit right seat and watched. I was impressed that its not a plane for everybody. 35 lb/sf wing loading, everything by the book, not a casual thing to operate, and for me not a particularly enjoyable thing. The airplane has a reputation, and I think there's a reason for that - its a single focus hot rod for the experienced and committed. I met another guy who had gone through an emergency depressurization with his IV-P. It was a story but he survived.

Conversely, the Cirrus is widespread, in volume production, 50% more wing for every pound carried, with training and backup. If you have the money and time, go for it.

[Ebbie 2003]

Cirrus all day and twice on Sundays.

If you're a heavy user and rely on it for business you want it to be there when you need it - chances are you'll have maintenance needs away from home base, you should have no trouble getting a Cirrus fixed an experimental I'm not so sure.

Would think that the cost in use of the Cirrus would be significantly lower if only because of a likely higher future value.

[jetsetter250]

Thanks guys, this has been very helpful. I think ultimately the Cirrus will just be more enjoyable to own. While I'm not a lazy pilot, I dont want to be flying by the seat of my pants with sweaty palms the entire trip, wondering what might cause me to crash (although I suppose if everyone flew like this there would be less accidents :rolleyes: ). They have a certified cirrus training school where I live, which should make all phases of training much more robust since I'll be learning in the aircraft I own.

[Lancair IV owner]

Hi...Just to add another perspective...
The Cirrus or Columbia / Cessna is an easy option for most private pilots...throw a huge chunk of cash at a factory built beautiful aeroplane, which is basically slowed down modern technology...
If you are happy with an aeroplane that is 50-100 kts slower than the Lancair, and you need the gear to stay down because you forget to do your landing checks, then you will join the majority...safe, cautious, slow, and sometimes dangling from a parachute...

But, the Lancair IV is amazing with the continental twin turbo, or turbine...faster...much faster up high...so just to add some personal facts to the public record...
I cruise down low at 220 and at 20 000 at 285 TAS rich of peak...Lean of peak, retract 15 KIAS
I stall at 61 KIAS...smoothly and easily controllable...same as the cirrus, and the piper lance I fly
Yes, you need to fly carefully and watch your speed, but who has accidentally stalled an aeroplane???
The Lancair IV is slightly smaller cabin than the Cirrus...it has only one door, so it is physically harder to get in and out...
I know two people that have had windows blow out, so i would NOT get a pressurised cabin.
You cannot always get above the weather...no plane does that...I have been up at 24 000 on oxygen doing 365 TAS, and still had weather above me, BUT a passenger started getting skin tingling and I was concerned about the bends, so down we came through the weather...
You can get yourself into icing with a turbo engine...

The reality is that many kits remain un built...think though that a purpose built piece of furniture by a master will always be better than a factory piece, and I think carbon fibre planes are the same, but it depends...I would not build one myself. With a master builder, a Lancair IV or Evolution will cost you lost

[ChickenHouse]

It is a bit strange to exhume a three year old thread. Yes, a comparison of the magnificent Lancair to other high performance aircraft is a valid wish, but, as long as many countris don't allow non-certified aircraft IFR, useless. Example, I was pax in an Evolution Turbine in the US once, was stunned by the perfekt machine, understand very well why they demand HPA and IR for it and no, it is no option to get one to Europe, where EASA says day VFR only.