cirrus sr22

[paulp]

Is the Columbia/Cessna or Cessnalumbia built quality bette than Cirrus?
It's weird that Cessnalumbia 400 costs almost 100k more than the Turbo GS Cirrus SR22, though they have similar performance figures...

The Columbia/Csrvalis is an excellent plane although strnone would hate it because it has a free castering nose wheel like the Cirrus. On early examples (circa 2002) I think it showed much better exterior fit and finish than the Cirrus. Today the planes are much closer since fit and finish on the Cirrus has improved from G1 to G2 to G3. I might still give it some exterior fit and finish advantage. It has a lot higher carbon fiber content than the Cirrus. Roll response is heavier but not necessarily in a bad way. Cirrus Perspective is the better avionics package (12" screens, SVT, EVS). The problem I see with the Columbia is that it is an expensive design to manufacture. Control surfaces are an example. On the Cirrus they are aluminum. You save little weight going composite and the control surfaces are simple shapes that are easy to do in aluminum. On the Columbia they are carbon fiber. Columbia doors seal better and have inflatable seals. However, the Cirrus doors make getting in and out of a Cirrus easier. You can stand up straight on the Cirrus wing and step into the back seating area. You have to duck under the gull wing door on the Columbia. The Columbia is slightly more aerodynamic (2 kts or so in real life is my guess) but it comes at the cost of head room. Since the cabins are about the same width this confuses people until the look at the planes head on. The Columbia curves in a lot more at the top of the cabin. I think this gives the Columbia a racier look but the Cirrus feels roomier as a result. Cirrus comes with the BRS parachute system standard. So, for a lower purchase price, the Cirrus gives you a little more room, the parachute and better avionics. Columbia fans would point out however that for a little more money you get what they consider a superior airframe with a higher maneuvering speed, utility category rating and dual wing spars. Both are excellent planes.

[Cobalt]

Is the Columbia/Cessna or Cessnalumbia built quality bette than Cirrus?
It's weird that Cessnalumbia 400 costs almost 100k more than the Turbo GS Cirrus SR22, though they have similar performance figures...

Based on what I have seen so far, absolutely - in 15 cirrus hours more niggles than in 50 Columbia hours. A lot more.

The performance figures are only similar - with the same fuel flow, the SR22 is a slower aircraft by 10-20 kts depending on altitude, because of its larger cabin and its lower-speed wing - you pay for that with the poor short field capability of the Columbia. You can fly the Columbia rich of peak and burn 24 gallons to get an extra 10+ kts on top of that, but that is silly. 235-240kt TAS at FL240 is nice to prove a point, but hardly sensible.

The Cirrus I currently fly struggles to keep CHT reasonable in one cylinder above FL120, but that might be a one-off problem.

[Cobalt]

Cirrus Perspective is the better avionics package (12" screens, SVT, EVS).

12" screens are down to preference. I like the smaller screens and less bulky feel of the Columbia.

SVT and EVS are nice to haves and again down to preference - I personaly find the flight simuator SVT display irritating when flying pure IFR and switch it off - for me it leads to confusion what my primary nav is, and when IMC the horizon line is too faint - but would definitely have it on IFR in mountains...

The real advantage in avionics in the SR22 is that it has a dual AHRS, while the Columbia only has one. Definitive safety benefit, something again I would pay for - wouldn't pay for SVT..

Shame the Cirrus electrical system is so poor...

[paulp]

Shame the Cirrus electrical system is so poor...

Please explain. The Cirrus Perspective aircraft have a 100 amp ALT1, 70 AMP ALT 2 and dual batteries. Due to the diode interconnect there is no action required during an alternator failure.

On older Cirrus aircraft (pre-Perspective) Alt 2 was 20 AMP. I wouldn't call this system poor but the full size alternator on the Columbia was better. You still had dual electrical system. Prior to early 2006, ALT1 was 70 AMP. Around March 2006 Cirrus went to 100 AMP ALT1 as they kept adding things to the plane.

As for 12" screens, my plane has 10" screens and I wish it had the larger 12" screens. I really like them. Call it personal preference but I believe that, on a glass panel, real estate matters. Having a friend who has SVT on his Diamond and landed it with an iced over windscreen, I believe SVT is a very nice feature. Before you say anything, I would never fly with his instructor after hearing how the guy got him into that situation.

[paulp]

the SR22 is a slower aircraft by 10-20 kts

This is not my experience but I am talking about normally aspirate aircraft. Maybe it is true on the turbos. In a head to head fly off a C350 vs. SR22 the speeds were matched on one leg and maybe the C350 was one or two kts faster on the other. I do hear the C400 is faster than the TN22 but the TN22 is more fuel efficient. The C400 is a turbocharged engine while the TN22 is turbonormalized. My CHT's tend to run in the 330 to 340 range. TN CHT's run higher and on a hot day you can't do a LOP climb (have to go ROP). The new air density controller from TAT should fix that when certified. I have flown the plane although my personal plane is not a turbo. The TAT experimental TN22 is actually a little faster than a C400 due to their new controller.

The Cirrus I currently fly struggles to keep CHT reasonable in one cylinder above FL120, but that might be a one-off problem.

I suspect it is.

Other difference to point out, when comparing prices make sure to have A/C on the Cirrus. IIRC, A/C is now standard on the Corvalis line. Also, you can get speed brakes on the Corvalis. They are not available on the Cirrus. I really like speed brakes. Finally, I find my opinion of the handling differs from others. In my opinion the Cirrus is more fun on a VFR day. IT has a high roll rate and reminds me of a sports car I used to own albeit with less control feel than I would like. The Columbia is heavier in this regard. However, I prefer its handling as an IDFR platform which is really the mission of both planes.

[paulp]

You can fly the Columbia rich of peak and burn 24 gallons to get an extra 10+ kts on top of that, but that is silly. 235-240kt TAS at FL240 is nice to prove a point, but hardly sensible.

It just hit me that the speed difference you are seeing is due to flying ROP on the Columbia. You are correct about the speed difference in that case. A TN22 is always flown LOP in cruise. In fact, the way you fly it is ROP and WOT in the climb and then 2500 RPM and 17GPH for cruise i.e. no lean assist or setting of EGT's. If it isn't hot then you can do a LOP climb on the Cirrus.

[Cobalt]

Shame the Cirrus electrical system is so poor...


Please explain. The Cirrus Perspective aircraft have a 100 amp ALT1, 70 AMP ALT 2 and dual batteries. Due to the diode interconnect there is no action required during an alternator failure.

Re the electrical system - Cirrus fixed the anemic ALT2, but has not fixed the strange / complicated connection of BAT2 to the essential bus with no proper instrumentation. So the checklist includes a simple BAT2 on only check as part of the pre-flight, but other than that... As part of my familiarisation I go through all the failure modes in the electrical system and it took me a loooong time to figure out what exactly happens when what fails.

As I said before, all of the differences between the Columba and the Cirrus are down to preferences - you could equally say fair enough, but I don't want to do a cross-tie check as part of every pre-flight and would like an automatic failover....

[Cobalt]

It just hit me that the speed difference you are seeing is due to flying ROP on the Columbia. You are correct about the speed difference in that case. A TN22 is always flown LOP in cruise. In fact, the way you fly it is ROP and WOT in the climb and then 2500 RPM and 17GPH for cruise i.e. no lean assist or setting of EGT's. If it isn't hot then you can do a LOP climb on the Cirrus.

nope, it is not. I fly the Columbia LOP in cruise and descent, but not in the climb. It would be possible to do a LOP climb in a Columbia, too, but POH says no... so I stick to that. FL180 is a long way up, too...

Real life figures - SR22 Turbo, FL180, 198kt TAS. Standard lean to target (blue line on FF) FF 17.5 USG/hr. Columbia400, 217kt TAS, 1650F TIT LOP, FF 17.2 USG.

A bit leaner on the Columbia because if the 1650 TIT limit - Cirrus Turbos are more robust, and I think generally the Cirrus has the more robust engine, and I just LOVE how they have simplified engine management...

Both were on close-to ISA days, but not on the same day.


And again - so the Columbia is faster - hey, not everyone wants that fast and 198kt are not that slow, either! For pure speed at low fuel flow the Mooney would be even better...

[paulp]

Cobalt -

Interesting comment on the electrical system. I find the Cirrus system very straight forward with some advantages. It isolates some potential faulty equipment i.e. powers just essential equipment when ALT1 goes down. Then again, on Perspective, that is still almost everything so this has become an almost meaningless feature. I thought there was a manual cross-tie on the Columbia but I could be wrong since it has been awhile. The isolation check on the diodes is quick since you just hit BAT2, flaps to 100%. check flap light off, then Bat2 when lowering flaps for preflight. In either case, I can't knock the Columbia electrical system. From everything I know it is very robust.

I said "interesting comment" because I have become fascinated lately with issues of understanding and ergonomics. For example, I find the G1000 a very nice system but my wife hates it. As I have watched her interact with different systems I have come to appreciate the ergonomics of Avidyne's R9. I have never found the Cirrus electrical system complicated but then I work as an electrical engineer.

with no proper instrumentation

Can you clarify here? I have continuous monitoring of both buss voltages and battery current. What do you find missing?

I agree with your "preferences" comment. I want to be clear that I really like the Columbia and find some aspects of it better done than the Cirrus. The most impressive (to me) thing I ever did in a Columbia was to put it into a 150 kt steep turn, trim, and take my hands off the stick. You can do it in other planes too (including Cirrus) but the ease and stability of the Columbia was impressive. Then again, there are a lot of fine planes out there.

[Dinho Pilot]

I wish I could own any of those...

Hehehe... you all must be football player or something to own planes like that. I read somewhere that the anual cost of those it's like 30000€ year, around 2500€ month for 100 hours a year!
Seems like plastic planes brake up faster or easily...


And don't you get annoyed with having to switch fuel tanks every once in awhile... I don't understand why they didn't include a both selector in such an advance aircraft...
Since the idea is to make their operation the most simple possible... more than 10 Gallons imbalance and there is problem (maybe some crashes happened cause of that?)

The part that should be improved in these machines is certainly the engines... cause none of those run cheap on fuel...

[Cobalt]

I thought there was a manual cross-tie on the Columbia but I could be wrong since it has been awhile.

There is. An ALT failure in the Columbia means tha battery for that bus will take the load - to get it onto the other alternator you have to hit the cross-tie switch. A cross-tie check is part of the pre-flight checks where you switch of each alternator in turn. Cirrus is simpler than Columbia in that respect. That is what I meant with "fair enough, but I don't want to do a cross-tie check as part of every pre-flight and would like an automatic failover".

The Cirrus does not have a BAT2 charge / discharge indication, so if it starts boiling and dies in flight AND the ALT2 then fails this will be the first thing you know about it. Pretty low risk and you still have ALT1, so that really just a niggle. It is one of these legacy things - the design was for a mini-BAT2 and mini-ALT2 on its own essential bus. Now that BAT2 and ALT2 have grown up this bus design is just a hangover. The Columbia was a symmetric dual-bus design from the start and better than in some twins (DA42, anyone?). Does it matter? Not really, both have good redundancy.


G1000 vs. Avidyne is a neverending other debate. Perspective fixes a few of the poor ergonomics aspects of the G1000 - in particular around page selection. Also the keypad is more ergonomic than the std. G1000 keypad, but it has NO redundancy because all AP controls are gone from the PFD/MFD. Avidyne is easier to use and the ARC-mode on the EHSI is actually useful - used it all the time except for ADF/RMI practice - complete rubbish in the G1000.

And don't you get annoyed with having to switch fuel tanks every once in awhile... I don't understand why they didn't include a both selector in such an advance aircraft...

because the engine is above the fuel ports in the tanks, and so is the engine-driven fuel pump. That means that the engine "sucks" fuel from the tanks (I leave it to the pedants to point out that it lowers pressure and outside air pressure actually pushes the fuel) and if both tanks were connected to the pump, as soon as one fuel port in the tanks sucks air this is it - you will not feed reliably from the other tank. Different in gravity-fed high wing thingies such as Cessnas. You could of course fit dual fuel pumps in/below each tank...

more than 10 Gallons imbalance and there is problem

And that is the case in any aircraft with large fuel tanks. Turbo Saratoga or Arrow no different, except they did not make it a limitation during certification - probably not required back then. Just fly along for a couple of hours in a PA32R-301T without switching tanks and your arm will become tired...

[sternone]

Does the Corvalis has wet tanks ? I hate wet tanks.

Since paulp has such a good connections at the cirrus factory maybe he could update us on the status of the SR20 G3 with the Diesel Deltahawk ?

[paulp]

Since paulp has such a good connections at the cirrus factory maybe he could update us on the status of the SR20 G3 with the Diesel Deltahawk ?

Actually my Cirrus factory connections aren't super special. I have no clue on diesel work. I worry that since Alan has left that innovation will slow. I have also heard (not through factory) that they are looking at the TCM turbo (like Corvalis) as a cost cutting measure. I have a friend who is big on diesels and likes the Deltahawk. My concern is that it is one of those great new engines that will be available "real soon now." Cirrus came very close to introducing a diesel several years ago. When taken high up and the engine turned off it wouldn't restart. That killed it and it was never sold. With diesels I am always interested in how the high altitude restart issue is solved.

Where I do have some connections is Avidyne. They have really changed how they work with customers and they have been very open on some of their recent work. I just want the new DFC 100 certified since it will complete my R9 system. It is way more important to me than SVT, EVS etc.

[sternone]

I played with the R9 release of avidyne and it's great.

I had training in the flightmax years ago, it's easier to 'not' forget what buttons to press compared to the G1000.

Deltahawk is around for years. They take it slow. They are known to finance all their development conservatively.

[sternone]

Doesn't look that good over Cirrus. I don't want them to go, I want them to improve their plane.

--
A sign of the times: Cirrus Design not paying its rent
It’s been a tough year for aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Design.

According to today’s Grand Forks Herald, Cirrus is behind $845,000 in payments on the lease at its plant in the Industrial Park in Grand Forks.

The economic downturn has had a detrimental affect on general aviation manufacturers such as Cirrus Design. The company employed 330 in its Grand Forks plant in 2006; today it employs 75.

[Fuji Abound]

but they are still improving their aircraft and the only way anyone knows how, by still being in business unlike most other manufacturers.

There is a 99.9% chance, and possibly more, that when a manufacturer goes bust there will not be any further improvements.

[007helicopter]

According to today’s Grand Forks Herald, Cirrus is behind $845,000 in payments on the lease at its plant in the Industrial Park in Grand Forks.

Yes but the city is the landlord and I think they are going to do everything to help Cirrus as they are still an important employer and bring dollars to the area.

[sternone]

Until they run out of money to pay themselves.

[IO540]

This is interesting

AOPA Pilot Blog: Reporting Points Blog Archive Surprising Cirrus Stats

[007helicopter]

The author, Rick Beach who owns an SR22 has made it a personal mission to increase safety and awareness of the CIrrus fleet, he does not ever appear to me biased or particually pro Cirrus but very objective. If anyone does fly a Cirrus the $60 they spend to become a COPA member is incredible value for money and I would recommend strongly any owner does join and it is a fact for whatever reason that a non COPA cirrus pilot is 4 times more likely to be involved in a fatality.