3 blade

Good point on the forward c of g, Marty. 15 lbs. more empty weight won’t matter if Cirrus ups the gross 200 lbs., but 15 lbs. less that far out front would make forward c of g less critical.

Good point on the forward c of g, Marty. 15 lbs. more empty weight won’t matter if Cirrus ups the gross 200 lbs., but 15 lbs. less that far out front would make forward c of g less critical.

It seems like the differences are in aggregate quite minor and mostly offsetting, so it all boils down to individual preferences in aesthetics and owner’s personal satisfaction. I suspect this is also borne out in the choice of configurations, and CD from what I hear is rather surprised at the large proportion of elections for the top-of-the-line C configuration.

It seems that–no big surprise here–a personal airplane purchase by an individual is and will always be largely emotional and discretionary, with practicality a secondary concern, unless there is some–as often as not contrived–“business” use for the craft. CD is right on target in realizing that their customer base wants a reliable, pilot- and maintenance-friendly aircraft that will get us and a decent payload somewhere 3-4 times faster than driving, with the design, functionality, and appearance that give $180-200+K worth of “pride of ownership.”

My own personal version of this will be the B configuration (functionality and redundancy for IFR), leather seats (appearance, comfort & ease of cleaning), dual alternators (safety, given the electric-only items such as trim), and 2-blade prop (perfectly functional and less cost). For me, the C configuration doesn’t offer the extra K$-worth in functionality but I can see how others would only want “the best.”

But, hooray for different tastes!

Kevin Moore

My own personal version of this will be the B configuration (functionality and redundancy for IFR), leather seats (appearance, comfort & ease of cleaning), dual alternators (safety, given the electric-only items such as trim), and 2-blade prop (perfectly functional and less cost).<<

This is basically what I’m thinking too – B plus leather seats and dual alts. Remain agnostic on the prop. Looking forward to the time that these are not simply angels-on-head-of-pin theoretical decisions.

FWIW, unless I have a dramatic change in financial prospects I also am planning to stick with SR20, even though the 22 should be available when my turn comes up. My guess is that both for fundamental-technical reasons, and for marketing reasons too, there will be increasing-marginal-cost for those extra knots, as we go from 160kts to 180 or so. As I understand Cirrus’s marketing plans, the company plans to keep the SR20 positioned as its “entry level” “value for money” airplane, and – much as in the car business – make the 22 the step-up model, with more for the customer but more per-unit profit too. This is a sensible strategy and gives us all a choice. jf

My own personal version of this will be the B configuration (functionality and redundancy for IFR), leather seats (appearance, comfort & ease of cleaning), dual alternators (safety, given the electric-only items such as trim), and 2-blade prop (perfectly functional and less cost). For me, the C configuration doesn’t offer the extra K$-worth in functionality but I can see how others would only want “the best.”

But, hooray for different tastes!

Kevin Moore

Before you decide permanently on the “B” configurations, I spoke with the HSI muanfacturer at Sun-N-Fun and with regard to quality and reliability, they liked the electric HSI much, much, better.

They said they designed the vacuum powered unit was to come up with a cheap, entry level HSI, but considering it’s relatively dirty power source, it is much more likely to fail. They said, (and the eventual decisions is) the electric powered unit was well worht the additional money.

Before you commit, please check for yourselves. All the back-up alternators and vacuum pumps won’t help if the HSI fails. I think a more reliable HSI is cheaper than installing a backup electric unit.