For those of you who are tuned into the market, how well received will this new model be and what impact will it have on the existing fleet’s market values?
There is extensive discussion on the Member forums.
The bottom line is that it is not a new model, it is simply a new rear seat with three belts instead of two and a POH authorization for three souls to be seated back there. Space-wise and W&B-wise, the three-in-the-back seating is suitable only for young, small, lightweight children.
It could be very attractive to those with three young children. Otherwise, no big deal.
Edited to Add: Cirrus is advertising it as suitable for two adults and a child. That does not look too comfortable to me however.
RE your post title about a gross weight increase. Check the Type Certificate Data Sheet. There is NO increase in the gross weight of the aircraft (still at 3050 lbs for SR20 S/N 1886 and subsequent and 3400 lbs for all SR22s or SR22Ts). There is an AVERAGE increase of 10 lbs in the USEFUL LOAD, due to a reduction in the basic empty weight gained from using lighter / less interior upholstery materials (notably in the rear seat area in order to actually get three people to fit in the rear seats - its a squeeze!)
I think it could have pretty good uptake, since it is included in the GTS package.
I often fly with two adults and a dog between them in the back and it is not really comfortable, tight fit
Maybe you need a skinny dog?
Does anyone know if the new 60/40 split seat will be intercahngable with the old style double seats. I have three small children and would love to upgrade to the new style rear seats.
Short answer I think is no. Won’t say never but it would be costly and I don’t think cirrus currently provides any path to make that happen right now.
It’s more than just seats, side interior finish is widened, extra headset jack, seatbelts, etc.
Understand it is very, very unlikely as there are bulkhead changes in attaching to the fuselage.
Yes, you trade in your old plane and get a new one…Ed
Cirrus hasn’t really acted like that way as a rule. Generally, they engineer a retrofit of any new feature for older aircraft.
Stephen, I would suggest that you talk to a Cirrus sales rep to see if they will offer this as a retrofit.
Daniel, don’t know how to parse your first two sentences. Did you mean “they” to refer to Cirrus? Or to general aviation manufacturers in general?
If you meant Cirrus, then I believe that Cirrus has not retrofitted most new features for older aircraft.
As I understand the Cirrus engineering process, I actually support this always-moving-forward approach for almost all features expect significant safety issues. That process seems to integrate a bunch of new features in a way that makes different trade-offs. Retrofitting to achieve similar trade-offs is tough engineering, given the pace and scope of design changes that Cirrus has made in 12 years.
Hence, retrofitting to an older aircraft without those integrated features becomes impractical. For instance, my G1 is stuck with an ancient bulkhead design that will force another chutectomy in 9 years. However, my ancient seatbelt design was upgraded in my G1 to avoid the problems found with the takeup reels that could contribute to injuries, largely because it didn’t rely upon any other components than the seats.
And one reason that I support this engineering philosophy is the economic benefit of growing the market by upgrading airplanes. A surprising number of Cirrus owners have gone through 3 or more aircraft to follow the upgrade path. That is great for growing general aviation, IMHO.
I just meant Cirrus. My understanding is that they try to allow their older aircraft to get the upgrades that they add.
Well, given that context, … I’m sure that a sales pitch would promote that direction. [;)] However, their track record over the past 12 years doesn’t make it a slam-dunk argument. No doubt that they try – at some upgrades – but they definitely don’t succeed with many upgrades.
Curt’s reply suggesting that the 60/40 back seat includes bulkhead changes would make a retrofit an interesting engineering task – the attach points matter, the interior panels matter, obviously the seats are different so the floor mounting may differ – or not. Sometimes, new features are easy enough to retrofit to old designs. But as the generational spread widens after 5,000 airplanes and about a dozen significant configuration changes, some opportunities are harder to realize.
And for the record, I am not in the market for many retrofit items nor an upgrade replacement airplane.
If you read Tim’s blog: http://cirrusengineering.blogspot.com/
He states that there are significant structural changes they had to make to do the new seat. many dealing with the seat belt attach points. While I am sure that it could be done as a retro kit; the cost would be very expensive. Doesn’t mean that if there is a market; someone like RJ or the Tamarack Aerospace Group couldn’t do a STC for it. The Cargo Conversion kit is $3500.