Cirrus fiction

Guest Discussion
#1

I just received a mailing from Cirrus. They want me to trade my SR20 for a new SR20 or SR22. They include a sales brochure which lists for the SR20 a 75% cruise of 160 knots, a fuel burn of 10.5 gph, a takeoff roll of 1341 feet, and a range of 831 knots. The POH numbers which nobody seems able to achieve are not that good.

They are also willing to provide discounts on the next annual if I were willing to give them friends as sales leads including detailed contact information and personnel data.

It sounds like they have ramped up production and are now hoping for sales to makeup for a dwindling backlog.

#2

Disagree,
My 2.2 Sr20 regularly hits 160kts at 75% power (As long as it bug free)

#3

Well, Art, what’s your point? Is this just another chance to complain? I really don’t think Cirrus wants you , specifically to trade yours in. I think they would be extremely happy if you just sold it, maybe they would even buy it just to make you stop taking every opportunity to bash them in the public forum.
BTW, I love my SR22. It beats the book numbers regularly. Heck, I’ve been asked to slow down for a King Air and a Bonanza while being vectored for ILS approaches. Squawks, I’ve had a few, but then again, too few to mention…OK OK, I am getting carried away, got to go to Nashville tomorrow (yea, I know the big ‘E’ is really from Memphis).
In general, Cirrus is one of the best things to happen to GA in a long time. I have been flying for 25 years, and my interest was diminishing every year, until this airplane arrived. There is just no arguing with the fact that Cirrus has dramatically improved the overall utility of plane ownership.
So, I’d say the best thing you could do for yourself is sell the plane and remove what seems to be a terrible burden and source of personal stress. Unless you actually enjoy bitching about everything, you’d be a lot happier. Take charge! Either sell it or quite complaining. Most of us have been listening to you for almost two years now. Why do you keep torturing yourself? Give it up and go buy a Lancair, Trinidad, Cessna, or Piper.

I don’t think there is anyone that doesn’t have sympathy for the problems you claim to have had, but my sympathy has run out. Just do yourself a favor and sell the plane.

#4

Art, any chance of you posting your picture with your posts, like some of the other members do?

Andy

#5

My 2.2 Sr20 regularly hits 160kts at 75% power (As long as it bug free)

At a fuel burn of 10.5 gph and an empty weight of 2080? Are you sure enough of that that you would fly non-stop at that speed for 700nm as the brochure indicates is possible? You are more likely to run out of fuel before you arrive and then everyone can say fuel starvation canÂ’t be blamed on Cirrus, it was obviously pilot error.

#6

Mario,

Great to hear you are enjoying your 20, I was doing a touch and go at OXR last week and heard your voice on extended downwind. I smiled as I left the pattern.

Scott

#7

Art,

I must be missing something. Where in the brochure does it say that the 10.5gph fuel burn is at 75% power/160kts? From the POH, it looks like the 10.5gph figure is at 8000 feet, 65% power.

And yes, if you did your flight planning based on a sales brochure, most people would consider that pilot error [:)].

-Mike

#8

–Are you sure enough of that that you would fly non-stop at that speed for 700nm…----

I didnt claim that. I said I regularly hit 160kts at 75% , nothing more

Have a nice night

#9

In reply to:

At a fuel burn of 10.5 gph and an empty weight of 2080? Are you sure enough of that that you would fly non-stop at that speed for 700nm as the brochure indicates is possible?

Art,
If you buy a sports car, do you expect it to cover 1/4 mile in 14 seconds, corner at .85G’s, come to a stop in 100’ and get 16MPG at the same time? If so, I imagine you spend a great portion of your life deeply disappointed.

-Curt

#10

I must be missing something. Where in the brochure does it say that the 10.5gph fuel burn is at 75% power/160kts?

One page past the middle of the bigger brochure shows a Cirrus flying nonstop from Chicago to Boston (700 miles) in 4.37 hours at 8000 feet and 75% power. That works out to 160 knots. If you burned 10.5 gph, then added allowance for engine start and climb to 8,000 that would leave you with the minimum legal reserve. But according to the POH the plane will burn 11.6 gph at 75% power at 8000 producing 159 knots making the flight doubtful.

If you look at the endurance chart for the SR20, the maximum endurance for 8000 at 75% power is 639 miles (4 hours).

And yes, if you did your flight planning based on a sales brochure, most people would consider that pilot error.

I will go one step further. If you plan your flight based upon the numbers in the SR20 POH, must people would consider that pilot error.

#11

Art, Art, Art, Art, Art: Most pilots readily recognize that aircraft performance figures are right up there with other lies such as, “The check is in the mail,” “I love you,” and “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

However, most SR22s meet or beat book values. (Yes, I have heard that the TKS equipped '22s give up 1-4 knots, but then the book values are for the basic aircraft without the options.)

My Cessna, with book TAS of around 124, never trued out above about 111. That was a miss of more than 10%. Overall, it seems that some SR20’s meet the book numbers, many don’t, but the margin of error is still less than planes built in the 60’s and 70’s. Even if you assume a 150 - 155 KTAS, the margin is only 3% - 6%.

In my opinion, if most 22s meet or exceed book and some 20s do as well, that is pretty good for an industry that is known for exaggeration. Sorry if you’re not happy.

Marty

#12

Marty,

All excellent points — thanks for raising these!

I do feel sorry for poor Art. After all, his girlfriend won’t fly with him and he figures click heregeneral aviation will be banned by the government. Surely he must be able to find an avocation that will cause him less heartbreak and unhappiness.

Cheers,
Roger

#13

Well put my trinidads were shown to do 164 and I normaly got 153 to 156 on 13 gal an hour with retracts. I did not ecpect mine to do any better than 155 and at time I do get 155. But mostly 152 knots. On 11 gal per hour. I have the stormscope antina that has to be at least a 2 knot penilty. 80 percent of most flying I am just putting arround anyways. From Don

#14

Marty,

With my TKS-equipped SR22 I have been routinely achieving true airspeeds of 178-182 knots. Of course it may have something to do with the software bug I found in the PFD display code:

TAS = TAS + 5;

[;)]

#15

Just out of curiosity: In calculating true airspeed, one typically adjusts for temperature, altitude and pressure. In all my training, I’ve never seen a formula that adjusts for humidity, but we east coast pilots know it is a serious consideration in performance. Could some of the beef about Cirrus POH values result from testing the plane in low humidity conditions out west?? Does humidity affect true airspeed?

#16

In reply to:

and he figures general aviation will be banned by the government.

Roger,

I’m not defending Art or any of his statement, and I disagree with many of his posts, but I do believe he was referring to banning 100LL, not general aviation. I just like to make sure everyone gets their facts strait and are not quoted out of context. Sorta like GW Sr’s speech at Tufts! [;)]

#17

James,

I must confess I can’t tell whether Art was referring to 100LL in particular or to GA in general. Either way, I still feel very sorry for him.

#18

Dave,

Anything that changes the density of air, will change the true airspeed. Adding moisture to the air makes the air less dense (lighter) and therefore true airspeeds will be higher. FYI: Adding moisture also increases density altitude.

#19

I have heard that humidity while a factor is not nearly as significant as OAT or alt. Scott, is this true?

Marty

#20

Marty,
At the risk of stealing Scott’s thunder (and lightning — he is a meteorologist!), it is true that humidity has less of an effect than temperature. There’s a nice discussion on the USA Today web site (go to http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wworks0.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/weather/wworks0.htm and click on “Understanding air density”).

To get a quantitative feel for the effects of temperature and humidity on density altitude, try out this http://www.srh.noaa.gov/elp/wxcalc/densityaltitude.htmldensity altitude calculator. An instructive exercise with this calculator is to keep the pressure constant (say, 29.92 in. Hg) and try different temperatures and dew points.

Cheers,
Roger