Seeing a couple examples at the last C2A trip, I had some serious airplane lust… on a G1…
While I think it is reasonable for Ross’s work to last 10 years, it isn’t going to last that long looking pristine if you keep it tied down outside in Key West and land on gravel. When it comes to it, I will definitely be making the trek up there from FL.
I also wondered about a G7 when I ordered my G6.
As a frame of reference my expected delivery date is December. I spoke with Cirrus and the wait for a new G6 is now over a year…VERY strong demand so I doubt they will interrupt that flow in the near future for a G7.
My understanding is that the G7 will feature the upgraded cup holder, and it will be worth every bit of the extra $100,000. That it will cost as it will come with a long non-magnetic straw such that the pilot will no longer have to reach down for his beer can.
Innovation… gotta love it.
And perhaps a first-ever built in iPad holder. Or, will they hold back this feature for the G8?
Nah, since Diamond has iPad/camera mounts on the DA-50 and DA-62 now, they’ll have to step up and offer that as a $35,000 option.
Diamond charges $1500 for that by the way. It’s ridiculous, but it’s so convenient that you can’t pass.
Can you just go for aftermarket parts and save $1450?
I think the G7 will be revolutionary… with 5 never-seen-before paint schemes.
I think RAM manufactured that part specially for them. The ball thing is patented.
Honestly, THAT is worth more than a measly 100 AMUs!
All joking aside, what else could they add to the G6 to make it a G7? Many of the upgrades I think about would more likely make it an SR27. Pressurization, retractable gear…I am thinking that would be new airframe (think SF50).
Perhaps autoland would/could be added to make it a G7? I know that at least one member has advocated for Auto Chute in “unrecoverable” situations. That would make it a G7.
Without any major changes, it’s a G6.x (and that’s okay!).
Considering Cirri are having three landing ‘events’ per month auto land might not be such a bad idea. However, auto land will only go the airport of its choice and so pilots will elect to turn off auto land and go to the airport of their choice showing one again that it IS man over machine. Bent prop and all.
I know what I would add … or remove!
… and I would add a G7 CDI model to the line with the CD-300 engine.
Why couldn’t it just add the landing part of autoland? Pair down the system and add auto throttles and Jet-A compatible piston engine. The simulator bill to stay proficient on all that is another matter.
Price it at current rates, devalue the used market. Instant demand…like an IPhone. Pull your profit from tail end sustainment (a three year, CAPS-like inspection and proprietary calibration requirement for the autoland system).
But where would that lead to? In the end we’ll end up with a G8 that flies without us and we can watch from home where it went 
Ok, more seriously: Is it really good for our piloting skills to introduce even more automation, and do we really want that? I was always good at hand flying, even flew some aerobatics and many years I did not even have a simple autopilot.
Now with the SR22 I really have to FORCE myself to occasionally fly by hand… and then I use the FD many times. I don’t have the feeling that I became a better pilot in the last years, but I am certainly a better systems manager …
Yes, that would be nice to have, especially for fine tuning - “taptaptap” can be frustrating!
I would love an easily accessible breaker board! I think a line of breakers above the PFD/MFD would be great!
I kinda like the spring cartridge (or maybe I’m just used to it?)
I would like that but I think that might be more of a G6.x upgrade?
and of course, with FADEC - but I think that would move the plane out of the SR22 line and create an upgraded designation. Maybe an SJ22?
I like the idea of locating the breakers in a more accessible place, but can you imagine routing all wiring harnesses to a moving surface like a door? Way too problematic.
Why not leapfrog the whole thing and go electronic? https://verticalpower.com/index.php/products/vp-x
Of course, that’s not certified yet, but neither is FADEC for our planes.
It would be great to see Cirrus leading this sort of innovation.
This will come and with it “auto land” is possible.
Exactly, I don’t see how auto land would work without some kind of FADEC-y thing.
I’m half joking and half serious. Automation is already offsetting pilot skill or at least changing the quality of those skills, as you point out. If landing is the biggest safety risk, why not go after it through automation? Cirrus disrupted the market 20 years ago with a traveling airplane enhanced for safety. Does the next disruption lie in more autonomous pilot functions in the new GA aircraft market? For $1M, I should expect lots of capability. Generationally, it will be expected. Package companies are already pushing with eVTOL.
Military is pushing with efforts to retrofit traditionally manned cockpits with robots (spoiler alert…it crashed…fail forward!)
Autoland is at the center of all of this.
Of course, this is a big leap and a major bet. Incrementalism is the likely course. I’m not sure though that autoland might come to be viewed as an incremental improvement in the next decade. You’d need auto throttles and a FADEC to do it as well as a way to manage liability risk. The latter is likely the biggest obstacle.