I am considering making a deposit on one of the above. I assume a number of people in the forum have done careful comparison. What are the reasons you chose the Cirus over the Lancair.
Thanks,
Charlie
I am considering making a deposit on one of the above. I assume a number of people in the forum have done careful comparison. What are the reasons you chose the Cirus over the Lancair.
Thanks,
Charlie
I’ll give you two good reasons. First of all, I’m a former Navy pilot (3,000 hours A-4s & A-6s 350 traps). There’s nothing more reassuring than having that one extra option; you may never need it but it’s nice to know it’s there. I plan on hauling friends and family all over the place and the CAPS system gives a bit more confidence to a lot of people who aren’t so sure about little planes. Secondly, I read the Cirrus business plan and I believe they will be here for years to come. They appear to be doing everything right. I’m not sure that Lancair will be here in five years. I don’t see the backlog needed to support the investment they made.
By the way, I’m #280 - first time I’ve ever participated in the Forum - and I upgraded to the SR22.
Call Sign “Bagger”
Bagger hit the nail on the head. Commercial planes usually have redundant systems like engines, hydraulics, electronics and multiple pilots thus giving them a safe “out” in most situations. Even single engine jet fighters have multiple systems and the ultimate “out” of a bad situation, the ejection seat. Until now single engine GA pilots had few options if the pilot, airframe or the engine gave up the ghost, especailly over inhospitable terrain.
Cirrus has changed that with The CAPS and many safety oriented design ideas they incorporated in the SR20/22.
I hope the CAPS system is never put to use but I know I will fly my family with more confidence knowing it is there. BRS forever!
I was in line to buy a Columbia 300 until May 99 when a few issues came up with both the contract and the delivery window. A friend and I were going in on it - he has since moved on to a 2000 Bonanza and I’m in line for an SR22.
Having flown the Columbia 300 and the SR20, I’m confident that I made the right decision. Cirrus is pumping aircraft out the door while only a handfull (6??) of Columbia 300’s have delivered.
While I find the chute interesting, my wife pushed me in the direction once the Columbia fell through because of the chute.
btw, while flying back to the Bay Area from AOPA in Long Beach this weekend in a new Archer, I was thinking about the chute myself!! The ride would fully fill the ‘moderate turbulance’ criteria - I fly all the time but this was the roughest I’ve ever been in.
The Lancair and Cirrus CEOs have different motivations. I dare say.
Lancair likes to build fast, tough planes that win the Reno Air Races. Lance N. takes great pride that his Columbia 300 is a handful of knots faster than the SR22, is spin-resistant, and utility rated.
Cirrus wants to grow GA by introducing new levels of comfort, situational awareness and safety. The Klapmeiers are on a holy crusade to make small planes safe, easy, cheap, and popular.
Lancair appeals to the hardcore, Cirrus to the masses. Cirrus is clearly better at marketing.
I think Cirrus is making the right bet. But I also think Lancair is happy pursuing its path, too. There is room for both. Both companies are sure to make life solitary, nasty, brutish and short for the likes of Commander, Mooney, Socata . . . and eventually for the piston divisions of Cessna, New Piper and Beech.
I am considering making a deposit on one of the above. I assume a number of people in the forum have done careful comparison. What are the reasons you chose the Cirus over the Lancair.
Thanks,
Charlie
“Bagger”
Welcome to the forum! CAPS is also a big factor for me. I am at the other end of the experience spectrum, with only 200 hours and a plan to get my instrument rating before taking delivery on the SR22 late next year.
CAPS + TCAS = reassurance for my wife that she should feel comfortable traveling with the family in a GA airplane. It’s also reassuring for me to know that I have “one last thing to try” if things somehow fall apart while airborne.
I am considering making a deposit on one of the above. I assume a number of people in the forum have done careful comparison. What are the reasons you chose the Cirus over the Lancair.
Thanks,
Charlie
I’ll give you two good reasons. First of all, I’m a former Navy pilot (3,000 hours A-4s & A-6s 350 traps). There’s nothing more reassuring than having that one extra option; you may never need it but it’s nice to know it’s there. I plan on hauling friends and family all over the place and the CAPS system gives a bit more confidence to a lot of people who aren’t so sure about little planes. Secondly, I read the Cirrus business plan and I believe they will be here for years to come. They appear to be doing everything right. I’m not sure that Lancair will be here in five years. I don’t see the backlog needed to support the investment they made.
By the way, I’m #280 - first time I’ve ever participated in the Forum - and I upgraded to the SR22.
Call Sign “Bagger”
I’ll give you two good reasons. First of all, I’m a former Navy pilot (3,000 hours A-4s & A-6s 350 traps). There’s nothing more reassuring than having that one extra option;>
For those of us in the low-time tribe, who are amazed that a person can manage one carrier landing – let alone 350 --this is a very interesting comment. The implication one often gets from Big, Strong, Veteran Pilots is that the parachute is for sissies. You should be able to fly your way out of any jam; why would one even think of using this crutch, as opposed to applying advanced piloting skills to avoid the accident or land safely even with both your wings blown off, etc.
What’s odd is that the advanced lore of piloting ALSO seems to teach that there is no such thing as too many options; you always want to have another fallback; etc. So the visceral hostility to the parachute, from some of the grizzled old timers, has been puzzling. Your post makes me think that the people taking this tough-guy stance actually aren’t experienced enough. If they were REAL tough guys, with carrier experience behind them, they’d welcome another option to apply if they absolutely had to.
On the Cirrus/Lancair front: all these planes are lovely. I’d be happy to have any of them. I hope both the companies succeed. But as a matter of choosing:
-
Cirrus has priced more aggressively, especially on the 20. As R Karlgaard points out, their strategy is volume, volume, volume. This has obvious attractions for the consumer.
-
The rapidly-growing installed base of Cirri brings benefits of its own. Seventy three have now left the factory; they’ll be comfortably over 100 by the year’s end; every sign is that they’re nearing one-a-day. The more of them out there, the easier it is for every owner – maintenance, resale, fleet experience to work out bugs. Two years ago, Lancair and Cirrus both received their type certificates at the AOPA Expo, but the companies have gone different directions and had different luck since then (even including Cirrus’s horrible bad luck of the Scott Anderson crash.)
22 – Cheaper, slightly more fuel efficent, more proven design (first 100+ 20’s out the door), all electric, shorter landing roll (I believe), proven customer service track record (read posts here), oh yeah and that parachute, which no matter what you think of it, is nicer to have than not have.
300 – 10kts faster. Spin resistant. Better flat panel display (sure there will be arguements). Slightly better useful load/range options – it can hold more fuel if you want to skimp of passengers. I think in time Lancair will prove to also have solid customer service…etc, but the fact is they are simply behind in terms of time right now.
Of the two, I think the 22 is a better value, considering the extra 10kts means little unless you are going max range.If you feel the need for speed. The lancair 400, with it’s multi-flat panels and 245kts and FL250 may be worth the extra $$$. My guess is the Lancair 400 will end up being much more popular than the lancair 300, and so a better re-sale in years to come.
As for Cirrus re-sale… How’s about 30K in increased value before people are even taking delivery!
22 – Cheaper, slightly more fuel efficent, more proven design (first 100+ 20’s out the door), all electric, shorter landing roll (I believe), proven customer service track record (read posts here), oh yeah and that parachute, which no matter what you think of it, is nicer to have than not have.
300 – 10kts faster. Spin resistant. Better flat panel display (sure there will be arguements). Slightly better useful load/range options – it can hold more fuel if you want to skimp of passengers. I think in time Lancair will prove to also have solid customer service…etc, but the fact is they are simply behind in terms of time right now.
Of the two, I think the 22 is a better value, considering the extra 10kts means little unless you are going max range.If you feel the need for speed. The lancair 400, with it’s multi-flat panels and 245kts and FL250 may be worth the extra $$$. My guess is the Lancair 400 will end up being much more popular than the lancair 300, and so a better re-sale in years to come.
As for Cirrus re-sale… How’s about 30K in increased value before people are even taking delivery!
Another note in the SR20’s favor, the Columbia 300 has limited rudder pedal movement one way to make it spin resistant at slow speeds, but that may affect the cross-wind component the Columbia 300 has for landing in strong crosswinds. Just a
thought!
For those of us in the low-time tribe, who are amazed that a person can manage one carrier landing – let alone 350 --this is a very interesting comment. The implication one often gets from Big, Strong, Veteran Pilots is that the parachute is for sissies. You should be able to fly your way out of any jam; why would one even think of using this crutch, as opposed to applying advanced piloting skills to avoid the accident or land safely even with both your wings blown off, etc.
I even got that message from an instructor that I was doing a BFR with : “let me fly out of a situation (or not get into it in the first place) and give me the 80 lbs back for payload!”
I mentioned that it is for EXTREME emergencies when all else had failed (after all, your beautiful '20 will be written off in the process) - potentially even some mid airs (God forbid) might have happier endings. The instructor still said “give me the 80 lbs back”. Each to their own : that’s why this activity has SUCH good hanger talk!
Rob (#731)
For those of us in the low-time tribe, who are amazed that a person can manage one carrier landing – let alone 350 --this is a very interesting comment. The implication one often gets from Big, Strong, Veteran Pilots is that the parachute is for sissies. You should be able to fly your way out of any jam; why would one even think of using this crutch, as opposed to applying advanced piloting skills to avoid the accident or land safely even with both your wings blown off, etc.>>I even got that message from an instructor that I was doing a BFR with : “let me fly out of a situation (or not get into it in the first place) and give me the 80 lbs back for payload!”>>I mentioned that it is for EXTREME emergencies when all else had failed (after all, your beautiful '20 will be written off in the process) - potentially even some mid airs (God forbid) might have happier endings. The instructor still said “give me the 80 lbs back”. Each to their own : that’s why this activity has SUCH good hanger talk!>>Rob (#731) >
I’d start thinking about a different instructor. I’ve been flying since 1959, generally in 172s and 182s, and I can count on one hand the number of times in all those years I have been constrained by weight limits. And we raised 4 kids in the process and travelled extensively as a family. (To be honest, kids don’t weigh a whole lot when young, and when older, sometimes have their own agendas for their travels.) On the other hand, if I was flying for hire - either humans or cargo - I might feel differently. But that’s not the reason I’m going to Duluth in a few weeks.
Pete
The implication one often gets from Big, Strong, Veteran Pilots is that the parachute is for sissies. You should be able to fly your way out of any jam; why would one even think of using this crutch, as opposed to applying advanced piloting skills to avoid the accident or land safely even with both your wings blown off, etc.>>I even got that message from an instructor that I was doing a BFR with : “let me fly out of a situation (or not get into it in the first place) and give me the 80 lbs back for payload!”>>I mentioned that it is for EXTREME emergencies when all else had failed (after all, your beautiful '20 will be written off in the process) - potentially even some mid airs (God forbid) might have happier endings. The instructor still said “give me the 80 lbs back”. Each to their own : that’s why this activity has SUCH good hanger talk!>>Rob (#731) >
Although I have not been flying as long as some of the respondents I too can count on one hand the number of times weight limits have modified my flight plan. I can also count, and I need both hands for this, the number of pilots+family members that from just my two local airports who might be still alive if they had had a BRS chute system. This is only over a 10 year period and assumes a 75% save rate for a deployed chute! If Cirrus and Continental ever get FADEC systems installed the 12% increase in fuel effiency will more than compensate for the weight of the chute. Those macho pilots from the “let me fly out of trouble or ride it down” school have been watching too many Twelve O’clock High reruns.
… I can count on one hand the number of times in all those years I have been constrained by weight limits.
To each their own. Each of us have a mission or missions in mind for the aircraft we purchase. I would say on 50% of my cross country trips (that is why we by these fast things isn’t it?) weight has been a factor. In fact, it is the main reason I’m going with the '22 over the '20.
Having said that, The 'chute is a nice option to have when all others run out, not a crutch for poor skills or bad decision making. I would love to have the 80 +/- lbs for payload, until I need the 'chute.
Perhaps the most profound thought is that the ‘chute does more for the passengers’ comfort than the pilot’s. I haven’t talked to a pilot yet who believed he would ever need the 'chute, but I have talked to several non-pilots who said they would fly with me once I had the plane with the 'chute. (Of course I have never spoken with a pilot who believed he/she would die in a plane, but I have known a few who have.)
If CD’s intentions are to bring flying to the masses, the BRS has certainly been a step in that direction.
Marty #15 SR22