Good news-bad news

Guest Discussion
1

I received notice that my sr20 will be delivered about 2/15/01(good). The cabin payload will be in the range of 490 lbs about 250lbs below initial projections(the bad) and not what I need for a family of four. I am trying to get some type of assurance that the payload will increase either by paperwork or manufacturing method before the holiday. If it stays at 490 my '82 Skylane may need to soldier on a few more years!I don’t want to offload fuel or leave a family member at home.

                      DK
2

I received notice that my sr20 will be delivered about 2/15/01(good). The cabin payload will be in the range of 490 lbs about 250lbs below initial projections(the bad) and not what I need for a family of four. I am trying to get some type of assurance that the payload will increase either by paperwork or manufacturing method before the holiday. If it stays at 490 my '82 Skylane may need to soldier on a few more years!I don’t want to offload fuel or leave a family member at home.

DK

I also have a 2/15/01 delivery date. In talking with a Cirrus official today. I am told that the gross weight increase will likly not be completed by 3/31/01 and will be in the neighbohood of only 100 lbs. This is not to bad when compared to some of the competion, but certainly not what I originally thought I was buying, and just a little short of my needs about 10% of the time.

3

I received notice that my sr20 will be delivered about 2/15/01(good). The cabin payload will be in the range of 490 lbs about 250lbs below initial projections(the bad) and not what I need for a family of four. I am trying to get some type of assurance that the payload will increase either by paperwork or manufacturing method before the holiday. If it stays at 490 my '82 Skylane may need to soldier on a few more years!I don’t want to offload fuel or leave a family member at home.

DK

I, too, was given a Feb 15 delivery date for #158. I saw the addendum to the requested document which noted that average weights now run at 2050 pounds (A model). I have ordered a C model with 3-blade, leather, and stormscope, bringing my bird’s weight up to around 2100. This will give me a two place aircraft, or 3-place with half tanks. I have a wife and two kids.
We’ve all read that there would be a weight increase by the end of this year. The increase was delayed that long so as to allow the work to occur simultaniously with tasks needed to certify the SR22. The year is about gone.

If it is true that a weight increase has been put off again, then I feel it is time that CD re-prioritized this issue. Their literature still lists the SR20 at 1950 pounds, yet I was just asked to sign a document that allows this weight to increase to 2050 (were it an A model). Sorry, but I couldn’t sign the document that easily.

I added a clause to my document that the landing light be moved out of the air inlet, and that the plane have at least 900 pounds of usuable load. Alison in the contract department was nice enough to acknowledge my concerns, and confided that she was not in a position to make any promises. I enjoyed her candid remarks and hoped that this would work out to everybody’s satisfaction. The letter and my added deposit money went off to Duluth that day.

2 1/2 years ago I bought into a plane with a load of 1100 pounds and a climb rate of 1100 feet/min. I don’t care that the rate slipped or that the price climbed a little, since the quality has improved. The decline in uselful load, however, is different. I don’t need all 1100 pounds. I only need 900. That, with half tanks, gives me a 4-passenger aircraft. And as for the light in the air inlet??? We’re going to fly the safest single engine plane on the planet, and we may have to think about trying to fight an approach in the fog with landing light glare coming back towards the cockpit, or worry about over-heating an engine on a standard summer day during climb out.

I’d like to see Cirrus prioritize their commitments to customers. Once the SR22 is going down the line, it will be cheaper to have a single cowl design with the light in the proper place, and cheaper to have a single set of brakes and wheels so that usefull loads can get closer to the promises made.

4

I received notice that my sr20 will be delivered about 2/15/01(good). The cabin payload will be in the range of 490 lbs about 250lbs below initial projections(the bad) and not what I need for a family of four. I am trying to get some type of assurance that the payload will increase either by paperwork or manufacturing method before the holiday. If it stays at 490 my '82 Skylane may need to soldier on a few more years!I don’t want to offload fuel or leave a family member at home.

DK

Is the 490 lbs useful load with full fuel ???

5

I received notice that my sr20 will be delivered about 2/15/01(good). The cabin payload will be in the range of 490 lbs about 250lbs below initial projections(the bad) and not what I need for a family of four. I am trying to get some type of assurance that the payload will increase either by paperwork or manufacturing method before the holiday. If it stays at 490 my '82 Skylane may need to soldier on a few more years!I don’t want to offload fuel or leave a family member at home.

DK

I spoke with my Cirrus sales representive two weeks ago and he assurred me that a 100-140 LB increase (POH only) was a shoe-in for approval and is piggy-backed with the SR22 certification. If this is not the case, I probably should have given more thought to upgrading.
Paul #191 (SR20)

6

I received notice that my sr20 will be delivered about 2/15/01(good). The cabin payload will be in the range of 490 lbs about 250lbs below initial projections(the bad) and not what I need for a family of four. I am trying to get some type of assurance that the payload will increase either by paperwork or manufacturing method before the holiday. If it stays at 490 my '82 Skylane may need to soldier on a few more years!I don’t want to offload fuel or leave a family member at home.

DK

Gentlemen: I feel your pain and have been on the forefront of the Usefull load complaint for month. Like anyone with contract numbers below the high 100’s, we all purchased an airplane with a UL full fuel (payload) of about 740 lbs. I think we all expected some minor changes to the overal specs. However, for thos of us who need 600 - 700 lbs of payload, the current situation is 500 Lbs +/- does not give us an aircraft which meets our mission requirements. Unfortunately for those that are just discovering these facts, it has been discussed at length in this forum for months.

At this point, we have several basic choices: 1) take the SR20 as is; 2) switch to the SR22, or; 3) walk from Cirrus and stay with your current flying carpet or purchase a different plane as some already have.

I chose #2 as if fit my needs, budget, desires and safety concerns best. For those who find that staying with the '20 is best, I strongly recomend speaking with Ian Bently @ CD and seeing what you can work out. If your delivery can be delayed until the oft promised GW increase comes, part of your concerns will be met. Otherwise, try to get some sort of commitment (in writing) form CD about retrofitting your SR20 to the higher GW to the extent possible. So far it seems as though some of the UL increase will be paperwork, and some will require new brakes, brake cylinders, wheel fairings and maybe seat cushions.

Good luck. I hope it works out for you. The SR20 is such a great flying and comfortable airplane, I would hate to see someone who has waited for so long to miss out. Once you get that problem worked out, you can join the rest of us complaining about the functionality of the ARNAV display and lack of up to date engine monitoring capabilities.

AP

7

I received notice that my sr20 will be delivered about 2/15/01(good). The cabin payload will be in the range of 490 lbs about 250lbs below initial projections(the bad) and not what I need for a family of four. I am trying to get some type of assurance that the payload will increase either by paperwork or manufacturing method before the holiday. If it stays at 490 my '82 Skylane may need to soldier on a few more years!I don’t want to offload fuel or leave a family member at home.

DK

Gentlemen: I feel your pain and have been on the forefront of the Usefull load complaint for month. Like anyone with contract numbers below the high 100’s, we all purchased an airplane with a UL full fuel (payload) of about 740 lbs. I think we all expected some minor changes to the overal specs. However, for thos of us who need 600 - 700 lbs of payload, the current situation is 500 Lbs +/- does not give us an aircraft which meets our mission requirements. Unfortunately for those that are just discovering these facts, it has been discussed at length in this forum for months.

At this point, we have several basic choices: 1) take the SR20 as is; 2) switch to the SR22, or; 3) walk from Cirrus and stay with your current flying carpet or purchase a different plane as some already have.

I chose #2 as if fit my needs, budget, desires and safety concerns best. For those who find that staying with the '20 is best, I strongly recomend speaking with Ian Bently @ CD and seeing what you can work out. If your delivery can be delayed until the oft promised GW increase comes, part of your concerns will be met. Otherwise, try to get some sort of commitment (in writing) form CD about retrofitting your SR20 to the higher GW to the extent possible. So far it seems as though some of the UL increase will be paperwork, and some will require new brakes, brake cylinders, wheel fairings and maybe seat cushions.

Good luck. I hope it works out for you. The SR20 is such a great flying and comfortable airplane, I would hate to see someone who has waited for so long to miss out. Once you get that problem worked out, you can join the rest of us complaining about the functionality of the ARNAV display and lack of up to date engine monitoring capabilities.

AP

How much more useful load does the SR22 get you? I have a high place number–I have not been given an option to switch. when does that occur?

L

8

Just a technique item, but back in the olden days when I was in Navy flight training it was considered “bad form” to use landing lights. I never quite agreed with that (macho) philosophy, but since we trained that way I got lots of practice not using them. Actually, it’s not too bad – and quite a bit better than trying to use landing lights in the fog.

My current philosophy, BTW, is “I never use landing lights when I don’t have them.”

FWIW, YMMV, etc.

Joe

Former Position Holder

We’re going to fly the safest single engine plane on the planet, and we may have to think about trying to fight an approach in the fog with landing light glare coming back towards the cockpit

9

I received notice that my sr20 will be delivered about 2/15/01(good). The cabin payload will be in the range of 490 lbs about 250lbs below initial projections(the bad) and not what I need for a family of four. I am trying to get some type of assurance that the payload will increase either by paperwork or manufacturing method before the holiday. If it stays at 490 my '82 Skylane may need to soldier on a few more years!I don’t want to offload fuel or leave a family member at home.

DK

I, too, was given a Feb 15 delivery date for #158. I saw the addendum to the requested document which noted that average weights now run at 2050 pounds (A model). I have ordered a C model with 3-blade, leather, and stormscope, bringing my bird’s weight up to around 2100. This will give me a two place aircraft, or 3-place with half tanks. I have a wife and two kids.
We’ve all read that there would be a weight increase by the end of this year. The increase was delayed that long so as to allow the work to occur simultaniously with tasks needed to certify the SR22. The year is about gone.

If it is true that a weight increase has been put off again, then I feel it is time that CD re-prioritized this issue. Their literature still lists the SR20 at 1950 pounds, yet I was just asked to sign a document that allows this weight to increase to 2050 (were it an A model). Sorry, but I couldn’t sign the document that easily.

I added a clause to my document that the landing light be moved out of the air inlet, and that the plane have at least 900 pounds of usuable load. Alison in the contract department was nice enough to acknowledge my concerns, and confided that she was not in a position to make any promises. I enjoyed her candid remarks and hoped that this would work out to everybody’s satisfaction. The letter and my added deposit money went off to Duluth that day.

2 1/2 years ago I bought into a plane with a load of 1100 pounds and a climb rate of 1100 feet/min. I don’t care that the rate slipped or that the price climbed a little, since the quality has improved. The decline in uselful load, however, is different. I don’t need all 1100 pounds. I only need 900. That, with half tanks, gives me a 4-passenger aircraft. And as for the light in the air inlet??? We’re going to fly the safest single engine plane on the planet, and we may have to think about trying to fight an approach in the fog with landing light glare coming back towards the cockpit, or worry about over-heating an engine on a standard summer day during climb out.

I’d like to see Cirrus prioritize their commitments to customers. Once the SR22 is going down the line, it will be cheaper to have a single cowl design with the light in the proper place, and cheaper to have a single set of brakes and wheels so that usefull loads can get closer to the promises made.

Some more bad news for you . . . add in the fact that several deliveries mentioned on this site ran over the “average” empty weight by 13 or 29 pounds due to the build-up of composite material. You may get the airplane that’s above average, or, if you’re lucky, the one below average.

10

Just a technique item, but back in the olden days when I was in Navy flight training it was considered “bad form” to use landing lights. I never quite agreed with that (macho) philosophy, but since we trained that way I got lots of practice not using them. Actually, it’s not too bad – and quite a bit better than trying to use landing lights in the fog.

My current philosophy, BTW, is “I never use landing lights when I don’t have them.”

FWIW, YMMV, etc.

Joe

Former Position Holder

We’re going to fly the safest single engine plane on the planet, and we may have to think about trying to fight an approach in the fog with landing light glare coming back towards the cockpit

Here’s another 160 reasons not to use the landing light: that’s what it cost me today to replace mine (not including labor!) after it failed in less than 100 hours. BTW, I rarely turn mine on.

11

Just a technique item, but back in the olden days when I was in Navy flight training it was considered “bad form” to use landing lights. I never quite agreed with that (macho) philosophy, but since we trained that way I got lots of practice not using them. Actually, it’s not too bad – and quite a bit better than trying to use landing lights in the fog.

My current philosophy, BTW, is “I never use landing lights when I don’t have them.”

FWIW, YMMV, etc.

Joe

Former Position Holder

We’re going to fly the safest single engine plane on the planet, and we may have to think about trying to fight an approach in the fog with landing light glare coming back towards the cockpit

Here’s another 160 reasons not to use the landing light: that’s what it cost me today to replace mine (not including labor!) after it failed in less than 100 hours. BTW, I rarely turn mine on.

Here is what I think about those Light emitting brilliant things that stick out on the tips of my airplane and those that only blink every now and then but could blind you if you are close enough looking right at them. I keep all on below 10K, the bliking ones goes on as I crossed the Hold short line and that’s when the go off as I exit the runway. I think this is a very cheap way to be seeing. I think of this as a very good thing because this prevents me from using my chute, you know the big one behind the baggage compartment. Just think of having to get back in line and waiting for another SR2? Just because some fool was playing with his new 430 and only looked out every 5 minutes.

Just like buying cheap oil for the engine, pay a little more and enjoy not having problems with the most vital system in the engine. Lubricating system. I am on my 6th airplane, never had to do any engine work (this works on cars too, 3k new filter and an oil change rain or shine), I did have an airplane that my landing light did not last but a couple on months, that was not a problem after I fixed the problem… I shock mounted the light with sealant around the light where it touched the bracket, If I remember correct, the first time the light lasted about 3 times the usual replacement then I gave it more “shock mount” more RTV and that was the last time I replaced that light, sold the airplane about 1 ½ years later. Try my shock mount system, you may be surprised.

I know the airplane is much bigger then the light, but it is much easier to see the light is some situations. The idea is to be seeing, I fly in the east coast, in congested areas, many times I just keep an eye on a light, I know there is an airplane behind it, but I can only see the light, and if you are that guy let me say thank you for having your light on, I enjoyed dinner with the family last night. Get the hint?

Have a great Cirrus day.

Woor

PS Why do Motorcycles have their lights on during the day time? Is it because the driver has poor vision?

12

Here’s another 160 reasons not to use the landing light: that’s what it cost me today to replace mine (not including labor!) after it failed in less than 100 hours. BTW, I rarely turn mine on.

Unfortunately, landing lights fail whether you turn then on or not. Vibration is the killer.

13

I know the airplane is much bigger then the light, but it is much easier to see the light is some situations. The idea is to be seeing, I fly in the east coast, in congested areas, many times I just keep an eye on a light, I know there is an airplane behind it, but I can only see the light, and if you are that guy let me say thank you for having your light on, I enjoyed dinner with the family last night. Get the hint?

Have a great Cirrus day.

Woor

Woor - right on! Often, ATC tells some other guy about me (i.e. I’m someone else’s traffic), then tells me about the other guy. My standard response is to turn on the landing light and SAY “123 is looking; I’ve turned on my landing light for him”. 90% of the time, ATC thanks me; sometimes, the other guy sees me right away as a result. Can’t be too careful out there…

Also like the shock mounting idea, and agree 100% on the oil & filter changes. Same goes for ANYTHING you can do on the ground to make life easier/more comfortable/safer in the air; which is why I can easily spend 4 hours planning a 1 hour flight.

I’m sure this is what you teach, anyway – just wanted to voice my support. I always enjoy your posts; BTW, where do you fly out of? I’m based at 47N - Central Jersey Regional.

Mike.

14

Woor - right on! Often, ATC tells some other guy about me (i.e. I’m someone else’s traffic), then tells me about the other guy. My standard response is to turn on the landing light and SAY “123 is looking; I’ve turned on my landing light for him”. 90% of the time, ATC thanks me; sometimes, the other guy sees me right away as a result. Can’t be too careful out there…

Also like the shock mounting idea, and agree 100% on the oil & filter changes. Same goes for ANYTHING you can do on the ground to make life easier/more comfortable/safer in the air; which is why I can easily spend 4 hours planning a 1 hour flight.

I’m sure this is what you teach, anyway – just wanted to voice my support. I always enjoy your posts; BTW, where do you fly out of? I’m based at 47N - Central Jersey Regional.

Mike.

Hello Mike,

Thanks, I appreciate the support. Just yesterday I was driving a Diamond Jet, MU300, stopped by TTN Trenton, NJ to pick up a gentleman then Boston, MA, the only FBO there is Signature, you guys know them don’t you. They are the ones that charge you for anything they can get away with. Well, I requested 350 gallons with Priest. When it came time to pay, I did not get what I wanted. No Priest. Flying a Diamond at 41K’ you can become a glider real quick, remenber this is not a Cirrus (NO CHUTE). Well after a long Defueling, I received my Priest (this is an additive that must be mixed with Jet fuel when refueling (not before or after) keeps the fuel from freezing at those cold temperatures) After all that excitment I flew back to TTN then home IAD Dulles, International in VA. Take care and I hope all of you had a great Turkey day.

Have a great Cirrus day…

Woor

15

I spoke with my Cirrus sales representive two weeks ago and he assurred me that a 100-140 LB increase (POH only) was a shoe-in for approval and is piggy-backed with the SR22 certification. If this is not the case, I probably should have given more thought to upgrading.
Paul #191 (SR20)

Paul,

My wife and I are carefully considering a new diet which would shed some weight, just in case. Plus, the food bill reduction would help pay for the plane. We can’t really ask the kids to diet since they are still growing, but still represent a growing threat to our payload. The Klapmeiers might consider a new subsidiary that sells a Slim-Fast product to their new SR 20 position holders, especially useful as your number draws closer. We live in Florida, so we can’t cut back on the clothing much, although a line of light weight clothing is another possible Cirrus venture. I’ve already thrown out 5 extra pencils from my flight bag too.