i am looking at higher tech airplanes like the cirrus 22 or lancair 300( i have no affiliation with either). I realize that cirrus owners have voted with their feet and $$$ and bought what they feel is their best choice.
I would be interested however in cirrus owners’perspectives on these two planes especially any of you who actively compared or flew them both.
thanks for your help.
respectfully,
undecided and somewhat confused
Bill
A few things:
If you get a chance, use the SEARCH the FORUM feature near the bottom of all these postings. Look for “Lancair”, and make sure you click to search the archives, this will help you find various posts on the subject over the last year.
FWIW here’s my basic view. The Cirrus is easier to get into and to get out of. It’s interior is wider, slightly, but feels larger than the diffence of paper would suggest.
The basic avionics suite on the B configuration SR22 is better in that it is GARMIN, which is superior to UPS for reasons which I would be happy to go into detail about if you e-mail me. The OPTIONAL screen in the Lancair (an extra 14K) is superior at the present to the standard big screen in the Cirrus. However, the Cirrus big screen is still quite functional, and the promise is that with software improvements it will close the gap even more.
The Lancair 300 is sligthly faster, and more versatile in terms of load configurations due to its larger fuel tanks. Of course, it does not have a parachute, which regardless of what you may think of it, does bring a significant degree of “a feeling of safety” to non-pilot passengers as well as giving you a last-chance option. Note that neither the Cirrus nor the Lancair is an exceptionally good gliding plane, with engine out approach speeds in the 60-75kt range, which means that chute is sure nice to have if you lose the big fan up front over ify terrain.
Build quality on both machines should be equally good. However, Cirrus is several years out in front in terms of produced airplanes, and assuming you got in line now, you could figure to get your Cirrus a lot sooner than your Lancair. Likewise, there are a number of places to get the CIrrus serviced throughout the country already, and based on what I’ve read here, the factory customer-support has been excellent from the folks in Duluth.
I’m sure others will expand on these points. See also AVWEB’s series on “plastic planes” in which both are flight-tested and reviewed.
I’ve flown in SR20’s and sat in both the Lancair 300 and the Lancair 400. IMHO, the only reason to buy the Lancair would be to get the 400 model, which is turbocharged, and will be offered with oxygen. You would then likely also spend the extra $$ to get the all glass-cockpit. Assuming you can afford the extra money in return for the dazzling performance. Don’t be fooled though, you are talking 400K to do all that. If your needs are not so extravagant… well… I do believe the Cirrus has advantages, which is why you find me on this board, but both are exceptional airplanes.
Good luck.
Dean G
This really is a matter of taste – or dogma, like asking, “Which is the better religion, Christianity or Islam?” But here are the main lines of difference as I understand them:
Lancair is in general a sportier, more hot-rod like airplane that has pushed the tradeoffs farther in the direction of pure performance than Cirrus has. One of these tradeoffs involves interior size: the Cirrus cabin feels bigger, especially in headroom and back-seat legroom. The Lancair’s large-screen display is more impressive than Cirrus’s Arnav. BUT, that display is not included in the Lancair’s base price, and when it’s added the Lancair is noticeably more expensive.
Cirrus is clearly farther down the production-experience curve than Lancair is. For all its production re-organization woes, Cirrus has delivered 119 airplanes and is again turning them out at 4 a week. I don’t know how many Columbias Lancair has delivered, but I think it’s still in single digits.
They are both wonderful airplanes.
The Lancair 300 is sligthly faster, and more versatile in terms of load configurations due to its larger fuel tanks. Of course, it does not have a parachute, which regardless of what you may think of it, does bring a significant degree of “a feeling of safety” to non-pilot passengers as well as giving you a last-chance option. Note that neither the Cirrus nor the Lancair is an exceptionally good gliding plane, with engine out approach speeds in the 60-75kt range, which means that chute is sure nice to have if you lose the big fan up front over ify terrain.
The full-flap power-off stall speeds are I believe 54 (57?) kt and 59 kt for the '20 and '22 respectively. This would put engine-out approach speeds in at least the 70-80 kt range, maybe more like 75-85 kt to allow enough lift & pitch authority to cushion the flare and have a smooth-as-possible touchdown.
The no-flap best glide speeds are I think 94 kt and 88 kt for the '20 and '22. This is faster than what many of us are accustomed to in the Cessna/Piper offerings, but nonetheless provides really a quite good glide ratio, in the 10:1 to 11:1 range for both planes I believe.
Probable trade-off here regarding the higher wing loading of the Cirrus planes compared to our old steeds: definitely a smoother ride, but requiring more speed to get the desired amount of cushion for an engine-out landing. It also points out how nice a wing/flap design job was done to get good low-drag cruise performance AND also reasonably low stall and approach speeds.
Sorry, obvious omission: perhaps the most important tradeoff that Cirrus and Lancair made in opposite ways involves the parachute.
To Lancair, the CAPS system is simply 80 pounds of lost payload. To Cirrus, it’s an option when you’ve run out of options, like an ejection seat, plus a source of calm for passengers. I’m on Cirrus’s side of this one, and I think history will come down on their side too. But it is consistent with the other tradeoffs the two companies have made.
(Agree with Dean G’s other points too.)
To Lancair, the CAPS system is simply 80 pounds of lost payload.
FWIW… I had always believed that the CAPS system weighs in at 80 lbs. I think that number came from a Nightline video I have, and I’ve seen it quoted many times. However, in the Weight & Balance section of my P.O.H, the Equipment List shows the CAPS with a weight of 54 lbs. [Perhaps there are other associated pieces that contribute to extra weight? I can’t find them in the Equipment List, though.]
I mention it only because it’s another area which somewhat narrows the gap between the two airplanes… and because it might help others to feel better about the CAPS rationale.