Not about ice!

Guest Discussion
1

Equipment pirep:

Recently I flew around northern California with a friend who has a Pilatus PC-12. This is obviously a whole different genus of airplane from the SR20 – pressurized, turboprop, huge cargo zone and so on. (On the other hand, front-row seats are nowhere near as comfortable as in the Cirrus, and have much worse visibility because of the high instrument panel and window sills. Also, this plane, loaded with extras, cost at least ten times as much as a SR20.)

Here’s the reason I mention it. This guy had a TCAS-like system on his Avidyne moving-map display, and it was GREAT!! Little diamonds or blips on the screen showing traffic in the vicinity, how far above or below you each one was, and whether it was climbing or descending relative to you. Having once seen that, I’m going to be vaguely disgruntled from now on about systems that don’t have it. I’m sure that mid-airs will still exist after all planes get systems like this, but not many of them.

Two other points:

  • This guy, even with his mighty plane, approved of the basic logic of the Cirrus as a way of democraticizing flying. As he put it: You make the system as simple as possible for people to handle, and you let them know that if there’s a disaster, they have one more option, which is to pull the chute.

  • Avidyne is a very hotshot compnay, and I hope Cirrus ends up doing business with them. But, contrary to all prevailing sentiment, I have an increasing, sneaking respect and fondness for the ARNAV screen. It is better than any others I’ve seen at one specific purpose – letting you get through complicated Class B/C airspace with very, very clear understanding at all times of where you are and where the floors and ceilings are. The 430s are not as good at that, and neither is Avidyne. This is obvioulsy not to say that Arnav is unimprovable. But I’ve come to respect this feature more as I compare it to others.

2

It appears that Cirrus really wants to stick with a large (10") screen. Since most of the folks out there making displays are retrofiting them into the avionics stack, I suspect that we won’t see something replacing the ICDS2000 until other vendors step up to “original equipment” requirements.

3

Equipment pirep:

Recently I flew around northern California with a friend who has a Pilatus PC-12. This is obviously a whole different genus of airplane from the SR20 – pressurized, turboprop, huge cargo zone and so on. (On the other hand, front-row seats are nowhere near as comfortable as in the Cirrus, and have much worse visibility because of the high instrument panel and window sills. Also, this plane, loaded with extras, cost at least ten times as much as a SR20.)

Here’s the reason I mention it. This guy had a TCAS-like system on his Avidyne moving-map display, and it was GREAT!! Little diamonds or blips on the screen showing traffic in the vicinity, how far above or below you each one was, and whether it was climbing or descending relative to you. Having once seen that, I’m going to be vaguely disgruntled from now on about systems that don’t have it. I’m sure that mid-airs will still exist after all planes get systems like this, but not many of them.

Two other points:

  • This guy, even with his mighty plane, approved of the basic logic of the Cirrus as a way of democraticizing flying. As he put it: You make the system as simple as possible for people to handle, and you let them know that if there’s a disaster, they have one more option, which is to pull the chute.
  • Avidyne is a very hotshot compnay, and I hope Cirrus ends up doing business with them. But, contrary to all prevailing sentiment, I have an increasing, sneaking respect and fondness for the ARNAV screen. It is better than any others I’ve seen at one specific purpose – letting you get through complicated Class B/C airspace with very, very clear understanding at all times of where you are and where the floors and ceilings are. The 430s are not as good at that, and neither is Avidyne. This is obvioulsy not to say that Arnav is unimprovable. But I’ve come to respect this feature more as I compare it to others.

When you get your SR20, install a Ryan TCAS and have it “connected” to the Garmin 430. In this setup you use a Garmin Nav page to have a “moving map view” of all the traffic around you. In addition, the Ryan Tcas will show the altitude of various traffic in relation to your present position.

4

Jim,

So tell me, how much ice can a Pilatus haul? :wink:

Bob

Equipment pirep:

Recently I flew around northern California with a friend who has a Pilatus PC-12. This is obviously a whole different genus of airplane from the SR20 – pressurized, turboprop, huge cargo zone and so on. (On the other hand, front-row seats are nowhere near as comfortable as in the Cirrus, and have much worse visibility because of the high instrument panel and window sills. Also, this plane, loaded with extras, cost at least ten times as much as a SR20.)

5

I likewise sat right seat in a princely PC-12 a few months ago. Astonishing to rotate at 70 kias and fly the pattern at SR20/22 speeds in a plane THAT BIG.

The other great about the PC-12 is that it demonstrates the power and safety of a single-turbine engine.

Since Cirrus officials are known to peek in on this site, I do hope this innovative company “stretches the envelope” and builds a six-place single turboprop . . . soon . . . and thus fills the coming gap between the SR22 and the sub-million-dollar Eclipse six-place jet . . . a gap now filled, at higher prices, by Malibus, Mirages, Meridians, Barrons, and used Cessna twins.

I’m sure Cirrus could stretch the SR2X body and thus, by exploiting it’s generous 49-inch width, build a cabin class six-placer. (The Bonanza/Barron cabin is only 42-inches wide.)

How much would a turbine-powerd Cirrus 6-placer cost? Starting with the SR22 prices and then extrapolating the difference between the 4-place F33 and 6-place A36 Bonanzas, and finally exchanging the IO550 for a small P&W, Allison, or better-yet Williams turbine, you can predict numbers like $600K for such a magnificent bird. Add another $100K for pressurization assuming the current frame can handle it. Maybe it couldn’t, in which case the pressurized model might cost another $200K, or $800K total. Still, compare that to a Barron or Meridian.

Probably most of us can’t afford that. But the market for corporate aircraft is huge. Cirrus could and should do it. That’s one key, by the way, to keeping the prices reasonable at the SR20/22 level.

Go Cirrus!

Equipment pirep:

Recently I flew around northern California with a friend who has a Pilatus PC-12. This is obviously a whole different genus of airplane from the SR20 – pressurized, turboprop, huge cargo zone and so on. (On the other hand, front-row seats are nowhere near as comfortable as in the Cirrus, and have much worse visibility because of the high instrument panel and window sills. Also, this plane, loaded with extras, cost at least ten times as much as a SR20.)

Here’s the reason I mention it. This guy had a TCAS-like system on his Avidyne moving-map display, and it was GREAT!! Little diamonds or blips on the screen showing traffic in the vicinity, how far above or below you each one was, and whether it was climbing or descending relative to you. Having once seen that, I’m going to be vaguely disgruntled from now on about systems that don’t have it. I’m sure that mid-airs will still exist after all planes get systems like this, but not many of them.

Two other points:

  • This guy, even with his mighty plane, approved of the basic logic of the Cirrus as a way of democraticizing flying. As he put it: You make the system as simple as possible for people to handle, and you let them know that if there’s a disaster, they have one more option, which is to pull the chute.
  • Avidyne is a very hotshot compnay, and I hope Cirrus ends up doing business with them. But, contrary to all prevailing sentiment, I have an increasing, sneaking respect and fondness for the ARNAV screen. It is better than any others I’ve seen at one specific purpose – letting you get through complicated Class B/C airspace with very, very clear understanding at all times of where you are and where the floors and ceilings are. The 430s are not as good at that, and neither is Avidyne. This is obvioulsy not to say that Arnav is unimprovable. But I’ve come to respect this feature more as I compare it to others.
6

Rich,

It’s a great idea, and one I’m sure Cirrus would love to pursue, but …

FWIW, Cirrus may not be able to afford it either, at least not at this stage of the company’s development. Money doesn’t grow on trees, as they say, and Cirrus must now establish to all those who have invested some mighty big bucks that they can make money in this business. It will take them a couple of years to do that, after which they will have much greater flexibility to expand their product line to include a retract and/or a 6 seater as you suggest.

In the meantime, don’t get your hopes too high.

BTW, my next door neighbor, an aviation pro who makes his money in the business, also had an opportunity recently to ride shotgun in a PC-12, and he too came away singing its praises.

Pete

I likewise sat right seat in a princely PC-12 a few months ago. Astonishing to rotate at 70 kias and fly the pattern at SR20/22 speeds in a plane THAT BIG.

The other great about the PC-12 is that it demonstrates the power and safety of a single-turbine engine.

Since Cirrus officials are known to peek in on this site, I do hope this innovative company “stretches the envelope” and builds a six-place single turboprop . . . soon . . . and thus fills the coming gap between the SR22 and the sub-million-dollar Eclipse six-place jet . . . a gap now filled, at higher prices, by Malibus, Mirages, Meridians, Barrons, and used Cessna twins.

I’m sure Cirrus could stretch the SR2X body and thus, by exploiting it’s generous 49-inch width, build a cabin class six-placer. (The Bonanza/Barron cabin is only 42-inches wide.)

How much would a turbine-powerd Cirrus 6-placer cost? Starting with the SR22 prices and then extrapolating the difference between the 4-place F33 and 6-place A36 Bonanzas, and finally exchanging the IO550 for a small P&W, Allison, or better-yet Williams turbine, you can predict numbers like $600K for such a magnificent bird. Add another $100K for pressurization assuming the current frame can handle it. Maybe it couldn’t, in which case the pressurized model might cost another $200K, or $800K total. Still, compare that to a Barron or Meridian.

Probably most of us can’t afford that. But the market for corporate aircraft is huge. Cirrus could and should do it. That’s one key, by the way, to keeping the prices reasonable at the SR20/22 level.

Go Cirrus!

Equipment pirep:

Recently I flew around northern California with a friend who has a Pilatus PC-12. This is obviously a whole different genus of airplane from the SR20 – pressurized, turboprop, huge cargo zone and so on. (On the other hand, front-row seats are nowhere near as comfortable as in the Cirrus, and have much worse visibility because of the high instrument panel and window sills. Also, this plane, loaded with extras, cost at least ten times as much as a SR20.)

Here’s the reason I mention it. This guy had a TCAS-like system on his Avidyne moving-map display, and it was GREAT!! Little diamonds or blips on the screen showing traffic in the vicinity, how far above or below you each one was, and whether it was climbing or descending relative to you. Having once seen that, I’m going to be vaguely disgruntled from now on about systems that don’t have it. I’m sure that mid-airs will still exist after all planes get systems like this, but not many of them.

Two other points:

  • This guy, even with his mighty plane, approved of the basic logic of the Cirrus as a way of democraticizing flying. As he put it: You make the system as simple as possible for people to handle, and you let them know that if there’s a disaster, they have one more option, which is to pull the chute.
  • Avidyne is a very hotshot compnay, and I hope Cirrus ends up doing business with them. But, contrary to all prevailing sentiment, I have an increasing, sneaking respect and fondness for the ARNAV screen. It is better than any others I’ve seen at one specific purpose – letting you get through complicated Class B/C airspace with very, very clear understanding at all times of where you are and where the floors and ceilings are. The 430s are not as good at that, and neither is Avidyne. This is obvioulsy not to say that Arnav is unimprovable. But I’ve come to respect this feature more as I compare it to others.
7

I would argue that Cirrus has to think big or find itself, over time, in a box like Mooney.

Cirrus has HUGE opportunities in the small end of the corporate aviation world. The existence proofs are out there to assure would-be venture backers: Cessna’s entire line of jets, for example, are sold out for two years, I’ve heard.

Alan and Dale should fly down to Omaha and give Warren Buffett a ride in the SR22.

Rich,

It’s a great idea, and one I’m sure Cirrus would love to pursue, but …

FWIW, Cirrus may not be able to afford it either, at least not at this stage of the company’s development. Money doesn’t grow on trees, as they say, and Cirrus must now establish to all those who have invested some mighty big bucks that they can make money in this business. It will take them a couple of years to do that, after which they will have much greater flexibility to expand their product line to include a retract and/or a 6 seater as you suggest.

In the meantime, don’t get your hopes too high.

BTW, my next door neighbor, an aviation pro who makes his money in the business, also had an opportunity recently to ride shotgun in a PC-12, and he too came away singing its praises.

Pete

I likewise sat right seat in a princely PC-12 a few months ago. Astonishing to rotate at 70 kias and fly the pattern at SR20/22 speeds in a plane THAT BIG.

The other great about the PC-12 is that it demonstrates the power and safety of a single-turbine engine.

Since Cirrus officials are known to peek in on this site, I do hope this innovative company “stretches the envelope” and builds a six-place single turboprop . . . soon . . . and thus fills the coming gap between the SR22 and the sub-million-dollar Eclipse six-place jet . . . a gap now filled, at higher prices, by Malibus, Mirages, Meridians, Barrons, and used Cessna twins.

I’m sure Cirrus could stretch the SR2X body and thus, by exploiting it’s generous 49-inch width, build a cabin class six-placer. (The Bonanza/Barron cabin is only 42-inches wide.)

How much would a turbine-powerd Cirrus 6-placer cost? Starting with the SR22 prices and then extrapolating the difference between the 4-place F33 and 6-place A36 Bonanzas, and finally exchanging the IO550 for a small P&W, Allison, or better-yet Williams turbine, you can predict numbers like $600K for such a magnificent bird. Add another $100K for pressurization assuming the current frame can handle it. Maybe it couldn’t, in which case the pressurized model might cost another $200K, or $800K total. Still, compare that to a Barron or Meridian.

Probably most of us can’t afford that. But the market for corporate aircraft is huge. Cirrus could and should do it. That’s one key, by the way, to keeping the prices reasonable at the SR20/22 level.

Go Cirrus!

Equipment pirep:

Recently I flew around northern California with a friend who has a Pilatus PC-12. This is obviously a whole different genus of airplane from the SR20 – pressurized, turboprop, huge cargo zone and so on. (On the other hand, front-row seats are nowhere near as comfortable as in the Cirrus, and have much worse visibility because of the high instrument panel and window sills. Also, this plane, loaded with extras, cost at least ten times as much as a SR20.)

Here’s the reason I mention it. This guy had a TCAS-like system on his Avidyne moving-map display, and it was GREAT!! Little diamonds or blips on the screen showing traffic in the vicinity, how far above or below you each one was, and whether it was climbing or descending relative to you. Having once seen that, I’m going to be vaguely disgruntled from now on about systems that don’t have it. I’m sure that mid-airs will still exist after all planes get systems like this, but not many of them.

Two other points:

  • This guy, even with his mighty plane, approved of the basic logic of the Cirrus as a way of democraticizing flying. As he put it: You make the system as simple as possible for people to handle, and you let them know that if there’s a disaster, they have one more option, which is to pull the chute.
  • Avidyne is a very hotshot compnay, and I hope Cirrus ends up doing business with them. But, contrary to all prevailing sentiment, I have an increasing, sneaking respect and fondness for the ARNAV screen. It is better than any others I’ve seen at one specific purpose – letting you get through complicated Class B/C airspace with very, very clear understanding at all times of where you are and where the floors and ceilings are. The 430s are not as good at that, and neither is Avidyne. This is obvioulsy not to say that Arnav is unimprovable. But I’ve come to respect this feature more as I compare it to others.