Ramp Comparison - SR22/Lancair 350

Guest Discussion
1

I was up in Glens Falls, NY (GFL) over the weekend and saw a brand new SR22 and a brand new Lancair 350 parked side by side on the ramp.

IÂ’m sure many here have made similar observations, but here are mine. (Right out of the box let me say both are very impressive planes and IÂ’d be proud to own either, and YMMV re my opinions.)

SpecificsÂ…

General Appearance: The Lancair looks like a slightly bigger, more substantial aircraft – more sleek, but at the same time somehow awkward on the ground (see below). The Cirrus is a prettier, better proportioned aircraft, though perhaps a bit too cute looking (almost cartoonish in the windshield area).

Speaking of Windshields: The CirrusÂ’ more wrap-around windshield looks like it would provide better visibility.

Landing Gear: The CirrusÂ’ wide stance and forward extending nose gear are much prettier than the LancairÂ’s narrow gear and vertical nose strut. (The Lancair looks top heavy and unstable on the ground compared to the lower slung Cirrus.)

Trim: The CirrusÂ’ paint (decal?) scheme seems more professionally done. (The LancairÂ’s non-drop shadowed N-numbers look cheap to me.)

Interior: Cirrus wins, hands down. Its interior looks roomier and better integrated. I like the vertical PFD/MFD setup in the Lancair (vertical is a more efficient layout for a PFD, IMHO) and I like the free panel space for add-ons, but the Cirrus panel looks more “finished.”

Controls: Side stick? Side yoke? Who knows… But the wooden sticks and fuel selector in the Lancair scream “homebuilt.”

The 350 out-performs the SR22, but then there’s the parachute…

What a great dilemma!

2

In reply to:

What a great dilemma!

JM0045,

The way I read this is that you solved your own dilemma. You proclaim Cirrus the winner in almost every category you put forth. As far as speed, the new SR22-G2 pulls to within a couple of knots of the Lancair. Even a six-knot difference would only gain you a couple of minutes per hour of flight in the Lancair.

If you are in the process of making a choice, make the decision easy for yourself and get a Cirrus.[:)]

3

To take the comaprison a bit further, the Cirrus is much easier to enter and exit, especially from the back seat. Having lots of Cirrus time and having only sat in the Lancair, the visibility and ergonomics are much better in the Cirrus. And the Cirrus seats are much easier to adjust–no wrench needed.Jeff

4

How is the Lancair warranty support vs. Cirrus?

Can you get a 3 year warranty with the Lancair?

Jerry

5

A few factors tipped me in favor of the Lancair:

Better airframe efficiency and bigger fuel tanks mean several hundred miles more range. I’ve made it from Toronto, Canada to Exuma International, Bahamas non-stop - 6.8 hours airtime. About 15% of my hours are on flights the SR-22 couldn’t make. (Of course this only matters to people with a bladder big enough to sleep through the night!)

Higher Vfe and speed brakes means better utility around the airport. If traffic is clear, maintaining cruise speed until 5 mile final then gracefully slowing to 78 knots over the fence is easy. ATC’s go down / slow down requirements can be done without big power reduction.

Strength - Certified in the utility category at every weight with a Vne of 235 knots. Extremely rigid cabin with drop tests to prove it.

Fantastic control harmony - The Columbia has a joystick vs “yick” with no trim springs or interconnection between aileron and rudder meaning the pilot gets pure aerodynamic sensations. And I like the separate prop control for complete choice of engine settings.

Asthetics - The fit and finish have been better with Lancair (maybe the G2 fixed that?) and Lancair’s color choices go beyond white.

Both are great planes, but I wouldn’t trade my Lancair for anything. Post-sales service is first class and the bug list has been insignificant.

Steve

P.S. No, I’m not selling Columbias - just a happy pilot!

6

We pilots are extremely fortunate to have two such magnificent aircraft to choose from. I’m sure I speak for all COPA folk in wishing you many happy and safe flying hours in the Columbia. Hope to see you at a plastic planes fly-in!

7

In reply to:

A few factors tipped me in favor of the Lancair…

Steve,
Those factors certainly blur the line, and I have to agree with Kevin above that “We pilots are extremely fortunate to have two such magnificent aircraft to choose from.” Out of the things you mentioned, I really like the idea of extra range, speed brakes, and a high Vne.[:)]

8

Steve you and Joe make some excellent points, but how do you two feel about the cost differential, and the door safety issues (Oh yea, you said this was about ramp appeal)?

And Steve, speed brakes? Aren’t they just for jets and ham fisted pilots? [:$] I can easily be doing 170 KIAS at the outer marker and turn off a 4,000’ runway with only minimal braking. (If you don’t believe it, I have a witness with me when we passed a SWA 737 on final and had not trouble turning off of PBI’s 9R.) Speed brakes, Speed brakes, I don’t need no stinking speed brakes!!! [;)] Oh yes, Steve, what is “airframe efficiency?”

9

In reply to:

We pilots are extremely fortunate to have two such magnificent aircraft to choose from. I’m sure I speak for all COPA folk in wishing you many happy and safe flying hours in the Columbia. Hope to see you at a plastic planes fly-in!

And you are all invited to The Informal Plastic Planes Fly In, TIPPFI-2004.[:)]

10

In reply to:

How is the Lancair warranty support vs. Cirrus?
Can you get a 3 year warranty with the Lancair?
Jerry

My warranty is 5 years or 900 fight hours (whichever occurs first) on a Columbia 300 delivered July 2003. Service has been excellent. I’ve posted my maintenance experience to 130 hours here and intend to update this around the 250 hour mark (in about a month). So you can read about it warts and all.

The biggest problems with Lancair? The planes haven’t been produced nearly as fast as with Cirrus, and pre-sales information has not been as good. There’s been some improvement lately and the users’ forum helps a lot.

And it’s a bit lonely… I’m outnumbered by Cirri at my home 'drome and just about everywhere I go (except central Oregon!).

Steve

11

In reply to:

And it’s a bit lonely… I’m outnumbered by Cirri at my home 'drome and just about everywhere I go (except central Oregon!).
Steve

Lonely ? [;)]

I think you will get a lot of attention !

People used to drool over a Cirrus SR20, having owners “glow in the dark”, in the early days…

Now, at my home field they have to use the full N-number, and that is in Holland (Dutch planes use the PH-prefix)

1-91327-025_22.jpg
1-91327-025_22.jpg1536×1047 461 KB

12

Cost Differential: I don’t know what an SR22 costs. I paid $350,173 for my fully-loaded C300 including an extra $5K because of the need for extra work to certify the first Canadian registered plane, and do my training in a factory rental. Is an SR22 a lot cheaper than that?

Door safety: The Columbia has extremely positive and easy to latch doors. It had better - if a door opens in flight, it would depart the aircraft. Take a look at a Columbia door, it is easy to close and when it’s closed, you can be sure of it. Plus there are inflatable door seals. They reduce the noise in the cabin by a significant amount.

Speed brakes: No one forces you to use them, but they do expand the envelope and provide options, which can only be a good thing. I tend to use them a lot near the destination during the very cold winter days. When a 3° glideslope with 1 notch of flaps and 90 knots would need 10" MP, I can do it with 13" with the brakes, keeping some CHT ready for a possible go around. I like to watch temperatures closely as you can see from my post here.

Airframe efficiency: Let’s call it the lift to drag ratio at a given airspeed. Where two planes of the same weight develop the same lift, the drag on the more efficient plane will be less, requiring less fuel, yielding a greater specific range. That’s a good thing.

Please don’t take any of this as negative, I really do appreciate the Cirri too. But I don’t have much time for folks who think a sensible buying decision can be made based on their perception of how easy it is to get into the back seat.

Steve

13

I’ll agree with you on speed brakes. I love them. As for airframe efficiency it is more subjective. The Lancair seems to get it by narrowing the top of the cabin i.e. it is more rounded off. I don’t feel like I have as much room in the Lancair even though it is just as wide in the middle of the cabin. EIther plane could be made faster by making the cabin smaller. I like the room in the Cirrus. As far as the doors, I like the ease of closing on the Lancair but I do not like the fact that if a passenger opens a door in flight that it is a VERY BAD THING. I give the nod on door safety to Cirrus. Regarding cost, I think the fair comparison would be between a new 350 and a similarly equipped SR22. Lancair pricing is notoriously hard to come by. I THINK the 350 is $30-50K more but I could be way off.

All of the above said, I like the rigidity of the Lancair airframe and the fact it is carbon fiber. See some of my other posts for my thoughts. I am also slowly changing my impression of the company as the begin to act more openly.

14

In reply to:

Cost Differential: I don’t know what an SR22 costs. I paid $350,173 for my fully-loaded C300 including an extra $5K because of the need for extra work to certify the first Canadian registered plane, and do my training in a factory rental. Is an SR22 a lot cheaper than that?

Well, I paid about $265K for my Sr22, but let’s compare apples to apples; acurrent SR22 vs a current C-350 with all the bells and whistles, de-ice, Skywatch, A/C, O2, etc.

In reply to:

Door safety: The Columbia has extremely positive and easy to latch doors. It had better - if a door opens in flight, it would depart the aircraft. Take a look at a Columbia door, it is easy to close and when it’s closed, you can be sure of it. Plus there are inflatable door seals. They reduce the noise in the cabin by a significant amount.

The door seals are wonderful and I wish I had them. What happens if the door departs the aircraft? Does it impact the tail?

In reply to:

Speed brakes: No one forces you to use them, but they do expand the envelope and provide options, which can only be a good thing. I tend to use them a lot near the destination during the very cold winter days. When a 3° glideslope with 1 notch of flaps and 90 knots would need 10" MP, I can do it with 13" with the brakes, keeping some CHT ready for a possible go around. I like to watch temperatures closely as you can see from my post here.

I always try to be gentle on the engine, but I am not sure that the CHT temp difference between a go around and your original take-off is significant reason to have an use speed brakes. I was kidding about most of that comment anyway! But being so cheap, I would hate to lose the built up energy (airspeed) by killing it with speed brakes. Realistically, I have never had an occaision where I wished that I had them, and if they were an option, I wouldn’t have paid for ‘em. OTOH, I suppose if I was on fire at 11,000’ the could be a lifesaver. [:$]

In reply to:

Airframe efficiency: Let’s call it the lift to drag ratio at a given airspeed. Where two planes of the same weight develop the same lift, the drag on the more efficient plane will be less, requiring less fuel, yielding a greater specific range. That’s a good thing.

Aren’t you just speaking about airspeed? I don’t care too much for the theoretical concepts, only how the plane works. The 300 is a few knots fster, but from what I’ve seen LOP the difference, if any is negligable. The effeciency is gained at the loss of a bit of comfort, but again the difference is not that great. The 300 has better range due to more fuel, but you can only use it a the cost of cabin load, but it is darn good to have the options.

In reply to:

Please don’t take any of this as negative, I really do appreciate the Cirri too. But I don’t have much time for folks who think a sensible buying decision can be made based on their perception of how easy it is to get into the back seat.

Steve, I don’t I respect you a lot, and a few of my comments have been tongue in cheek. Both planes are wonderful and worlds ahead of other competition, even as they struggle to catch up. The differences, primarily in nuances are great to talk about. BUT, I do check out back seats in the cars and planes that I buy. (Do you have kids?)

Marty

15

In reply to:

As for airframe efficiency it is more subjective. The Lancair seems to get it by narrowing the top of the cabin i.e. it is more rounded off.

When I was looking at both these airplanes, and visiting both of the companies, 4+ years ago, there were a number of factors that made it clear-cut for Cirrus in my particular circumstances:

  • Cabin shape, as you say. I am 6’2" and could not sit up straight in the Columbia without my headset hitting the side of the cabin;
  • Price – an early-model, loss-leader-pricing SR20 was right at the upper margin of what I could (can) afford;
  • Operating style of the company – at least back in those days, Lancair spent all its time bad-mouthing Cirrus, and Cirrus said nothing about Lancair.

That said, it’s wonderful to have two companies competing in the sexy-new-aircraft market.

16

Hi Marty,

I’ve enjoyed your posts on both forums too.

An interesting point about the doors: Lancair’s Sam Houston opened a door during a test flight. It was later found in a field pretty much intact due to the carbon fiber construction. The forces are pretty strong so it gets ripped up and off and clears the airframe. I imagine Sam’s hair was pretty dry when he landed. Although not the recommended practice in the POH, there is some consensus that letting a door go may be the best choice to aid egress in a ditching situation.

About this being done accidently by a passenger: It’s possible but extremely unlikely. It would take a passenger determined to do it and strong enough to carry it off against the residual pressure of the door seals, and beatings by the pilot. I suppose the same passenger would be equally effective testing the parachute in flight. Handcuffs or a drug rehab program might be the the best solution rather than any door re-design.

Brakes: You really ought to try them some day. Apart from all the technical arguments, they’re a lot of fun. From a practical standpoint, they’ve allowed me to retain more speed until closer in, avoid a number of 360s and s-turns, comply with abrupt descend/slow clearances without excessive cooling, aid in spot landing, and keep the CHTs up on approach in the winter. They are at their best on those crackling -20° winter days, and go mostly unused in the summer. I might have more winter than you do.

Efficiency: I don’t care much about speed, especially when we’re talking only a few knots. I do care a lot about range. Better range means getting there and having a beer in the sun rather than stopping for fuel. In my 1356NM flight from Toronto to the Bahamas, I didn’t need to bother with US customs. That having been said, the rather large customs officer in Exuma couldn’t believe we came directly from Canada. My passenger later confessed he was becoming worried about getting the rubber glove treatment. Apart from that, long range is fantastic. I’m currently planning a 1500NM flight in order to test the long range part of the envelope and refresh myself on all the factors involved. It’s a bit complex but a lot of fun putting it all together.

That brings up another point - comfort. These seats are surprisingly comfortable. 7 hours is a piece of cake. I’m about 5’10" and headroom is no issue. I hear that taller pilots (one 6’4") report no problem by selecting a more reclined seat position. I think one of the early prototypes may have had an issue in this regard and perceptions linger. The reality is a 49" wide cabin and very comfortable seats. Luxury.

Kids? Yes - one 14 month old boy named Charlie. Although he likes sitting in the pilot’s seat (and has about 3 feet of excess headroom), I suppose it will be a couple of years until I can take him along.

Steve

17

In reply to:

The 300 has better range due to more fuel, but you can only use it a the cost of cabin load, but it is darn good to have the options.

The 300/350 has better range because it holds 20 gal more fuel, and it can do that with the same useable load as the SR22 has with full tanks. The reason is the 'chute; the 20 gallons extra fuel weigh about the same as the chute & its associated structure. So the range advantage is real. Or alternatively, its a ~120 pound useful load advantage with comparable range.

18

Steve

Like a number of others here, I occasionally visit the Lancair owners’ forum and even post now and then. I’m sure many of us on the COPA board would be interested in a “guided selection” of posts on the Lancair forum (as links if possible) that you feel provide the most informative commentary about the Columbias and what it’s like to fly them. For example, I’ve done this for the Peterson 260se/stol conversion of the 182 herehere. If you or any of your LOPA colleagues have the time to do this, I think you’d get a lot of interest.

19

In reply to:

I’m sure many of us on the COPA board would be interested in a “guided selection” of posts on the Lancair forum (as links if possible) that you feel provide the most informative commentary about the Columbias and what it’s like to fly them.

Your links show the 260se well. I’m having trouble fingering anything as comprehensive and well organized on the Columbia. The LOPA forum records a lot of experiences but it’s hard to narrow down to a good overview. We’re all eagerly anticipating Jim Campbell’s writeup on the C400 in www.aero-news.net, expected out in a week or so. What I’d like to do is swap rides with a Cirrus owner and have us both comment on the experience. This would be about as scientific as trying to pick between two beautiful women, but come to think of it, would probably be almost as much fun.

20

In reply to:

What I’d like to do is swap rides with a Cirrus owner and have us both comment on the experience. This would be about as scientific as trying to pick between two beautiful women, but come to think of it, would probably be almost as much fun.

Anytime you want to let me know Steve. Our SR22 /PFD/Skywatch?TKS etc is in Hangar 16

C-FFFW

Robert