I never realized how user friendly the 172 was. I weigh 200 pounds, and as pilot it was impossible to stay below max gross and have the plane out of limits regardless of the amount of fuel on board.
I started doing the weight and balance computations on the SR20A and it is very easy to have the center of gravity too far forward. You can even start a trip in CG limits but become out of limits as your fuel burns. For a plane that is trying to be the “citizens” plane they really need to do something about the loading complexity.
Art,
You could always take the stack of ADs you have received on the 172, bind them up nice and tight, and put them in the baggage compartment of the -20 for about 30 lbs. of movable ballast. You could then fly anywhere you wanted with whatever fuel load you wanted while getting there 35-40% faster than the 172. If you picked up some passengers and had to ditch the ADs somewhere, don’t worry, there will be more.
Just an idea.
:<))
Greg
Intended strictly for humor, not harassment. I’ve got a lot of hours in 172s.
Art, are you using real empty weight and arm figures for these calculations, or sample ones (e.g. from the Wings Aloft training material?) Using the real figures for S/N 1033, it is nearly impossible to get the CG too far forward. Even with 400lbs in the front seats, full fuel and nothing in the back, the CG is still only just forward of the limit, and even a few lbs in the baggage compartment brings it back in. Any other config is fine.
I had been told (some time ago, admittedly) that the SR20A would have a better CG envelope than the SR20 (with specific reference to the forward limit). IOW, the suggestion was that the forward limits in the SR20 POH were conservative. I note that the downloadable SR20 POH on the Cirrus web site is still the old one, so I don’t know what the CG limits for the 20A are.
Art, using the sample numbers provided by Wings Aloft, I had this same problem. In fact, with three 170 pounders and full fuel, the sample plane was forward of CG!
However after taking ownership, I found this not to be the case. My particular plane is 2122 emtpy weight and 300.40 arm. Try those numbers and you’ll see that at least in my plane it is pretty hard to load out of balance.
Art, I am flying an “SR20A” and it is quite W&B friendly. It starts at 2108 lb empty with CG @141.87. Even with a hypothetical pair of 250 pounders up front and full fuel, it is comfortably within limits. I can’t be completely cavalier about what I put in back if it’s only me + flight bag in front: with the obligate 20 lb of junk in baggage I am at the aft limit if I put 295 lb in the rear seats (when would I ever do that?), but still the loading envelope is very generous.
Art, we have both a 172 and SR20 and have no problem. If you are flying with two heavies in front add a five gallon jug of water to the baggage compartment for ballast. If that is a problem then why do our two sons and I have 205 hours on the Cirrus since June 24 and only 25 on the 172? We “citizens” are very happy with the SR20.
I just went through a training course at my home with a Cirrus trained factory representative. As much as we tried, it was nearly impossible to push the plane out of CG limits. I’d like to know where you got your charts from. And by the way, I have a SR20"B" model with two blades and factory loaded, my gross weight is at 2076. With the new gross weight increases promised for February that would put my useful load @ 824. Not bad, for a plane that feels and looks rock solid.
I note that the downloadable SR20 POH on the Cirrus web site is still the old one, so I don’t know what the CG limits for the 20A are.
I have been using the numbers in the Cirrus Training Manual which I just purchased from Cirrus. The maximum weight is listed as 3000 pounds. Based on these figures unless my front seat passenger weighs 50 pounds or less I will be out of balance even with full fuel. Even solo it won’t take much of a fuel burn to be out of balance. A previous poster was kidding but I am beginning to think a large container filled with water should be kept in the luggage compartment. When you want to carry additional load just drain some of the water.
Art, those numbers are probably the same as the samples that Wings Aloft were providing in their training manual, and are thus not representative of actual aircraft.
By SR20A I mean the new model with 3000 lb MGTOW and landing light in the lower cowl, etc. The plane that I fly is a B configuration, 2-blade prop, stormscope, skywatch.
He said “SR20A”, meaning the “A” package, and the equipment is specifically defined in Cirrus’ literature.
FWIW, I was informed by the Cirrus sales rep that the empty weight for the “B” package would be 2,209 pounds (before the gross weight increase), which information played a major role in my decision to look elsewhere for my aircraft because it left me with 741 pounds of useful load and with full tanks my allowable weight for humans and stuff was only about 400 pounds. That was unacceptable notwithstanding the other fine and quite appealing attributes of the Cirrus SR20.
This seems entirely incorrect on several fronts. The Sr20A does not mean an “A” package. It means the new model released last summer with the 3000 MGW.
In addition, I know of no sr20’s out there, “B” package or otherwise, where the empty weight coming off the line is over 2200 lbs. I would love to hear from ANYONE who has taken delivery of a “B” or “C” package SR20A where the empty weight was that high. Any takers out there?
Brian
are you also aware that the cirrus has as its interior landing gear 2by4fours…wood… thats right… WOOD.composite exterior and wood for interior…i bet the sales people won’t tell you that.
I have ac package with stormscope with C package and it is 2140#. So I dont know how or why they would say it was more and I have ausful load of 3000# . which leaves 860 # , then after fukk fuel of 56 GAL is then 2 gal for run up and taxi leaves about 535 # for people and cargo that is 3 normal adults or a wifeApilot and 2 kids prety good I think.From Don
If your standard for that characterization is people who enthusiastically bring forth their points of view, there are many others. Personally, I’m happy to have their comments, but then again, you’d probably put me on your list too.
The time to shut people like you who post “anonymous” from this forum has come. The use of colorful words such as jackass , I find disturbing. I appeal to COPA management to rework their software to prevent such pointless postings.