There are 2 main reasons for the longer landing distance: Higher gross weight, and higher stall speed. You will need more way from the 50 ft point to touchdown. Then, you have to get rid of a higher roll speed (kinetic energy increases with square of speed). The reason for the high stall sedds in both SR20 and SR22 is the small, laminar wing which is so advantegous for speed and stability. Every medal has 2 sides…
For me, this was at the end one of the major reasons to stay with the SR 20. Typical runway length in Europe are 600 - 800 meters (1800 - 2440 ft). While you can make very sure for T/O that the full length is available, and that the wind is in your favor, point landings on the numbers with exactly the correct speed are more demanding. So I prefer a plane where t/o and landing distances are at least similar, as with the SR20.
Can someone please explain why the landing distance over 50ft is so much longer than the SR20. In fact it seems quite a bit longer than many other aircraft I’ve looked at.
It might be a bit of a problem for me as my soon to be home strip is 760m.
A big improvement on takeoff though, but this is no good if you can’t get down again!
#661 (SR20) and #58 (SR22)