SR22 vs. Columbia 300

Guest Discussion
1

Hi –

I am trying to decide between ordering an SR22 or a Columbia 300 (what a wonderful dilemma). I have had a demo ride in the 22, and it was wonderful. We are scheduled for a ride in the Columbia next week.

I am aware of the obvious differences, the ones that get written up in the reports and discussed in the forums:

To begin with, the 22 has a couple of obvious advantages: delivery will be sooner and more reliable, and of course, the parachute. In addition, the 22 has better visibility and a slightly lower purchase price (similarly equipped.) Columbia enthusasts claim the following advantages for their plane: a stronger fuselage, including sturdier crash protection; slightly higher speed and signifincantly lower fuel burn; larger fuel tanks; more flexibility for avionics, both now and in the future; built-in lightning protection; and possibility to upgrade to the TSIO-550-N1B.

My questions to all of you out there (most of whom seem really to love your Cirri) – how should I digest all of this? What am I missing? Are there subjective factors about owning orflying the airplanes that I should be putting in the balance.

Any help you could give me on this difficult choice would be very much appreciated. If you would like to reply to me directly, my email is PEternoah9@aol.com. Otherwise, I will look for your replies in the forum.

Thanks. Peter Simon

p.s.: One clear advantage of the Cirrus is this forum. Your discussions are terrific, and very informative.

2

Peter: You have one great choice! I don’t think you can loose either way.

As an owner, a very happy owner of the SR22, I am biassed, but here are my observations on your comments:

Columbia enthusasts claim the following advantages for their plane: a stronger fuselage, including sturdier crash protection;

I don’t know if that is real. Strength is not necessarily crash protection: well designed crushability is. Two SR22’s have suffered really botched landings (well, one off airport and one total botch IMHO) and in both cases the occupants walked away with no or very slight injuries. Witnesses to ythe worst of the two said that they did not thnk anyone would survive. That is anecdotal evidence, but it is history.

slightly higher speed and signifincantly lower fuel burn;

Slightly higher speeds yes, but I sincerely doubt the fuel burn. The two airframes use the same engine. At the same power setting, the engines will use the same fuel. Speed would depend upon aerodynamics and weight. The Columbia has achieved slightly better aerodynamics at the expens of a slight bit of comfort, visibility and entry and exit ease. Just a different philosophy.

larger fuel tanks; more flexibility for avionics, both now and in the future; built-in lightning protection; and possibility to upgrade to the TSIO-550-N1B.

Both planes are certified IFR so they both have lightning protection to meet FAA specs. I think you will get a little more flexibiltiy on avionics, but with the latest enhancements to the SR22 (Skywatch), I’m not sure how much more you can get that is really usefull (Radar altimiter, back-up AI?)

My questions to all of you out there (most of whom seem really to love your Cirri) – how should I digest all of this? What am I missing? Are there subjective factors about owning orflying the airplanes that I should be putting in the balance.

Here are my thoughts. As I said, both are great planes. The wait is a big factor, but more importantly, which plane would you rather have. The only real differences are minor looks, a few knots (maybe), comfort, usefull load and payload.

I think the SR22 is slightly more comfortable, the UL and Payload (Full Fuel) are better, at least on the real life numbers I’ve seen.

Look at the difference of 3, 5 or 8 knots would make on an average trip. I bet you will find it is practically nothing. I typically fly with 65% power and 50 degrees lean of peak, so, I admit that I am willing to fly a little slower.

Depending upon altitude, temps, etc., I see between 160-170 KTAS at less than 13 GPH and CHT’s rarely over 320. I could go 182 or 183 KTAS, (I actually do 1 or 2 knots better than book) but that would put me into the 17-19 GPH range. To me, it’s usually not worth the fuel and wear on the engine to save 5 to 7 minutes per hour of flight.

On the other hand, payload is very important to me. I’d recommend you find out what the actual empty weight of planes configured the way you want is and see for yourself.

My SR22 with Stormscope and engine pre-ehater is 2250. With a GW of 3400, that leaves me 1150 real pounds of payload. Full fuel of 486 (480 if you allow for taxi) gives you 670 lbs to put in the cockpit. (Does anyone really offload fuel for payload?)

As for range, I have flown from LOU (Louisville, KY) to ORL (Orlando, FL), a distance of 620 NM’s as the crow flies (and I wasn’t a crow that day) in 4.0 hours at 65% power with over 25 gallons remaining. I could have flown nearly another hour (165 Nm’s) with reserves, but an hour longer flight is more than my bladder can take. At a faster speed, I would have saved maybe 20 minutes and used most of that reserve.

Any help you could give me on this difficult choice would be very much appreciated. If you would like to reply to me directly, my email is PEternoah9@aol.com. Otherwise, I will look for your replies in the forum.

Now for the parachute. It does more for my passengers than it does for me. You’d be surprised how many folks have volunteered to fly with me knowing it has the parachute.

Bottom line, I love my SR22 and know that it would not be a bad choice for you. I have never regretted my decision. Good luck with your decision.

Marty Kent

Thanks. Peter Simon

p.s.: One clear advantage of the Cirrus is this forum. Your discussions are terrific, and very informative.

Check out www.cirruspilots.org

3

If you haven’t already, check out the articles on “plastic planes” at

http://www.avweb.com/toc/newacft.html

It tells you a lot about flyability etc of the SR20 and C300. You will have to extrapolate for the SR22.

GK

4

To begin with, the 22 has a couple of obvious advantages: delivery will be sooner and more reliable,

Peter, what is Columbia’s guesstimate on delivery if ordered now ?

Wilfried

5

Formula for determining which airplane to buy between SR22 and Lancair 300:

#1 - Does the chute matter? If yes, buy the SR22

#2 - If the answer to #1 is no, then fly both airplanes (you are planning to spend 300k after all) and buy the one you like more. The one that gets you happy inside. There will be a winner on this one. No one will fly both and not like one a little more for any number of idiosyncatic reasons.

END FORMULA

Because if you try to decide on this using logic and paper numbers, you can’t go wrong with either one, so you just end up going insane.

6

Hello Peter,

I will make this short, I think you will see the light.

Read the pluses that you wrote on the SR22.

You will need a much stronger cabin if you plan to walk away when you are coming down (straight down) without Cirrus chute. This is something that we plan never to use, but you will have it in your back pocket if and when you need it. Let me give you an advice, use the $300 for your ride as a down payment in a Cirrus, you wont regret it, and you wont be 5 years older when you get to fly your airplane. The founders of Lancair are great people, they have a great airplane, but I think you can easyly agree that Cirrus is way ahead of the game, from Customer service to delivery to field maintenace, and those things are top priority when you depart with your hard earned money. Best of luck on your choice, you already have choosen but just don’t know it yet. Have a great Cirrus family day.

Woor

Hi –

I am trying to decide between ordering an SR22 or a Columbia 300 (what a wonderful dilemma). I have had a demo ride in the 22, and it was wonderful. We are scheduled for a ride in the Columbia next week.

I am aware of the obvious differences, the ones that get written up in the reports and discussed in the forums:

To begin with, the 22 has a couple of obvious advantages: delivery will be sooner and more reliable, and of course, the parachute. In addition, the 22 has better visibility and a slightly lower purchase price (similarly equipped.) Columbia enthusasts claim the following advantages for their plane: a stronger fuselage, including sturdier crash protection; slightly higher speed and signifincantly lower fuel burn; larger fuel tanks; more flexibility for avionics, both now and in the future; built-in lightning protection; and possibility to upgrade to the TSIO-550-N1B.

My questions to all of you out there (most of whom seem really to love your Cirri) – how should I digest all of this? What am I missing? Are there subjective factors about owning orflying the airplanes that I should be putting in the balance.

Any help you could give me on this difficult choice would be very much appreciated. If you would like to reply to me directly, my email is PEternoah9@aol.com. Otherwise, I will look for your replies in the forum.

Thanks. Peter Simon

p.s.: One clear advantage of the Cirrus is this forum. Your discussions are terrific, and very informative.

7

Hi --Whoa! Take a few steps back, and ask yourself who runs a better business? Who is more likely to have the capitalization to provide the infrastructure and support for an aircraft once it is delivered? In my opinion, the Klapmeier boys have a far stronger track record, and have demonstrated a better ability to make the difficult transition from enthusiast-based business to what the accountants would term a going-enterprise. They won. Lancair will follow Mooney.

I am trying to decide between ordering an SR22 or a Columbia 300 (what a wonderful dilemma). I have had a demo ride in the 22, and it was wonderful. We are scheduled for a ride in the Columbia next week.

I am aware of the obvious differences, the ones that get written up in the reports and discussed in the forums:

To begin with, the 22 has a couple of obvious advantages: delivery will be sooner and more reliable, and of course, the parachute. In addition, the 22 has better visibility and a slightly lower purchase price (similarly equipped.) Columbia enthusasts claim the following advantages for their plane: a stronger fuselage, including sturdier crash protection; slightly higher speed and signifincantly lower fuel burn; larger fuel tanks; more flexibility for avionics, both now and in the future; built-in lightning protection; and possibility to upgrade to the TSIO-550-N1B.

My questions to all of you out there (most of whom seem really to love your Cirri) – how should I digest all of this? What am I missing? Are there subjective factors about owning orflying the airplanes that I should be putting in the balance.

Any help you could give me on this difficult choice would be very much appreciated. If you would like to reply to me directly, my email is PEternoah9@aol.com. Otherwise, I will look for your replies in the forum.

Thanks. Peter Simon

p.s.: One clear advantage of the Cirrus is this forum. Your discussions are terrific, and very informative.

8

I went through a similar debate a few months ago. There were two key deciding factors. One was availability. Since the 22 is in real production, I was able to get a plane 30 days after I decided on it, paying a premium that is not really any higher than the COLA adjustments likely to come while you wait.

But the second is very serious, and it is this forum. You cannot overestimate the benefit of the transparancy this forum brings to a manufacturer. I consider this forum a mandatory part of my preflight planning, just like the weather. I want to know NOW if there are any issues discovered with my new design plane.

-Curt

9

Peter: You have one great choice! I don’t think you can loose either way.

As an owner, a very happy owner of the SR22, I am biassed, but here are my observations on your comments:

Columbia enthusasts claim the following advantages for their plane: a stronger fuselage, including sturdier crash protection;

I don’t know if that is real. Strength is not necessarily crash protection: well designed crushability is. Two SR22’s have suffered really botched landings (well, one off airport and one total botch IMHO) and in both cases the occupants walked away with no or very slight injuries. Witnesses to ythe worst of the two said that they did not thnk anyone would survive. That is anecdotal evidence, but it is history.

slightly higher speed and signifincantly lower fuel burn;

Slightly higher speeds yes, but I sincerely doubt the fuel burn. The two airframes use the same engine. At the same power setting, the engines will use the same fuel. Speed would depend upon aerodynamics and weight. The Columbia has achieved slightly better aerodynamics at the expens of a slight bit of comfort, visibility and entry and exit ease. Just a different philosophy.

larger fuel tanks; more flexibility for avionics, both now and in the future; built-in lightning protection; and possibility to upgrade to the TSIO-550-N1B.

Both planes are certified IFR so they both have lightning protection to meet FAA specs. I think you will get a little more flexibiltiy on avionics, but with the latest enhancements to the SR22 (Skywatch), I’m not sure how much more you can get that is really usefull (Radar altimiter, back-up AI?)

My questions to all of you out there (most of whom seem really to love your Cirri) – how should I digest all of this? What am I missing? Are there subjective factors about owning orflying the airplanes that I should be putting in the balance.

Here are my thoughts. As I said, both are great planes. The wait is a big factor, but more importantly, which plane would you rather have. The only real differences are minor looks, a few knots (maybe), comfort, usefull load and payload.

I think the SR22 is slightly more comfortable, the UL and Payload (Full Fuel) are better, at least on the real life numbers I’ve seen.

Look at the difference of 3, 5 or 8 knots would make on an average trip. I bet you will find it is practically nothing. I typically fly with 65% power and 50 degrees lean of peak, so, I admit that I am willing to fly a little slower.

Depending upon altitude, temps, etc., I see between 160-170 KTAS at less than 13 GPH and CHT’s rarely over 320. I could go 182 or 183 KTAS, (I actually do 1 or 2 knots better than book) but that would put me into the 17-19 GPH range. To me, it’s usually not worth the fuel and wear on the engine to save 5 to 7 minutes per hour of flight.

On the other hand, payload is very important to me. I’d recommend you find out what the actual empty weight of planes configured the way you want is and see for yourself.

My SR22 with Stormscope and engine pre-ehater is 2250. With a GW of 3400, that leaves me 1150 real pounds of payload. Full fuel of 486 (480 if you allow for taxi) gives you 670 lbs to put in the cockpit. (Does anyone really offload fuel for payload?)

As for range, I have flown from LOU (Louisville, KY) to ORL (Orlando, FL), a distance of 620 NM’s as the crow flies (and I wasn’t a crow that day) in 4.0 hours at 65% power with over 25 gallons remaining. I could have flown nearly another hour (165 Nm’s) with reserves, but an hour longer flight is more than my bladder can take. At a faster speed, I would have saved maybe 20 minutes and used most of that reserve.

Any help you could give me on this difficult choice would be very much appreciated. If you would like to reply to me directly, my email is PEternoah9@aol.com. Otherwise, I will look for your replies in the forum.

Now for the parachute. It does more for my passengers than it does for me. You’d be surprised how many folks have volunteered to fly with me knowing it has the parachute.

Bottom line, I love my SR22 and know that it would not be a bad choice for you. I have never regretted my decision. Good luck with your decision.

Marty Kent

Thanks. Peter Simon

p.s.: One clear advantage of the Cirrus is this forum. Your discussions are terrific, and very informative.

Check out www.cirruspilots.org

Good answers Marty, and I can only add 2 items to your list. 1. Long Term Financial stability, 2. Customer Support and Service.

From my own experience and what I read from others here, Cirrus wins both of these by a very good margin.

Regarding appearance, I do think the Columbia may look a little better, but I honestly think it is the darker bottom paint scheme that Lancair uses on the lower fuselage. I know that Cirrus does not like the heat generated by darker colors, but I doubt it would hurt anything to paint the lower half of the fuselage.

JMO, Bill

10

I think you will get a little more flexibiltiy on avionics, but with the latest enhancements to the SR22 (Skywatch), I’m not sure how much more you can get that is really usefull (Radar altimiter, back-up AI?)

MX20 vs. Arnav.

My ARNAV wishlist:

  • Engine monitoring (no STC == does not exist)

  • Skywatch (perhaps next year, but ARNAV has a poor delivery record given EngineView so I am obviously skeptical)

  • Rasterized enroute charts

  • Aproach plates

  • 24hr pr0n channel for those long lonely flights… :slight_smile:

11

Peter,

Before pluncking my downpayment for my SR20, I few both. I’m a fairly lowtime pilot and enjoyed both airplanes immensely … after flying nothing but spam cans. So, I’m not the guy to give advice on how to compare flight characteristics.

But, listen here, I do know about comfort and who are the real stakeholders in this plane.I’m talking back seat (front seating comfort was similar). If your wife or teenagers are coming along and in the backseat, try sitting in both for 30 mins at a stretch (which I did). If one is tall, your head is almost angled with the fuselage slope in the 300. In bumpy weather on a long flight, this will be unbearable. I don’t want either my wife or teenagers making my life unbearable. The 20/22 is significantly more comfortable for passengers in the back. Although not your most important factor to consider, you may have stakeholders to please as well.

Alex

Peter: You have one great choice! I don’t think you can loose either way.

As an owner, a very happy owner of the SR22, I am biassed, but here are my observations on your comments:

Columbia enthusasts claim the following advantages for their plane: a stronger fuselage, including sturdier crash protection;

I don’t know if that is real. Strength is not necessarily crash protection: well designed crushability is. Two SR22’s have suffered really botched landings (well, one off airport and one total botch IMHO) and in both cases the occupants walked away with no or very slight injuries. Witnesses to ythe worst of the two said that they did not thnk anyone would survive. That is anecdotal evidence, but it is history.

slightly higher speed and signifincantly lower fuel burn;

Slightly higher speeds yes, but I sincerely doubt the fuel burn. The two airframes use the same engine. At the same power setting, the engines will use the same fuel. Speed would depend upon aerodynamics and weight. The Columbia has achieved slightly better aerodynamics at the expens of a slight bit of comfort, visibility and entry and exit ease. Just a different philosophy.

larger fuel tanks; more flexibility for avionics, both now and in the future; built-in lightning protection; and possibility to upgrade to the TSIO-550-N1B.

Both planes are certified IFR so they both have lightning protection to meet FAA specs. I think you will get a little more flexibiltiy on avionics, but with the latest enhancements to the SR22 (Skywatch), I’m not sure how much more you can get that is really usefull (Radar altimiter, back-up AI?)

My questions to all of you out there (most of whom seem really to love your Cirri) – how should I digest all of this? What am I missing? Are there subjective factors about owning orflying the airplanes that I should be putting in the balance.

Here are my thoughts. As I said, both are great planes. The wait is a big factor, but more importantly, which plane would you rather have. The only real differences are minor looks, a few knots (maybe), comfort, usefull load and payload.

I think the SR22 is slightly more comfortable, the UL and Payload (Full Fuel) are better, at least on the real life numbers I’ve seen.

Look at the difference of 3, 5 or 8 knots would make on an average trip. I bet you will find it is practically nothing. I typically fly with 65% power and 50 degrees lean of peak, so, I admit that I am willing to fly a little slower.

Depending upon altitude, temps, etc., I see between 160-170 KTAS at less than 13 GPH and CHT’s rarely over 320. I could go 182 or 183 KTAS, (I actually do 1 or 2 knots better than book) but that would put me into the 17-19 GPH range. To me, it’s usually not worth the fuel and wear on the engine to save 5 to 7 minutes per hour of flight.

On the other hand, payload is very important to me. I’d recommend you find out what the actual empty weight of planes configured the way you want is and see for yourself.

My SR22 with Stormscope and engine pre-ehater is 2250. With a GW of 3400, that leaves me 1150 real pounds of payload. Full fuel of 486 (480 if you allow for taxi) gives you 670 lbs to put in the cockpit. (Does anyone really offload fuel for payload?)

As for range, I have flown from LOU (Louisville, KY) to ORL (Orlando, FL), a distance of 620 NM’s as the crow flies (and I wasn’t a crow that day) in 4.0 hours at 65% power with over 25 gallons remaining. I could have flown nearly another hour (165 Nm’s) with reserves, but an hour longer flight is more than my bladder can take. At a faster speed, I would have saved maybe 20 minutes and used most of that reserve.

Any help you could give me on this difficult choice would be very much appreciated. If you would like to reply to me directly, my email is PEternoah9@aol.com. Otherwise, I will look for your replies in the forum.

Now for the parachute. It does more for my passengers than it does for me. You’d be surprised how many folks have volunteered to fly with me knowing it has the parachute.

Bottom line, I love my SR22 and know that it would not be a bad choice for you. I have never regretted my decision. Good luck with your decision.

Marty Kent

Thanks. Peter Simon

p.s.: One clear advantage of the Cirrus is this forum. Your discussions are terrific, and very informative.

Check out www.cirruspilots.org

Good answers Marty, and I can only add 2 items to your list. 1. Long Term Financial stability, 2. Customer Support and Service.

From my own experience and what I read from others here, Cirrus wins both of these by a very good margin.

Regarding appearance, I do think the Columbia may look a little better, but I honestly think it is the darker bottom paint scheme that Lancair uses on the lower fuselage. I know that Cirrus does not like the heat generated by darker colors, but I doubt it would hurt anything to paint the lower half of the fuselage.

JMO, Bill

12

Peter, what is Columbia’s guesstimate on delivery if ordered now ?

Wilfried

Wait is Feb '03. That is for either the turbo 400 or the regular 300. Date is probably realisitic. Puts it about 7 months longer than a SR22, which is July '02 right now.

FWIW - consdier waiting for the SR21tdi

13

Wilfried –

The salesman said February 2003, for an order placed now. The contract from Lancair specifies a quarter, so I suppose it would specify 1st quarter of 2003.

The comparable date for an SR22 ordered now would be July 2002. And, based on the present Cirrus production rate, I think that is probably a more reliable extimate than the Columbia estimate.

     Peter>

To begin with, the 22 has a couple of obvious advantages: delivery will be sooner and more reliable,

Peter, what is Columbia’s guesstimate on delivery if ordered now ?

Wilfried

14

Formula for determining which airplane to buy between SR22 and Lancair 300:

#1 - Does the chute matter? If yes, buy the SR22

#2 - If the answer to #1 is no, then fly both airplanes (you are planning to spend 300k after all) and buy the one you like more. The one that gets you happy inside. There will be a winner on this one. No one will fly both and not like one a little more for any number of idiosyncatic reasons.

END FORMULA

Because if you try to decide on this using logic and paper numbers, you can’t go wrong with either one, so you just end up going insane.

Concise, to the point, and right on target as usual Dean.

15

Formula for determining which airplane to buy between SR22 and Lancair 300:

#1 - Does the chute matter? If yes, buy the SR22

#2 - If the answer to #1 is no, then fly both airplanes (you are planning to spend 300k after all) and buy the one you like more. The one that gets you happy inside. There will be a winner on this one. No one will fly both and not like one a little more for any number of idiosyncatic reasons.

END FORMULA

Because if you try to decide on this using logic and paper numbers, you can’t go wrong with either one, so you just end up going insane.

START FORMULA

IF

you like to go far, fast, efficient

THEN

get a Columbia

OTHERWISE

IF

you prefer to pose with your plane at the fuel pumps

AND/OR

need to pee frequently

THEN

get an SR22

BUT

don’t take this too seriously all you Cirri disciples!

END FORMULA

Steve

P.S. I like this language Dean, you get to make it up as you go along.

16

Best of luck on your choice, you already have choosen but just don’t know it yet. Have a great Cirrus family day.

Woor

It’s the zen of aircraft choice!

Steve

17

Hi --Whoa! Take a few steps back, and ask yourself who runs a better business? Who is more likely to have the capitalization to provide the infrastructure and support for an aircraft once it is delivered? In my opinion, the Klapmeier boys have a far stronger track record, and have demonstrated a better ability to make the difficult transition from enthusiast-based business to what the accountants would term a going-enterprise. They won. Lancair will follow Mooney.

The above is simply not true - the two companies have followed different business plans from the start. Moreover, Cirrus was a marginally successful kit maker with one design. Lancair is a legend in aircraft design. Both companies have had capitalization problems which have been solved.

If you go back on this forum several months ago, you will find nervous posts about whether or not Cirrus was going to survive. They sell the SR20 at a loss, and then delayed it to sell another model at a profit.

Point of all this? Both companies will do fine. My guess is there will be a lot more CIrri out there for a while, with a more quality control problems that are taken care of by better customer service. Cirrus will be BMW or Mercedes in size. Lancair will be Porsche in size. Both will thrive because Cessna and the rest are as out of touch as GM was in the late 70’s.

Fly both planes, and pick the one you like

18

Hi --Whoa! Take a few steps back, and ask yourself who runs a better business? Who is more likely to have the capitalization to provide the infrastructure and support for an aircraft once it is delivered? In my opinion, the Klapmeier boys have a far stronger track record, and have demonstrated a better ability to make the difficult transition from enthusiast-based business to what the accountants would term a going-enterprise. They won. Lancair will follow Mooney.

The above is simply not true - the two companies have followed different business plans from the start. Moreover, Cirrus was a marginally successful kit maker with one design. Lancair is a legend in aircraft design. Both companies have had capitalization problems which have been solved.

If you go back on this forum several months ago, you will find nervous posts about whether or not Cirrus was going to survive. They sell the SR20 at a loss, and then delayed it to sell another model at a profit.

Point of all this? Both companies will do fine. My guess is there will be a lot more CIrri out there for a while, with a more quality control problems that are taken care of by better customer service. Cirrus will be BMW or Mercedes in size. Lancair will be Porsche in size. Both will thrive because Cessna and the rest are as out of touch as GM was in the late 70’s.

Fly both planes, and pick the one you like

Dean, I respectfully disagree, though I suspect our disagreement may be based more on the relative weight we assign to various factors than to a disagreement on the facts. Here are my assumptions:

  1. $100m in capitalization is hard to ignore.

  2. An established service network is also

    hard to ignore.

  3. An order book that stretches out several years

    has value.

  4. A demonstrated ability to build aircraft in

    volume is important.

  5. The “best” product does not inevitably win.

    Begging the question as to whether Lancair is

    better than Cirrus, it is a fact that the
    landscape is littered with better ideas that

    failed, ranging from Sony Beta video recorders

    to Mooneys with Porsche engines.

  6. I simply do not agree that the market will

    support a “boutique” manufacturer like

19

Hi --Whoa! Take a few steps back, and ask yourself who runs a better business? Who is more likely to have the capitalization to provide the infrastructure and support for an aircraft once it is delivered? In my opinion, the Klapmeier boys have a far stronger track record, and have demonstrated a better ability to make the difficult transition from enthusiast-based business to what the accountants would term a going-enterprise. They won. Lancair will follow Mooney.

The above is simply not true - the two companies have followed different business plans from the start. Moreover, Cirrus was a marginally successful kit maker with one design. Lancair is a legend in aircraft design. Both companies have had capitalization problems which have been solved.

If you go back on this forum several months ago, you will find nervous posts about whether or not Cirrus was going to survive. They sell the SR20 at a loss, and then delayed it to sell another model at a profit.

Point of all this? Both companies will do fine. My guess is there will be a lot more CIrri out there for a while, with a more quality control problems that are taken care of by better customer service. Cirrus will be BMW or Mercedes in size. Lancair will be Porsche in size. Both will thrive because Cessna and the rest are as out of touch as GM was in the late 70’s.

Fly both planes, and pick the one you like

Dean, I respectfully disagree, though I suspect our disagreement may be based more on the relative weight we assign to various factors than to a disagreement on the facts. Here are my assumptions:

  1. $100m in capitalization is hard to ignore.

  2. An established service network is also

    hard to ignore.

  3. An order book that stretches out several years

    has value.

  4. A demonstrated ability to build aircraft in

    volume is important.

  5. The “best” product does not inevitably win.

    Begging the question as to whether Lancair is

    better than Cirrus, it is a fact that the
    landscape is littered with better ideas that

    failed, ranging from Sony Beta video recorders

    to Mooneys with Porsche engines.

  6. I simply do not agree that the market will

    support a “boutique” manufacturer like

    Lancair, when a more business-oriented

20

Hi --Whoa! Take a few steps back, and ask yourself who runs a better business? Who is more likely to have the capitalization to provide the infrastructure and support for an aircraft once it is delivered? In my opinion, the Klapmeier boys have a far stronger track record, and have demonstrated a better ability to make the difficult transition from enthusiast-based business to what the accountants would term a going-enterprise. They won. Lancair will follow Mooney.

The above is simply not true - the two companies have followed different business plans from the start. Moreover, Cirrus was a marginally successful kit maker with one design. Lancair is a legend in aircraft design. Both companies have had capitalization problems which have been solved.

If you go back on this forum several months ago, you will find nervous posts about whether or not Cirrus was going to survive. They sell the SR20 at a loss, and then delayed it to sell another model at a profit.

Point of all this? Both companies will do fine. My guess is there will be a lot more CIrri out there for a while, with a more quality control problems that are taken care of by better customer service. Cirrus will be BMW or Mercedes in size. Lancair will be Porsche in size. Both will thrive because Cessna and the rest are as out of touch as GM was in the late 70’s.

Fly both planes, and pick the one you like

Dean, I respectfully disagree, though I suspect our disagreement may be based more on the relative weight we assign to various factors than to a disagreement on the facts. Here are my assumptions:

  1. $100m in capitalization is hard to ignore.

  2. An established service network is also

    hard to ignore.

  3. An order book that stretches out several years

    has value.

  4. A demonstrated ability to build aircraft in

    volume is important.

  5. The “best” product does not inevitably win.

    Begging the question as to whether Lancair is

    better than Cirrus, it is a fact that the
    landscape is littered with better ideas that

    failed, ranging from Sony Beta video recorders

    to Mooneys with Porsche engines.

  6. I simply do not agree that the market will

    support a “boutique” manufacturer like

    Lancair, when a more business-oriented