The ultimate Cirrus?

Does anyone know if Cirrus plans to make a turbo, K-I, twin that can carry six and full fuel? It would seem to me that – short of a jet – there would be no better airplane around. Such an airplane would be truly close to perfect.


Turbo means; no flying if AVGAS 100LL becomes unavailable…

Thats a pitty, specially if you have two engines.

My 0,02 Eurocents


the ultimate cirrus (ga) airplane would be

  • single engine
  • turbo-prop…speed about 230Kts
  • price < 500K.
  • 4 seater

single engine…because twin would be too much of a risk+expense for most ga pilots. turbo-props are extremely reliable. looking at the ntsb reports there’s not a single case of edm700 engine problems.

4-seater to keep the weight down (ergo the expense and increase performance)…so it’ll be mostly part 91 operation. fuselage could be standard sr22 type…with no separate entrance of passengers etc.

any speed 200kts+ is acceptable…though i would think with the weight kept down and any self-respecting turbine engine, one could get 230 easily.

sr22 go for $300K now…adding 200K for a turbine engine+r&d etc sounds quite reasonable.

Could you imagine trying to get these Dream machines insured with trouble we have with plain old SR20 and 22’s

In reply to:

sr22 go for $300K now…adding 200K for a turbine engine+r&d etc sounds quite reasonable.

I am be missing something, but what is the use of a turbine w/out pressurizaton? Using a lot of fuel at low altitudes for a few extra knots?
So, I suppose that you would need to pressurize the cabin so we can climb to the flight levels and conserve fuel.
Then, while I respect your opinion of 4 seats, a lot of folks have bigger families than that, not to mention luggage or other comfort considerations, so IMHO we’re back to 6 seats.
And then, what about ice? We would need known ice protection.
What’s the use of the speed if you have to land avery 1.5 -2.5 hours, so we’d better be able to carry a ton of fuel so the beast could actually fly for 4 hours.
I suppose once you have all of that, keeping the landing gear down and welded is not a great idea either,
So you need a 6 seat, retractable, pressurized turboprop with known ice certification and a boatload of fuel to carry the dam thing for at least 4 hours in essentially a whole new airframe.
Hmm, that looks like the TBM or for a few more dollars, the Pilatus PC-12. But wait, Eclipse can build a real jet for under $1 million! [:)].


Dream on!!!

To be useful and fuel efficient it would need to be pressurized and Fuel capacity significantly increased.
The higher gross weight would mean a new wing, new landing gear and brakes. Pressurization would require a totally new fuselage. Double pane windows, known ice. You are pushing a million, easily.

Since the gloves have come off for wish-lists…here’s mine but it’s more modest than these others

4 seats
At least 720 lb full-fuel payload
At least 4.5 hr endurance at 75% cruise, plus 1 hr reserve
At least 175 kt @75%, 8000 feet, ISA
At least 1200 fpm sea level climb @MGTOW, ISA
Vso 45 kt or less (do we need a canard here?)

Hey, guess what, the SR22 comes really close!

From my visit to Cirrus in mid February, there were indications that Cirrus intends to introduce a TN 22 in 2003. Not quite all you are asking for, but for speed, one could guestimate 225 to 230 knots.

I know the C400 is supposed to hit 235 book. As the C300 beats a 22 by only 5 kts book, I can’t see more than 10 knot difference with a TN 22.

836C SR20