The weight gain of the cirrus is a huge issue. It makes my future C model a 2-place airplane capable of approx 700+ nautical mile IFR flights. To make it a 3 to 4 place craft, it will have to be allowed to raise its GW to (?)3100 lbs, with a resultant decrease in attainable altitude, and an increase in stall speed. The laws of physics won’t be overlooked. In addition, this airplane that was to rejuvenate the industry started with a 1996 price of about $140,000.00. “Value” was often used as the reason this airplane would stay with us, while Mooneys, Pipers, Commanders, and the origonal Cessna line disappeared.
Cirrus sould remain highly attentive to the details that equate with value,and avoid the temptation to keep reminding future buyers that Cirrus’ airplanes are far better values than the other avialable airplanes. Mooney’s competitors are NOT cirrus’ competition. Cirrus, to be successful as they define it, needs to outcompete Porche, BMW, Large watercraft, and second homes. We want NEW pilots; pilots who will want value.
So stick with the basics (UL, , price, top speed, comfort, 4 passengers, 700+nm) and sell thousands of planes. Spend your time on the SR22, and go the way of Lancaire/Mooney/Piper/Commander while selling hundreds of planes.
I would not have signed up to buy an SR20 had I known there would be a delay of over 2 years AFTER my stated date, and the plane would have degraded it’s flight characteristics so much from the initial presentation. It happens that I waited, and I’m glad I did. Nevertheless, I retain the same feeling that a more appropriate explaination is due regarding weights and flight characterists than a letter which simply states the new situation. It makes it harder to feel good about paying an added $9500 for a $5000 stormscope. I’m getting longer winded than Jim. aa