We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22? Right now it seems as though the useful load with full fuel will be about 640lbs. My CD rep indicated they are looking at a ULFF of about 780lb for the 22. Are there any 22 position holders out there that have been given an indication of where ULFF will top out? And does anyone have any thoughts if 780lbs possible, or just wishful thinking?
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22
This question was ased, IIRC, at the Santa Barbara lunch a couple of months ago. The response was that there were no plans for a gross weight increase for the SR22, but also that the published figures will almost certainly be met. CD have a lot more experience now than when they first published figures for the SR20, and have been much more conservative with the numbers on the SR22. But they see no need to increase the weight further.
I have never heard of any 4 seat airplane (and perhaps I don’t know enough), that will have full fuel 4 standard FAA adults + 100 lbs of baggage. Every plane is a loading choice to make, either fuel, or people. I think 780 lbs, is dreaming too hard!
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22? Right now it seems as though the useful load with full fuel will be about 640lbs. My CD rep indicated they are looking at a ULFF of about 780lb for the 22. Are there any 22 position holders out there that have been given an indication of where ULFF will top out? And does anyone have any thoughts if 780lbs possible, or just wishful thinking?
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22?
I’ve got 2 SR20’s on order; #156 will be delivered soon (Jan/Feb). FWIW, here’s the data I have, and my thinking (justification) for the what I’ve ordered. I asked CD for sample weights of a few specific C configs. They sent me the following data:
Config Avg. Empty Wt. Moment
2-blade 2087.5 lbs 293,635
2-blade, Stormscope 2094.5 lbs 294,937
3-blade 2110.0 lbs 294,767
3-blade, Stormscope 2117.5 lbs 296,069
OK, so there are a few inconsistencies; but these are average weights & moments. The important thing to me is that I believe these to be realistic numbers for the SR20. I’ve still elected to go with the heaviest config, even though that means that my ULFF will be only 446 lbs. That’s not even enough to hoist my family now (and my children are still growing) with NO baggage. So I know I’m going to have to sacrifice fuel (endurance) to go anywhere with all on board.
Why am I doing it? Because I want the goodies, and I believe that CD will come through with at least a POH increase for Maximum Takeoff Weight in the near future. If I’m wrong, I’ll be looking to sell this airplane to a person of the Single Persuasion… and possibly upgrade #465 to an SR22.
Hope this helps someone out there.
- Mike.
I have never heard of any 4 seat airplane (and perhaps I don’t know enough), that will have full fuel 4 standard FAA adults + 100 lbs of baggage. Every plane is a loading choice to make, either fuel, or people. I think 780 lbs, is dreaming too hard!
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22? Right now it seems as though the useful load with full fuel will be about 640lbs. My CD rep indicated they are looking at a ULFF of about 780lb for the 22. Are there any 22 position holders out there that have been given an indication of where ULFF will top out? And does anyone have any thoughts if 780lbs possible, or just wishful thinking?
Mike,
Check out the Cessan 182RG. I had a 1978 model. Cruised at 150 - 156 kts, with a 900 mile range, and it was a solid IFR performer. With full fuel, 4 standard size adults and baggage, it was well within CG and under gross. Loved that bird for each of 17 years before it had to be sold.
Pete
In the recent past I Demo’d a Piper Cheyenne IIIA to a possible buyer, we are talking $1.7Mil
Full fuel and two 170 lbs up front, the airplane was overgross. The other 7 seats would have to be empty.
So, yes would be nice to top everything off, we just have to realize that one of the four passengers will have to go visit the little boys or girls room during the long trip, so why not just plan that way, 2.5 to 3.0 then down we go, walk, checkout a new airport, their facilities then up up and away. We love to fly, we don’t care if we stay up in the cockpit for the next 8 hours, but the people that came with us, may not be as happy to be upthere as we are. What do they know>>> :->)
Would be nice if Cirrus used Carbon fiber. Have a great Cirrus day.
Woor
I have never heard of any 4 seat airplane (and perhaps I don’t know enough), that will have full fuel 4 standard FAA adults + 100 lbs of baggage. Every plane is a loading choice to make, either fuel, or people. I think 780 lbs, is dreaming too hard!
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22? Right now it seems as though the useful load with full fuel will be about 640lbs. My CD rep indicated they are looking at a ULFF of about 780lb for the 22. Are there any 22 position holders out there that have been given an indication of where ULFF will top out? And does anyone have any thoughts if 780lbs possible, or just wishful thinking?
I have never heard of any 4 seat airplane (and perhaps I don’t know enough), that will have full fuel 4 standard FAA adults + 100 lbs of baggage. Every plane is a loading choice to make, either fuel, or people. I think 780 lbs, is dreaming too hard!
My Piper Dakota will carry 772 pounds of payload with full fuel(72 gallons).
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22? Right now it seems as though the useful load with full fuel will be about 640lbs. My CD rep indicated they are looking at a ULFF of about 780lb for the 22. Are there any 22 position holders out there that have been given an indication of where ULFF will top out? And does anyone have any thoughts if 780lbs possible, or just wishful thinking?
I have never heard of any 4 seat airplane (and perhaps I don’t know enough), that will have full fuel 4 standard FAA adults + 100 lbs of baggage. Every plane is a loading choice to make, either fuel, or people. I think 780 lbs, is dreaming too hard!
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22? Right now it seems as though the useful load with full fuel will be about 640lbs. My CD rep indicated they are looking at a ULFF of about 780lb for the 22. Are there any 22 position holders out there that have been given an indication of where ULFF will top out? And does anyone have any thoughts if 780lbs possible, or just wishful thinking?
Mike,
Check out the Cessan 182RG. I had a 1978 model. Cruised at 150 - 156 kts, with a 900 mile range, and it was a solid IFR performer. With full fuel, 4 standard size adults and baggage, it was well within CG and under gross. Loved that bird for each of 17 years before it had to be sold.
Pete
Hi Pete,
I flew 1978 182RGs and I have about 350 hours in them. One I particularly liked at out flying club. Cessna’s figures are a little bit different from yours, though. 3,100 Lbs Gross, Empty 1774 Lbs. With all equipment installed the plane came in at 1,921 Lbs. That gave me a useful load of 1,179 Lbs. Subtract the fuel about 550 Lbs and I ended up with 629 Lbs. That equals to 3 standard 170 Lbs FAA adults. (Which is on a skimpy side mind you! Tell me honestly that when you have your boots and jeans and shirts, and pocket change, and your Leatherman tool and your 5.7 oz. Nextel telephope clipped to your belt, you weigh-in at 170 Lbs), and 119 Lbs of baggage.
So, I was not as lucky with the 182Rg I flown a lot as you.
But looking at Cessna’s spec of 182Rg, the basic empty weight of 1774 Lbs is NOT an IFR plane. This will still give me 4 FAA adults, full fuel and “only” 96 Lbs. of baggage. Cruise speed is @ 75% 145 kts.
If you look up my original e-mail, I wrote 100 Lbs of baggage. So: I stand NOT CORRECTED! Sorry!
But best wishes for the Holiday!
Michael
I have never heard of any 4 seat airplane (and perhaps I don’t know enough), that will have full fuel 4 standard FAA adults + 100 lbs of baggage. Every plane is a loading choice to make, either fuel, or people. I think 780 lbs, is dreaming too hard!
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22? Right now it seems as though the useful load with full fuel will be about 640lbs. My CD rep indicated they are looking at a ULFF of about 780lb for the 22. Are there any 22 position holders out there that have been given an indication of where ULFF will top out? And does anyone have any thoughts if 780lbs possible, or just wishful thinking?
Mike,
Check out the Cessan 182RG. I had a 1978 model. Cruised at 150 - 156 kts, with a 900 mile range, and it was a solid IFR performer. With full fuel, 4 standard size adults and baggage, it was well within CG and under gross. Loved that bird for each of 17 years before it had to be sold.
Pete
Hi Pete,
I flew 1978 182RGs and I have about 350 hours in them. One I particularly liked at out flying club. Cessna’s figures are a little bit different from yours, though. 3,100 Lbs Gross, Empty 1774 Lbs. With all equipment installed the plane came in at 1,921 Lbs. That gave me a useful load of 1,179 Lbs. Subtract the fuel about 550 Lbs and I ended up with 629 Lbs. That equals to 3 standard 170 Lbs FAA adults. (Which is on a skimpy side mind you! Tell me honestly that when you have your boots and jeans and shirts, and pocket change, and your Leatherman tool and your 5.7 oz. Nextel telephope clipped to your belt, you weigh-in at 170 Lbs), and 119 Lbs of baggage.
So, I was not as lucky with the 182Rg I flown a lot as you.
But looking at Cessna’s spec of 182Rg, the basic empty weight of 1774 Lbs is NOT an IFR plane. This will still give me 4 FAA adults, full fuel and “only” 96 Lbs. of baggage. Cruise speed is @ 75% 145 kts.
If you look up my original e-mail, I wrote 100 Lbs of baggage. So: I stand NOT CORRECTED! Sorry!
But best wishes for the Holiday!
Michael
Michael,
Two major differences between your aircraft and ours. In x, our “standard” fuel was 78 gallons, not the 92 optional tanks you had. Also, our empty wt came in at a fraction over 1865 Lbs, about 60 Lbs lower than yours.
I don’t have a clue as to why the difference in empty wt, other than equipment and incremental weight associated with the larger fuel tanks. We were minimal IFR, no extra niceties like stormscope, autopilot, etc.
Those two items account for about 160 pounds, which comes up only a few lbs short of the 100# baggage as you specify, but even for 4 adults on weekend trips, it’s a real push to get to 100# (unless our teenaged daughter Patty came along in which case we removed her plethora of beauty supplies, radios, clothes for all occasions, and 37 pair of shoes :->)
Cheers to ya,
Pete
I have never heard of any 4 seat airplane (and perhaps I don’t know enough), that will have full fuel 4 standard FAA adults + 100 lbs of baggage. Every plane is a loading choice to make, either fuel, or people. I think 780 lbs, is dreaming too hard!
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22? Right now it seems as though the useful load with full fuel will be about 640lbs. My CD rep indicated they are looking at a ULFF of about 780lb for the 22. Are there any 22 position holders out there that have been given an indication of where ULFF will top out? And does anyone have any thoughts if 780lbs possible, or just wishful thinking?
Mike,
Check out the Cessan 182RG. I had a 1978 model. Cruised at 150 - 156 kts, with a 900 mile range, and it was a solid IFR performer. With full fuel, 4 standard size adults and baggage, it was well within CG and under gross. Loved that bird for each of 17 years before it had to be sold.
Pete
Hi Pete,
I flew 1978 182RGs and I have about 350 hours in them. One I particularly liked at out flying club. Cessna’s figures are a little bit different from yours, though. 3,100 Lbs Gross, Empty 1774 Lbs. With all equipment installed the plane came in at 1,921 Lbs. That gave me a useful load of 1,179 Lbs. Subtract the fuel about 550 Lbs and I ended up with 629 Lbs. That equals to 3 standard 170 Lbs FAA adults. (Which is on a skimpy side mind you! Tell me honestly that when you have your boots and jeans and shirts, and pocket change, and your Leatherman tool and your 5.7 oz. Nextel telephope clipped to your belt, you weigh-in at 170 Lbs), and 119 Lbs of baggage.
So, I was not as lucky with the 182Rg I flown a lot as you.
But looking at Cessna’s spec of 182Rg, the basic empty weight of 1774 Lbs is NOT an IFR plane. This will still give me 4 FAA adults, full fuel and “only” 96 Lbs. of baggage. Cruise speed is @ 75% 145 kts.
If you look up my original e-mail, I wrote 100 Lbs of baggage. So: I stand NOT CORRECTED! Sorry!
But best wishes for the Holiday!
Michael
Michael,
Two major differences between your aircraft and ours. In x, our “standard” fuel was 78 gallons, not the 92 optional tanks you had. Also, our empty wt came in at a fraction over 1865 Lbs, about 60 Lbs lower than yours.
I don’t have a clue as to why the difference in empty wt, other than equipment and incremental weight associated with the larger fuel tanks. We were minimal IFR, no extra niceties like stormscope, autopilot, etc.
Those two items account for about 160 pounds, which comes up only a few lbs short of the 100# baggage as you specify, but even for 4 adults on weekend trips, it’s a real push to get to 100# (unless our teenaged daughter Patty came along in which case we removed her plethora of beauty supplies, radios, clothes for all occasions, and 37 pair of shoes :->)
Cheers to ya,
Pete
Hi Pete,
That explains it! I have two of those 37 pair of shoes/daughter, so you can imagine my situation!
All of this was my reply to the original wishful thinking of 780 lb useful load with full fuel!
I think Cirrus have done an excellent job, even though original estimated load figures are not met. The SR22 is even better. Over 5 and a half hours sitting in a relatively small place, be it a car, or a plane is not the best. I can, but the rest of the family votes me down every time. Now this is not a problem in my Pitts 2SB. After 2 hours I urgently need to look for a landing site or a very slow KC-17. My Cessna 414 (has 7 certified seats), is even worse. Useful load is 1650 Lbs. Filling up the tanks leaves me with 2 adults, 2 daughters, 11 pair of shoes and 4 toothbrushes. Toothpaste I buy locally when we arrive.
Best,
Michael
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22?
I’ve got 2 SR20’s on order; #156 will be delivered soon (Jan/Feb). FWIW, here’s the data I have, and my thinking (justification) for the what I’ve ordered. I asked CD for sample weights of a few specific C configs. They sent me the following data:
Config Avg. Empty Wt. Moment
2-blade 2087.5 lbs 293,635
2-blade, Stormscope 2094.5 lbs 294,937
3-blade 2110.0 lbs 294,767
3-blade, Stormscope 2117.5 lbs 296,069
OK, so there are a few inconsistencies; but these are average weights & moments. The important thing to me is that I believe these to be realistic numbers for the SR20. I’ve still elected to go with the heaviest config, even though that means that my ULFF will be only 446 lbs. That’s not even enough to hoist my family now (and my children are still growing) with NO baggage. So I know I’m going to have to sacrifice fuel (endurance) to go anywhere with all on board.
Why am I doing it? Because I want the goodies, and I believe that CD will come through with at least a POH increase for Maximum Takeoff Weight in the near future. If I’m wrong, I’ll be looking to sell this airplane to a person of the Single Persuasion… and possibly upgrade #465 to an SR22.
Hope this helps someone out there.
- Mike.
Hi Mike,
Although I will address my concerns with CD, I believe that this forum is very useful, as it spreads individual concerns with others. (The purpose). I am addressing it you because of the useful load issue.
I have an SR20 scheduled for Aug 2001 (#423) . I just received a request from CD to pick the configuration, interior, etc. and return by Dec 11th. ( Not sure why some people who are getting their plane this Feb have the same deadline) Also included were the final specs, including the Useful Load for the “A” configuration = 950 lbs. I put together a spreadsheet with the published weights:
Max Weight = 2900
Std Empty Weight = 1950
Upgrade to B = 6.6
Upgrade to C 18.1
Leather = 4
3 Blade Prop = 15
Full Fuel = 363
The “typical” useful load with full fuel for the different configurations is:
A = 587 lbs
B = 580.4 lbs
C = 568.9 lbs
B (w/leather and 3 blade prop) = 561.4 lbs
C (w/leather and 3 blade prop) = 549.9 lbs
The C version with Leather and 3 Blade Prop according to the spec sheet leaves 550 lbs for useful load. There is roughly 100lbs between the specs and the actual production (based on the numbers Cirrus gave you). Is this manufacturing tolerances? I have just started using this forum and realize that the useful load issue has been addressed in the past, but I’m trying to pick up the latest input.
Best regards,
Walt Gontowski Jr.
There is roughly 100lbs between the specs and the actual production (based on the numbers Cirrus gave you). Is this manufacturing tolerances?
Walt,
Certainly, you should address the question with CD, as you suggest.
The answers I got indicated that basically, Yes, there are some manufacturing tolerances (the amount of “Bondo” used was specifically mentioned), that make predicting the exact weight difficult; indeed, airplanes coming of the line with identical configurations have different weights for this sort of reason, and that is quite reasonable IMO. However, there seems to be no question that our favorite airplane has put on some weight.
CD has told me that they are pursuing a variety of remedies, some of them quite innovative/imaginative. It’s a major concern to many of us, so let’s hope that their efforts meet with quick, significant success; and that the fruits of their labors will benefit current as well as future owners.
- Mike.
We all know CD is working on an increase in the useful load of the 20, but are they also going to try to increase the load capabilities of the 22?
Config Avg. Empty Wt. Moment
2-blade 2087.5 lbs 293,635
2-blade, Stormscope 2094.5 lbs 294,937
3-blade 2110.0 lbs 294,767
3-blade, Stormscope 2117.5 lbs 296,069
Max Weight = 2900
Std Empty Weight = 1950
Upgrade to B = 6.6
Upgrade to C 18.1
Leather = 4
3 Blade Prop = 15
Full Fuel = 363
The “typical” useful load with full fuel for the different configurations is:
A = 587 lbs
Good work, but you may have made one big error due to CD’s figuring. While they claim in most literature that the empty weight is 1,950 lbs., it is usually about 100 lbs above that. Most “C” models seem to be coming off the line just over 2100 lbs.
The GW increase will help, but how much is yet unsaid. Speculation seems to be int he 140 -150 lb range. CD has said 100 - 200 lbs from time to time.
One other thing to consider is the retrofitability of the the increase to existing planes. Contributeors have metioned a peperwork increase and aan increase that need retrofits. The $ I’ve heard are $3k to $5k, but that’s purely speculations.
Please check with the factory before taking anything for gratned. They will be pretty honest with you.
good luck.
AP
B = 580.4 lbs
C = 568.9 lbs
B (w/leather and 3 blade prop) = 561.4 lbs
C (w/leather and 3 blade prop) = 549.9 lbs
The C version with Leather and 3 Blade Prop according to the spec sheet leaves 550 lbs for useful load. There is roughly 100lbs between the specs and the actual production (based on the numbers Cirrus gave you). Is this manufacturing tolerances? I have just started using this forum and realize that the useful load issue has been addressed in the past, but I’m trying to pick up the latest input.
Best regards,
Walt Gontowski Jr.