Where has all the weight gone?

Guest Discussion
1

This issue has been mmentioned before but I am feeling a litle betrayed, so I figured I’d pass this one out to the crowd:

I just received my “Addendum to Purchase Agreement” letter and I remain a little puzzled about some of the issues involved.

Usefull Load: Previouslyin may, I received a letter with a cover letter, "Price List and Optional Equipment Selection guide. It specifically referrenced of a 950 Lbs Usefull load “standard.” My new Addendum says that “typical empty weights have been running about 2050 lbs,” which means a 850 lbs MAXIMUM usefull load. Since my options shouldn’t weigh more than 30 lbs (generous - “C” Package 2 blade prop, leather). So, where has the weight gone?

I’m a bit annoyed as when I signed the contract the UL was 1100 lbs. It has fallen to 1025 on their new specifications as represented in their marketing materials, and now 850 based upon this addendum. If they get the 100 - 200 lbs gross weight increase, that still leaves me only 576 - 676 lbs with full fuel.

My key issues when I ordered the plane were Speed, usefull load (I really wanted over 700 lbs w/full fuel), simplicity and safety. Having waited this long, I feel betrayed. My choices seem to be take the palne or not. But I 've waited over 3 1/2 years for it an feel like I’ve been led down a path. On the other hand, the SR20 is a great plane. It is fast, relatively simply, economical and arguably safe - It just missed it’s promise of 1100 Lbs UL by 22% or UL w/ff by 32%!

i’ll try talking to CD this week and seeing what they have to say.

2

This issue has been mmentioned before but I am feeling a litle betrayed, so I figured I’d pass this one out to the crowd:

I just received my “Addendum to Purchase Agreement” letter and I remain a little puzzled about some of the issues involved.

Usefull Load: Previouslyin may, I received a letter with a cover letter, "Price List and Optional Equipment Selection guide. It specifically referrenced of a 950 Lbs Usefull load “standard.” My new Addendum says that “typical empty weights have been running about 2050 lbs,” which means a 850 lbs MAXIMUM usefull load. Since my options shouldn’t weigh more than 30 lbs (generous - “C” Package 2 blade prop, leather). So, where has the weight gone?

I’m a bit annoyed as when I signed the contract the UL was 1100 lbs. It has fallen to 1025 on their new specifications as represented in their marketing materials, and now 850 based upon this addendum. If they get the 100 - 200 lbs gross weight increase, that still leaves me only 576 - 676 lbs with full fuel.

My key issues when I ordered the plane were Speed, usefull load (I really wanted over 700 lbs w/full fuel), simplicity and safety. Having waited this long, I feel betrayed. My choices seem to be take the palne or not. But I 've waited over 3 1/2 years for it an feel like I’ve been led down a path. On the other hand, the SR20 is a great plane. It is fast, relatively simply, economical and arguably safe - It just missed it’s promise of 1100 Lbs UL by 22% or UL w/ff by 32%!

i’ll try talking to CD this week and seeing what they have to say.

Since useful/payload was a primary consideration in my purchase decision 2-1/2 years ago, I’ll be quite interested in any conclusion from your conversation. When I pressed Cirrus about their weight specs, I specifically remember being advised that the demo-ride prototype was “quite a bit heavier” than future production planes.

I won’t be cancelling an order, but I’ll be disappointed with a useful load under 1025 pounds.

3

My key issues when I ordered the plane were Speed, usefull load (I really wanted over 700 lbs w/full fuel), simplicity and safety.
The increase in gross weight that has been promised (promised might be too strong, but I have been verbally assured by Cirrus that it is going to happen) should give most planes a useful load of 1050lbs. With 336 lbs of fuel (56 gals), you will be able to haul 714lbs of people and bags nearly 700nm in 4 1/2 hours or so (with 45min reserve). That, to me, is a pretty damn useful travelling machine, and it meets your requirement of over 700lbs payload. Your other requirements are already met.

4

Not only did we loss useful load, but I gained 15 pounds while I waited!

5

Not only did we loss useful load, but I gained 15 pounds while I waited!

Hey guys, thanks for all the answers. You all make good points, but as for the GW increase, it seems that the conversation of 100 - 200 lbs has fallen to more like 100 - 150 and I wouldn’t be surprised to get only the 100 lbs!

As for the final UL, with 150 lbs increase (let’s split the diff), that still leaves only just over 600 lbs with full fuel. (this assumes I loose about 30 lbs off the 850 ‘standard’ UL for options.) But what about the performance degredation?

I hate to be negative, because I really like the plane and almost all of it’s other characteristics.

Some of you just worry about 2 people, so unless you (boith) weigh substqtnially more than I, you have no problem traveling with reaosnable luggage and full tanks. I need a plane to take my family (I don’t plan on and changes in this one) of 4, including 2 kids in their young teens, on a weekend trip. This is a big issue to be spending $200K and not be completely satisfied.

6

Not only did we loss useful load, but I gained 15 pounds while I waited!

Hey guys, thanks for all the answers. You all make good points, but as for the GW increase, it seems that the conversation of 100 - 200 lbs has fallen to more like 100 - 150 and I wouldn’t be surprised to get only the 100 lbs!

As for the final UL, with 150 lbs increase (let’s split the diff), that still leaves only just over 600 lbs with full fuel. (this assumes I loose about 30 lbs off the 850 ‘standard’ UL for options.) But what about the performance degredation?

I hate to be negative, because I really like the plane and almost all of it’s other characteristics.

Some of you just worry about 2 people, so unless you (boith) weigh substqtnially more than I, you have no problem traveling with reaosnable luggage and full tanks. I need a plane to take my family (I don’t plan on and changes in this one) of 4, including 2 kids in their young teens, on a weekend trip. This is a big issue to be spending $200K and not be completely satisfied.

The last SR20 reported an empty wt. of 2108. That leaves a 792 lb. UL! 423 lbs left after fuel.

7

Sorry Clyde, but I find you’re remark a bit off! Should be, may be, will, be … If you download the official brochure from Cirrus’s website it states 950lbs. That’s it.
Now, getting the weight down is much more difficult than going up since if you need to reengineer anything it will have to be recertified or reapproved, meaning that any substantial weight increases will cost time and money.
Besides this, it’s a fact that the SR20 is very heavy, especially given that it’s essentially made of composites.
Regards, Chris

My key issues when I ordered the plane were Speed, usefull load (I really wanted over 700 lbs w/full fuel), simplicity and safety.

The increase in gross weight that has been promised (promised might be too strong, but I have been verbally assured by Cirrus that it is going to happen) should give most planes a useful load of 1050lbs. With 336 lbs of fuel (56 gals), you will be able to haul 714lbs of people and bags nearly 700nm in 4 1/2 hours or so (with 45min reserve). That, to me, is a pretty damn useful travelling machine, and it meets your requirement of over 700lbs payload. Your other requirements are already met.

8

Sorry Clyde, but I find you’re remark a bit off!
I’m not quite sure what that’s meant to mean!
the official brochure from Cirrus’s website it states 950lbs. That’s it.
Well, that’s not it, right now 850 lbs is about it. But Cirrus have told me that by the end of this year, the SR20s coming off the assembly line will have a max gross of 3100lbs. Existing planes will get a POH change to add at least 150lbs to the max gross and probably 200 with a change in seat cushions. But the 150 is (I quote) “a done deal”. The certification work for this is being done as part of the SR22 work, which is probably the cause of the delay.
Besides this, it’s a fact that the SR20 is very heavy, especially given that it’s essentially made of composites.
Composite planes are heavy - ask Beech - the Starship came out a lot heavier than planned. But there is another factor; compare the SR20 with e.g the PA28 series - these have much lower empty weights, in part because they are certified to CAR3, not FAR23, and the SR20 is thus a much stronger plane. Also add the 80lbs or so for the 'chute, and what you get for your extra weight is better performance (thanks to the smooth composite airframe) and much higher safety levels (stronger plane with a parachute).
If you compare the SR20 with other FAR23 planes, e.g the Trinidad and Commander 114, you will find that although they are lighter (aluminium) and retractable, they offer no better range/payload combinations.
In the future, we can hope to see the cost of carbon fiber drop (it’s currently wayyyy expensive) and this will enable composite structures to be much lighter with no reduction in strength. But for now, the benefits of composites come at a cost, in weight.

Regards, Chris

My key issues when I ordered the plane were Speed, usefull load (I really wanted over 700 lbs w/full fuel), simplicity and safety.

The increase in gross weight that has been promised (promised might be too strong, but I have been verbally assured by Cirrus that it is going to happen) should give most planes a useful load of 1050lbs. With 336 lbs of fuel (56 gals), you will be able to haul 714lbs of people and bags nearly 700nm in 4 1/2 hours or so (with 45min reserve). That, to me, is a pretty damn useful travelling machine, and it meets your requirement of over 700lbs payload. Your other requirements are already met.

9

Sorry Clyde, but I find you’re remark a bit off!

I’m not quite sure what that’s meant to mean!
That was just to say I didn’t agree.off as in off mark. :slight_smile: No worries
the official brochure from Cirrus’s website it states 950lbs. That’s it.

Well, that’s not it, right now 850 lbs is about it. But Cirrus have told me that by the end of this year, the SR20s coming off the assembly line will have a max gross of 3100lbs. Existing planes will get a POH change to add at least 150lbs to the max gross and probably 200 with a change in seat cushions. But the 150 is (I quote) “a done deal”. The certification work for this is being done as part of the SR22 work, which is probably the cause of the delay.
I sure hope you are right. Of course, with an increased MTOW, this will mean that the TKOF and climb performance will suffer correspondingly. I don’t think that’s much gained. You’ll pay more for landing fees etc. It’s just equivalent to having an increase in DOC… The only way forward is to reduce weight, but that’s much harder to do, as I pointed out in the last posting.

Besides this, it’s a fact that the SR20 is very heavy, especially given that it’s essentially made of composites.

That doesn’t have to be the case at all. It just depends on techniques used. Now, I am not too familiar what exactly is used, but carbon composite constructions are very light.

Composite planes are heavy - ask Beech - the Starship came out a lot heavier than planned. But there is another factor; compare the SR20 with e.g the PA28 series - these have much lower empty weights, in part because they are certified to CAR3, not FAR23, and the SR20 is thus a much stronger plane.
Using Carbon Composites, you can build light planes. Just check out planes like the DA-40 from Diamond.
I can’t comment on the certification, I am not very familiar with all of that. However, I am sure that you are quite right regarding the robustness of the SR20. On the other hand, I personally think that a Cessna is about as robust as anyone requires so I don’t agree that extra robustness is an argument for increasing the weight. Just out of interest, what are the new (sic) Cessna’s certified under?
Also add the 80lbs or so for the 'chute, and what you get for your extra weight is better performance (thanks to the smooth composite airframe) and much higher safety levels (stronger plane with a parachute).
better performance is not true per se. Of course you get a better cruise, due to MUCH better aerodynamics (compared to the PA28 series). That’s not however always true for climb, tkof perfomances, range and loading as well as stall speed (which is a safety factor too, you would agree). If you take speed, the 200HP moneys are going faster too (but then again they cost a sum they aren’t worth).
See, I am not by any means trying to put down the SR20, far from it. I just regret that it has become more conventional that what I, and surely many others, had hoped for. It’s still the best plane out there, but mainly due to it’s excellent value for money ratio. But it’s not that superior in performance levels though.

If you compare the SR20 with other FAR23 planes, e.g the Trinidad and Commander 114, you will find that although they are lighter (aluminium) and retractable, they offer no better range/payload combinations.

well, that’s a tricky comparison since both the trinidad and the commander are higher powered, 250 and 300HP respectively, I think. Maybe it would be better to compare a Mooney, that’s 200 HP too.
In any case, the statement is not right. With a trinidad you have 1190 lbs max useful load, cruise of 163kt, range of 1100nm.

In the future, we can hope to see the cost of carbon fiber drop (it’s currently wayyyy expensive) and this will enable composite structures to be much lighter with no reduction in strength. But for now, the benefits of composites come at a cost, in weight.

Let’s hope!

Regards, Chris

My key issues when I ordered the plane were Speed, usefull load (I really wanted over 700 lbs w/full fuel), simplicity and safety.

The increase in gross weight that has been promised (promised might be too strong, but I have been verbally assured by Cirrus that it is going to happen) should give most planes a useful load of 1050lbs. With 336 lbs of fuel (56 gals), you will be able to haul 714lbs of people and bags nearly 700nm in 4 1/2 hours or so (with 45min reserve). That, to me, is a pretty damn useful travelling machine, and it meets your requirement of over 700lbs payload. Your other requirements are already met.

10

You are right that techniques exist in composite construction that would yield a much lighter aircraft, even using the same materials. Here’s the problem: Composite construction cannot be readily inspected for flaws (bubbles, delamination, etc.). Therefore, the FAA requires composite structures in certified aircraft to be thick enough to function properly even with some of these flaws in them. Homebuilts do not have to meet this standard so they can be built much thinner (=lighter).

Carbon fiber would help, but it’s very expensive, and low cost is one of Cirrus’ goals.

Joe

That doesn’t have to be the case at all. It just depends on techniques used. Now, I am not too familiar what exactly is used, but carbon composite constructions are very light.

11

I sure hope you are right. Of course, with an increased MTOW, this will mean that the TKOF and climb performance will suffer correspondingly.
this is true, however the stall speed (which determines takeoff requirements) only rises as the square root of the weight increase, so that should not be a big deal, the climb performance will suffer a little, but not, I expect, but a lot.
carbon composite constructions are very light.
But at the moment, prohibitively expensive. I have heard rumours that this is going to change, with a new factory being built to produce carbon fiber at a much lower cost, but no details yet.
Just out of interest, what are the new (sic) Cessna’s certified under?
CAR-3, same as the old ones. They just updated the type certificate (or perhaps it’s an STC) but they are NOT FAR23 certified.
better performance is not true per se.
I was talking about cruise speed, mainly, but the climb rate of the SR20 is actually pretty damn good.
I just regret that it has become more conventional that what I, and surely many others, had hoped for.
Have you flown an SR20? I’ve got about 20 hours in VH-CRF now, and I no longer care about the payload, the parachute, or even the cruise speed. In fact it gets me places rather too quickly! This is a wonderful plane to fly! It’s comfortable (very comfortable!), roomy, has great visibility, superbly balanced controls, well thought out systems, and is just all-round excellent! Conventional? It has two wings, a tail, and the prop out front. It does not lift as much weight as you or I might like, but forget all that, just fly!!

12

Carbon fiber would help, but it’s very expensive, and low cost is one of Cirrus’ goals.

Joe

Not to mention that carbon fiber construction is harder to repair.

bernie

13

I’m not expert enough on Composites but Diamond can do it for the DA40?! Am I comparing something wrong?

Carbon fiber would help, but it’s very expensive, and low cost is one of Cirrus’ goals.

Joe

Not to mention that carbon fiber construction is harder to repair.

bernie

14

I sure hope you are right. Of course, with an increased MTOW, this will mean that the TKOF and climb performance will suffer correspondingly.

this is true, however the stall speed (which determines takeoff requirements) only rises as the square root of the weight increase, so that should not be a big deal, the climb performance will suffer a little, but not, I expect, but a lot.

My experience is that climb performance always suffers a lot for extra weight. I learned to fly in the alps, you sometimes had to adjust mixture before tkof… Now I am at the sea where things are a lot less dramatic, nevertheless, weight is always a big issue.

carbon composite constructions are very light.

But at the moment, prohibitively expensive. I have heard rumours that this is going to change, with a new factory being built to produce carbon fiber at a much lower cost, but no details yet.
Keep us posted on this one!

I just regret that it has become more conventional that what I, and surely many others, had hoped for.

Have you flown an SR20?
Haven’t had that pleasure yet! Let me know when you’re round the corner next time so I can at least catch a glimpse :slight_smile:
I’ve got about 20 hours in VH-CRF now, and I no longer care about the payload, the parachute, or even the cruise speed. In fact it gets me places rather too quickly!
Isn’t it good that the local aeroclub has a C152 standing about to top up those hours :wink:
This is a wonderful plane to fly! It’s comfortable (very comfortable!), roomy, has great visibility, superbly balanced controls, well thought out systems, and is just all-round excellent! Conventional? It has two wings, a tail, and the prop out front. It does not lift as much weight as you or I might like, but forget all that, just fly!!

I am sure you are right and I totally agree that the Cirrus is about as good as they come these days. still, I think there’s scope for improvement and with some luck we’ll see it from Cirrus. What I regret though as I mentioned in an earlier posting is that Cirrus goes the ‘American’ way with increase in gross weight, higher powered engine and higher DOC for the SR-22. It’s a complete no-go for Europe and it will but sell in few numbers here. That’s not what worries me, really, it just means that a lower powered/equally powered increased performance maschine is not to be expected from Cirrus for some years.

Thanks for the input Clyde!