The Lancair Columbia is supposed to have a 75% power cruise speed of 190 knots, verses 180 knots for the SR22, on the same 550-N engine. Is somebody fudging here, or is the Columbia airframe that much slicker?
(I’m getting second guessing myself here since I just sent in my deposit fo a SR20.)
The Lancair Columbia is supposed to have a 75% power cruise speed of 190 knots, verses 180 knots for the SR22, on the same 550-N engine. Is somebody fudging here, or is the Columbia airframe that much slicker?
(I’m getting second guessing myself here since I just sent in my deposit fo a SR20.)
David: First, don’t second guess yourself, I think you will be very happy with your decision.
Secondly, we all know that many manufacturers fudge a bit on the numbers. I have it on pretty good authority that the SR22’s numbers are about 2-4 kts SLOW not fast as is usually the case.
Third, the Columbia is probably a bit faster, they used a few aerodynamic tricks that CD chose not to for various reasons, not the least of which was visability.
Fourth, when is your delivery date? What number are you? Now, if you put your deposit down on a Lancair, when do you think you would receive it? How many have they delivered? (Does anyone know the answer?) Isn’t flying in a real airplane which is <10 kts slower better than THINKIKG about flying aroung 10 kts faster?
Fourth, compare the prices of a similarly equipped planes. The SR22 is a better buy.
Finally and probably most importantly, figure out a variety of your typical flight plans using both planes numbjers. On a 400 mile trip, I bet you will find that the time savings is only about 10 minutes at best.
Good luck with your plane.
Marty SR22 # 16)
I figured CD would be a little conservative, and Lancair would be just the opposite in regards to the stated cruise speeds, so I think you’re right, there probably is not actually 10 knots difference in the two airframes. Maybe 5 knots or so.
And anyway, like you pointed out, and from what I am hearing (or not hearing), Lancair seems to be bogged down a little bit in terms of actual production.
By the way, what special features are you refering to on the Columbia that make it less draggy?
He must be talking about the parachute.
You know the big drag (slows the decent)
and it is a drag that we have to drag around so when we need it. The it drags the whole thing hopefully real slow draaaaag.
Have a speedy Cirrus day
Woor
I figured CD would be a little conservative, and Lancair would be just the opposite in regards to the stated cruise speeds, so I think you’re right, there probably is not actually 10 knots difference in the two airframes. Maybe 5 knots or so.
And anyway, like you pointed out, and from what I am hearing (or not hearing), Lancair seems to be bogged down a little bit in terms of actual production.
By the way, what special features are you refering to on the Columbia that make it less draggy?
He must be talking about the parachute.
You know the big drag (slows the decent)
and it is a drag that we have to drag around so when we need it. The it drags the whole thing hopefully real slow draaaaag.
Have a speedy Cirrus day
Woor
I figured CD would be a little conservative, and Lancair would be just the opposite in regards to the stated cruise speeds, so I think you’re right, there probably is not actually 10 knots difference in the two airframes. Maybe 5 knots or so.
And anyway, like you pointed out, and from what I am hearing (or not hearing), Lancair seems to be bogged down a little bit in terms of actual production.
By the way, what special features are you refering to on the Columbia that make it less draggy?
I couldn’t find just now the figures, I’m out of the country, and none of the we-site have the numbers, BUT I think the main reason for the speedier airframe is, that the Columbia has a narrower cabin. If I recall the figure when I visited them in a year and a half in Bend, the cabin is 44 or 46" wide. That’s a big difference when you push that frontal drag close to 3 times the speed limit on of the freeways.
Please someone check this out, if I’m correct, this is how I remember it.
You are the winner!!!
Woor
He must be talking about the parachute.
You know the big drag (slows the decent)
and it is a drag that we have to drag around so when we need it. The it drags the whole thing hopefully real slow draaaaag.
Have a speedy Cirrus day
Woor
I figured CD would be a little conservative, and Lancair would be just the opposite in regards to the stated cruise speeds, so I think you’re right, there probably is not actually 10 knots difference in the two airframes. Maybe 5 knots or so.
And anyway, like you pointed out, and from what I am hearing (or not hearing), Lancair seems to be bogged down a little bit in terms of actual production.
By the way, what special features are you refering to on the Columbia that make it less draggy?
I couldn’t find just now the figures, I’m out of the country, and none of the we-site have the numbers, BUT I think the main reason for the speedier airframe is, that the Columbia has a narrower cabin. If I recall the figure when I visited them in a year and a half in Bend, the cabin is 44 or 46" wide. That’s a big difference when you push that frontal drag close to 3 times the speed limit on of the freeways.
Please someone check this out, if I’m correct, this is how I remember it.
And anyway, like you pointed out, and from what I am hearing (or not hearing), Lancair seems to be bogged down a little bit in terms of actual production.
By the way, what special features are you refering to on the Columbia that make it less draggy?
I couldn’t find just now the figures, I’m out of the country, and none of the we-site have the numbers, BUT I think the main reason for the speedier airframe is, that the Columbia has a narrower cabin. If I recall the figure when I visited them in a year and a half in Bend, the cabin is 44 or 46" wide. That’s a big difference when you push that frontal drag close to 3 times the speed limit on of the freeways.
Please someone check this out, if I’m correct, this is how I remember it.
I don’t have the data in front of me but I believe the Columbia cabin dimensions are virtually identical to the SR20. Of course the point is moot if you can’t get one (a Columbia that is).
David,
When I took my demo ride in the SR20, my sales rep told me Cirrus was flight testing the SR22 and getting 188 KTS true. However, he said they were going to use 180 KTS in the sales info.
J. Wade
Anybody have any information on when the SR22 POH is going to be available. I didn’t hear the information on the 188 KTS true airspeed. If I bought an aircraft of 180 KTS and get 188 KTS that’s o.k. with me!
David,
When I took my demo ride in the SR20, my sales rep told me Cirrus was flight testing the SR22 and getting 188 KTS true. However, he said they were going to use 180 KTS in the sales info.
J. Wade
I called to order a POH and was told that they will not have any for the SR22 until the end of February.
Note that Cirrus is not claiming 188knts. 180knts is the official number but faster speeds are often possible in nearly all aircraft with light loads. Mooney gets numbers by stating ‘mid-weight’ cruise. Other than for the certification testing, I doubt that the Cirrus test pilots are flying anywhere near gross. I’m expecting 180knts, 8,000ft, normal day, near gross. If I get more, I’m a happy camper.
Anybody have any information on when the SR22 POH is going to be available. I didn’t hear the information on the 188 KTS true airspeed. If I bought an aircraft of 180 KTS and get 188 KTS that’s o.k. with me!
David,
When I took my demo ride in the SR20, my sales rep told me Cirrus was flight testing the SR22 and getting 188 KTS true. However, he said they were going to use 180 KTS in the sales info.
J. Wade
I think the 10 knots in the Columbia comes from shoving the extra $100K through the afterburner.
But seriously, all aircraft designs are compromises between efficiency and endurability, as the Mooney drivers can attest. Cirrus went for a big fat cabin that you don’t need to be a circus acrobat to get into (and you don’t have to walk on the upholstery), which makes the performance even more astounding. It’s also the case that the SR22 uses an identical airframe to the SR20; one could imagine that if they were starting from scratch they could have squeezed a few more knots out of it, assuming that the target market would tolerate the inevitable reduction in comfort in exchange for the speed.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m much happier taking a little longer to get where I want to go if I can do it in total comfort. I’ve done SAF/MRY in both an SR20 and a Baron. The SR20 took longer, but the trip was much more pleasant.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m much happier taking a little longer to get where I want to go if I can do it in total comfort. I’ve done SAF/MRY in both an SR20 and a Baron. The SR20 took longer, but the trip was much more pleasant.
I’ve spent a lot of time “crammed” into a number of other airplanes, and with now well over 400 in an SR20 I can say there is NO OTHER SEL airplane that is as comfortable to me as the SR20. I agree with Dave 
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m much happier taking a little longer to get where I want to go if I can do it in total comfort. I’ve done SAF/MRY in both an SR20 and a Baron. The SR20 took longer, but the trip was much more pleasant.
I’ve spent a lot of time “crammed” into a number of other airplanes, and with now well over 400 in an SR20 I can say there is NO OTHER SEL airplane that is as comfortable to me as the SR20. I agree with Dave
The tape tells the tale. Look at:
http://www.raytheon.com/rac/baron/specifications.htm
Beech Baron 58 cabin width x height: 42 x 50 in.
SR20/SR22 cabin width x height: 49 x 50 in.
Which would YOU rather ride in? Baron cruises only 20 knots faster, drinks more gas. You could buy two SR22s for the price of one Baron, with plenty of change left over.