I was in two Cirrus, first the 20 then the 22T because of the CAPS. Sadly, at first, I had to change to the DA42 because the T had an engine that just kept on having something needing fixed ad nauseam.
Recently did my first over water (the Bass Straight) trip in it, a trip I would never have done in a SEP. Have been in the 42 for over a year now with no complaints.
David
I flew a brand new Cirrus in 2023 and a 2017 TTx with less than 400 hours on it. The difference in my opinion was drastic. I have been flying for 50 years now, Cubs to Boeing and everything in between. The Cirrus felt balky, the controls felt artificial against the springs and the airplane wasnāt very pretty in my opinion. The TTx felt MUCH more solid especially in turbulence (it is far stronger), had better avionics, hand flew better and was far prettier. I bought the TTx.
The parachute is great for newer pilots that didnt fly airplanes looking constantly for a place to put it down like I did 35 years ago (its an ingrained habit). I personally think the airplanes solidity is much more important and would prefer to land the airplane in a field with a stout airplane than pull a chute and float into God knows what on the way down as a passenger.
My opinion, flame away if you wish. But I am happy with my choice.
I flew the Columbia 300 and 400 and the SR22 before I bought my SR22. While the controls felt more ādirectā in the Lancair, later Ttx, I liked the SR22 much better in almost every other respect: The cabin is larger, the VIEW outside is MUCH better, I liked the Cirrus avionics much better and of course the rear seats are MUCH roomier.
But if the SR22 didnāt have CAPS I would have probably bought a F33A Bonanza or a B36.
Generally agree with you, Flew a 350 and loved it. Fast , feels very natural on the controls. Also looked at an older T210. Lots of hours in Cessnas so it was like on old friend. In the end the SR-20 was a spot on match for the short hops Iāve done with it. I probably would have opted for no parachute had it been an option, but I will say I appreciate having it at night or when flying with non-pilots.
Yes in that respect the parachute would be nice. Only time Iād really like to have it is my trips to Colorado over mountains but I wonder if it would actually do me any good floating down onto a mountain lol. Lots of bears lol.
I quit doing SE at night 15 years ago. Too risky for me.
The airplane might be stout but your body is not. Based on the statistics, I would rather pull CAPS than land any plane in a field. I also donāt have any field around here. 
If Cirrus didnāt have CAPS, my airplane would definitely be a Diamond DA-40.
Possibly the more interesting question is what other plane would Cirrus owners have bought if it also had a chute? Iām surprised the other manufacturers have let Cirrus have that feature to themselves for 25 years.
If a Columbia/Cessna 400 or a Piper Saratoga/6X or a DA52 or a C206 or an A36 had a chute, I wonder how many Cirrus owners would be flying a different airframe. If that is a critical feature in someoneās decision making then itās either an LSA or a Cirrus.
Probably not, but if it was still the #1 piston then I would have definitely considered it.
The only reason my wife would let me get a plane was because it had a parachute. So chute was a requirement
The chute was a large selling point for me in 2003. I wanted to give my wife and kids an out if something happened to me. Plus more people seem willing to fly with me once they know about the chute in the Cirrus.
Well I have had 2 forced landings. Thereās usually always somewhere to land if you paying attention. Might be a lost art among you young whipper snappers lol.
Give me strength over a silly parachute anytime.
Your mileage may vary.
3 kids at home that need me. I would be flying day VFR in a plane with a much slower stall speed that I donāt travel in or would still be saving my dollars for a turbine.
I was dead set on buying a Bonanza. Had a contract on a nice mid 70s V35B with a glass panel upgrade but the pre buy showed a couple burned valves and suspect cylinders so I passed. Then I made an offer on an A36 but while waiting on a counter they got a better deal. Then found another A36 but while I was reviewing the logs they accepted another offer (that turned out the be the plane that landed the wrong way at Oshkosh a couple years ago). I had always liked the SR22 but at the time I thought it a little out of my price range. But then I saw what became my Gen1 SR22 come on the market and it had the useful load I needed, no CG issues, insurance was cheaper than the Bo, and it just had a chute repack and engine overhaul. So I bought it.
The chute was simply a ānice to haveā.
Now when I fly in my friends A36 I feel a little naked, and my wife who also felt the chute was a luxury now sees it as a necessity.
BS. The statistics clearly show how dangerous off airport emergency landings are and how many pilots have died trying.
Iāll take my experiences over your speculation thanks. 20,000 hours give me a perspective you might not have sir.
There is little in the form of speculation in @alexis59ās post, and I respectfully request that you show your fellow pilots some respect, there are many highly experienced pilots in our ranks, your level of experience is far from unique.
I have, it is a lot more crisp on the control, feels more like a pilotās airplane than the cirrus. Iām taking nothing away from the Cirrus, it is a fabulous airplane (but without the parachute, I would have definitely gone the Columbia 350 / 400 / TTX way). Better avionics, better build quality, push rods for controls instead of cables. The only thing I did not like about the TTX was how uncomfortable the seats are. The Cirrus seats are really comfy!
Textron tried a bunch of anti-parachute marketing (stuff we are still hearing when people go Cirrus bashing) and then shut down production in a huff. Van Bortel used to have Cessna literature on their website as recently as 2018 about the Cirrusā inferiority due to CAPS.
If Textron had found a way to increase useful load (which btw, they could have done by reducing fuel tank capacity - my G2 22 holds 81 Gallons vs. the TTXās 102 Gallons (thatās a 126 lbs) right there and included a parachute, they would have beaten Cirrus fair and square. Of course that could have meant no Vision Jets but hey who knows how it would have turned out.
Ok Iāll just leave this here. Sorry I stepped on your toes.
Since you mentioned statisticsā¦.here they are.
Cirrus airplanes an inferior safety record compared to the TTX/Columbia , chute and all.
Itās a prop to help sell the wife on flying.
My opinion.
This isnāt my opinion though thiese are facts.
You didnāt step on my toes, you are a guest, and were rude to a member.
You are welcome to your opinion, but please express it respectfully.
Try your strength and experience over LA at rush hour, with an airplane sinking like a brick at 90 knots. Good luck with the outcome.
Having tools in the toolbox is always good. I used to have a chute. Today I donāt and I really hope my two engines donāt fail me over a mega city or over the sierra nevada.
A lot of people fly their airplanes over nice flat terrain away from civilization. But a lot of us fly over millions of people and impossible terrain.
As for flying qualities, my DA62 is absolutely better than a Cirrus. Not even comparable. My Cirrus was a fine machine though. Got me from A to B just fine.
Comparing safety statistics of types is strange, because 80%+ of accidents are pilots doing dumb stuff, killing perfectly fine airplanes.