I don't know the reason, but there is always the same kind of discussion ongoing when talking about Cirrus. For me the secret of its success is clear and simple. Globally it's a good aircraft and has a good sales network. That's all.
It's not about to go picking each and every little detail and comparing it with other aircrafts. You can always find another airplane that is better in a specific parameter, Mooneys are faster, TB20s have more autonomy, etc... But globally a Cirrus is a good and balanced aircraft, with its weak and strong points. It's clear that you would get some more speed with a retractable gear, but you will also gain the headaches/maintenance costs associated to it. You would get better payload forgetting the CAPS, but then you'd also loose the safety that it adds. There is only one Cirrus engineering decision that I do not understand, and it's the elimination of the rpm lever. I think that, even getting the big picture, it was a bad move.
If Cessna has achieved the same kind of balanced aircraft with its 400, it can be a success. If not, probably won't be. So simple.
In my opinion, there is nothing in the Cessna 400 that would make me think about trading a Cirrus for it.
Well, perhaps it's 1960 to an untrained eye, but there are a number of differences. The wing probably being the most distinct development from previous low aspect ratio Clark Y designs.
A non Clark Y wing was first implemented by Piper in 1956 for the Comanche. It has a NACA 64 A215 laminar wing section with tapered planform. The Malibu does have a much higher aspect ratio wing.
There is only one Cirrus engineering decision that I do not understand, and it's the elimination of the rpm lever. I think that, even getting the big picture, it was a bad move.
Strictly from engineering point of view, it was. But from a sales numbers point of view, it was very clever. It made the airplane feel modern, more modern than the contenders, even though the engine is just a bog standard IO-550. People want modern things, so they buy the Cirrus. The percentage of people who really understand or care about the downsides of it (slightly recuced NMPG), is minimal. Most buyers are much more superficial with these things. Most won't even know what NMPG stands for.
PS in 1967 Piper (Ed Swearingen) developed a pressurized fuselage for the Comanche, built a prototype and called it the PA-33. The fuselage design of that prototype was later the basis for the Malibu fuselage shape. So by that circuitous route, the Malibu lineage can be traced back to the original 1956 Comanche. However, it clearly was not a low tech, aerodynamically unsophisticated design then or now.
I plucked this from Wiki, a photo of the pressurized 1967 PA-33
Earlier, mention was made of composites enabling dramatic narrowing of the fuselage aft of the cabin, with reduced drag being the result. Monocoupe introduced that feature in 1928, for exactly the same reason. Luscombes were basically Monocoupes executed in aluminum and they got something of the same feature in 1937... but Cessna eliminated it when they copied the Luscombe for 1946.
I believe the Monocoupe pictured also has a contemporary Aeromatic prop, which changes pitch as required without pilot input... a more modern solution than Cirrus has now introduced :-)
boscomantico, and even less buyers do know that the big continental engines shouldn't be run at less than 2.300 rpm. Therefore a rpm lever does not really give you added value.
As mentioned in the thread, insurance in the US is a big reason for these high value hulls being FG. The 182 and Mooney when built in reasonable numbers used to aim at similar price points - while the Mooney is a great airframe (for 2+2), the 182 is probably a more practical overall proposition. No surprise Cessna did not resurrect any of the RG series.
If I were in the market for a turbo high performance SE that seated 'four', the Bellanca Turbo Super Viking would be on the list - real craftsmanship in the spirit of a Bugatti - not a Veyron...
As mentioned in the thread, insurance in the US is a big reason for these high value hulls being FG
Can anyone offer any data on this, either for Europe or the USA?
The whole composite thing hasn't really paid off so far. The Cirrus is damn heavy, zero gain from being composite and the same holds true for the Diamond stuff.
Hmm. I got to fly one of Diamond's demonstrators, a DA-40 with the 180hp Continental engine. It outperformed our club's Piper Arrow in every respect despite having 20 hp less than the Arrow. It was faster, climbed better, used less fuel, had more doors, was more comfortable, better visibility out the windows.
I think the main advantage of the DA40 is a high aspect ratio wing (that plus a small frontal area cabin - my head hits the roof) Whether that's due to composites is open to question. They also have a relatively slow roll rate for the same reason. A friend of mine has a 2004 model and it does climb pretty well for 180 HP and four seats.
Surely two planes with the same weight and same Vs and same HP (thrust) must climb at the same vertical speed.
At such low speeds, aerodynamics won't be a first order factor.
This is because a rate of climb is just a conversion of engine thrust into potential energy. The wing loading is not relevant.
