Plans for diesel TB20 - great article.

It’s 492 meters over 50 ft according to the POH (for a ground roll of 317 m). And that’s conservative, with full power and 50 flaps very steep angles are possible at Vx

Flyer59 wrote:

With me alone on board and full fuel (307 liters) the ground roll would be 317 meters.

Yes, but I assume that LeSving referred to “take-off distance” which is the distance it takes to reach 50 ft at a safe speed. I don’t have a SR22 POH, but if the ground roll is about 300 m, then I would expect the take-off distance to be around 600 m.

I personally would not feel comfortable with using a 400 m runway with a 600 m take-off distance. Not because I doubt that the aircraft will become airborne, but because my margins will be very small if something unexpected happens.

Very few US Cirrus pilots want to land on runways shorter than 3000 feet. When you tell people on COPA that you go to fields 1800 feet or maybe even shoter, they think you are crazy.

The golden rule: 77 KIAS minus 1 knot for each 100 lbs under MTOM. I regularly land with 72, 71 knots, with the stall warning going off at touchdown and I can land on 400 m no problem, now after I have it for 2 years.

LeSving wrote:

The SR22 is heavy, high wing loading and need 300+ HP to move through the air and 6-700 meters minimum for take off. It is an inefficient design due to the weight.

In order to not contribute too much to thread-slip I will keep this short.

There is a significant difference between US pilots and European pilots flying the SR22. What we Europeans do every day is considered by the US guys short-field operations and maybe even a bit on the edge.

My German but US influenced instructor who partially provided me the introduction to the SR20 rents out the SR20 under the explicit condition not to go to airports with less than 700m of asphalt runway. Recently a renter ran the SR20 into a fence on a 600m hard surface.

Another instructor from whom I was renting his SR22 taught me precise speed control before letting me fly alone and there is really no problem in landing and taking off within the limits Flyer59 just mentioned. It’s all about keeping the approach speed under control (77 IAS per the POH).

I don’t know what you know about SR22s, but the take-off data for MY SR22 for today, would be:

Elevation 1300 ft, Temperature 21 degrees
2 adults, 2 kids
216 liters of fuel
full TKS tank and 50 kg off baggage
t.o. roll: 381 m

With me alone on board and full fuel (307 liters) the ground roll would be 317 meters. Actually, ask Bosco, with full fuel a t.o. from the 400 m runway of Helgoland is no problem.

If we further compare the cabin size of the SR22 and understand that it will fly 200 mph with 4 adults on boad plus baggage and 250 liters of fuel, we can hardly say it is “inefficient”.

What is the cockpit volume of the RV10, compared with the TB20 or the SR22?

I have no idea. The RV-10 is a typical RV; Low wing loading and lots of HP per kg. Can take off and land everywhere, climbs like a rocket, and cruises at 200 mph. The SR22 is heavy, high wing loading and need 300+ HP to move through the air and 6-700 meters minimum for take off. It is an inefficient design due to the weight.

The figures used by in the US in your example are lb/(hp.h)

BSFC [lb/(hp·h)] = BSFC [g/(kW·h)]×0.001644