Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Why has the SR22 been such a success?

Flyer59 wrote:

The main reason is that it’s best pisron single engine airplane on the market.

No, it isn’t. That would be the EA300 or the Maule MX-7 :-)

LeSving wrote:

More Cirruses are sold than C-172s, but it’s more a battle between the last living dinosaurs than a tale of success.

No, it isn’t. The main differences between your beloved microlights and what you call a dinosaur are:

  • certification
  • payload
  • IFR/Night capability
  • ruggedness

All three aircraft – the Virus, the Cirrus and the 172 – play in totally different environments and are aimed at totally different owners or operators. It’s a fairy tale, that the “answer” (to a question that hasn’t been asked) lies in microlights, because it all depends on the task. If you are just flying for a 100$ hamburger, solo or with a second light bloke, you might be fine with a microlight. I would need at least 250kg full fuel payload to even start considering an aircraft. Just to fit my wife and me, a tent, two foldable bikes, a bag of clothes and a crate of beer. And of all my flights this year, less than 1% could have been made in a microlight, purely for this reason (and for limitations to daylight only). And I just recently “sold” an old Archer II to a flight student of mine, because it was best value for what he wants to do and there was a good offer. (A D140 wasn’t in the budget, unfortunately). There was no way, he would be satisfied with what any microlight had to offer. So you can’t argue about any aircraft without taking into consideration the task it has to fulfil.

Take that “dinosaur” Cessna 172 for example. It is Cessnas optimized mediocrity, so to say. It is that easy to fly, that you can let anyone fly who has a current license. You have a good mix of payload, range, cruise speed, comfort, visibility, ruggedness, fuel consumption, durability and simplicity, without “paying” too much to one side. More speed costs either comfort, payload, fuel consumption or simplicity; more comfort costs either speed, or payload or fuel consumption, and so on. This is why the Cessna 172 is going to stay, and why it has been sold so often.

The problem with new airframes is a very strong and competitive used market. You can buy a Cessna 172 with new paint, new engine, updated avionics and new interior for a little less than half of the new asking price. We operate a “legacy” Cessna 172 from 1961. This bird is more reliable than our Aero Clubs C42 and more ergonomic, too. It does deliver the necessary payload (253 kg full fuel with 4,5 hrs endurance at 100 knots without reserves) and we can rent it out from time to time.

As for the Cirrus, it can’t be a “best aircraft” without defining the task first. It’s not a good “sightseeing aero club” plane, as a C172 or P28A would be. It’s not a good backcountry plane, as the MX-7 is. It is not a good aerobatic trainer as the Decathlon and it is not a good competition aerobatic plane, as the EA300. It is a good personal traveller and it largely depends how you evaluate the chute in order to know it the TTx wouldn’t be better, or the M20, BE36… They are pretty close together.

The Klapmeier brothers are economists and have had a business plan before starting that aircraft design. The SR-22 is a direct outcome of the requirements, their market analysis dictated. They had envisioned their market segment and built an aircraft for this segment. Many, if not most, other aircraft designs have been developed the other way round, especially in the microlight sector: Someone wanted to build an aircraft, and then developed some business case around it. Sometimes this worked, many times not. This is why so see so many similar designs (sometimes not very good designs, either) and many small companies building some aircraft besides doing something else to earn money.

As a result of this economic process, the SR22 is a very unemotional design. It is functional, but without the sex appeal of a Cessna 195, without the ramp appeal of a Beech 35, not a thoroughbred like the M20, not dreamly like the Bellanca Cruisemaster. It’s cold, uniform and clean. It’s a tool and inconspicuous and does not make an emotional statement. It’s almost boring and has become what Saint-Exupéry described as the perfect machine, just blending in it’s environment. That is “the cirrus life”. You can sell it to anyone. It doesn’t stand for anything, like Mooney stands for efficiency, Beech stands for stability, Socata stands for ergonomics.

Last Edited by mh at 14 Oct 16:23
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

As a result of this economic process, the SR22 is a very unemotional design. It is functional, but without the sex appeal of a Cessna 195, without the ramp appeal of a Beech 35, not a thoroughbred like the M20, not dreamly like the Bellanca Cruisemaster. It’s cold, uniform and clean. It’s a tool and inconspicuous and does not make an emotional statement. It’s almost boring and has become what Saint-Exupéry described as the perfect machine, just blending in it’s environment. That is “the cirrus life”. You can sell it to anyone. It doesn’t stand for anything, like Mooney stands for efficiency, Beech stands for stability, Socata stands for ergonomics.

This is no less biased and opinionated as anything else previously written in this thread on any other thread about aircraft types.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

mh wrote:

It doesn’t stand for anything

I don’t think that is how the marketplace sees it. For many in this market the Cirrus stands for modern design coupled with a comfortably equipped cabin and first and foremost for safety due to the shute.

mh wrote:

It’s cold, uniform and clean. It’s a tool and inconspicuous and does not make an emotional statement.

That is a question of taste. I see the Cirrus in a flight line quite often and would disagree. It looks modern, rather larger than it is due to it’s high landing gear and fairly big cabin and looks faster than it actually is.

When I see how uninformed people react to a Cirrus as opposed to older designs, it may well be near the same reaction you get in a car show towards a modern flashy sportscar as opposed to a family van with classical lines. Add to that a rather well thought through paint job they have since the start, and you just get the image which has sold them quite a lot of airplanes. Quite a few companies are trying to imitate that.

mh wrote:

The Klapmeier brothers are economists and have had a business plan before starting that aircraft design.

Exactly. They do understand marketing, they do understand how to place a product and how to sell it. Apart from that they love airplanes. Which is for many other makes the only thing they got in common with whoever leads those companies.

For any product, airplane or not, a business plan based on market research, product development and clever marketing is a make or break criteria. Just look at the I-phone vs Android e.t.c. mania. I have not seen anyone camping outside a Samsung store, but I’ve come across the night campers for the new I-phone.

I would think the Cirrus in many ways compares to the Iphone and the Apple product lines in opposition to others which are in many ways better in the whole, yet people will not budge from them because they just “Feel” it is the right product for them.

Which of course means, the Cirrus is anything but an unemotional product. On the contrary, emotion has a LOT to do with its success. Someone who values speed and efficiency would buy different, someone who needs particular performance would buy different, someone who needs maximum range would buy different, yet a LOT of buyers are willing to compromise just to get into that family.

I say this without valuating the product per se, but I have to hand it to Cirrus that they were the only ones who managed to hit the market in this way in a very long time.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 14 Oct 16:59
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Martin wrote:

There is a bright side to this. If your partner prefers to drive to the destination (or fly commercial), you can throw practicality out the window and just buy something fun, something just for you. As long as you can comfortably afford it.

In most cases, that will mean you won’t do anything at all. Everything has to be justifyable in some way or the other, otherwise it will rise opposition. Apart, i would not be interested in anything which excludes my partner. I married her to be together with her, not apart.

Martin wrote:

what seems to help is getting the other party involved in aviation. Fear comes for a large part from not understanding, not feeling in control etc

Absolutely. Not only for the fear part, but for very practical reasons too. On long trips, it is very comfortable to have someone to involve in certain aspects of a trip, not unlike when you go on a long road trip and can share time at the wheel.

Martin wrote:

For me, the bigger issue is that is shows lack of trust.

That is a valid concern, but that is just human. In fact, someone who doesn’t know you that well may have more trust in your abilities than someone who has for years withnessed our daily weaknesses. How would the guy who can not put an Ikea wardrobe together in 10 minutes flat, who can not fold his t-shirts to her liking or who had that fender bender 30 years ago fly an airplane safely? You would be surprised to know what kind of thoughts come up in the sheer panic people find when they have to totally abandon control to someone. Just think of all the small things you remember which are bound to happen in a relationship and which show weaknesses. All of those come up in times like that.

In the Mooney forum there is a thread currently about a flying couple who had a gear collapse, the cause of which could not definitly be established. They are both PPL’s and the wife was on the controls. They appear to be sufficiently traumatized (their words, not mine) about this relatively trivial event that they are in dire straits on how to continue flying, to me it appears the have totally lost confidence in the airplanes they might want to buy, and they have even decided not to repair theirs as they never want to fly it again after this. Totally inexplicable to me but that is what even small events can trigger.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

One of the biggest differentiators between the Cirrus is the cabin.

It feels like you’re sitting in a high end German car, rather than a ‘dinosaur technology’ aeroplane.

No other manufacturer offers this, no matter how much you spend.

Peter wrote:

OK, we know the Panthera is not yet available:

Even if it was, you are listing the non certified experimental prices.

Martin wrote:

So it doesn’t really illustrate how much are people willing to pay for IFR capability as such. I can only guess that the demand for IFR capability is large enough to warrant certifying for it when going to the trouble of CS-23 certification in the first place.

IFR capability in Europe is something a lot of people simply ignore as until recently an IR was a major investment in time and money and outside of most people’s financial and time possibilities. Some of them found the solution in buying VFR only airplanes which in return are equipped very well indeed and quite capable too (the Virus for starters is quite fast!) I think this will change if the “new” IR really takes hold and more people become interested in IFR capable planes.

The Panthera in that configuration (experimental) is really VFR only which for a 200 kt cruiser like it is quite pointless in Europe. If at all, the certified version, if it ever comes along, has to be taken into consideration. And it may well be very popular indeed if it only halfways fulfills the claims Pipistrel have made about it. It would be even more interesting for many folks if it was offered with a Diesel.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

I expect we’ll see the CD230 diesel engine in the Cirrus shortly. It’ll make it very attractive to the European market.

Question is whether they can tweak the design of a 230hp diesel to produce similar performance to the 315hp SR22. This smaller turbo diesel with FIKI might even be enough for Europe.

“July 21, 2015
Continental Motors won certification of its CD-230 230-horsepower diesel engine in recent weeks and expects to be working with a “large and interesting” customer for the engine in 2016” avweb

…there is only one ‘large’ customer.

Last Edited by DMEarc at 14 Oct 17:49

The Panthera in that configuration (experimental) is really VFR only which for a 200 kt cruiser like it is quite pointless in Europe

I don’t want to digress too much but, yes, totally agree. I didn’t realise they were doing that. At Aero 2014 they were quoting €400k or so for the full-spec IFR one (we have various threads here on it). An uncertified Panthera will be a dead product because a plane with that capability will be no more than a homebuilt Lancair (or similar) except with an assured build quality and a lot more comfort (a Lancair 320/360 is a really tiny plane, which is why it goes fast on so little fuel). It will still need permits to fly to most of Europe – as all uncertified planes (except ultralights AFAIK) do. It will be usable but it will have to for ever operate “below the radar”. And that’s before you get onto the residence limits for uncertified non-domestic-reg aircraft (6 months is not unusual) which needs to operate even more “below the radar”.

IFR capability in Europe is something a lot of people simply ignore as until recently an IR was a major investment in time and money and outside of most people’s financial and time possibilities. Some of them found the solution in buying VFR only airplanes which in return are equipped very well indeed and quite capable too (the Virus for starters is quite fast!) I think this will change if the “new” IR really takes hold and more people become interested in IFR capable planes.

IFR capability is however nearly always linked to being certified. So IFR capability is nearly always linked to being able to plan a flight across Europe, file it, jump in, and go. Whereas if you are uncertified you have to get the overflight permits (in theory; there is no apparent enforcement in the system) and IMHO this is a huge damper on activity.

There are loads of certified planes which are not IFR capable de facto. I’d say most of the PPL training fleet isn’t IFR capable But if you do buy a shagged old C172 you can jump in and fly it to Greece, or whatever…

Question is whether they can tweak the design of a 230hp diesel to produce similar performance to the 315hp SR22.

We have seen this play out with the 230HP SMA, which has “flown” in various IO540 (250HP) planes.

It seems that nobody wants to lose power – even though by a few thousand feet you are equal, due to the diesel having a turbo. 230HP v 250HP really affects runway performance.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

How on earth should a 230HP engine give you the same performance as a 315HP engine?

What matters is max (reasonable) cruise power, which in the SR22 is 85%, so 268 HP – even if the Diesel could be run sensibly at 100% there is no way to match that.

Altitude performance will also be worse because the critical altitude for that Diesel engine is 10,000ft.

All in all, the hypothetical Diesel Cirrus will be more like a SR20 than an SR22 in their performance.

Biggin Hill

stevelup wrote:

One of the biggest differentiators between the Cirrus is the cabin.

It feels like you’re sitting in a high end German car, rather than a ‘dinosaur technology’ aeroplane.

No other manufacturer offers this, no matter how much you spend.

How about the Cessna 400? What I saw its cabin is also pretty nice and about the same width. I think the Columbia/Cessna 400 is the airplane which really lost out to the Cirrus purely for it’s lack of the parashute.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top