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.
That’s maybe your opion, but it is not shared by the majority of pilots. I see that you are one of those guys who can only appreciate old stuff ;-)
A Maule MX-7, while it’s a good airplane, is among the ugliest designs that ever saw the light of day. The Cirrus OTOH has very clean and well designed lines. Yes, it has a more “hi-tech” feel than a V-35, but that doesn’t make it “unemotional” or “cold”.
Also: I really know Alan Klapmeier (i mean well enough that he slept on my Sofa). He is not the “cold economist” you want to make him, he was a pilot and aircraft enthusiast from the times his brother and him built kitplanes in their grandparents barn. I remember well how important a clear, modern and functional design was to Alan and how he always talked about he wanted to give the Cirrus the “flair of a BMW”. And I think that he managed that quite well, although they had to make compromises.
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.
Probably a number of factors:
I flew in one. Great build quality – the best in any GA production aircraft IMHO. The Lancair Evolution was similar, probably no coincidence.
Oh, and the DIESEL for the SR22 will be the 300 hp CD-300, not the CD-230.
If you compare the Cabin of the Columbia/Cessna TTx you will very quickly find out that the SR22s cabin is much more spacious and confortable. I like the TTx a lot, the line, the design, the avionics – but the cabin and the visibility can not be compared with the Cirrus.
THe build quality of a G5 SR22 is not one percent worse than the Cessna TTx, at least I cannot see a difference.
I don’t think it’s such an “unemotional” product. (THis is, by the way, the paint scheme i plan to copy once I repaint my SR22, maybe in 2 or 3 years)
I think the majority of pilots worldwide aren’t emotionally ‘turned on’ by the Cirrus, and I agree with mh that it’s a bit dull to have that effect on the average pilot. However among those with the cash and motivation to buy a brand new light plane, that emotional connection is probably not so important in 2015. Pilots (as a group) are not so average, but the world more generally has become a blander, more uniform place, led by global integration, regulation and reduced interest in engineering and technology outside of electronics and software. I think the Cirruses (and Diamonds FWIW) when compared with some other aircraft are just a successful response to that reality, with buyers that are perhaps a little more average in world view (and thereby successful in today’s world) than the average pilot.
Silvaire wrote:
I think the manority of pilots worldwide aren’t emotionally ‘turned on’ by the Cirrus, and I agree with mh that it’s a bit dull to have that effect on the average pilot.
I think plenty of pilots are turned on by it. Not me but I think it is a nice, moderately quick travelling 4 seater. It isn’t like people were turned on by the P210 when it was released.
My experience is completely different. I love to open the hangar and see that shiny, fast and sleek machine, ready for the next adventure. And if you have a look around COPA, they will all tell you the same.
I for one love old Bonanzas, Mooneys or Cubs – and I would agree that the composite planes have a different feel to them. They might not have the sensual qualities of an aluminum plane ( i agree) but they create different emotions.
What an interesting discussion.
I do take from reading the last few pages and am reminded from my own experience that the Cirrus has caused more emotion in aviation than any other aircraft.
Whichever side of the fence you sit, pilots seem to love it or hate it. It provokes lots of old fashion envy, lots of, it is nothing special and it costs far too much, lots of proper pilots and chutes etc, and lots of, its the best thing since sliced bread.
The point was made on the twin thread how many of these views are from pilots who have flown a Cirrus?
It is difficult to reach a balanced view other than from experience.
Not that it makes your views any more or less interesting if you havent flown a Cirrus by the way.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
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.
How do you justify buying an unlimited aerobat, unless you use it to make money? Having to justify everything makes things kind of boring. 
I for one don’t intend to spend all my off-work time with my partner. Yes, our interests have to align to some degree, mainly because a day has a finite number of hours and it’s a huge waste if you have to cut it up in half so you can support your partner doing whatever she wants to do. This is an issue a lot of sailplane pilots have to deal with. It eats a lot of time and can eat all your vacation time if you compete. The only way to get a partner involved is flying as a crew on a two-seater or a team (each in a single-seater) and it might be hard for both to qualify for a competition. And this is no toe-dipping for non-pilots, it’s full-on involvement. Well, she might be a part of the ground crew but then she won’t be with you.
it is very comfortable to have someone to involve in certain aspects of a trip
Indeed. As for the last part about trust, I understand. But trust plays a very important role for me in this kind of a relationship. However, this is quite off topic and not exactly simple.
IFR capability in Europe is something a lot of people simply ignore
Manufacturer typically intends to sell also outside of Europe and CS-23 (FAR-23 or whatever) is in itself quite a hassle, as I understand.
If at all, the certified version, if it ever comes along, has to be taken into consideration.
IIRC they don’t plan to offer anti-icing/ deicing in foreseeable future which would limit the capability considerably.
