Why has the SR22 been such a success?

The only issue with the SR22 is the price of junk its wrapped around. I seriously dislike the engine, at some point, it will have to improve. It’s simply a maintenace hog. I recently ran my car for 8hrs and upon shutdown realised how nobody would drive if they burned 20% of their Maintance interval there and a quart of oil! They won’t be able to sell it to the iPad generation.

Note to Cirrus, please improve your engine offerings…

Flyer59 wrote:

Touring piston SEP for IFR in production? Yes, the SR22-G5 is clearly the best as a complete package, I would not hesitate to say that.

I know you won’t agree but I personally prefer the TTx to the SR22T (1). But that is not really the point here. There is in my view even heavier iron in the IFR SEP tourer world – Mirage. Pressurization and weather radar are two highly desirable things to me in a tourer. It’s not perfect but these two things are for me just too big to ignore.

(1) Different people have different needs and priorities. Might not be the most complete package, I have no idea what that is. For example, I don’t have to think about kids as don’t have any.

[ asterisk was interpreted as a list item – how do I write asterisk at the beginning of a line? ]

Well (let’s not get into the Conti vs. Lyco discussion now) … we all share these engines, all the big bore 6-cylinder engines are very similar and of similar quality. While some IO-550s might need one or more cylinders earlier they also run smoother than a IO-540 and have more power.

But I agree, modern engines is what GA needs.

OTOH, sometimes I think: For the price the CD300 STC will cost for sure I can get the 550 overhauled twice …

Martin, the TTx is a great airplane, I do know that. I have flown the firest production prototypes of the Columbia 300 and 400, and I really liked thise planes. But you have to see the plane as a complete package, and the bigger cabin and much better visibility + the CAPS system do make a difference. But whatever, they are both great planes.

The Malibu Mirage is a great plane, but that’s almost another league. It’s not a coincedence many Cirrus pilots in the US upgraded to the Mirage. Pressurization is the keyword, I’d say. The new satellite wx systems can almost give you what you have with onboard radar, for a much lower price.

The only issue with the SR22 is the price of junk its wrapped around. I seriously dislike the engine, at some point, it will have to improve. It’s simply a maintenace hog. I recently ran my car for 8hrs and upon shutdown realised how nobody would drive if they burned 20% of their Maintance interval there and a quart of oil!

I agree, they are all pretty much like that. Any manufacturer of any SEP or MEP producing a certified aircraft of this performance today has three engine makes to choose from (including a diesel). If you want to bring aero engines into the current century then a new engine needs to be developed and certified and the enormous cost of doing so must be funded. Of course we all hope that happens. In the SR22 I flew the engine required almost no unexpected work throughout over a 1,000 hours of its life which I guess is no better and no worse that you would hope.

@Flyer59 I would say the two solutions complement each other. And one has to remember satellite weather has a limited coverage.

As I said, things have changed. The “success” of Cirrus, the market leader in small GA, is smaller than the success of Robinson, in absolute numbers. The market for small helicopters is larger than the market for Cirrus airplanes. “Normally” it should be opposite, by a factor 5 or something.

So far in 2015, more LSA airplanes were sold in the US than Cirruses, and LSA has been considered almost a flop there. LSA is steadily increasing though, but to call an airplane that is less popular than a “flop” a success, is to exaggerate a tiny bit (or to be slightly out of tough with reality). In Europe, the total production of microlight/LSA airplanes, like the Pipistrel, is about 1500 airplanes per year. It’s way beyond the total production of certified GA airplanes worldwide, by a factor 2-3.

Experimental aircraft; 9000 RVs have been built. The completion rate is about 1.5 per day (in 2012), meaning about 550 per year, for RVs alone. Then one has to add all the others (Lancair, all the different Cub clones, Sonex aircraft, all of them). I don’t know what market share the RVs have among all experimentals, maybe 1/3-1/2? Each year at least a 1000 experimentals are completed.

Certified light GA is dwindling, and has done so for the last 20-30 years. New markets have emerged which are more viable. Cirrus entered the market when everybody else had given up introducing something new (Cessna, Piper and so on). The reason Cirrus is a “success” is more due to nobody else really bothers. How long can Cirrus stay afloat producing only a couple of aircraft each week instead of a couple each day?

The reason for this, it’s too much overhead in certified light GA to maintain a sustainable industry. 40-50 years ago a C-172, Cherokee, AA5 etc was it. These were airplanes that could be used for everything from the first training lessons to long IFR journeys and everything in between. They were just as perfect VFR machines as they were IFR machines. There were also some higher end touring machines for a small niche of pilots with lots of money to spend. The Cirrus belong to that niche, the last of it’s kind more or less. Microlight/LSA are taking over in the low end and experimental are taking the mid to high end. There are lots of older “traditional” planes around, but they won’t be here forever.

mh wrote:

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

certification
payload
IFR/Night capability
ruggedness
A

“Beloved microlight” I fly more GA than microlight and have two experimentals. I agree that is the difference though. It’s just too bad that the market is not interested in paying for what it takes to certify these things. The market has changed, new markets have popped up, and certified GA has priced itself out of it.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

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

In some backward places in Europe I guess (UK and Germany), and that is problem number two (for people living there). Just yesterday a member of my club who got himself a Lancair a year ago, posted a picture of EASA EIR/CBIR book on facebook. The speed of the Lancair makes EIR or CBIR worth while even here, in the summer at least, and the cost of owning a Lancair (experimental) also makes it doable for most people. The same goes for RVs in particular and some other.

The experimental Panthera is a nice IFR machine in Europe, except it’s pricey for an experimental. Half the price of a Cirrus, it’s a no brainer though.

Peter wrote:

Today, similar parameters would lead to an SR22.

Not for you, who likes to fly at FL 200 in NA machines (the SR 22 is only certified for 17.500 ft), or would you go so far to choose a Turbo this time?

Flyer59 wrote:

Martin, the TTx is a great airplane, I do know that. I have flown the firest production prototypes of the Columbia 300 and 400, and I really liked thise planes. But you have to see the plane as a complete package, and the bigger cabin and much better visibility + the CAPS system do make a difference. But whatever, they are both great planes.

My Lancair Columbia 300 out performs the SR22 in EVERY PERFORMANCE category: Speed, Climb, Efficiency, Range, Useful Load.

I’ll take performance over CAPS any day of the week …