I fly a G1 SR20 so let me tell you that the really ‘early’ G1s have partial vacuum, partial electrical systems – and vacuum pumps do tend to fail. I’m fortunate, mine is one of the first ‘full electric’ G1 SR20s.
Concerning performance, my home base is a tad over 600m long – no problems landing or taking off, as long as you follow the numbers. My useful load is 386kg, I fly Lean Of Peak with an average TAS of 135knots whilst consuming 9,4GPH. I could fly faster, taking her up to 145 – 150 TAS but then consumption is around 11GPH. Flying lean of peak and having 56 gallons fuel on board, you can fly nearly 5 hours before getting nervous. What I like about the Cirrus is the manoeuvrability – it is much more responsive than (e.g.) a C172 or P28A – and also the comfort – it is so roomy, with wonderful visibility all round. Finally, starting the IO360-ES is a treat. When I hear that 6 cylinder motor start up, it’s music to my ears…..
Any questions, just ask…..
Yes, that’s an important difference i forgot to mention. 386 kg is not bad. I have 450, less than many other SR22s, because of the air condition (30 kg), and the oxygen system (8kg).
150 KTAS on 11 GPH is pretty good I think.
Thanks you guys. I’m still far away from buying my own airplane but this kind of first hand information is very useful to know.
I wouldn’t take an SR20 with your mission profile, honestly. Doesn’t make sense. Too much of a compromise, in every aspect. At least the early model you have in mind. The newer generations have a much better envelope.
Download the Cirrus SR20 App from Gyronimo for the iPad and play a bit with the configurations. You will immediately see what I mean ;))
Here’s an article about the SR20 which seems pretty good
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
It’s actually a terrible article, with many mistskes. For example the author is claiming for years now that the SR20 was not spin-tested, which is wrong.
It was spin tested.
It failed.
But it didn’t need to pass, because it’s got a parachute. Altogether different emergency procedure which is better anyway.
EuroFlyer wrote:
It was spin tested.
It failed.
But it didn’t need to pass, because it’s got a parachute. Altogether different emergency procedure which is better anyway.
really? I don’t see that.
So, according to you, the SR20 failed it’s spin testing yet – strangely – the plane was spun more than 60 times and recovered. The only thing they noted was that the procedure for recovering an SR20 is different to standard spin recovery and, if the correct recovery procedure was not followed, the plane is not recoverable; additionally, the altitude loss until recovery is very high.
What I find interesting is that, looking at the spin recovery technique, it is similar, if not identical to, the recovery technique for a Slingsby T67 Firefly and again, with this aircraft, incorrect recovery technique leads to an unrecoverable spin as demonstrated by a number of unfortunate accidents, including one in North Yorkshire a short while back yet no-one claims this plane failed it’s spin testing – in fact, RAF cadets use it for training. I have the feeling that this ‘old wives’ tale’ about the spin recovery in a Cirrus is another which needs refuting…..
That’s really B.S.
They did 60 spin test for the EASA certification and it passed them all.
The myth that it only got certification because of the chute will stay, like all myths. In reality the FAA simply did not insist on the full spin program, because the preferred method of recovery IS the chute.
This spinning stuff is nonsense anyway because the only place you might ever spin is in slow flight, before landing, and a parachute won’t save you there because you will be too low – especially by the time you realise it and pull the handle.
The only scenarios in which you can genuinely use the chute are e.g.
All but the last one are extremely rare, and this is very evident from the chute pull reports 
But the chute is much appreciated by other family members who are more likely to fly with you as a result.
