Why is the 2008 G3 and newer the version to get? Is turbocharged the way to go? I understand the G3 is best value but what about it makes it such?

Thank you!

I recently flew the Cirrus. It was an early SR22 normally aspirated G3 model, 2007 or so. Before buying my share of the Bonanza, I had made plans to buy a Cirrus, at least an older model.

I agree with all that's been said, especially the 4 points written on page 2 or 3 or so. The parachute, the car like appearance, it is just a modern plane and you see it.

However, there are a couple of things I did not like: The trim is being exercised by electrically operated springs acting on the control surfaces. That has nothing to do with the aileron/rudder interconnection in the earlier models. All Cirri, at least that's what I've been told, do the trimming via springs which electrically apply force on the rudder, elevator and aileron. I could not sense the pressure on the sidestick getting lower when trying to stall. I could not sense the wobbly feeling you feel when approaching a stall with a conventional plane. I do not think that this has changed, even the G5 operates that way.

Secondly, I do not like the behaviour in slow flight. There seems to be a very sharp edge between "still flying" and "sudden bank after stall". I just do not feel comfortable at speeds below 80kts. Approch speed is relatively high compared to the Bo, resulting in exponentially increased energy. Sure, can be dealt with, but I didn't like it.

Thirdly, I was not convinced with the takeoff performance. It seemed to have a pretty long takeoff roll. We tried it on a grass airstrip and it felt like forever until we had enough airspeed to lift off. Add load, fuel, temperature, and altitude to that, and I guess it would scare the %#$@ out of me anytime I had to take off from a shorter runway.

It was loud, I thought, much louder than the Bo, with no headset. It got very hot in sunshine, I guess that was owing to the larger windows and the plastic. So I guess the AC is more a must in the Cirrus than in the Bo. But I can be wrong.

Speed was a little better in the Cirrus, but not at all so much that it really counted. We have shorter distances here in Europe, so maybe it does not make such a difference. That may be different in the US. You guys sometimes fly distances, I could get to Moscow in that time....

Again, very nice plane, modern, state of the art, the parachute is a big, big, plus, but overall, I think the Bo is more versatile, has a better envelope, and all in all I am not too unhappy I own one.

I guess, should I ever need an upgrade, for speed and / or safety, I would go for a twin, i.e. a Baron, probably a pressurized one, should I get one. Very good travel and IFR platform, safe, fast, and to hell with the "old" panel. It is a plane, for chrissakes.

Newbie who looked at Cirrus SR22T, Cessna single piston product and Baron G58 before deciding on a Baron.

Cirrus has the look, feel & image of modern, sleek & refined. Their marketing is outstanding. Really very much like high-end, luxury car marketing. Their website is slick. Their videos on product promo outstanding.

Beech is like "your father's oldsmobile". Sure, it has Garmin G1000, but it still looks like they plopped a couple of LCD screens into the dash of "your father's oldsmobile".

Marketing materials, whether physical, .pdf files, web pages or promo videos are similarly anemic. Like someone who was on the writing team for "Leave it to Beaver" was transported into the digital age. Yes it's a .pdf, yes it is webpage, yes it is a video, but they all have the look & feel of a Brylcreem or Aqua Velva ad from 1971.

When people are going to part with the funds required for a new piston aircraft, they want to feel like they are getting a great bang for their buck. They want to have the reality and impression that they are getting the latest technology.

In addition to the parachute, it is no wonder that Cirrus is outselling the other piston singles and the few remaining piston twin models.

Keep in mind that these observations are coming from someone who bought Beech and is very, very happy with the decision. Just saying...

Flew to Duluth for the long weekend.
Instrument approach.
Heck they even have their own waypoint! Cool!

Luc, be careful, it is just a clown waypoint.

So what color scheme did you pick out? I can't wait to see it!!!!!! Do you have a delivery date yet?

So what color scheme did you pick out? I can't wait to see it!!!!!! Do you have a delivery date yet?

So what color scheme did you pick out? I can't wait to see it!!!!!! Do you have a delivery date yet?

I hear what you are saying Luc. Big chunk of change. But a TBM is in a different financial league. At least 300K more and then dealing with the unknown expense of the cost of pressurization etc.... I have often thought the same thing as you. But Tom has convinced me that pressurization really requires the big boy pants. Not sure I'm in that league.

I was just kidding with you. I just thought it was ironic that you chose Duluth the week after Knoxville.

I'll post more on my transition to the 340A on my other thread when I get through the first annual. When people have asked what the 340A has been like so far I say, "The best way I can describe it is remember the Wide World of Sports? Remember that guy going down the ski jump and the voice over, 'The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.'"

At the end of the day you are maintaining a 40 year old airplane. You get used to the dispatch reliability of the Bonanza/Baron, which is high. Even though that costs a lot money, obtaining similar dispatch reliability in a pressurized twin is an entirely different ballgame. It just is. Even if you can afford it, it gives you some pause.

But, when it is all working.

Very true. I owned a 2006 NA SR22 and now have a 2012 TN SR22 and the fit and finish and quality of the materials is much improved. It now is on par with the quality of a high end european car (as well it should be given how expensive these things are!)

Rudy:

Wouldn't that be a SR22T,... I may be mistaken but the Garmin Perspective software makes conversion of the later G3 Perspective aircraft to TN status difficult if not impossible.

Maybe that has changed -