On this we can agree. Before I started flying a Cirrus in 2002, I asked an aviation insurance agent about the record. Stuff was being written about the Cirrus accident rate and I was worried. I was surprised when the agent told me there was nothing to worry about and that the record would get better. He explained that they had seen it before. The SR22 was a high performance step up plane and the pilots were low time in type. New sales were accelerating at the time so even as some pilots passed 300 hours time in type, they were swamped by the new owners. Today sales are much lower than their peak and a lot of owners have had their planes for 5+ years.

A second factor is the difference in training. There are now a lot of instructors who know how to teach about CAPS and integrate it into the emergency decision making process. In 2002 it was much more common to run into instructors who had the mindset that real pilots didn't need a chute. If you look at Cirrus accidents there are a number, including one recently, where the chute was deployed too late. There was plenty of time to deploy the chute within operational parameters. The pilot just waited too long. Contrary to the idea that most pulls are unnecessary, what I see are places where an earlier pull would have saved lives.

They are fast, comfortable, have good handling, and have a chute. They are easy to fly as long as you learn the fundamentals. They also have a chute. That is a big deal for me. I would buy one just for the chute. An SR22 has a great engine also.

The drawbacks are a low baggage capacity in the G1-3, very low useful load in the turbos before the G5, small tires limit airstrips that are accessible, and they are terribly hard to move into hangar in the snow. If you live where it snows you will need a golf cart or ATV.

They fly, taxi, and land very different than a Bonanza. The Cirrus is very responsive and not harmonic like the Bonanza. The first time I went to Taxi it was a crazy experience but you adjust quickly. Landing is very speed specific or they tend to ballon because of the long wings. I compare my Cirrus to a sports car and my A36 I had to a suburban. That is the best comparison I can think of. I went to the Cirrus to get my wife to fly with me which worked and then actually feel in love with the plane.

Try taking the back seats out so you can haul something bulky or try getting tip tanks for it. Don't slow down too much for the base to final turn!

Fly a Cirrus and then fly a Bonanza. Then you will know. You will have become enlightened and you will have no doubt.

I've owned both. What enlightenment should I have discovered?

By the way, I always wonder why a 3.5 year old thread suddenly gets resurrected... Maybe because this particular BeechTalk Cirrus thread was only 8 pages long??

Here let me help this thread out!!!!! Work it boys........

Since someone decided to resurrect this thread, I’ll throw something out to perhaps stir the pot and make it fun - if the 51% rule for experimentals is modified where you could purchase a professionally factory built experimental, would the Lancair Mako eat the SR22’s lunch or at least nibble in a significant manner into its market share?

You get to fly farther, faster and with more payload for something that is arguably more fun to fly at nearly half the cost which would include an optional BRS parachute if you’re so inclined.

https://lancair.com/mako/

I’d like to contribute to this thread and share what it is like to own and fly a SR22TN but given the winter we are having I really don’t remember.

I've owned both. What enlightenment should I have discovered?

By the way, I always wonder why a 3.5 year old thread suddenly gets resurrected... Maybe because this particular BeechTalk Cirrus thread was only 8 pages long??

Too true!

There's a kit that allows you to easily take the back seats out, but I've not seen it in person. I was going to take them out for disaster relief, but managed to load what I needed without it.

G3's and after hold 92 gallons, so I'm good with no tips.

As for no slowing down too much on base to final? Is that unique? I guess I'd say: you too. Let's all watch that.

So is your plane still better? Is mine? Who cares. It's a stupid argument. Different planes for different pilots for different tolerances and desires.

Just because for some reason today, I've decided to play in these threads, I'll say no - it doesn't make a dent.

Impressive plane from the looks, although their competition stats are wrong in several areas, and their stall speed is a bit high. I suspect they would also stall easier than the cuffed wing, but don't know that.

To come close to competing, they need a company as good as Cirrus behind them, and the marketing savvy to go with it. If all it took to sell planes was to have a good one, our tarmacs would look different than they do today.

The only thing close to a threat would've been the TTx with BRS added, and taken out of Utility for better UL, and someone that knew what they were doing to head marketing. THAT'S an airplane I would've looked at. What a pretty airframe.

I've flown a few different airplanes.


I think many (most?) planes have their niche where they "fit the bill". The secret, for most of us, is figuring out what *we* need/want, and can afford....and go buy that one!


Nate has a wonderful Cirrus. I've been privileged to fly with him.


At the moment, a Cirrus doesn't do for me, what some other airplanes will do.


If I could afford a King Air, that's exactly what I'd be running....or a Citation......but, I can't afford it. So, I'm happily getting in what *does* work for me, and enjoying flying.

<<<The only thing close to a threat would've been the TTx with BRS added, and taken out of Utility for better UL, and someone that knew what they were doing to head marketing. THAT'S an airplane I would've looked at. What a pretty airframe.[/quote]>>>>



The TTX is a pretty airframe with some features I wish my Cirrus had. One of the prime reasons I brought my Cirrus is the very roomy cockpit compared to my Cessna.

The only time I ever was in the backseat of a Cirrus was at OSH I noticed there was about 6” room between My knees and the back of the pilots seat. The person sitting up front was asked to put his seat all the was back and he replied that it was already there. Wow!

At an AOPA flyin I sat in a TTX and put the seat all the way back - where I would if I was flying- and there was not enough room for even the legs of a small child. The TTX rep made the comment that, yes, it really was a two seater if the pilot sear had to be all the way back

This may not be a problem for many or even most pilots but I am only 6’2” tall