I looked at a Cessna 400 / Corvallis/ whatever it’s called.

Compared to my Bonanza, it was significantly smaller inside and would not have worked for our 4 person plus luggage trips. I expected to find it would have a much lower empty weight than a Bonanza since it was smaller, but it actually weighed more. My understanding is the FAA has very bad certification rules for composites in light airplanes, where you have to hugely overbuild things just in case there is a one-in-a-million flaw that can’t be detected from the outside. Cirrus is normal category vs utility category for the Cessna... so the problem was much worse for the Cessna.

The TTX is fast and very beautiful, great avionics, great flying qualities. But you just can’t be that small inside and that heavy. And of course the chute.

It’s been said ad nauseum, but the Cirrus SR22 and The 4 seat Bonanzas with the big engines (520 or 550) have similar performance and room inside, when used from the long paved runways we all use. Turbo Bonanzas and turbo Cirrus have similar performance, but there are many more turbo Cirrus and many more Cirrus with TKS deice.

The interesting part to me, is the very different design choices that led to similar outcomes. The Cirrus uses a small, thin wing that is itself more efficient than the Bonanzas wing. The Bo has a wing with bigger area and its much thicker. So the Bo wing has room to fold up the gear, whereas the Cirrus was always designed to leave the gear down. The Bo can use shorter runways and rougher runways, but that is not something many of us do. The Cirrus avoids the possibility of gear up accidents. The weight the Cirrus saves with fixed gear and a small wing is applied to make a parachute possible. The higher stall speed of the Cirrus would make it less safe in a forced landing, but the issue is obviated by the parachute. The thin Cirrus wing is more affected by small amounts of icing, but that is obviated by the TKS that so many Cirrus have.

It’s like an interlocking puzzle with two solutions.

Can't relate too much this one. It's been an absolutely awful winter but I fly 2-3x per week on average and only have had to cancel 3 flights due to weather (more than typical in a 2-3 month period of time) but for the most part, the Cirrus is very highly dispatchable. The flights that I did cancel, I doubt I would've launched in a t-prop or jet as there was substantial freezing rain. One of the flights I cancelled I tried to get to my destination on Delta and couldn't even get there that way either.

If you have enough altitude and the chute actually deploys when activated.

Mike C.

vision g2 is on the cover of the current FLYING rag

Hi Nate - I'm intrigued by your response. You think the TTx with BRS added and taken out of the utility category for better UL is something that would drive sales, but you think the Mako (basically an Experimental TTx) would not be relevant in the market? I'm not arguing - just trying to understand.

The TTx and the Mako are close to the same airplane, except one is half the price. If the FAA modified the 51% rule, and allowed for factory built experimentals to be sold, you still don't think it would eat into the Cirrus market if it was half the price just on account of marketing? You may be right - just trying to understand. I also understand the support of Cirrus is much better than Lancair, but all things being equal (and this may be the issue), I would assume airplane demand elasticity is high.

Too true!

Wiped it out for you John. The dislike fairy is a temperamental being. Making sense of its actions is a fool's errand. Could be they just don't like the Great Gazoo. You just never know.

I do this a lot - forget the things I don't like about the TTx, because every time I see one on the ramp, I just have to stop and stare. Everything about one on the outside is beautiful.

But then I remember the visibility is not good. The rear seats have no room. The ergonomics are not nearly as nice as the SR (Which are incredible - I mean, really incredible. Everything is just in the place that is convenient, and love the FMS), the leather strap used to pull the door down is awful, the inside latch is behind you and hard to reach. And then there's the terrible UL.

So for the Mako, I'd need to look a LOT closer, but the SR has incredibly docile stall controllability, and a lower stall speed. And then there's COPA, and the army of CSIPs, and training material....

With Cirrus, I'm a part of something much larger. I didn't buy a new one, but the company took me in, gave me free training and material, and seems to care.

Yeah, that's marketing, but it works.

The more I fly a Cirrus, the more I love it. It doesn't wear off. It intensifies. It's now surpassed my enjoyment of flying the V35B - something I didn't think I would say.

I know you're looking for an explanation of why the Mako doesn't interest me, but that's all I got. Love the SR. Love the company. Love the training and the trainers. Love the side yoke. Love the room and UL in my clean wing G3. (It's a LOT of cabin room. Someone said it was about the same as a Bo, but the shoulder room is dramatically more.) Love the camaraderie that goes along with all of it.

The chute brought me. The plane and all the rest sold me. The only way I can see myself wandering to another brand is if Cirrus started making them without CAPS.

I guess it could happen. Never thought I'd want anything other than a Bo, until I did.

I know this sounds over the top, and I don't generally do anything but argue the merits, or stats. But it's the only way to answer your question. Planes are about emotion as much as they are anything. Oddly, emotion is the reason some seem to literally hate the brand. Never seen anything like that against any other brand. Look down on? Sure. But despise? Emotion.

I don't think a new brand is going to take many Cirrus customers, but they may be able to build new ones. However, I think that boat has sailed, and Cirrus is not someone I would want to try to out market.

You're like that cheerleader at ACU in Brit Lit - 1 row over and 2 seats back. Really thought I'd won her over. Then... someone else.

I knew not to get my hopes up. But I couldn't help but think what would happen when The Stan got Cirrified. So close. If that first one just hadn't already sold. That Saturday. You should have called THAT Saturday. But no. You wait until, what, Wednesday?

So close.

Did you buy another one ? I remember you sold one in favor of a 182. Maybe I am just getting old.

Lots of nice things about the Bonanzas but the cabin is definitely narrower than the SR22. I've been flying a Baron the last couple of years and occasionally a SR22. The SR22 cabin is 49" wide and the Baron and Bonanza cabins are 42" wide. That 7" is nice.

Damn you Wayne. I don't have the guts.