That is very interesting. Especially if you put the objective numbers down for these aircraft. Useful load, range, speed, max operating altitude, options, size, comfort, weather capability, high hot performance, take off landing distances, gear/flap speeds, safety, etc. None of those planes beat the Matrix in the majority of those pertinent categories. So why does't the matrix sell better? I owned a Matrix and a Cirrus at the same time. I couldn't get the family back in the Cirrus after we bought the Matrix, mainly from a pure comfort standpoint. In fact I had both aircraft at the same time for over a year, and the only time the Cirrus was flown was with me. Mainly out of guilt and wanting to keep the engine healthy, because I liked flying the Matrix more, was just a more substantial and fun plane. Our family did one more flight in it, that was its last flight before we gave it to the new owner. I have assumed the Matrix's doggy sales was mainly pricing, where it was several hundred thousand more than the other piston singles, and for 125 K more you could get a pressurized Mirage. Now pricing for the Matrix is farther from the Mirage, and closer to the competing SEP's. Does that make a difference? Looks like they have sold 214 of them, but not many recently.

Just curious as I'm now confined to the lowly world of 140 kts/ 9.5GPH and not the 525 kts that I was used to many years ago- How many of you with big engine go fast SEP airplanes actually do most of your flying at speeds above a TAS of 160 kts? Or do you for the most part keep the speeds down to go easy on the engine or save gas? I'm talking "MOST OF THE TIME" here.

OOPS sorry I may have started a thread drift. If so I'll repost somewhere else.

That is very interesting. Especially if you put the objective numbers down for these aircraft. Useful load, range, speed, max operating altitude, options, size, comfort, weather capability, high hot performance, take off landing distances, gear/flap speeds, safety, etc. None of those planes beat the Matrix in the majority of those pertinent categories. So why does't the matrix sell better? I owned a Matrix and a Cirrus at the same time. I couldn't get the family back in the Cirrus after we bought the Matrix, mainly from a pure comfort standpoint. In fact I had both aircraft at the same time for over a year, and the only time the Cirrus was flown was with me. Mainly out of guilt and wanting to keep the engine healthy, because I liked flying the Matrix more, was just a more substantial and fun plane. Our family did one more flight in it, that was its last flight before we gave it to the new owner. I have assumed the Matrix's doggy sales was mainly pricing, where it was several hundred thousand more than the other piston singles, and for 125 K more you could get a pressurized Mirage. Now pricing for the Matrix is farther from the Mirage, and closer to the competing SEP's. Does that make a difference? Looks like they have sold 214 of them, but not many recently.

I agree, the need for a special hangar is one important strike against the Matrix. The other thing is just perception.... Why would you buy a neutered Mirage that has its most important feature cut off? I understand that Piper achieved some weight savings and insurance will be less, but I would guess most people that want a Matrix talk themselves into a Malibu. If an nice used Malibu is less than a new Matrix... A lot of people would lean towards the Malibu.

For Cliff - its only one datapoint , but I run my Bonanza at about 150 KIAS on 13 GPH lean of peak. Engine runs cool and happy, and at 8000 ft or so that's about 172 KTAS. That's good enough fuel economy that I don't feel the need to cut back the airspeed.

In other news, Corvettes (or Vipers, haha ) also do not perform better than Prii at Prius fuel flows.

That FF works out to 65% power if you've got a 300HP IO-550. At the same 65% power setting, I'm burning 13.5 GPH LOP in my 310HP SR22, and getting 167-170 KTAS around 9000'. For Cliff, that is my standard power setting and cruise speed, where 75% of the hours on the plane are spent. I think 65% power LOP is the sweet spot for the bigger Continentals.

That FF works out to 65% power if you've got a 300HP IO-550. At the same 65% power setting, I'm burning 13.5 GPH LOP in my 310HP SR22, and getting 167-170 KTAS around 9000'. For Cliff, that is my standard power setting and cruise speed, where 75% of the hours on the plane are spent. I think 65% power LOP is the sweet spot for the bigger Continentals.

In other news, Corvettes (or Vipers, haha ) also do not perform better than Prii at Prius fuel flows.

Most of the time I'm not saving fuel. 19.5 GPH at 5,000' and at 15,000'+, any altitude.
On the Saturday breakfast run or tooling around my airport I'll bring the mp down a little and run around 15gph. Around 70% power I think.....at 19.5gph.
Usually not paying attention to IAS though.
It still even amazes me how fast it is after 11 years of ownership.
Balls to the wall (both of us) and I put two knots on a SR22 n/a at 5,500' it would have just gotten worse higher. I figured we would be even at 8,000' so I was a little surprised.

The Lancair Columbia has SUPERIOR AERODYNAMICS, bar none.

It is as efficient as an Ovation despite having a bigger cabin, 2 doors and without folding the gear. Both put 10 to 15 knots on the SR22 at same operating parameters.

I typically run my Columbia 300 on 12.5 Gal/h, FL060 - 090 for a solid 170K TAS. Go ROP and burn more fuel and it will cruise 180K - 185K TAS.

ps: that may not be "blowing doors off" but it is still very impressive.

ps2: with 100 gallons usable, I'll let you do the math for the range

The price and weight delta between a matrix and mirage is mostly systems. Boots, radar, etc were lacking on the early models. Just not much (not zero but not much) demand for a new matrix when a very gently used mirage costs the same and a new sr22 costs less.

It seems based on reading the above that cruise speeds / fuel flows are similar for the following 4-seat normally aspirated singles:

170 KTAS / 13 GPH / 550 engine / LOP

Beech S35 / V35 / V35B
Cirrus SR22
Mooney Ovation
Columbia 300 / Cessna

Hard to reconcile all the "mine is better" I am always reading. If 6 seats are needed, an A36 or Cessna 210 will give you the extra room for a few knots reduced cruise speed.

A turbo will give significant true airspeed boost if you're willing to fly high with an oxygen hose in the nose. Informal surveys suggest that some pilots fly that way, many others don't.

Non-intercooler turbos with lower compression ratios will lose fuel economy compared to normally aspirated. Intercooled turbonormalized engines with higher compression ratios are as efficient as normally aspirated.

But ya know, mine really is better

I'm with Michael.
I flew the local club 2015 SR22 on Friday and It handles very well. I would say 60% as good as my 2003 Columbia 350 :

The 2008 Cessna 400 turbo's can be bought with all the bell's and whistles for less than 400k.

Bonanza, Cirrus, Cessna 350/400, Mooney: They are all phenomenal when you really think about it. Cost 12k a year to look at it and an extra $100 to $150 an hour to strap in and go anywhere....almost. I am still amazed after nearly 10 years. I am 50 and for so long I thought I was destined to just look up in the air and wish!

Ok, so which of these can be made in part ok in ice. I believe the Cirrus can be had with TKS and I've heard the Moony's have some option. Obviously the Bonanza's can be fitted with various options. What about the Cessna 400?

Just curious.