Lance, that's a fair point but looking at useful loads delivered the same conclusion. Most of the SR22's I saw had a useful load in the mid 1100's.

Lance, that's a fair point but looking at useful loads delivered the same conclusion. Most of the SR22's I saw had a useful load in the mid 1100's.

SR22G3 especially the turbo is a nice plane to fly and the only issue I had with it was the post impact fires. The Cessna 400 is a great plane also and was my first pick for a 4 place SE. The G36 that I flew was also a great plane to fly and meet my needs well but it got close to a used Matrix price wise after TKS and TAT was added so I bought a DA42

Chad,

Have you compared the 2009 SR22 GTS to the 2009 G36? The numbers might surprise you. Below are numbers from both airplanes (without air conditioning to compare apples to apples). I'm going to leave fuel out of the comparison since the Cirrus carries 92 gallons and the Bonanza carries 74 gallons and doing a "full fuel useful load" comparison isn't fair due to the different fuel capacities. As someone said above, having a bigger fuel capacity just means more options - no need to always go "full fuel." I'll also leave TKS out of the Cirrus example since most people opt for that option and it isn't available as an option with the G36.

Cirrus SR22
Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight - 3400
Standard Empty Weight - 2225
Useful Load - 1175

Bonanza G36
Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight - 3650
Standard Empty Weight - 2530
Useful Load - 1120

As you can see, the Cirrus actually has 55 pounds MORE useful load than the G36. What you (and some others) have done is compared the Cirrus to much older Bonanzas. These older Bonanzas are obviously much lighter when empty. I think it is slightly misleading to only compare the SR22 to a 70's and 80's Bonanza when talking about useful load since the Cirrus was built with today's technology (and materials). As a result, it has the 3400 MGTOW limitation do the parachute. It would be awesome if that limitation went away but I doubt it ever will. The G36 suffers from it's own set of empty weight issues due to the materials used in construction, etc. The bottomline is that the G36 is "fat" and in order to fix that issue you need to either add $20,000 tip tanks or a $50,000 TAT system (both if possible), which gives you a 400 pound gross weight increase (250 now, but 400 shortly). That combination is the best way to make a G36 "perfect" and better than anything else out there (in my view).

-Neal

Jim, as I stated in my above post, I think the issue boils down to "vintage." If your F33 were built today, it wouldn't have the useful load advantage that you currently enjoy since its empty weight would undoubtedly be 200 to 300 pounds heavier (just as the empty weight of the G36 is about that much heavier than its older siblings from the 70's and 80's). As we've always preached on here, small airplanes are about compromise. You compromised in some areas to gain in others. I can't argue with that logic at all. No 4 to 6 seat airplane is perfect and it will always be a compromise (actually, all airplanes are a compromise in some fashion, even the 747-400). I applaud you for thoroughly analyzing your situation and the numbers and making the best decision for you and your family (and not just going with the latest and greatest simply because).

-Neal

Thanks for the kind words, Neal. My only attempt at contributing to this thread was to point out that the weight limitation of the new Cirruses is a real concern and can be (often) mission limiting. I agree that this is largely a function of the newer airframe, and certainly in my case, exacerbated by equipment that isn't even available on my airplane. Ok, and there was a little smug..."I dun gooder" implied.

But the point I had hoped to impart was that I thought the Cirrus was a very nice airplane, I liked flying it for the hour or so I got to fly it, and loved the creature comforts that it had. There has been a fair amount of mindless bashing going on in this thread (which is cool, no doubt the Cirrus guys bash Bonanza's (further proving their insanity )) and I wanted to contribute that there are good reasons to like the airplane...and at least one good reason to not like it.

Which is why I expanded those thoughts here. I agree with your take on the matter!

Jim

Jason, you hit the nail spot on.

SR22 G3 made of metal with FIKI TKS - would have made me look at it harder.

hence the A36 that Im making nicer.

I have strapped 33,453 of those little soldiers with parachutes to the empenage, I just have to flip off all of the rubberbands to deploy my CAPS

Looking at those modern designs, I sometimes wonder what could be achieved by using weight-saving construction on the interior and equipment without changing the airframe itself.

- lightweight synthetic fiber instead of leather
- omission of fake burlwood
- carbon-fiber/aramid composite seat shell with foam cushion instead of box-spring mattress on metal frame.
- Use of a headliner with foam instead of composite shells for the cabin roof
- minimal sound deadening materials in the sidewalls
- lightweight carpeting, cheap to replace wear inserts in the footwells.
- reduction in the bloated avionics load. G600, GFC700, 430W, GTX330 and a SL40 for good measure would provide more functionality than a King Gold Crown

I bet 150lbs more payload and 80k build expenses could be realized that way.

Neal, you raise a good point. The G36 was out of my budget range so I never compared it with the others. I was mostly looking at G2 SR22's and the Columbias. I believe the Columbia 400's have a gross weight of 3600 and they still only have useful loads around 1,100 lbs. The Columbia's extra weight compared to the Cirrus is likely due to the utility category which makes it a good comparison to the utility-category A36.

The intent of my original post was not to bash Cirrus or Columbia but to point out that composite technology is not delivering lighter airplanes.

I still think Cirrus makes a fine airplane, just not as light as I would have thought they should be since they're made with composites.

Composite gliders are heavier than the wooden and aluminum ones they replaced. They also offer far superior performance due to the higher aspect-ratio wings, laminar flow profiles and very slim fuselage profiles achievable with composites. But then again, weight is a benefit in gliders, some of them carrry 50Gal of water in wing-tanks for competition flight so weight-savings is not necessarily the highest priority.

A retract Cirrus or Columbia would pick up another 20kts over the current versions and outrun any of the tinfoil contraptions that make up the rest of the fleet (That whole story of how it wouldn't make a difference because they made the gear so aerodynamic is bogus imho).

My dad's Bo is over 60 years old and as solid and tight as day one. It even looks state of the art today. You can't beat a Beech for longevity.

For what it is worth (probably very little) the CEO of Hawker Beechcraft or is it Beechcraft Hawker (or Raytheon) owned a Cirrus when he took the job. I made an offer on it which was rejected. I had a passing thought that Cirrus could run some interesting ads.

Had an interesting conversation with a well-known instructor at Van Nuys about Cirrus equipment problems... he was animated about it. Apparently, he knew a female CFI that actually had a control stick break off in her hand during the flare. Fortunately, it happened at a fortuitous time and settled on the runway anyway, but was very frightening. Should have been an interesting taxi back holding the broken stick and thinking about the "what if's". Does it take that much force to flare?

He won't instruct in a Cirrus anymore.

These anecdotes are always interesting to hear.

As has been reported in this thread by Neal and others, the Cirrus is a fine plane. I owned an SR22 G2 for 3.5 years and 400 hours and it was a great airplane to fly. Brand new in 2004, it was $370K....S-Tec 55X, all glass panel, Skywatch, XM, etc. The side stick is a complete non factor -- it took all of maybe 5 minutes to feel comfortable, and it takes no more pressure to turn or land than any other airplane's yoke.

It is completely natural to fall in love with the airplane you own and/or fly NOW (see poetry below). Right now, I love my Beech, and there are some things about it that seem better than other planes I've owned in the past.

One other thing, just for the record..... someone commented on the reason for the parachute in the Cirrus. It's really very simple: it was not because of any failed FAA certification test, but rather was something that the Klapmeiers decided (long before they produced the Cirrus) to put in every plane they built. I liked having it there, but there is a great debate that goes on within and outside of the Cirrus community as to whether it gives pilots a false sense of security and therefore has them taking more "chances" than they otherwise might take. I don't know the answer to that question, but know that it did not affect my decision-making...
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you're down and confused
And you don't remember who you're talkin' to
Concentration slip away
Cause your baby is so far away.
Well, there's a rose in a fisted glove
And the eagle flies with the dove
And if you can't be with the one you love
Love the one you're with
Love the one you're with .................. Stills, 1070

Except for the most ardent cirrus haters, nobody alledges that Cirrus failed a FAA spin test. They chose to comply with the FAA requirements by alternate means, regarding the motivation for this I guess we have to take the Klapmeiers by their word.....