BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jan 2013, 11:11

Username Protected wrote:

So is it a higher gross weight or they made it lighter or a combination of both to get more useful load ?

200# increase in max gross. That required redesigning the chute, gear and flaps (keep 60 knot stall). Flaps now go to 50% at 150 knots vs. the old 119. In real world usage this is a big deal. Bonanza owners who get to drop the gear and use it as a speed brake can appreciate how meaningful the change is. The real hard work was making almost all of the 200# max gross increase go to useful load while beefing up the landing gear and increasing wing spar strength.

Someone else commented on fit and finish. I would still rate a new G36 as better but Cirrus has come a long way from their early planes. There is no comparison between a 2013 and a 2001. A 2001 Cirrus isn't even vaguely close to a 2001 Bo in fit and finish. Then again it cost a lot less. The SR22 has shifted dramatically in price relative to the competition as you go from 2001 to 2013 so there had to be a lot of fit and finish improvements.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jan 2013, 11:43

Username Protected wrote:

Prior to buying my G36, I flew numerous Cirrus planes as well as Saratoga and Cessna. Main decision points came down to 6 seats, quality of construction, resale, and composite vs metal. In addition, I am one of the few I guess that thinks the best days of aviation are still ahead. We have some very smart people working on alternative engines, better avionics, safety items, etc. We simply have no real idea of what GA will look like in 2030 right now but people will continue to get tired of TSA checks, packed flights, etc. Flying IMHO is much easier than it was in the 70s with modern tech and I cannot wait to see the future GA airplanes from around the world (who says it is essential for the US will continue to lead the way???).

+1

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jan 2013, 12:46

Username Protected wrote:

Hey great, so 40 years later, the NA Cirrus is right back where the Comanche 260C left off in 1972

The Comanche was possibly the best airplane Piper ever built. It's a shame that they killed production after their plant flooded. With 40 more years of continuous production improvements, it could have provided serious competition to the Bonanza AND the CIrrus.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jan 2013, 13:43

Username Protected wrote:

Hey great, so 40 years later, the NA Cirrus is right back where the Comanche 260C left off in 1972

Well except the Comanche was not certified to Part 23, had no parachute, no Garmin G1000, no leather interior, no turbocharger (I'm not sure on that), no oxygen, etc. I realize that some will see that as an advantage, a purer flying experience. I don't disagree.
However when it comes time to load up the family for a ski trip I would rather have the 2013 model. Just different expectations.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jan 2013, 14:54

Username Protected wrote:

Some Comanches had leather interior, oxygen and turbochargers. Of course none were ever equipped with a G1000! Some were equipped with a large 400 HP eight cylinder engine though.

That was the Comanche 400. It had a Lycoming 0-720.

While I am a committed Beech guy, that aircraft provided some serious bragging rights. While its top end was not extraordinary (although it was quite good), it's T/O performance was impressive as was its sound when it started and flew away.

Cooling the rear cylinders on those beasts was always a problem.

Still, cool machine.

Every now and then, a beautifully restored 400 will pop up for sale.

They are, now, rather few and far between.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jan 2013, 15:17

I know where there's a 400 owned by a man who lost his medical at least 10 years ago, but he won't sell it. I think he's waiting for the FAA to change the rule. :doh:

New Cirrus G5 Announcement Tomorrow