I haven’t flown either of them, but on paper, the Columbia always seamed more attractive to me. So why did Cirrus sell so much better? Just wondering.

And what’s the story about that dead horse being spanked anyway?

Answer Question #1: Marketing, built in customers upgrading, safety of BRS (actual or perceived) I also agree that I would take the 400 over the Cirrus. I came pretty close to pulling the trigger on one about 1½ years ago actually right after Cessna took them over.

The dead horse is an old saying. "You can't beat a dead horse" meaning it is not going to go anywhere because it's dead and your effort is wasted. For modern day internet purposes it means this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, and you are not going to get any new information.

And Yves real pilots don't fly PA-39's

Really? Care to come demo that in my PA-39???



stan

Time to market and the chute; I know four Cirrus owners who moved up from the 172 level and were essentially ordered (three by SWMBOs and one by a HWMBO) to buy Cirrus because of the chute; they might have done it anyway but the spouses removed all doubt. If the Columbia had got to market first it would have been a horse race, although Cirrus PR and marketing was so good as to make all other light airplanes vanish for a short time. Columbia was also in constant financial peril while Cirrus had big money backing them.

I'd never want either (I like aluminum), but I've been a passenger in the 400 and it is damn impressive.

Why did VHS outsell Beta ?
Why Blue-Ray not HD-DVD ?

>Why did VHS outsell Beta ?

VCRs started out exclusively as time shifting devices; the mass market for pre-recorded tapes took several years to develop (led by porn, as always). VHS had far greater recording time per cartridge when tape costs were very, very high. More than anything that was the decisive factor. Beta had better quality but not so much that most people could tell the difference and certainly not enough to get people to pay more per recording hour.

Blu-ray escapes me; I just don't see enough of an improvement over standard DVDs played on a good upscaling player to bother with it.

the real reason cirrus won - two words - NOSE GEAR!

the columbia nose is FUGly

I love my SR22. I think they're waaaay better than the Columbia. Bigger too.

I don't buy into speed tests done at 25000 feet.

My primary concern when I looked at the Columbias (as compared with the Cirrus) was the likelihood the company would go belly up. This was well before it actually happened, fwiw. We know now that everything turned out ok, but with such a small delivered base, those planes could have just as easily become lawn ornaments. Cirrus, on the other hand, was on much stronger financial footing.

Cirrus delivered on SVT, the G1000 Perspective system, Turbo Normalizing verses Turbo Charging, FLIR option, and the parachute. It has obviously had more development investment such as the G3 and the Known Ice certification. Better resources, better execution, better support. They are not in the same league.

The Cirrus is a very nice plane. Comfortable, roomy, it has a parachute, and the marketing was brilliant.

They did not market to pilots. They marketed to people who needed to get more time in their lives.

Cirrus probably brought more people into general aviation than any entity in the last 20 years.

A TN Cirrus is faster than a TN Bonanza.

Tom,

Do you have any published performance data for the A36TN. I don't believe the SR22T is faster than the A36 at the same horsepower. The SR22T performance numbers are based on 85% of 310 HP (263.5 horsepower) and 17.6 GPH. The A36TN has 300 HP, so if it is operated at 75% it would be developing 225 horsepower (15.1 GPH) or at 85% it would be developing 255 horsepower (17.1 GPH).

If there isn't published data available, what kind of performance do you expect from the 36TN at 10,000 ft, 14,000 ft, and 18,000 ft? It is my impression that the A36 airframe is cleaner than the SR22 airframe and if it had the same powerplant, it would be faster. The A36 is certainly a better glider and has a greater useful load.

From the SR22T performance charts:

Assumptions: Cruise weight 3200 lbs (Payload and fuel equal 690 lbs), ISA

Pressure Altitude, % Power - TAS

10000, 85% - 182 Kts , 75% - 174 Kts, 65% - 165 Kts
14000, 85% - 189 Kts , 75% - 181 Kts, 65% - 172 Kts
18000, 85% - 198 Kts , 75% - 189 Kts, 65% - 179 Kts

John, you may be right if both are run at the same HP, but then again, the Cirrus is much lighter (less useful load, too).

I'm pretty sure George B. said their Cirrus is faster than their Bonanza.

It's main claim, though, is that it's comfortable.

Tom,

The SR22T I fly weighs 2510 lbs empty and has a max GW of 3400 lbs. I am sure that Cirrus owners routinely fly their aircraft way over gross when they fill it up and carry four. It is a two place airplane with luggage if we fill it to the tabs at 60 gallons and I personally don't find it more comfortable than my 68 V35A, but maybe I'm biased.

My customer and I weigh 410+ lbs between us and can not fill the tanks and be within the max gross weight limit. It is extremely nose heavy and is very sensitive in pitch and roll. On landing you have to be careful on judging the flare or you will run out of stick and hard landings can be trouble. When we fly the SR22T, we put 50 lbs of weights in the luggage compartment and restrict our flaps to 50% on approach, this gives it a more normal landing control.