A few of these recent Brand X threads reminded me that in the context of things, that darn 'chute polarity tends to overshadow so much of the other things about Cirrus as a company and as an airframe that starkly contrast with other piston GA manufacturers.

As has been mentioned here before, they seem to have a reputation of "the only" airframer in the lowly certified piston-single echelon that continually innovates. I would take this a step further and suggest that they seem to be leading the charge for actually interfacing with their customers and improving their product. They have gone from a clunky, poorly built plastic clown plane with essentially the same set of boxes checked as everyone else (for a lot less money) to a really interesting airplane, notwithstanding CAPS.

They have "upgraded" substantially four times in 15 years and incrementally over that. Six point engine mounts, oleo strut, reduced empty weight, better avionics, even better avionics, improved wing, improved exhaust, improved door latches, less bad fuel gauges, increased MTOW, less bad brakes, LED lights, TKS, FIKI, ESP, EVS, TAWS. Hell, now you can even telephone your mother from the comfort of the left seat while departing KTEB at 5:30 on a Friday.

They have, over time, deliberately and methodically reduced many sources of the common gotchas. There is redundancy for some of the more important items. What do the SR22, Phenom, Mustang, TBM, Meridian and G1000 King Airs have in common? They can be ordered with two AHRS and two ADCs. Having a backup system for primary flight instruments is probably overkill for the steely eyed aces here but for average pilots like me, I like to know I can get it. Two alternators? Want a FIKI piston single with air conditioning that can carry four people, luggage and 50 gallons of gas? Airbag seatbelts? Can't get those in a Corvalis. They re-engineered the flaps to be available at almost any reasonable airspeed. A keypad to enter data into avionics? With all due respect to the knob twisting savants out there, I have not seen an airline cockpit in a while without at least one.

They also have a really interesting engineering blog that admittedly toots their own horn, but rather than the indecipherable weekly SB and AD email I get from Cessna, actually explains some of the intricacies of the machine and its systems. They have a substantial body of flight data recording in addition to whatever Savvy gleans from managing XX% of the fleet. For my 182, I have have a POH that suggests I lean "as required" and ensure my fuel supply is uncontaminated before flight.

All in all, I wish just one other manufacturer would try that whole listen-to-your customer-and-make-a-better-product approach instead of resigning themselves to the niche that they all seem to be falling into post 2008. Cirrus' sales numbers would suggest the airplane buying public prefers that approach.

You can love or hate the 'chute as much as you want, but Cirrus' biggest sales pitch should be everything else that goes into the plane. Where are the other guys? How many Bonanza (Baron, Matrix, Corvalis, Seneca, Mooney, 182) sales have been lost to the simple improvements that Cirrus produces every year?

I'll wait til someone else responds and gives me some Cliff Notes.

You mean to tell me you get all of that product improvement and a parachute in case I'm not the next Bob Hoover? And they sell more of these planes than all other manufacturers combined? WOW! I wonder what they'll build next - perhaps a small jet? Seems like a great migration path for their current customer base - wouldn't want to lose them to folks peddling metal skinned airframes with 50 year old technology....

Maybe if they could just incorporate a nifty way to have an internet/email connection while the plane flies its passengers to the next destination they'd sell a few of them.

Peace,
Don

Should I clap or cry?

The next Cirrus big thing might be automatic CAP deployment, im hearing passengers are not pulling the red handle.

Single engine is Cirrus's only game, they need to pay attention to it. The larger manufacturers dont focus on the small stuff. Maybe not enough money there? Maybe no future there?

Whatever! Cirrus had responded and improved. Good for them. They still have a normal category airplane that has not passed spin certification. Hence the chute!

Love all the buttons, but until they give a personal contact of the fellow who built the engine, I do not care to venture into the 800K single engine plane. At these prices, I think they could at least offer a better build for an engine.

It's time for the Jeffs to change the name of this website to CirrusTalk.

You put the Matrix in your list of relics, but doesn't it have nearly all of those things (excepting the chute)?

re: Matrix: Yes, it has almost all those things, with a starting price almost exactly $350,000 higher. It would be substantially harder to gear up in the Cirrus, however onboard radar is available on the Matrix and not on the Cirrus, yet.

re: engine: Yes. These things are handmade antiques with prices approaching those of collectors items. I see no solution. I had high hopes for the RR300 or some similar spinney-thing coming in as a 2x the price (i.e. $200k) 300-400 turbroprop drop-in replacement for turbocharged 540 flat sixes, but my dream has not materialized. I am not wildly optimistic for diesels. I still hope the next step change in aviation is powerplants and I bet it will involve batteries.

re: small airplane economics: I think you are exactly right with this, anyone also producing jets or turbines (possibly excepting Piper) does the piston stuff because it's easier than shutting it down altogether. However, at least 50% of the owner flown turbines I am aware of have a Cirrus or had a Cirrus one the side. At least two others had Cessnas. I suspect any argument that a piston single cannot be written out of the same checkbook at the same time as the twinjet is at least questionable. I don't know how much of the $210mm Cirrus traded for accrued to the equity investors, but the fact that in their darkest days they were worth anything suggests that there is value for smaller piston companies that are willing to fight the status quo.

The uninformed using the same ole talking points is getting old. The EASA put the Cirrus through spin testing before certifying it in Europe. The chute was used in the US instead of the exhausting spin testing. Beings the spin is such an important maneuver how often have you spun your 421?

Its nice to know how to get out of it if it does spin or even start to spin!

Why not certify with FAA? It would help me get over the "why not everbody else has"

Money. FAA was pushing for everyone to certify under stall prevention. After going through it, why spend the money?

Tim

15k brakes and some LEDs... really. The rest of that stuff is available on a 50 year old Bonanza. Who cares. The chute sells that plane.