Cirrus success

[Bell206]

Think you're defining a product segment, not a market segment.

Not really. Market segmentation focuses on the customer. And Cirrus has defined which customer group they target and have adapted their product/strategy to meet that need. To say Cirrus influences an entire market segment simply because they have higher sales volume is missing the point.

But I’m hardly an expert on this and simply sharing the trends and data I have seen/used from people who track this for a living. Regardless, some people will only look at a Cirrus… or a Bonanza... as being the cats azz with no peer and that’s fine too. However, within the industry there are those who get a chuckle out of these discussions just like I do on occasion.

 

[Hang 4]

IMO, Cirrus isn’t the Bonanza’s primary competition. If you can buy a SETP for not much more, or a good King Air 90 for half as much, why go for a Bonanza?

$/operating hour. SETP puts you in a whole different level.

 

[MauleSkinner]

$/operating hour. SETP puts you in a whole different level.

A new Bonanza is already a whole different level.

 

[robin ardoin]

@flyingcheesehead said “ Well, I mean, you can, if you want to go that slow. ”

I say….

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don’t know the reasons, but Purdue started using Cirrus for 10 years then shifted to Piper. I’m guessing parents liked that (I know I would).

Parents liked Cirrus, or the shift to Piper? You must have meant Cirrus, right? With the chute, and the wings that don't fall off?

There must be something to the recurring mx ledger of these composite BRS equipped bathtubs that isn't competitive against a 172s/PA28s.

If it was 10 years, maybe it was the chute repack? I've never had to maintain a Cirrus, so I don't know of any other things that would show up there, except maybe they were putting enough time on them that they were starting to get too close to the 12,000 hour airframe life limit to be worth anything when sold?

I second those comments for the Tecnam twin and the Diamonds, before people think it's a cirrus specific critique as a trainer.

I don't know much about the Tecnam twin either. For the Diamonds, they have a progressive maintenance program that is not at all costly and results in there being no airframe life limit. It made a GREAT plane for the club, maintenance was only about 50%-60% per hour what it was on the metal birds.

@flyingcheesehead said “ Well, I mean, you can, if you want to go that slow. ”

I say….

View attachment 136770

That's nice and all, but what's your fuel burn?

I keed, I keed! The 210 is a damn nice airplane.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Parents liked Cirrus, or the shift to Piper? You must have meant Cirrus, right? With the chute, and the wings that don't fall off?

Yep, the Circus

 

[robin ardoin]

“That's nice and all, but what's your fuel burn? ”

Now, why do have to go and bring that up??.

That was the previous owner and running just over 19gph. I’ve been running it at 18gph, 175-178 TAS 7-9K, 125 ROP. I tested LOP at 7500’ last flight and it made 165+kt, 13.8gph, 40deg LOP. Load it to max gross and I ain’t getting those numbers I bet.

 

[Anthem]

“That's nice and all, but what's your fuel burn? ”

Now, why do have to go and bring that up??.

That was the previous owner and running just over 19gph. I’ve been running it at 18gph, 175-178 TAS 7-9K, 125 ROP. I tested LOP at 7500’ last flight and it made 165+kt, 13.8gph, 40deg LOP. Load it to max gross and I ain’t getting those numbers I bet.

It really likes higher. I know oxygen becomes an issue but the turbo 210 really likes to be between 15-20k.

 

[robin ardoin]

It really likes higher. I know oxygen becomes an issue but the turbo 210 really likes to be between 15-20k.

Yep, I just have not had a trip yet warranting higher than 9K or so. I'll have some 600-800 mi trips in the late spring and summer where I hope to get her up there. In the meantime I need to get it up to 15K or so to check the TC/WG function.

 

[FastEddieB]

Not to say other aircraft might not be equally efficient, but I recall being very impressed when I moved from my Tiger to an SR22.

A typical flight was from S FL to N GA, about 580nm. My recall may be a little off, but the Tiger did the trip in about 5 hours at roughly 132 kts and 10 gph. With 50 gal fuel, a fuel stop was virtually always required.

The same flight in the Cirrus was about 3 1/2 hours at roughly 172 kts and 13.5 gph. Burning about 47 gals instead of 50. Quite impressed by arriving an hour and a half sooner while burning less fuel!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not to say other aircraft might not be equally efficient, but I recall being very impressed when I moved from my Tiger to an SR22.

A typical flight was from S FL to N GA, about 580nm. My recall may be a little off, but the Tiger did the trip in about 5 hours at roughly 132 kts and 10 gph. With 50 gal fuel, a fuel stop was virtually always required.

The same flight in the Cirrus was about 3 1/2 hours at roughly 172 kts and 13.5 gph. Burning about 47 gals instead of 50. Quite impressed by arriving an hour and a half sooner while burning less fuel!

Efficient airplanes are awesome. I can do 175 KTAS on 12gph at 9-10,000 in the Mooney, with an extra 3 gallons burned for startup, taxi, takeoff and climb. So, that trip would probably be about 43 gallons and yes, just shy of 3.5 hours. If going places is your mission, this class of birds is in a sweet spot where the price/performance is fantastic.

 

[Rockymountain]

first with a glass panel (Avidyne, a year before the G1000 came out)

I think Piper was first to put glass in a light GA aircraft. The 2001 Meridian was certified with the Meggitt glass panel. Later updated with Avidyne then Garmin. Back then Cirrus was using the Sandel 6-pack

 

[asicer]

A typical flight was from S FL to N GA, about 580nm. My recall may be a little off, but the Tiger did the trip in about 5 hours at roughly 132 kts and 10 gph. With 50 gal fuel, a fuel stop was virtually always required.

The same flight in the Cirrus was about 3 1/2 hours at roughly 172 kts and 13.5 gph. Burning about 47 gals instead of 50. Quite impressed by arriving an hour and a half sooner while burning less fuel!

5 hours in the Tiger included the fuel stop? 580nm at 132kts should be 4.39 hours burning 43.9 gallons at 10gph.

 

[3393RP]

5 hours in the Tiger included the fuel stop? 580nm at 132kts should be 4.39 hours burning 43.9 gallons at 10gph.

Maybe his refueling stops include a few minutes checking the weather or whatever. "About" 5 hours doesn't mean exactly, nor does "roughly" mean the same.

 

[FastEddieB]

Maybe his refueling stops include a few minutes checking the weather or whatever. "About" 5 hours doesn't mean exactly, nor does "roughly" mean the same.

Thanks. Yes, it was an approximation. My flights were before “GPS direct” everything, so vectors out of Miami and doglegs in Victor airways and time to climb all factored into “about” 5 hours flight time from wheels up to landing. Not to mention headwinds always being more of a factor than tailwinds.

My point still remains: as efficient as the Tiger was, the Cirrus was even more so for this typical flight.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think Piper was first to put glass in a light GA aircraft. The 2001 Meridian was certified with the Meggitt glass panel. Later updated with Avidyne then Garmin. Back then Cirrus was using the Sandel 6-pack

Aha, I remember them. I guess I wasn't paying attention to the Meridian because I wasn't particularly interested in things I'd never be able to afford.

I did find one for sale that still has that system, and it's... Well, it's barely glass!



Maybe Cirrus was just the first piston with glass? You're right that they were still a 6-pack with Sandel HSI and an Avidyne MFD in 2001, but they had the full Avidyne system by 2003. The G1000 exploded onto the market in 2004 with Diamond, Cessna, Mooney, Columbia, and others all adopting it immediately.

 

[asicer]

Maybe his refueling stops include a few minutes checking the weather or whatever. "About" 5 hours doesn't mean exactly, nor does "roughly" mean the same.

OK, so he burned 6 gallons checking the weather?

 

[asicer]

Thanks. Yes, it was an approximation. My flights were before “GPS direct” everything, so vectors out of Miami and doglegs in Victor airways and time to climb all factored into “about” 5 hours flight time from wheels up to landing. Not to mention headwinds always being more of a factor than tailwinds.

My point still remains: as efficient as the Tiger was, the Cirrus was even more so for this typical flight.

OK, I guess that makes sense for this particular flight. 132kts at 10gph is 13.2mpg while 172kts at 13.5gph is 12.7mpg, so a simpler fuel stop and calmer winds would have favored the Tiger.

 

[eman1200]

 

[mandm]

Efficient airplanes are awesome. I can do 175 KTAS on 12gph at 9-10,000 in the Mooney, with an extra 3 gallons burned for startup, taxi, takeoff and climb. So, that trip would probably be about 43 gallons and yes, just shy of 3.5 hours. If going places is your mission, this class of birds is in a sweet spot where the price/performance is fantastic.

Which Mooney is this?

 

[mandm]

A 20-25 year old Cirrus runs about 225-250k+ for which you’re getting a newer airframe and great equipment. Prices have been going up a little since Covid. Imagine if we had 40-60 year old Cirrus, what would those be priced at? I’m guessing in another 10 years, maybe the G1 will be closer to 100k. If Cirrus was around longer and used market offered <100k then that would be a great entry point for first aircraft. But you cannot find 1920s / 1950s / 1970s Cirrus so we are stuck with Beechcraft, Mooney and Pipers.

I’m at 130kts / 150mph with my Arrow, it’s slow, but it’s faster and more fuel efficient than a Cessna. I definitely want to consider a 200mph+ airplane next so these Cirrus and other airplanes that quote 180kts+ are definitely attractive. I’ll play with my Arrow longer with the new upgrades and then I’ll keep my eyes open for something faster. Probably would be better if I could test fly one on a trip so we can decide if it’s worth changing airplanes.

 

[eman1200]

...Probably would be better if I could test fly one on a trip so we can decide if it’s worth changing airplanes.

the fly-ins are great times to jump in different planes, lots of people willing to give test drives. of course almost everyone, and I mean ALMOST everyone, doesn't have a cirrus at the fly-ins, so you're probably out of luck there.

 

[eman1200]

also, and again, NOT trying to bash cirrus, but the amount of used cirrii compared to other makes that have been around significantly longer is a red flag for me. I wonder if someone knows the ratio of total planes ever built to total used planes available for each manufacturer. seems like a high percentage for cirrus.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

also, and again, NOT trying to bash cirrus, but the amount of used cirrii compared to other makes that have been around significantly longer is a red flag for me. I wonder if someone knows the ratio of total planes ever built to total used planes available for each manufacturer. seems like a high percentage for cirrus.


View attachment 136923

My observation of a lot of the new-Cirrus-buying cohort is that they change airplanes a LOT. And I'm convinced I must be doing something wrong because I've had the same airplane for 12 years. So, it doesn't really surprise me to see that there are lots of Cirri for sale.

Again, they'll treat it almost like a lease. Buy the plane, expecting to sell it in 3 or so years when Cirrus increments the number after the G.