Cirrus SR22 vs Corvalis 400

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
If you had to choose between these two airplanes to fly for a year which one would it be?


I was looking at the specs of both airplanes and they have the exact same engine yet the Corvalis beats Cirrus in performance. How could that be?
 
I have SR time but none in the Corvalis. Due to the chute, I am in for the SR. Performance doesn't trip my trigger. I can fly ROP for all the speed I want. On most trips, the time difference between LOP and ROP is not worth the fuel burn.

Chute is a huge safety consideration, along with other costs.
 
Whichever is roomier. If I had to be in it for a year??
I dont think they hold that much fuel anyway.
 
If I just HAD to fly one for a year, I think I'd go the Corvalis. That's just a sexy plane. This is of course assuming someone else was footing the bill...
 
Not sure how the Corvalis is in the back but the 22 has a lot of legroom and is really comfortable.
 
Why does Cessna make this bazillion dollar plane that looks amazing on the inside, totally revamped and use the same throttle / mixture knobs from a 172? I never liked those type of controls.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Why does Cessna make this bazillion dollar plane that looks amazing on the inside, totally revamped and use the same throttle / mixture knobs from a 172? I never liked those type of controls.
Click to expand...

Because "real" pilots know how to use them. DUH!! :D

I will say this.. If they would just put a parachute on that airplane and get the useful load up a few more hundred pounds, they would start selling the hell out of it!

The back seat of the Cirrus is damn roomy! I don't think the front seats are that comfy though.. I really miss the Cessna 182 seat, but it was worth the trade off.
 
I have had the opportunity to fly both. I will without a question say the TTx handled far better than the SR22. However I do not own either so from a practicality standpoint I can't offer much in the factual opinion of that however in the little that I have flown both the SR22 seemed more comfortable all around as a plane to take passengers with. The TTx seemed like a better pilots plane
 
I compared the performance tables in the POHs. Turbos for both.

ROP, the Cessna is a little faster:


  • Cruise at ISA at 12000' at 16.4 gph, the SR22T G5 is 178 TAS, while at 16 gph the Cessna is 184 TAS.
  • Climb from SL to 12000 at best power, the SR22T G5 takes 10.9 min and 6.5 gal, while the Cessna takes 9.3 min and 6.1 gal.

LOP, the performance tables are too skimpy to compare. Which is too bad, because that's how they are actually flown.

They both have 3600# gross.
 
Last edited:
Malibu - pressurized!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Why does Cessna make this bazillion dollar plane that looks amazing on the inside, totally revamped and use the same throttle / mixture knobs from a 172? I never liked those type of controls.
Click to expand...

Why did Cirrus make a bazillion dollar plane that looks amazing in and out and put the stick where the throttle should be and nothing where the stick should be? :rofl:
 
Lindberg said:
Why did Cirrus make a bazillion dollar plane that looks amazing in and out and put the stick where the throttle should be and nothing where the stick should be? :rofl:
Click to expand...


Hey that stick is just for looks.
I am not sure I even know how to use it.

It's fly by knob these days.
 
The obvious answer is a Bo. Do you ever read this forum?
 
The back seat room in the Cirrus is a good several inches larger compared to the Cessna, esp where your feet are. Makes a big difference for your passengers. I do like the control stick on the Cessna better though.
 
Funny. I was just doing research and watching videos on the 400 earlier today. I only have time in the -22 and have been wanting to fly the TT/TTx for awhile.
 
NoHeat said:
I compared the performance tables in the POHs. Turbos for both.

ROP, the Cessna is a little faster:


  • Cruise at ISA at 12000' at 16.4 gph, the SR22T G5 is 178 TAS, while at 16 gph the Cessna is 184 TAS.
  • Climb from SL to 12000 at best power, the SR22T G5 takes 10.9 min and 6.5 gal, while the Cessna takes 9.3 min and 6.1 gal.

LOP, the performance tables are too skimpy to compare. Which is too bad, because that's how they are actually flown.

They both have 3600# gross.
Click to expand...

Since they have the same engines, LOP should be a proportional match to ROP. Those numbers are all about aerodynamics and it appears that the TTx just has a cleaner design by a little. That will be true ROP or LOP. Should also reflect in the fuel consumption; Cessna should be better. That seems to be what the numbers say, too.
 
Flew one while they were still Lanceairs. Nice airplane, really well thought out and without some stupid parachute. I'd take the Cessna hands down. Heck, at least I'd know I wasn't going to have to pay a $15K repacking bill down the line. That said, if I had the kind of money it takes to buy one of those I bet the repacking bill would be the least of my worries.
 
The 400 seems to be much more machine, what a shame it's got to drag that gear under it though.
 
JasonM said:
Rich of Peak and Lean of Peak
Click to expand...

One more:

WOTLOP: Wide Open Throttle Lean Of Peak.

Advocated by some. The idea is that a partially closed throttle is no better than a dirty air filter at restricting airflow, and that you virtually always want unrestricted airflow at cruise.
 
James331 said:
The 400 seems to be much more machine, what a shame it's got to drag that gear under it though.
Click to expand...

It appears as whether a well designed fixed gear has only a minimal impact on the aircraft's performance, whereas the complexity and the weight are significantly reduced.

The Glasair 2 cruises in the fixed gear configuration at 183 kts, as a retract at 192 kts, both with a 180 hp engine.
I would assume that on a larger airframe, the relative impact of a fixed gear is even smaller.
 
German guy said:
It appears as whether a well designed fixed gear has only a minimal impact on the aircraft's performance, whereas the complexity and the weight are significantly reduced.

The Glasair 2 cruises in the fixed gear configuration at 183 kts, as a retract at 192 kts, both with a 180 hp engine.
I would assume that on a larger airframe, the relative impact of a fixed gear is even smaller.
Click to expand...

I always enjoyed the comparison of the 180 hp Tiger (fixed gear, fixed pitch prop) and the 200 hp Arrow (retractable, constant speed prop and 20 extra hp).

Very little, if any, advantage in cruise to the Arrow.
 
FastEddieB said:
One more:

WOTLOP: Wide Open Throttle Lean Of Peak.

Advocated by some. The idea is that a partially closed throttle is no better than a dirty air filter at restricting airflow, and that you virtually always want unrestricted airflow at cruise.
Click to expand...

Any engine is less efficient when it is throttled.
 
Gav1n said:
The back seat room in the Cirrus is a good several inches larger compared to the Cessna, esp where your feet are. Makes a big difference for your passengers. I do like the control stick on the Cessna better though.
Click to expand...

Why the hell do I care about the passenger's comfort? Flying a small GA plane is about ME!
 
I have only flown SR22 and not the Corvalis so I cannot comment about the handling. However:

SR22 > Corvalis: ergonomics, interior space both front and back, BRS Chute
Corvalis > SR22: build quality (though the SR22 G5's fit and finish is excellent).

I think the BRS Chute makes it an easy choice for me to fly my family in a Cirrus.
 
German guy said:
It appears as whether a well designed fixed gear has only a minimal impact on the aircraft's performance, whereas the complexity and the weight are significantly reduced.

The Glasair 2 cruises in the fixed gear configuration at 183 kts, as a retract at 192 kts, both with a 180 hp engine.
I would assume that on a larger airframe, the relative impact of a fixed gear is even smaller.
Click to expand...

Lear would disagree.


If it looks good, it will fly good." -Bill Lear
Click to expand...


Also the chute is a factor for me as well, so that's one reason I'd pick the 400 over the SR22.

I'd rather not deal with the complexity and costs of having it, if I'm that worried I won't fly, or if I really have a hard in for having a canopy at my disposal I'll strap on my sport rig.
 
James331 said:
I'd rather not deal with the complexity and costs of having it.
Click to expand...


It is a great thing that we have a choice. You can have it your way, and I can have my chute.

Considering how poor the sales are for new small planes on the whole, it's a wonder that buyers even have the choice.
 
NoHeat said:
It is a great thing that we have a choice. You can have it your way, and I can have my chute.

Considering how poor the sales are for new small planes on the whole, it's a wonder that buyers even have the choice.
Click to expand...

This is true :yes:
 
PPC1052 said:
Why the hell do I care about the passenger's comfort? Flying a small GA plane is about ME!
Click to expand...


Lol.

I have a wife who has to be on the same page with me and my toys. .

Fortunately she is supportive of all of it so far.
 
I have access to both planes and I prefer taking the Cessna 400 Ttx over the Cirrus.

The Garmin G2000 system is really nice! I prefer the handling characteristics of the C400 (control rods) vs the cirrus (cables). And the side stick feels more natural than the side yoke in the cirrus.

Another feature I like is the remote entry feature in the Cessna 400. I didn't see this on the Cirrus that I flew, but the Cessna 400 has a latch indicator on the PFD to confirm the door was latched which was neat and the inflatable door seals were nice.

The Cessna 400 has speedbrakes while the Cirrus I fly does not. Not a huge deal, just nice to have. You also have 2 60 amp alternators and its in the utility category.

I still fly the cirrus, but only when I can't fly the Cessna 400 since they accomplish the same mission for me.

Both aircraft have TKS de-ice, but there's a new 'thermawing' for the Cessna 400/Columbia 400 and last I checked it hasn't been approved for the cirrus yet. We're looking to do that to the Cessna 400.

I agree with other; put a parachute on it, make the thermawing an option, EVS, reduce the price by $200,000 and you've got yourself a home run production aircraft.
 
James331 said:
Also the chute is a factor for me as well, so that's one reason I'd pick the 400 over the SR22.

I'd rather not deal with the complexity and costs of having it, if I'm that worried I won't fly, or if I really have a hard in for having a canopy at my disposal I'll strap on my sport rig.
Click to expand...

Even people who aren't worried sometimes get killed in aviation. I'm pretty sure confidence doesn't protect you from death. Just sayin'.
 
Whichever one I can buy aftermarket PMA parts for the engine.


Since a Chinese company bought both Continental Motors and the assets of aftermarket parts manufacturer ECI, I'd say that the PMA continental parts are going to dry up soon.

Pretty sad when a US company or investor isn't at all interested in these. Truly a sign of the times IMHO.
 
JC150 said:
I have access to both planes and I prefer taking the Cessna 400 Ttx over the Cirrus.

The Garmin G2000 system is really nice! I prefer the handling characteristics of the C400 (control rods) vs the cirrus (cables). And the side stick feels more natural than the side yoke in the cirrus.

Another feature I like is the remote entry feature in the Cessna 400. I didn't see this on the Cirrus that I flew, but the Cessna 400 has a latch indicator on the PFD to confirm the door was latched which was neat and the inflatable door seals were nice.

The Cessna 400 has speedbrakes while the Cirrus I fly does not. Not a huge deal, just nice to have. You also have 2 60 amp alternators and its in the utility category.

I still fly the cirrus, but only when I can't fly the Cessna 400 since they accomplish the same mission for me.

Both aircraft have TKS de-ice, but there's a new 'thermawing' for the Cessna 400/Columbia 400 and last I checked it hasn't been approved for the cirrus yet. We're looking to do that to the Cessna 400.

I agree with other; put a parachute on it, make the thermawing an option, EVS, reduce the price by $200,000 and you've got yourself a home run production aircraft.
Click to expand...

I noticed that most people that have access to both planes pick the Cessna 400, I have never been in one nor have I seen one in person. How do you think maintenance costs will be between the two? Are Cirrus parts easier to get over the new 400? They both look like awesome planes and I would love to have either one.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I noticed that most people that have access to both planes pick the Cessna 400, I have never been in one nor have I seen one in person. How do you think maintenance costs will be between the two? Are Cirrus parts easier to get over the new 400? They both look like awesome planes and I would love to have either one.
Click to expand...

I have 3000 hours in the Columbia/Cessna line and a couple hundred in the Cirrus. I am biased but I do strongly believe that pilots who have flown both understand that the 400 is a better handling airplane. Those that don't think that probably don't have a good grasp of handling or just used the autopilot too much. There are some very good things about the Cirrus, and in some ways it beats the Columbia, but not in the handling department.

Maintenance is, or should be, a wash. They have virtually the same engine. They have the same avionics. They have the same tires and brakes. They land at roughly the same air speeds. There are a lot of similarities.

I can't say much about Cirrus specific parts, but Cessna specific parts are easy. Most other items such as engine parts, brakes, tires, etc... are all generic and can be bought at any major distributor.
 
Not a huge deal, just nice to have. You also have 2 60 amp alternators and its in the utility category.
Click to expand...

Someone earlier in this thread posted a marketing sheet from Cirrus that said that the Columbia didn't have a fault resistant electrical system. This is why I don't trust marketing info from either company. The 400 has two independent electrical buses and an essential and avionics bus that receive power from both the left and right bus. We have two alternators and batteries that run independent and in the event of a failure of one side the other side will pick up the load for the entire airplane. It's a pretty robust system.



Both aircraft have TKS de-ice, but there's a new 'thermawing' for the Cessna 400/Columbia 400 and last I checked it hasn't been approved for the cirrus yet. We're looking to do that to the Cessna 400.
Click to expand...

Thermawing is an excellent system and has been out for some time now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top