I concur, which is why I'm calling him out on his statement. He knows not of what he speaks.
CirrusSR-22 versus Columbia[Cessna] 400
- Thread starter Meliss
- Start date
I concur, which is why I'm calling him out on his statement. He knows not of what he speaks.
CFI-Guy
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 52
- Display Name
Display name:
CFI-Guy
Last edited:
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
who flies a 22t at 65%? better at 80% and true outs at 183 kts @ 10,000 ft and only goes up from there until service ceiling.
Centurions are great for hauling loads, but no for going faster. And flown both cirrus and 210s
Centurions are great for hauling loads, but no for going faster. And flown both cirrus and 210s
No problem as long as you can displace the heat and want to spend on fuel and maint.
Inverted
Cleared for Takeoff
Vno in the 210 is 165kts and can easily sit there on cruise. I wanna say thats at 75% power though.
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
yeah, at 80% chts dont go above 380F, tit is approx 1600F, fuel flow is 17 gph. not bad.
off topic.....but does anybody here actually do work during office hours?
off topic.....but does anybody here actually do work during office hours?
NA SR22. I'm not talking turbo - if you want to talk turbo a T210 will match the speed of an SR22T and carry more while doing it.
Plus, you look way cooler when you bring the landing gear up.
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
NA SR22 may be as fast as a NA 210, dont know. But I was comparing a 210T of a friend with an sr22T that i frequently fly. Dont get me wrong, centurions are great for hauling and landing in shorts strips and off airport etc, while cirri are good for going faster, but not carrying. ie, If you are a 300# dude with equally sized associates or wife then a cirrus is pretty much useless. To each its own! but the point is that a sr22t is faster than a 210T.
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
Single engine piston cross country travel doesnt get any better outside these two options.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Channelling Henning with a proportion of Ron Levy:
I think you are terribly mistaken. Without the Drag Coefficient data to backup that claim you cannot substantiate it.
Last edited:
Jaybird180
Final Approach
I think the avionics are back there. And then there's that CAPS thingy and it's associated attachment points.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Ban Him!
Go here to vote
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48954&highlight=addicted+poa
No, way back in the tail, the further aft you put it the better, aft f the tail spar and it doesn't even cost an induced drag penalty.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
You don't have to - Just keep it hangared and don't fly unless the runways/taxiways are plowed.
There are other concerns besides the pants with the Diamond on snow (and this would be the same with the Cirrus) due to the castering nosewheel. First off, there's the potential issues with directional control on slippery surfaces, at least somewhat more so than with steerable nose gear. But my bigger concern is getting the brakes heated up enough to melt snow that might get up into the brakes and then freeze once the plane is in the air, causing a landing with a wheel frozen and potentially leading to a loss of directional control and/or a blown tire on landing.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Looks like Henning may have a point:
http://cirrustrader.com/static/content/about-us/43
Near bottom of page
Emphasis added is minewebsite cited above said:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
It's not wing area alone, it's wing loading -- weight divided by wing area. The SR22 has a gross weight of 3400 lb spread over a wing area of 145 square feet -- that's only a touch more than the Grumman Tiger's wing area, but another 1000 lb of weight, and thus a much higher stall speed than the Tiger even though wing area is the same. The Cessna 182S maxes out at 3100 lb (300 less than the SR22) but has 174 sq ft of wing area. As a result, the wing loading of the SR22 is nearly 24 lb/sq ft compared to under 18 lb/sq ft for the C-182S. While the Cirrus has more advanced aerodynamics which make up for some of that, the result is still a stall speed in the landing configuration of 60 knots CAS for the SR22 vs 49 knots CAS for the C-182. And that makes a big difference in what you can and should do on final.
OTOH, that high wing loading also allows a lot higher cruise speed, so you do get someothing in return for accepting the higher stall and approach speeds.
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Great idea, Henning -- now, what do you do when you put four people and baggage in the plane, and your installed ballast takes you out of aft cg?
dell30rb
Final Approach
I just spent the last hour hanging out with a fella who is the chief pilot for a company that manages 20 something cirrus's. Short final approach speed on a sr22t is 80kts.
I sat in one with the perspective system and he turned it on and walked me through it. Really cool stuff.
I sat in one with the perspective system and he turned it on and walked me through it. Really cool stuff.
I'm not seeing it, I've lived in the north and broken a lot of ice growing up and even off of tugs up north. Ice just isn't that strong. It may tear up the pant, but directional control you'll be able to maintain I'd suspect.
Last edited:
Speaking of pants though, I wonder how all that looked on FIKI trials?
Columbia doors feel more solid and seal better due to having pressure seals. Cirrus wins on ingress and egress. There is no door to duck under like on the Columbia. On the Cirrus an open door in flight is no big deal. That's a good thing since the will pop open if not adjusted properly. An open door on a Columbia is a serious matter.
Cabin width is about the same across the waist but the Cirrus feels roomier since it is wider at head level. View out is better in the Cirrus. I prefer the fit and finish on the Columbia but the G3 Cirrus dramatically closed the gap. If the Columbia is faster it is only by 5 kts. A 350 flown against a 22 was pretty much a dead heat.
I have never experienced a lack of elevator. The turbo models need to carry a little power since the composite prop acts like a speed brake. G2 turbos need a weight (18 lbs) in the tail especially if AC equipped.
Both are fine planes. When cost is considered I have found the Cirrus to be the better value. Compare flap hinges if you want to see why the Columbia costs more.
I haven't flown a Columbia in a long time but I remember it being a very stable IFR platform and easier to trim. The Cirrus seemed quicker in pitch and roll and thus felt a little more nimble. Trim on a Cirrus is an art form. Most Cirrus owners long for a Cessna style trim wheel.
Be careful comparing manufacturer's data. Lancair would always list speed in mph.
Most SR22T's are flown LOP at 17 gph which gives over 200 kts up high.
Cabin width is about the same across the waist but the Cirrus feels roomier since it is wider at head level. View out is better in the Cirrus. I prefer the fit and finish on the Columbia but the G3 Cirrus dramatically closed the gap. If the Columbia is faster it is only by 5 kts. A 350 flown against a 22 was pretty much a dead heat.
I have never experienced a lack of elevator. The turbo models need to carry a little power since the composite prop acts like a speed brake. G2 turbos need a weight (18 lbs) in the tail especially if AC equipped.
Both are fine planes. When cost is considered I have found the Cirrus to be the better value. Compare flap hinges if you want to see why the Columbia costs more.
I haven't flown a Columbia in a long time but I remember it being a very stable IFR platform and easier to trim. The Cirrus seemed quicker in pitch and roll and thus felt a little more nimble. Trim on a Cirrus is an art form. Most Cirrus owners long for a Cessna style trim wheel.
Be careful comparing manufacturer's data. Lancair would always list speed in mph.
Most SR22T's are flown LOP at 17 gph which gives over 200 kts up high.
So you're saying both my initial solution of adding power and my secondary statement that if there is an issue there is going to be a ballast weight for the tail were both correct? Interesting what an hour trying to stall and spin a plane and an understanding of how things work can lead to the correct answers.
BTW, both the Cirrus and Columbia should have been pressurized IMO.
Last edited:
On a NA SR22 best over the number speed is about 78 less 1 kt for every 100 lbs under max gross. I haven't flown a turbo but people I trust say he numbers are the same but ou have to leave a touch of power in where you don't on the NA. Version. The reason s the prop. You are correct about the CG. The G2 turbo SR22 without the 18 lb tail weight SB done was the first one you could easily load outside of CG (too forward). Cirrus aircraft are very loading tolerant and hard to load out of CG with the exception just mentioned.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
Having had to spend over two hours chipping, spraying with anti-freeze liquids, and sledgehammering to get trailer brakes released on a truck the morning after a snowy drive, I respectfully disagree.
And 1850 ft-lbs of torque wasn't enough to get the rig to move. So ice is stronger than you may think.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
Is the CG range on the Cirrus so narrow as to go from nearly (or actually) out the front end to actually out the aft end like that?
FWIW, the DA40 has had ballast in both the nose and the tail in certain configurations through its lifetime, but having one or the other hasn't made it overly difficult to load within limits. (FWIW, ours does not have either ballast and tends toward the fore end of the CG envelope, but that's easily fixed with a few pounds in the aft baggage compartment - My flight bag is enough.)
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Is the CG range on the Cirrus so narrow as to go from nearly (or actually) out the front end to actually out the aft end like that?
FWIW, the DA40 has had ballast in both the nose and the tail in certain configurations through its lifetime, but having one or the other hasn't made it overly difficult to load within limits. (FWIW, ours does not have either ballast and tends toward the fore end of the CG envelope, but that's easily fixed with a few pounds in the aft baggage compartment - My flight bag is enough.)
I nearly flew the DA40 with a CFI that our combined weights would have put us forward CG limit. We had a 'disagreement' and shut down near the fuel pumps and didn't fly. He wasn't listening to my caution about the CG and I made a poor decision to disregard my own warning. Fate saved me that day.
Quite the opposite. On the NA planes it is difficult to get out of CG. You can download the POH from Cirrus and check for yourself. The G2 turbos initially had issues because of the extra weight so far forward. The 18 lb tail weight puts the unloaded CG back towards the center of the range. The G3's are fine as far as I know (haven't flown one). Fuel quantity doesn't cause as severe of a CG shift as on some planes since fuel places weight in the center of the range.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
That's kinda what I figured, hence my questioning of Ron's statement that a plane with the ballast installed plus four and bags would be out the aft end... It'd be interesting to find the empty weight/CG for a couple of Turbo/AC G2's with and without ballast and run some W&B scenarios.
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
Yes. Cirrus teaches 80 over the numbers but 78-1kt per 100 lbs under max gross works better.
dell30rb
Final Approach
Yup!!
spiderweb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 9,488
- Display Name
Display name:
Ben
All of this seems fast. Is it that different for the 22? The 20 has a VSo of 56 KIAS. I'm planning 75 KIAS for short final.
For the 22 VSo is 59 kts so add 3 kts to 75 and you get 78.