Yes, Peter
If you take away all the innovation from the Cirrus “what you have left is a very standard plane…”
Well, don’t take it away ;-))
VMC,
the “cramped” cabin was true in the short body C and E, they are in all honesty 2-3 seaters. After the G/F Model, the cabin became significantly larger and again with the Porsche PFM Mooney, whose cell is used in todays Ovation and Acclaim. There, the space in the cabin is wider than even the Bonanza and the leg room in the rear is better than some other planes I have seen. I don’t know the leg room in the Cirrus.
PFD/ND, well, Cirrus started out with a clockwork cockpit with just the center MFD, PFD followed later. Mooney’s Ovation and Acclaim are standard equipped with the G1000 cockpit since version 2. So that is hardly a Cirrus invention. The Columbia had a full glass cockpit from the beginning.
What sold the Cirrus above all other planes is the shute and the fact that it was aimed at the new rich entry market, like the Bonanza was all these years ago.To some extent I’d call that the “wife/mummy” effect. “Look, ma, there is a parashute so this plane is safe!”. Wife’s or other scared family members may have a very noticable impact on such decisions, they feel safer, they believe in the added safety and there it goes. A lot of newbie pilots likewise will be won over by this feature. Otherwise, there is really no explanation why Cirrus outsold the Columbia in the massive factor it did. It is in no regard an exceptional plane, neither in performance, nor in efficiency, it looks good but so does the Columbia and it is significantly faster. Or the Ovation/Acclaims which are faster yet again.
Their line up is reasonable with the “cheaper” SR20 and the real sales target SR22 and their marketing in recent years was second to none. Likewise, Cirrus sports one of the nicest cabin layouts optically and they do look sexy from the outside. A Cirrus is a ramp presence, it is a large plane in comparison to Arrows, Mooneys or even Cessnas. And again, the shute. I personally think it is almost 99% responsible for the success of the make.
People at heart are easily scared. That shute takes a lot of this scare away, even though not necessarily justifiably so, as the accident stats show. The shute is a brilliant safety device but at the same time also a huge temptation to take risks people would not take without it. Other than that, there really is no reason why Cirrus cleaned the market like it did, when the competition outperformed it in almost any aspect. That and their constant development and re-design won them an almost monopoly in the traveller market.
IMO, unless anyone can tell me otherwise, as far as I can tell Mooney won’t be introducing anything significantly new, so on that basis, their belief appears to be that there is still demand for a fast, long range SEP without the other features.
The word was that Mooney will at first gain back their workforce and restart production of those airplanes which were and are still in the factory in several stages of completion. It was announced that there are other developments in the works, possibly there may be an announcement pending in spring. Basically, for me, as I have said before, it is clear where this has to be going in order to produce the “significant” news and I agree, with only the Ovation and Acclaim they won’t be able to get back into the market with any significant numbers.
If they want to make an impact and hit the competition with something they really can’t produce, it pretty much can only mean one of two things: Either they produce a very competitive entry model with either Diesel or possibly a factory option of IO390 with Mogas and UL91 compatibility, which could be interesting in Europe. The second option may be a resurrection of the Mooney 301 with a turbo fan engine, pressurized cabin and so on. They may well consider a BRS system, which today is almost a must to even have a chance. We shall see.
Peter,
both the Ovation and Acclaim were delivered standard with the G1000 cockpit as far back as 2005. The G700 AP is also standard since quite a long time. Incidently, i don’t know when Cirrus started to offer the G1000…..
Peter,
where is the proof that “removing the prop control costs Cirrus a lot of fuel”?
I think it’s simply not true. I fly my Cirrus typically with 0.09 Gallons per Nautical Mile. That’s the constant number I have seen from June 13 until today.
Munich to Split in Croatia: 12,3 GPH with an average TAS of almost 170.
Other than that, I do not really see your point. If we compare all the piston single engine airplanes we have today, then there’s only three modern designs:
- Cirrus
- Diamond
- Columbia/Cessna
All other certified 4 place planes are at least one generation behind. Just look at the aerodynamics. A 200 hp SR20 is 15-20 kts faster than a 200 hp Piper Arrow with 200 hp and retractable gear and at the same time it has a much better range, a much bigger cabin and many other advantages,.
And, no, while Cirrus’ marketing is professinal and aggressive – the success is based on the product. It’s an old tale (you repeat it all the time) that the CAPS/BRS system is for the “wives” and a “marketing trick”. But it’s wrong. 41 SR2xs came down by parachute and in 39 (or so) instances nobody on board was injured. That’s what counts.
MooneyDriver,
“Look, ma, there is a parashute so this plane is safe!”.
Answer:
CAPS event #1, Oct 2002, Lewisville, TX
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #1) – Factors: VFR departure after maintenance, aileron unhinged due maintenance error and airplane became difficult to control, after maneuvering, first parachute deployment by pilot in a certified production airplane; Activation: low altitude, 1,500 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: bushes near golf course
CAPS event #2, April 2004, Lethbridge, AB, Canada
4 uninjured; (CAPS Save #2) – Factors: VFR night cruise, loss of control, autopilot-induced stall, night VFR over mountains, SR20 performance Activation: high altitude, deployment upon loss of control; Weather: VMC night; Landing: landed in scree in mountaneous terrain, skidded backwards 1/4-mile, helicopter extraction via parachute risers
CAPS event #3, April 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #3) – Factors: confusing instrument behavior, low IMC, departure climb, water in static system; Activation: low altitude, 1200 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees
CAPS event #4, Sept 2004, Peters, CA
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #4) – Factors: VFR climb, autopilot-induced stall, rolled inverted, attempted recovery; Activation: high altitude, above 10,000 feet, activated CAPS in VMC before entering IMC; Weather: VMC, then IMC under canopy, then VMC; Landing: walnut grove
CAPS event #5, Feb 2005, Norden, CA
1 fatality; (not CAPS Save, parachute separated from airframe) – Factors: severe icing at 16,000’ over Sierra mountains, high speed descent well above Vne of 204 knots; Activation: uncertain if intentional activation or due to airframe stress in high speed descent, located along track to crash site; Weather: IMC, icing; Landing: high speed impact in mountainous area
CAPS event #6, June 2005, Haverstraw, NY
1 serious injury; (CAPS Save #5) – Factors: pilot incapacitated from brain seizure, loss of conciousness, awoke and recovered from Vne dive, determined numbness and loss of function in legs; IFR on approach to KHPN, Activation: low altitude, last radar report at 1,600 feet and 190 knots groundspeed (well above Vpd of 133 knots); Weather: VMC; Landing: water, bay of Hudson River
CAPS event #7, Jan 2006, Childersburg, AL
3 uninjured; (CAPS Save #6) – Factors: severe icing at 9,000 feet, loss of control; Activation: high altitude; Weather: IMC icing; Landing: trees
CAPS event #8, Feb 2006, Wagner, SD
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #7) – Factors: pilot disorientation in clouds, shortly after takeoff; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: flat, frozen field
CAPS event #9, Aug 2006, Indianapolis, IN
1 fatality, 3 serious injuries; (CAPS Save #8, parachute observed not fully deployed) – Factors: IMC, loss of control, stall/spin descent; Activation: low altitude; 528 feet AGL in 100 knot spin (3-1/2 turns) just 4 seconds prior to impact, well below design parameters for survivable CAPS deployment, first activation of CAPS by non-pilot; Weather: IMC; Landing: water, pond among residential housing
CAPS event #10, Sept 2006, Bull Bay, Jamaica
4 uninjured; (CAPS Save #9) – Factors: loss of control, VFR cruise, passenger activated when fuel streaming from tank filler openings; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees
CAPS activation #11, Feb 2007, Sydney, Australia
2 injuries; (not CAPS Save; parachute not extracted due to anomalous rocket trajectory) – Factors: VFR cruise, engine problems, rocket took unusual trajectory, , successful emergency off-airport landing; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees
CAPS event #12, Apr 2007, Luna, NM
1 injured; (CAPS Save #10) – Factors: IMC cruise, climb to avoid weather, loss of airspeed indication, terrain warning in IMC; Activation: low altitude, inverted, 34 knots airspeed; Weather: IMC, icing; Landing: trees, mountainous terrain
CAPS event #13, Aug 2007, Nantucket, MA
2 injured; (CAPS Save #11) – Factors: VFR in IMC during approach, parachute tangled with tower wires, 1 serious injury, 1 minor injury, 1 unborn child saved; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: tower, flat open terrain
CAPS event #14, Oct 2008, Spain
3 uninjured; (CAPS Save #12) – Factors: IFR in IMC during approach, pilot reported turbulence and loss of control, parachute tangled with power line wires; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: power line
CAPS event #15, Nov 2008, Turriaco, Italy
1 seriously injured, 3 uninjured; (CAPS Save #13) – Factors: fuel exhaustion and loss of engine power, parachute deployed at low altitude and late in the power-off glide scenario, approximately 400 feet above ground; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees and grass
CAPS event #19, Mar 2009, Gaithersburg, MD
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #16) – Factors: door popped open upon takeoff, pilot reported rain in the cockpit and attempted to manage door but became disoriented; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: residential street
CAPS event #20, Jun 2009, Mount Airy, NC
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #17) – Factors: catastrophic engine failure with oil obscuring windscreen, Activation: high altitude, 6,000 feet above ground; Weather: IMC; Landing: level field
CAPS event #21, Dec 2009, Hamilton Island, Australia
1 seriously injured; (CAPS Save #18) – Factors: engine loss of power, misfueled with Jet-A, attempted return to airport; Activation: low altitude, 441 feet above ocean; Weather: VMC; Landing: ocean
CAPS event #22, Feb 2010, Boulder, CO
2 fatalities; (not CAPS Save, parachute activated due to impact forces) – Factors: mid-air collision between Cirrus SR20 and tow-plane with glider in tow; Activation: high altitude, 8,000 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: level field
CAPS event #23, May 2010, Sirdal, Norway
4 uninjured; (CAPS Save #19) – Factors: icing induced high-speed descent followed by parachute activation, Activation: high altitude, 6,000 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: uneven rocky terrain
CAPS event #24, 10 July 2010, Hornton, United Kingdom
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #20) – Factors: sprial dive while pilot distracted, VFR pilot flying in low ceilings and visibility, Activation: 2,000 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: field surrounded by trees
CAPS event #25, 16 August 2010, Idabel, OK
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #21) – Factors: loss of engine power, rapid descent, decision to avoid off-airport landing, activated parachute, Activation: low altitude, below 500 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: grassy field
CAPS event #26, 23 August 2010, Porter, TX
1 seriously injured; (not CAPS Save, parachute had no effect on outcome) – Factors: go-around after aborted landing, failed to clear tree obstructions, activated parachute after first impact with a tree ; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees
CAPS event #27, 30 September 2010, Mathias, WV
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #22) – Factors: loss of control in turbulence while on approach in stormy weather, Activation: 1134 AGL, 171 KIAS; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees, remarkably the plane wedged itself on branches about 20 feet above the ground, pilot and passenger were injured when they attempted self-rescue and fell onto rocks below
CAPS event #28, 15 December 2010, Nacogdoches, TX
1 uninjured; (not CAPS Save, parachute activated after ground impact) – Factors: loss of engine power, decision to avoid off-airport landing; Activation: after ground impact; Weather: VMC, night; Landing: residential area
CAPS event #29, 27 January 2011, Cross City, FL
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #23) – Factors: loss of engine power, decision to avoid off-airport landing, activated parachute, Activation: TBD; Weather: VMC, night; Landing: recently logged forest with lots of stumps
CAPS event #30, 30 January 2011, Bennett, CO
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #24) – Factors: pilot disorientation due to vertigo, activated parachute, Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC, night; Landing: field
CAPS event #31, 24 October 2011, Carrollton, TX
1 fatality, 2 serious injured; (not CAPS Save, parachute did not have time to fully deploy) – Factors: pilot reported mechanical problem and attempted approach in fog, went missed, attempted second approach and plane lost control prior to missed approach point; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: field
CAPS event #32, 20 November 2011, New Orleans, LA
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #25) – Factors: pilot reported loss of engine power and attempted return to airport then activated over Lake Pontchartrain, repacked parachute, Activation: 300 feet; Weather: IMC, day; Landing: water
CAPS event #33, 7 January 2012, near Andros Island, Bahamas
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #26) – Factors: engine seized and propeller froze in flight due to loss of oil pressure, Activation: 2300 feet; Weather: VMC , day; Landing: water
CAPS event #34, 29 February 2012, at Melbourne, FL
4 fatalities; (not CAPS Save, parachute did not have time to fully deploy) – Factors: pilot lost control on base turn to final and pulled at low altitude, Activation: almost at ground impact; Weather: VMC , day; Landing: field
CAPS event #35, 24 March 2012, near Itu, Brazil
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #27) – Factors: engine lost power and pilot avoided off-airport landing, repacked parachute, Activation: TBD; Weather: VMC , day; Landing: field
CAPS event #36, 22 July 2012, near Pickens, SC
4 uninjured; (CAPS Save #28) – Factors: pilot reported mechanical problem, Activation: about 1000 feet AGL; Weather: VMC, day; Landing: trees, suspended about 20 feet above ground, occupants stayed in plane until rescued
CAPS event #37, 6 October 2012, near Birmingham, AL
1 uninjured, 1 minor injury; (CAPS Save #29) – Factors: pilot disoriented during missed approach in IMC , Activation: 1000’ AGL; Weather: IMC , day; Landing: field
CAPS event #38, 16 November 2012, near Show Low, AZ
1 minor injury; (CAPS Save #30) – Factors: engine lost power and pilot avoided off-airport landing , Activation: 1500’ AGL; Weather: VMC , day; Landing: field
CAPS event #39, 21 November 2012, near Gilgandra, NSW, Australia
1 uninjured, 1 minor injury; (CAPS Save #31) – Factors: engine lost power and pilot avoided off-airport landing , Activation: 1000’ AGL; Weather: VMC , day; Landing: field
CAPS event #42, 23 January 2013, near Danbury, CT
3 uninjured; (CAPS Save #32) – Factors: fuel exhaustion; Activation: TBD; Weather: night VMC; Landing: powerlines in residential area
CAPS event #43, 29 March 2013, near Alexandria, MN
4 uninjured; (CAPS Save #33) – Factors: pilot lost control due to flap anomaly; Activation: TBD; Weather: VFR; Landing: frozen lake
CAPS event #44, 16 May 2013, near Addison, TX
1 uninjured (not CAPS save, parachute did not deploy) – Factors: pilot reported loss of instruments, activated CAPS, but rocket failed to extract the parachute from the aircraft; repacked parachute; Activation: possibly 7000 feet; Weather: IMC, hard rain; Landing: pilot recovered the airplane and descended underneath the clouds to about 800’ AGL and returned to airport trailing the rocket, lanyard and incremental bridle behind the aircraft
CAPS event #45, 6 June 2013, near Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom
1 minor injury; (CAPS Save #34) – Factors: pilot reported “navigational difficulties” while on approach to Cheltenham airport when ATC changed runways and vectored the aircraft to a different approach; Activation: approximately 2000 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: garden in a residential area of urban city
CAPS event #46, 5 July 2013, near La Guajira, Colombia
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #35) – Factors: mid-air collision with Cirrus HK-4752; Activation: TBD; Weather: VMC; Landing: ocean
CAPS event #47, fatal accident #97, 18 July 2013, near Lanseria, South Africa
2 fatalities; (not CAPS Save, parachute did not have time to fully deploy) – Factors: low altitude activation after touch-and-go departure; Activation: TBD; Weather: VMC; Landing: Field
CAPS event #48, 20 July 2013, near Tappahannock, VA
4 uninjured; (CAPS Save #36) – Factors: loss of engine power; Activation: TBD; Weather: VMC; Landing: Trees
CAPS event #49, 31 July 2013, near Poncins, France
2 fatalities; (not CAPS Save, parachute did not have time to fully deploy) – Factors: TBD; Activation: TBD; Weather: VMC; Landing: Trees
CAPS event #50, 19 August 2013, near Texarkana, AR
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #37) – Factors: loss of engine power; Activation: TBD; Weather: VMC; Landing: Field
CAPS event #51, 14 November 2013, near Brazil
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #38) – Factors: TBD; Activation: TBD; Weather: VMC; Landing: Field
CAPS event #52, 4 January 2014, near Buckhannon, WV
1 uninjured; (CAPS Save #39) – Factors: mechanical, loss of engine power on final approach short of the runway; Activation: 500’ AGL; Weather: VMC; Landing: Road
CAPS event #53, 6 January 2014, near Claveau, Deux Sèvres, France
2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #40) – Factors: mechanical, loss of engine power; Activation: 1800’ AGL; Weather: TBD; Landing: Field
CAPS event #54, 9 January 2014, near Fort Hall, Idaho
2 minor injuries; (CAPS Save #41) – Factors: mechanical, loss of engine power; Activation: TBD; Weather: TBD; Landing: Field
MARKETING? Really?
(Source: COPA)
Alexis – I have previously posted data here showing the SFC improves with lower RPM, but I am hoping to get up for a quick flight shortly and if I have time I will get some quick and dirty data again.
It is probably of the order of a few % but it will never be provable on the SR22 because nobody is going to be able to do a comparative test.
That is, unless they applied that STC mod – and how many have? I recall mentioning it on the Cirrus owners’ group (in the free public section – I am not going to pay to post on a forum which doesn’t affect me) and got a rather hostile reception, with nobody being positive about it. However the maker of the mod does itself no favours by making some claims which are IMHO too optimistic.
You guys really get me going today ;-))
MooneyDriver:
Otherwise, there is really no explanation why Cirrus outsold the Columbia in the massive factor it did. It is in no regard an exceptional plane, neither in performance, nor in efficiency, it looks good but so does the Columbia and it is significantly faster. Or the Ovation/Acclaims which are faster yet again.
You are wrong, especially regarding Columbia. Just SIT in a Cessna 400 (Columbia) and then in the SR22 and you will know the difference. THe Columbia (and I have flown 4 of them) has very bad visibility, it has the smaller cabin, it has no CAPS system and – most important – it had no real customer service, support, field organization. It’s more or less, the certified version of the former kitplane.
The Cirrus, on the other hand, COMBINES all of what the market was looking for. A little slower than the Mooney, but a MUCH better cabin, better integration of Avionics and systems than Mooney and very modern aerodynamics. The market (as we saw!) does not care about top speed and incredible range. It cares about complete products, customer support, dealer and maintenance networks, constant refinement of the product.
Peter,
there is enough proof. Just go to Cirrusreports.com and check the fuel data of HUNDREDS of Cirrus aircraft online and for free. You look at that data and compare it with your plane.
What else do you need? Of course you might be able to optimze the fuel flwo with the STC, a little bit. But I don’t think it’s worth the money.
PS: Have FUN flying!
I have previously posted data here showing the SFC improves with lower RPM, but I am hoping to get up for a quick flight shortly and if I have time I will get some quick and dirty data again.
Unless the aircraft is turbocharged, you will typically fly with max RPM and WOT in cruise altitudes. The TB20 is a good example. With turbocharging/normalization, it is possible to play with RPM and MP as multiple combinations exist for a given %BHP. In fact, I usually fly with high MP and low RPM because I believe it is better for the engine (no hard facts out there) and most importantly it is quieter.
IMO Cirrus would have better eliminated the stupid red lever instead of the blue lever.
Yes, I think the same. Only that “eliminating the stupid red lever” is a much bigger engineering effort. It woud have cost a lot to develop … and that’s the reason why they have not. But it will be a big step for piston airplanes once you can simply press a “LOP” key or “ROP” .. or simply set a percentage of power or fuel flow and let a computer do the rest …
So what do you suggest Alexis? Make CAPS mandiatory and therefore ground the rest of the fleet? Practical, wouldn’t it be, only Cirrus left and therefore no dissident minds to speak otherwise.
And if I look at the reasons for some of these, how many of them would have happened without the CAPS? That is, how many of those flights would not have taken off if the crew had not relied on the CAPS to save their behinds? And no, originally CAPS was invented because Cirrus could not satisfactory prove the airplane was recoverable from a spin. But they made the best out of a necessity. No mistake, the CAPS is a very good thing and I agree with you and others that new airplanes should strongly consider adding a similar feature. But it would be a bad mistake to make them compulsory.
All other certified 4 place planes are at least one generation behind. Just look at the aerodynamics. A 200 hp SR20 is 15-20 kts faster than a 200 hp Piper Arrow with 200 hp and retractable gear and at the same time it has a much better range, a much bigger cabin and many other advantages,.
Aerodynamics? I suppose it is no accident that you leave out the Mooneys who, with equal power, still are significantly faster AND more efficient than the corresponding Cirrus model?
We can discuss this until the cows come home. But it is pretty interesting that Mooneyacs are considered stubborn when I see how viciously the Cirrus fraction reacts to any hint that there may be a life outside their product line. Reminds me of a certain “female” in another forum 
. What else can I say than what I have said before, the Cirrus is a great product and they did a lot more right than wrong in construction, marketing and concept. I have no problem that many of you regard the Cirrus as the only viable airplane today, only I think it is a pretty narrow view.
