Author Topic: Cirrus Killer from Cessna (Read 1215 times)

Chairboy · « **on:** November 21, 2005, 12:28:05 PM »

I brought this up in the 747 thread, thought it might deserve one of its own.

Has anyone been following the Cessna 'Cirrus killer' story as it develops? Apparently, the CEO of Cessna announced a couple months ago that the company is working on a new four seater, single engine design that's to compete directly with the threat that the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22 pose. As you may know, Cirrus sold almost as many four seater single engine aircraft as Cessna last year, and may surpass them this year or next. The reason? Cessna's offerings in this market (most notably the venerable 172) haven't changed too much since the 1960s. Incremental updates like fuel injection and even glass cockpits haven't changed the basic performance too much, and people are looking for something that cruises a bit faster.

The Cirrus SR-22 cruises almost twice as fast as the 172, mostly because of aerodynamics. The composite structure is a lot cleaner, the engine is bigger, there are a lot of improvements. It also has the CAPS ballistic parachute recovery system, which I guess reassures some people.

What we know:
It will use a variant of the O-540
It will be composite (instead of metal)
It will cruise at Cirrus speeds
It will be fixed gear.

Predictions:
It will look a LOT like the Cardinal.
It will be spin rated
It will have full FADEC and instead of three throttle, mixture, and prop controls, it will have a single 'power' lever that manages all of those automatically.

Anyone else have any dirt/predictions on it? Let's see if we can get a conversation started.

BTW, I don't like the Cirrus. I also don't like the modern 172 that much.

Chairboy · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2005, 12:31:42 PM »

For reference, the Cessna C-177 Cardinal:

Maverick · « **Reply #2 on:** November 21, 2005, 12:47:41 PM »

They already have that model out. It's called a 182. Typical for Cessna. Fix performance problems by adding more HP and not change the airframe.

Frankly I'm very happy that Cessna has some real competition. They have been extremely complacent figuring that name recognition would carry them through. They had a nice product for 1960 to 70. They have done very little to change or make it evolve.

Their so called resurection and "new design" of the 172 was IMO totally bogus. It is virtually the same plane and the changes made would fit more in line with a year to year model change not requiring a new air worthyness certificate. It's not a "new airframe or airplane".

CyranoAH · « **Reply #3 on:** November 21, 2005, 12:54:42 PM »

The 172 is the Microsoft Windows of General Aviation. Does most things right, even a kid could fly and land it, but it has no appeal whatsoever.

However, I think it's kind of unfair to compare the SR-20 or 22 with the 172R or SP, mostly because of the difference in prices.

The Cirrus is on the level of the 182, and their performances then are not so different.

Moreover, the Cirrus SR-20, full tank, 4 on board has a CG that's clearly off-limits. Add to that the fact that it's a much more sensitive plane and doesn't allow for the mistakes you can do in a Cessna.

Our club considered many options for the fleet renewal, and we finally chose the 172 SP and R (with the 180 HP upgrade) over the Diamond DA-40 (and of course the Cirrus, which was substantially more expensive).

Why? The 172 is a proven design, with tolerances of more than 150% of recommended operation numbers, and it withstands anything our members can do wrong (well, most things).

The real problem with the 172 is that it's THE general aviation airplane. The Cirrus looks elegant, sleek, and new. Perfect for 1 or 2 owners flying from long, prepared fields (1000+ yards).

I'd choose a Lancair over a Cirrus any day. Problem is, it's not certified in Europe...

Daniel

Chairboy · « **Reply #4 on:** November 21, 2005, 01:04:26 PM »

Both of your posts seem to miss the point: Cessna is designing a new aircraft that they hope will challenge Cirrus on its turf while providing something as robust as the 172, and hopes to do it with more than just adding horsepower.

A 1965 Cessna 172 pilot could transition to the 2005 Cessna 172 for VFR in no time, most of the lesson would be in how to use the Garmin 1000 glass cockpit. It's silly, you can almost use the same weight & balance, performance, and fuel burn numbers, even 40 years later.

I'm no fan of the Cirrus. The idea of flying a plane that can't recover from a spin without use of the parachute is crazy. The POH for the SR-22 says that if you enter a spin, 'don't waste time trying to recover from the spin', and you should 'deploy the CAPS immediately'. Ridiculous.

But the fact remains, the Cirrus is on the verge of outselling the 172. Anything that goads them into competition will be good for the rest of us. Personally, I want to see a composite from New Piper. If the Columbia 400 is so dang great, imagine what a Columbia 450 or 500 might look like? Competition breeds advancement.

Debonair · « **Reply #5 on:** November 21, 2005, 03:19:00 PM »

I'm surprised Cessna sells any new 172s.
Who buys a new one for $170k-230k?
you could easily buy a very good used one, spend a lot of $ making it perfect & still have $50k-100k left over for $200 hamburgers

Golfer · « **Reply #6 on:** November 21, 2005, 03:59:35 PM »

I've been flying the SR22 GTS lately (Version 5 of the Avidyne Entegra glass cockpit system...Version 6 does away with ALL of the mechanical engine instrument and presents them on the display) and this is what you get:

-Incredible interior...over 48" wide and lots of room in the back.

-Incredible Situational Awareness with 1 big PFD, one MFD and dual Garmin 430s which can present Traffic and stormscope views.

-Very clear electronic charts...no more paper approach plates all the Jeppesen approach plates are presented on the MFD.

-Electronic Checklist...no paper to fumble with and no missed steps because you literally check each item with the push of a button.

-An honest 185 knot true airspeed...thanks to a redesigned cowl and firewall. Also the Hartzell blended airflow prop helps add some efficiency.

-Weather downlinked right to the panel.

-Airport Diagram overlay which is neat and I think my favorite feature...it puts you on the JeppView system as a little airplane icon so you can navigate around an airport using the diagram on the screen...you just can't get lost! Flew to MDW (Chicago Midway) and never had to hold a pencil to my airport diagram.

-Very smooth autopilot perfectly capable of flying an ILS approach on its own.

-Easy to operate handle to deploy a parachute. Invaluable to loved ones, clients and friends should you become incapacitated in flight.

___________________________

Never flew any Cirrus regularly but a steam gauge SR20 and had one ride in a steam gauge SR22 prior to hopping into this airplane...and I love it.

Best part...this one has 4 Bose X headsets kept in the airplane so I get to have my very own top of the line ANR headset while I'm in it

If Cessna can beat all that...and the price by a wide margin...then more power to them. For a fully loaded Cirrus SR22 you'll be forking over about $450,000 and waiting for a 6 week backorder.

(Constant six weeks I'm told producing what I think was 3 airplanes a DAY if I remember what I was told. I remember being astounded but do not remember the figure)

Also to quote the sales rep..."We love when we sell an SR20 because we just sold two airplanes!"

cpxxx · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2005, 04:12:36 PM »

There's a Cirrus based at the local airport. I haven't got to see inside it yet. But it does look the business. I'm sure I'll inveigle a flight in it eventually.

The first one I ever saw was in Reykjavik in Icleland last November on a ferry flight to Europe. I didn't envy the pilot when he woke me up with his engine warm up as he prepared to depart on a dark -10C morning.

Cessna does need to come up with a rival. Frankly it's time.

Chairboy · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2005, 04:37:53 PM »

I hope Columbia can get their manufacturing house in order. Those are some seriously nice planes. Personally, I think the dark horse here is going to end up being Vans.

Imagine, if you will, a certified version of the RVs. A certified RV-10A could kick the pants off the single engine four seater market, and a certified RV-7A could "0wnz" the two seater training market.

Habu · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2005, 06:42:49 PM »

Frankly once an airplane costs more than 350k us I am not interested in it at all no matter how good it is.

They depreciate too fast when new to every entice me to part with that much money.

My 1958 182 cost a tenth the price and is a great plane. I can add a Garmin 430 for 10k us and I did add an Stec autopilot for 12k. That is alot less money than any new plane including the 172.

My plane goes up in value each year not down. It is a proven performer and it does what I need it to do. Without the benefit of corporate tax right offs and depreciation a new plane makes no sense for an individual to own.

As long as Cirrus keeps selling 3 a day there is no pressure for them to reduce cost. However if there is ever a slowdown in sales I wonder how low they could drop the price and still make money? They have probably recouped their development costs and their certification costs by now so the price they are chargeing must have a hefty profit component.

Shame they do not reduce the price to 250k us where guys like me could afford one.

Habu · « **Reply #10 on:** November 21, 2005, 06:46:31 PM »

By the way Chairboy do not think that Cessna cannot make low wing planes as well, they have made many. Check out their twin engine line up like the 310 etc.

I think if they are going to make a Cirrus killer they will start with a clean blackboard but also play to their strengths.

Probably not full composite, but maybe composite wings. You can expect fadec and full glass as they are doing that already. A Lycombing engine of course. I would expect a wide cockpit and very comfortable seats but I doubt they will have a side stick or any stick at all. Cessna planes always have a yoke.

Chairboy · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2005, 10:05:22 PM »

I mention the high wing because the president of Cessna stated that it would be a high wing, that part wasn't a guess. You might be right about composite wings/metal body, dunno.

On the stick/yoke question, I believe that the cirrus is a side yoke, not a side stick. Not really relevant, but something I found that was interesting.

BTW, Habu, I'm with you 100%. Refitting an older plane seems like the obviously smartest path compared to buying new.

Golfer · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2005, 10:14:32 PM »

We call it a Sidestick at the company...Splitting hairs isn't worth the trouble. Besides...it's a stick and it's on the side

Debonair · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2005, 11:20:06 PM »

Cessna needs to learn how to place the yoke so it stops hitting my kneeboard.
so does Piper & Beechcraft.

Golfer · « **Reply #14 on:** November 22, 2005, 12:06:49 AM »

I find the perfect solution to the nudging kneeboard is a nice pair of dress slacks with a very tight weave. They are nice and slick. They repel water, paper and laminated checklists almost as though they were designed.

No more nudging kneeboard, and you've still got your teeth to hold on to your pencil.