Cirrus or Lancair?

Matt Barrow wrote:
snip...
> that's a positive. Hell, they look identical (to my eye, maybe not the eye
> of an aeronautical engineer).


Lancair stands taller.

Aviation Consumer has a story on the Lanceair 400 this month. I haven't read
all of it but just a quick look at it showed a bunch of comparison to the
SR-22




"Matt Barrow" <mbarrow@sitefillhomes.com> wrote in message
news:gZyye.15$JM6.1025@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Nathan Young" <nathan@needlescentered.com> wrote in message
> news:936lc1dse4olum6u4671iq1cdk5klc4kue@...
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> <mbarrow@sitefillhomes.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Contemplating a Lancair to downsize my six seater to a four seat.
>> >
>> >Seems, though, that the Cirrus SR-22 is rather more popular than the
>> >Columbia 350.
>> >
>> >Can anyone shed some insights on these two side-by-side?
>>
>> I have flown the SR22 (one time), but not the 350. I enjoyed my
>> flight in the SR22. The interior is much like an auto in terms of fit
>> and finish. Nothing like the Pipers/Cessnas I am used to flying. The
>> plane handled well. Also, it only took me a few minutes to get used
>> to the sidestick. It is nice to have a clearer view of the panel than
>> a yoke provides.
>>
>> You can download Pilots information manuals from both Cirrus and
>> Lancair's websites.
>
>
> I have, but I'd like some "objective" and outside opinions.
>
>> Here's a few interesting facts I captured from the info.
>>
>> Both planes use a Cont IO-550-N, 310hp @ 2700rpm
>>
>> @ 8000ft PA and standard temp:
>> SR22 @ 2700rpm @ 22MP = 183ktas on 18.6gph
>> L350 @ 2700rpm @22MP = 191ktas on 17.4gph
>>
>> The L350 has 98 gallons useable vs 81 for the Cirrus. If the numbers
>> in the manuals are correct and ignoring taxi, takeoff, and climb
>> allowances, the Lancair has a no wind, no reserve range of 1075 nm vs
>> 796 for the Cirrus. That is a substantial delta.
>
> Thanks for the lowdown, Nathan.
>
> The 300 that I rode in was also very comfortable but what struck me is how
> smooth it was. I fly a Beech 36 (which is what I'm looking to trade...I
> need
> more room than the B36 on many flights, but only two on the rest) and it
> was
> similar in that it is quite stable it is...like riding in a big car.
>
> While both Cirrus and Lancair are spin-resistant, the Lancair is
> supposedly
> spin recoverable and is certified without the recovery parachute. I'd say
> that's a positive. Hell, they look identical (to my eye, maybe not the eye
> of an aeronautical engineer).
>
> How did the Cirrus ride?
>
> One thing I'd like to see is a turbo model (for those of us at 6,000 feet
> with 14,000 terrain all around) for the Cirrus to compare to the Lancair
> 400.
>
>
>
>
>

Assuming 2700 @ 22" is 75%, both are ROP, but one could be more so than
the other.

Peak EGT should be around 15.5gph, seems to me.

>> That impression may be driven by the fact that the only approved way to
>> recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deply the parachute.

>Not again. Please.

My apologies, when you said "Not again. Please." to a statement that
"the only approved way to recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deploy
the parachute", I read that to mean that you disagreed with the
statement. If you meant something else, please clarify, as the POH
clearly indicates that the only approved way to recover from a spin in
the SR-22 is with the CAPS.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Hi Thomas,

When you said 'Not again. Please.' in response to Xyzzy's post that
the approved Cirrus spin recovery was via the CAPS, I guess I took that
to mean that you disagreed with the statement. When I posted the
manual excerpt in another branch of this thread, it seemed to me that
you were denying your post existed because I responded to a different
branch. I tried to clarify by responding to your original one. Thread
lawyers are a pain, but it appeared that you decided to adopt that
role.

Sorry for any offense, just trying to clarify a misunderstanding. If
by 'Not again. Please.' you meant something other then implying that
Xyzzy was in error, let me know. You used the exact same text to
respond to the suggestion that a spin was unrecoverable in the SR-22,
so the implication was that you found both to be incorrect. I don't
think I was the only person who read your post that way. Please keep
in mind that on Usenet, all we have to go on is what you write. Vocal
tone, facial expression, hand gestures... all of the unconscious cues
we use to decipher meaning in conversation are gone, so the typed
message is all we have. ...and yours appeared to say that the approved
Cirrus spin method was not chute deployment.

Best regards,

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

i have flown a Cirrus 500+ hrs and find it to be very passenger
friendly / pilot neutral. what i mean is that non-aviation passengers
like the interior, the parachute, xm radio in the headsets - you get
the picture. as a pilot the plane is OK to fly but difficult to keep
in trim unlike several other planes i have flown. The discussion about
Cirrus and spins is not current. Cirrus has shown spin recovery in
doing their JAA flight tests but chose not to go that route in the US
where it was not necessary.

i currently fly a Lancair Legacy discussed earlier in this forum. The
plane is kit-built so the best glide speeds vary but the 13.3 to 1
glide ratio is respectable ( a little better than 2 nm per 1000 ft
altitude lost ) this is nowhere near the 2000 ft per minute descent
rate erroneously described. many owners have installed full feathering
props (like used in twins) and have glide ratios over 20 to 1. These
planes climb between 2 - 3K ft/min and cruise at 235 kts so there is
not alot of time spent under 10,000 ft.