Get the exclusive NordVPN deal here at nordvpn.com/dwaynesaviation It's risk-free with NordVPN's 30-day money-back guarantee!” WHY I MADE THIS VIDEO, also mentioned in the video. In 2022, Cirrus had already been the industry leader for two decades, building most of the world’s GA products. Since the SR22 was introduced, about 7000 of them has been built. But the title of No. 1 comes with serious obligations and serious continuous innovation is one.

@electricaviationchannelvid7863

Жыл бұрын

What about the RED 03 engine and the CELERA 500 design?

@solartrix

Жыл бұрын

If you really want to kick Cirrus in the shins, you should investigate the cylinder valve problem on the Continental 550. They will eventually fail if you run the turbos hotter than 1600 F, BUT the top of the green range is still shown as 1800 F. Folks who fly/manage 22 turbos have figured this out and now we fly at 75 percent power and/or lean anytime we're descending so that we keep those temps down. If you don't do this you burn out cylinders in 3-4 years. Bottom line, the engine can't actually perform at it's rated power without chewing up the cylinder valve seats, but no one wants to own up to this. Happy hunting. :)

@syitiger9072

Жыл бұрын

If I could afford a private plane I’d buy something I’d be able to carry at least 1000 lbs of cargo

@skyblazer9137

5 ай бұрын

Good Info here. Thanx...@@solartrix

@TheDieselmonkey11

3 ай бұрын

You made this clickbait video because…… basically you were bored, ignorant and just trying to get attention from people. Aka a schmuck! 😂😂

20 years ago, every soapbox expert like this doomed the Cirrus to fail, due to being all composite, and having no indication of ‘life limit’…. And here we are, 20 years later, this aircraft outsells all other certified manufacturers 4-1, and in 20 years from now, whatever is left of general aviation, Cirrus will still be the benchmark

@BLAMBERRY

Жыл бұрын

And if it didn’t have a parachute it wouldn’t be a certified aircraft. Such an unstable airplane, If it didn’t have an autopilot it wouldn’t sell.

@aaronfahr9

Жыл бұрын

@@BLAMBERRY "a parachute". Deployed by the 'I abrogate all responsibility even though I am PIC' handle.

@bravocharlie639

Жыл бұрын

@@BLAMBERRY Oh come now! The Cirrus come with a typewriter.

@highdesert6

Жыл бұрын

@@BLAMBERRY have you flown one? I 500+ hours in a G1 that I rebuilt, and I don’t feel it is “unstable”.

@sleektruck22

Жыл бұрын

All of you are sharing misnomers. The Cirrus is an excellent airplane. Was the parachute added to overcome poor spin recovery? Yes. However, personally, I would want a parachute in every plane I purchase. There is nothing wrong with safety and a backup plan. It's a great airplane.

The unique combination of subject matter, script, and slick(ish) content in this video brings to mind the word "incongruous".

Your analysis of the motor in the SR22 is correct but the plane will not fail. The culture in civilian aviation and sales momentum will make that a plane a success. The number of people I've heard make arguments about how dual mechanical magnetos designed in the 1930s are better than modern ignition systems used in everything else short of cheap lawn mowers amazes me. Even in the experimental space where they can use anything they want I keep seeing open loop engine management systems that were obsolete in the automotive world 30 years ago. The people who set these systems up use them because they think the pilot should be monitoring manifold pressure, egts, and air to fuel ratio and making adjustments instead of allowing a closed loop system to monitor, adjust and notify the pilot of a potential problem before it becomes fatal.

@chaddoan4659

Жыл бұрын

Search for the Bull Moose Airplane for an example of what I'm talking about in the experimental world

@fastfox23

Жыл бұрын

Part of the problem with running a closed loop system is the reliance on 02 sensors, and the limitations of leaded fuel on those sensors (leaded fuel tends to kill the sensors pretty quick). If we can ever get 100 unleaded approved for aviation we could easily move to closed loop ECUs. And before we start talking about 100 octane race gas that's been around for a decade or two, that's about 94 octane on the Aviation octane scale. I would love to run a couple Haltech 2500s, coil near plug ignition, 02 sensors, and all the stuff we've been using for years on race cars, but as long as we need leaded fuel we're kinda limited. I'm planning to be able to run MOGAS on the next build, so will likely run that system, but then I'm worried about availability at whatever airport I visit. Or, depending on the cost when they finally start producing them, I may look closely at the Small Higgs Diesel 250hp turbo setup.

@chaddoan4659

Жыл бұрын

@@fastfox23 Where does it say I need to run 100 low lead? The whole reason aviation is locked into that expensive, occasionally hard to find fuel is because the aviation community is so stuck in the "This is the way we've always done it mentality." I've watched videos of the Flying Cowboys landing in a field next to an automotive gas station in Green River, UT and fill up their Rotax powered Cubs with 91 octane mogas. I know I'm talking about creating a logistical problem but if mogas is half the cost of avgas and I'm going to cut fuel consumption by 40% by running it in a closed loop easier to operate system I think it's worth it. As far as your diesel idea I like the attitude behind it but for my project I haven't seen a diesel that isn't so heavy that I need to make significant structural changes that are beyond my current abilities. What I've been trying to plan out is taking an existing airframe or kit plane and putting most likely a 2.3l Ford Ecotec, an LS3 or an LT1 with a Holley ECM. I've settled these motors because they are aluminum block and heads, compact, have been heavily tested by multiple organizations, are available as an almost ready to run crate motor from Ford or GM and the GM motors plug into Holley ECMs with the factory harness.

@fastfox23

Жыл бұрын

@@chaddoan4659 I mentioned 100LL because that is what is used across the vast majority of the GA market right now. The smallest Higgs Diesel is designed as a replacement for the Rotax, with similar weights, and the N/A version makes 150hp. Turbo goes to 250ish with some additional weight from the turbo system.

@pisymbol

Жыл бұрын

@@chaddoan4659 That’s not even close to the reason why 100LL is popular. Watch the AvWeb videos. Paul does a great job explaining why we are where we are in aviation.

7k planes in 20 years... that's what was being produced per year in the 70's in GA. Can't buy a certified plane for under $500k now, let alone a Cirrus.

@scottw5315

Жыл бұрын

GA outside of private jets and experimentals/light Sport is dying. Cirrus found a niche but we are only making about 1000 piston singles and Twins per year now. That's not even replacement rate for those lost in crashes or just written off for salvage because owners can't afford to fix them. Lawyers and government regulations killed it.

There are so many inconsistencies and wrong assumptions on this video it’s amazing to me. The author owes to rethink their approach in accuracy and possibly ask one or two cirrus pilots as to why we fly Cirrus and soon you’ll realize how simple it is to choose the SR22 over any other piston. I won’t waste my time explaining why. I will just make sure I don’t see another video by this content provider.

@GabbieGirl007

Жыл бұрын

You know the video is complete BS when a well known Cirrus flight vlogger comes to the comments .

@IrishBaron9903

Жыл бұрын

Totally agre with you Nikko... it was made for Click bait..

@bcfreedomfighterbcff167

Жыл бұрын

Eh Niko buddy.... Hope all is well and look forward to many more years of your fascinating videos.

@mhoeltken

Жыл бұрын

@@GabbieGirl007 Well, as usual, a true Cirrus posterboy will discard almost everything said about the aircraft just to defend their beloved brand from any criticism, even if it is well argued and on point. Dwayne wasn't low on praise for the aircraft, but he has a serious point. There is very little space for improvement that can be seen within the latest model changes and if each of these additions are really woth a "Generation" of an aircraft? (Granted that Cessna has issued a new Model for simple changes as the make of their switches... so it isn't a very new problem to aviation). In its current setup, the Cirrus isn't on the pinnacle of engineering anymore. At least not on powerplant options.

@GabbieGirl007

Жыл бұрын

@@mhoeltken idk man . I would believe somone who operates and owns the aircraft over and analyst .sorry .

Engine and fuel technology lag is hurting all segments of piston aviation. Wrap any airframe around these overpriced, conventional piston engines and you still have limited efficiency.

To me and having work with diesel, gas multi fuel and Hfo engines a 1/3 of century, the best futur of GA and light helicopters power plant (and cab pressure) is turbotech TP-R90 type small jet engine derivative turbo prop system with behind the combustion chamber, a large heat exchanger and strait back exhaust (for a take off PC option). This technology using new capillary tubes heat exchange is particularly adapted to small turbine power plant and combines four advantages: 1: lower weight, heat exchanger is not a drastic weight increaser, largely offset by less fuel burned. 2:efficiency the thermal efficiency is already as good as Otto turbo cycle and is already a good 40% improvement over other turbines with more improvement later…the lighter weight and lower drag of a smaller front area with the turbo prop better altitude performance can boost cruising speed and range further up. These results are logical: instead of using fuel exclusively to heat up and expand the compressed air, such a system uses first the exhaust gas heat to heat up compressed air further and then only a make up heat with less kerosine amount and combustion to reach similar temperatures to the turbine inlet…And to do so, small is beautiful : a tube two time smaller is 4 time lighter and 8 time stronger and thermal stresses increases with the size of components so that the smaller, the better. 3:use of economical A1 jet fuel, no fuel system lube issues like on diesels, common rail hp pump failure, etc.. 4: and up 3000 hours tbo initially. But in five, we have ONE Big Disadvantage : COST… which can go down with volume, recycling of hot metal component materials and use of modern ceramics, maybe a single pitch monobloc propeller, innovative reduction gear box, laminar design, etc.

@cageordie

Жыл бұрын

So it's a promising future tech, and probably much closer to useful than fusion, but still decades out at best.

You make good points which really helped me choose which plane to purchase, the Cirrus Vision Jet G2+.

@notbutters513

11 ай бұрын

Glad this helped you decide

The diesel engine weighs 300 lbs more to burn 18 lbs less fuel. The cost of designing, producing and supporting a general aviation engine is not justified by the small market and enormous liability.

@alexs3187

Жыл бұрын

The Continental Diesel engine already exists, and would bring fuel consumption down from about 17 to 9gph. Plus Jet A is about $1 per gallon cheaper. So a 5 hour flight with the diesel would be around $250 vs $550 with the IO-550.

@tstanley01

Жыл бұрын

@@alexs3187 Apples and oranges...the 550 burns 17 gph making 75ish % power, the diesel burns 9 gallons making about 45-50% power...crank it up to normal power settings and you are within a gallon or two...

To make some corrections to your statements. The Thielert Company doesn't exist anymore. It is now the AUSTRO Engine Company. They don't use the original Thielert V8 diesel engines. They use turbocharged 4 cylinder Mercedes Benz engines which are considerably lighter and smaller and also powered with Jet-Fuel A1. All Diamonds except the 50RG are using these engines in different variants. They could surely fit into Cirrus SR22 BUT Austro Engine is selling these engines solely to Diamond Aircraft as a unique stand-alone feature. The only other solution would be the new Continental CD300 Twin Turbocharged engine. Also FADEC controlled, Single Lever Jet-A1 engine. But this engine is definitely to big and powerful for the SR22. Also "Behind the scenes", mechanics are telling you that this engine is a nightmare if it comes to maintenance costs. So, besides these above mentioned alternatives, there are no FADEC-controlled, Diesel or Jet-Fuel powered engines on the market so far.

Agree with your main point re: the legacy engine. I have no doubt that a FADEC engine is high on the to-do list for Cirrus when the time is right. Diamond offers no ballistic parachute system, and the “electronic parachute” of the DA-40s is cold comfort for a family of 4 stuck in IMC or if the pilot is disoriented or incapacitated for whatever reason. I contacted Diamond to ask them why not put a full-frame parachute in, they basically said, our aircraft are the safest and don’t need one (nice). Rotax makes amazing FADEC engines and Sling Aircraft uses them brilliantly, so does Pipistrel in their SW range; both of these manufacturers offer parachutes too. Hopefully, Rotax will bring out a more powerful variant after its FADEC turbo 915iS, to push power to well beyond the current max of just over 140HP.

I Agree, it's time for them to use a different engine. But I'm sure they are already testing this, but probably haven't felt confortable for a big change and little gain.

I worked on the Gray Eagle. We had the Thielert 2.0 four cylinder turbo diesel. Biggest POS. TBO was 1800 hours and the engines rarely made it there. The Army's next UAV has a turbo prop.

@glsracer

Жыл бұрын

IMO, cheap turboprops are the way to go. Outside of the Rotax line for really small aircraft, I can't see the point of continued piston engine development for GA. PWC or GE could easily bring a small and inexpensive turboprop to market and all but put Lycoming and Continental out of business.

They just grounded flying all the SR22s and SR22Ts it operates that were built between June 21, 2021, and Feb. 7, 2023, because what is believed to be a manufacturing assembly defect in Continental engines. “Cirrus Aircraft has been informed by Continental Aerospace Technologies (Continental) of an issue that affects engines that power both Cirrus Aircraft’s SR22 and SR22T models,” the company said in a statement Feb. 9. “While we are still working with Continental to determine the scope of the issue and the specific serial number range of affected aircraft, we are proactively making the decision-out of an abundance of caution-to pause all internal Cirrus Aircraft company flight operations on SR22 and SR22Ts manufactured and issued a Certificate of Airworthiness from June 1, 2021, through February 7, 2023. Cirrus Aircraft continues to operate without restriction all its SR20s, as well as SR22s and SR22Ts manufactured before June 1, 2021 or after February 7, 2023

I've done a lot of research on this, and the more cost-effective solution imho is convert the IO-550N to liquid cooling. This would eliminate the 100 octane requirement because the resulting 220F cylinder head temps would eliminate the need for high octane for detonation resistance. Such an engine would run on 89 or 91 octane pump gas (w/o ethanol) and using unleaded fuel means the oil change interval would go from 50 to 100 hours and plugs and exhaust valves won't get gummed up with carbon. Additionally, liquid cooled cylinders should be good for two complete TBO cycles before replacement. Operationally, there's no shock cooling a l/c engine, and the higher compression allowed by lower CHTs means better SFC from the lower fuel burn.

@ohwell2790

7 ай бұрын

Every thing you said is true. But the really big problem and it is huge THE WEIGHT.

Cirrus' aircraft are a huge problem for general aviation. It's a platform that breeds complacency and an over reliance on automation in pilots. A decade ago, a good friend of mine was doing a flight review for a Cirrus pilot in his Cirrus. The guy took off, got to 200 feet, turned on the autopilot and put his feet on the floor. It apparently took some doing to get the guy to turn it off and fly the airplane himself. This all excludes rhe fact that when the aircraft was new, there were literally people flying themselves into the ground in stalls because they weren't getting the feedback they needed. The manual says that for any problem resulting in an emergency landing you need to total your airplane by pulling the airframe parachute, which is probably a good thing because they're so heavy they glide about as well as a brick. The landing gear--especially the castering nosewheel--is flimsy and breaks whenever you do anything other than taxi on smooth concrete or asphalt. As a few other people have mentioned, the Continental engines and the entire install on the aircraft itself are temperamental and are horrid to work on.

This same argument can be made for nearly every GA plane in current production. Technology is available but when it is introduced it comes at astronomical prices largely because it’s “revolutionary”.

I think he didn't answer the question why the SR-22 will fail as suggested in the title. I build and fly a Van's RV-10 with has better performance than a normally aspirated SR-22 for a quarter of the price. I love the freedom of experimental aircraft. Mine has heated seats. The only reason to buy a Cirrus for me would be FIKI (Flight into known Icing) as that is not available for my aircraft. I live in the northern part of the country and FIKI would provide a lot of utility in the cold month. Not sure which I would pick between SR-22 and DA-62. Those diesel engine have their issues too. Like fuel pump replacement after 600 hrs. and engine replacement after 1500 hrs. I think Cirrus has a great product for a premium price which I simply wouldn't like to pay.

@scottw5315

Жыл бұрын

I think the ballistic parachute sold the Cirrus. I was really surprised they did so well at that price point. I had several experimentals that would fly rings around a Cirrus for ten percent of their purchase price.

@edb7742

4 ай бұрын

@@scottw5315 Would you mind sharing some of the experimental aircraft you've owned? Thank you.

@scottw5315

4 ай бұрын

Glasair I, Glasair III, RV-4, Thorp T-18, the Glasairs are real hotrods. My Glasair I would do 195 knots with a 2000 mile range. My III would do about 210 knots.@@edb7742

It's a pretty plane that's for sure. I just can't justify spending ~$1M for a pretty paint job and a few extra bells and whistles. I'd rather get an older Piper Comanche or Cherokee and drop the extra money into updates/upgrades. I feel you'll end up with a better aircraft in the end.

@billymitchell2498

Жыл бұрын

You can actually buy a new Piper M350 for the same money!

@Hen2471

5 ай бұрын

If others have parachute 🪂 …. Now we have competition

I think the two biggest mistakes or missed opportunities Cirrus has made is; not making a better jet and not offering turbo prop to compete with Daher tbm960 bit I wouldn't say they're failing

You know what, I agree. The engine is my problem with this aircraft too. That and the fixed gear. At this price point, might as well fly the SF50 Vision Jet.

@YaroslavNechaev

Жыл бұрын

Gear adds significant maintenance costs, so does jet engine. That VisionJet is 5 times the operating costs of SR22. And you have to be type rated to fly VisionJet.

@karlfriedrich7758

Жыл бұрын

The Vision jet costs more than twice the price, plus all the extra maintenance involved. If you can casually afford another million purchase price as a 'might as well' then I don't know why you'd even be considering the SR22 in the first place - they're entirely different categories of aircraft. There are so many aircraft that outperform an SR22 for $2M...

@Mrfishlou

Жыл бұрын

I couldn't disagree more. The objective is efficiency and speed, and if these can be achieved without the weight, expense, and maintenance of retractable gear, FANTASTIC!

@f900ex5

Жыл бұрын

I flew one 4 Pax, 50% of fuel, 5500elev and I was only getting 82% of power out of the engine. I was shocked 7000ft down the runway only able to climb out at 300ft/min to acceleration speed. Diamond DA40 did not have this problem. For the cost I was disappointed.

@YaroslavNechaev

Жыл бұрын

@@f900ex5 well, DA40 can’t take 4 pax

Cirrus is the only GA plane with BRS as standard equipment. That is a tremendous selling point. If Diamond offer BRS, even as an option, I would wager that their aircraft sales would dramatically increase.

The experimental community has several FADEC engines available, with port fuel injection, and which start at the turn of the key. For certified engines there's no much better options for reasonable money. It's funny that the need for dual magnetos is because magnetos are unreliable and give a weak spark. I have had one electronic ignition fail in 40 years and well over a million miles driving, and that was a 200,000 mile Audi in 1986! The traditional engine manufacturers made FADEC ridiculously expensive, if you could just fit anything you could buy a port fuel injection system from the car market and install it for a few thousand dollars. Basically I agree with you. The last car you could buy that had a carb was some Indian PoS that went out of production in the late 90s. The last car I saw with a mixture control was a friend's restored 1927 Austin 7 sports car which also had a pressurized fuel tank that you hand pumped with a knob on the dash before hand cranking the car into life. It used Castrol R, which at that time was castor oil, so it smelled kind of funky. Funny that people will pay a million bucks for a state of the art certified airplane with hundred year old 'technology'. But this will no more kill the SR22 than it will kill the half million dollar Cessna 172 which is much slower and less capable but also has an antique curiosity of a power plant.

My RANS s6s has a fuel injected engine with an ECU. I only have a throttle. No mixture. Prop is only adjustable on the ground, but it’s a bush plane and set for climb instead of cruise to get out of places.

Dated, old information. The Thielert engine is replaced by the Austro 300, a 4 cylinder modification a a Benz diesel from a C series. Find it on the DA-40NG, DA-42NG (twin) and some Continental diesels on the larger DA-50 and 62 models (also FADEC). Also neglected to mention that these diesels are turbocharged, good for high altitudes, and liquid cooled so you can descend quickly without cold shock cracking the engine block or turbo.

I had a 2007 Bonanza G36 with a Continental IO550. It burned 7 exhaust valves being flown by 3 owners in 800 hours. My Maule MT-7-235 had a Lycoming IO540 that gave me zero trouble in 750 hours. It seems virtually all Continental 550’s need a top end overhaul by 800 hrs. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Also, starting the Continental 550 when hot was always a nail-biting event. The Lycoming started without issue hot or cold.

@TheReadBaron91

Жыл бұрын

As an AP IA I prefer lycoming overall too.

@cmtejuliani

9 ай бұрын

Flew 2300 hours on my engine. Seems that you need to understand how it works

Dwane how about naming this "Future of the Cirrus SR22?" That would align well with your (very balanced) analysis while still sparking viewer interest.

Hate or love Cirrus but at least they have disrupted a market that previously thought that adding 2 G1000s to a Skyhawk designed in the 50s was revolutionary. Aviation is a market with a lot of scrutiny and regulation (much more than cars and boats) so I’m sure it’s easy to fall into “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

If anyone is going to fail, I would posit it is this content provider.

Sorry to say it but the success of Cirrus will depend a lot more on their business management then on their engine selection. The Bonanza is still a supper desirable aircraft and has even more drawbacks then you listed for the Cirrus. Cirrus could add an SR22 J (jet fuel) in short order if they wanted to. All by taking the fast follower approach. (Wait for Diamond to work all the kinks out of the new engines. Then Cirrus can start using them without having to deal with all the R&D expenses, and marketting) Saying Cirrus is going to fail because their current product doesn't have the feature you want at the moment is like saying McDonald's is going to fail because your fries were cold twice. You are ignoring everything that goes into running a company.

Cirrus is killing the single engine market aside to the Bonanza. The Cessna 182 line up is way out dated and is slow. Cirrus keeps it fixed gear to reduce yearly cost, carbon composite design, has good power to weight ratio overall. The interior design options and paint options are awesome too. Now if Cessna made the 182 have 300 plus HP and better payload then maybe Cessna might be in the game still.

@klesmer

Жыл бұрын

A friend of mine owns one of these. I ask him why Cirrus did not have retracting gear. He said the factory told him the gear is a major part of the parachute recovery system. The collapsing of the gear takes up much of the landing force during a recovery. It would take a much larger chute, major redesign of the airframe to keep the same deceleration forces survivable. As it is an emergency chute landing is still pretty damned hard.

@ryanh1222

Жыл бұрын

Cessna doesn't want to sell piston engine aircraft. They want you to buy a CJ3+ a CJ4 or better yet a latitude. Then they get the 250k+ of yearly maintenance in addition to the sale of the aircraft

@PRH123

Жыл бұрын

hmm, I think Cessna is still solidly "in the game"... and the 182 is a very popular aircraft... speed isn't it's primary feature, useful load and interior space are...

The biggest issue with all general aviation aircraft manufacturers is over regulation, out of control lawsuits that bankrupt companies when a problem arises from a design issue, maintenance issue or even a misprint in a manual. In the 1950’-1970’s millions of people learned to fly. Many many aircraft were sold every year. The things that set this period of time apart was. Low liability insurance costs. A population that didn’t use layers as a convenient “lottery winning” tool and government regulation was focused on helping the industry thrive versus crushing regulations and taxation.

The video appears to be a lot of "clickbait" about speculation as to the SR22 line-up & its engine options. Many GA aircraft share similar issues ie piston engines, fixed undercarriage etc & with escalating fuel pricing I'm sure Cirrus, like all manufacturers are continually looking at other engine options as is already happening with heavy passenger jets using more economical engines, sustainable fuel etc & it's only a matter of time when FADEC is mainstream also in GA. CAPS is a huge desirable selling feature of Cirrus & many can't either afford the Vision Jet or they land on too many dirt strips where FOD ingress into the engine is a huge disadvantage. Cirrus is producing exciting GA aircraft & a refreshing change to GA . Cirrus is also a logical path to get pilots up to speed with not just stepping into the flight levels with O2 cannulas but even faster aircraft demanding greater pilot concentration ie TBM850, CJ3+ with the TBM900 already moving to FADEC, but that costs around USD$4.5 million!. Remember watching Stefan's old plane (VH-TDS) the other day on Flightradar24 flying out of YMMB running 160-180kn average ground speed. The fact that a new 182 costs 500k with a wait time of around 1.5 years, considering we have pilot shortage plus at least 2 SR22 drivers on YT I know (Nikos Wings & Stefan Drury) have now gone Garmin glass cockpit with FADEC not far away successfully doing cross-country trips, I'm sorry but I kind of feel disappointed after watching this. Wished I had a dollar/euro for every "expert" who over 20 years ago had predicted Cirrus would fail. It's like some ham radio content providers & "experts" who claimed the Yaesu FT817 & Icom 705 QRP radios would also fail

The diesel argument is not logical. I'm not aware of where the closest diesel-equipped airport is in my area. My plane is at a non-towered airport - so do I need to fly into a class C/D airport every time I want to buy fuel? That's going to require special trips just for gas. Not gonna do that.

@glenwoodriverresidentsgrou136

Жыл бұрын

Diesels burn Jet-A.

@aaronfahr9

Жыл бұрын

@@glenwoodriverresidentsgrou136 Shhhhhhh. You've spoiled his (uninformed) rant.

I enjoyed flying the cirrus and I didn't have any issues with the engine and I like traditional aircraft engines

@justusetpecator

Жыл бұрын

I agree. On my friends G3 he had some starter clutch issues and a couple other minor issues. Do any of the continental IO-550’s make it to TBO without a top overhaul?

@nythawkfpv

Жыл бұрын

As someone with a cirrus, the engine just fuckin works bro

Electronics are not fool proof, far from it and when they fail it’s never a cheap or easy fix. Just think Microsoft .

@Mark-rt6fy

Жыл бұрын

Microsoft treats us pretty cheap that's for sure...

With a Cirrus at least you know why when you ask the sales consultant if you can take it up for a spin he looks at you funny…

Well done for using click bait so you can make 20 cents from advertising. A fine lesson in how trust is lost.

As prices top one million, insurance will be a nail in the coffin.

Cape Air has had many issues with the new Lycoming engines. Still a lot of kinks to be worked out. This isn’t a Cirrus issue, this is an engine manufacturer issue.

@AC-jk8wq

Жыл бұрын

Not Cirrus Not engine manufacturer Not even FAA… It’s all about the certification process that has been left in the ice age… Looks like Cirrus has figured out something about certification…. Or how else would they have keyless entry…? Last I looked… Cirrus has a diesel engine powering their other plane…. 😃 This video is very high end click bait!!! Don’t get drawn in… Unless you want to do something about the certification process… The thielert engine is nice… so was the Porsche engine that powered the Mooney PFM…. Last century… We could be celebrating the recent improvements in electronic ignitions for the IO550… but, that wouldn’t have helped the click bait any… Go Nord VPN!

IMHO the six-cylinder air-cooled horizontally opposed piston engine has hit its zenith. this will be the limitation of any producer of cutting-edge aircraft. With that said, more refinement on small turbine engines would go a long way to a true next-generation light single.

I thought the "every aircraft" issue was the initial cost & cost of maintenance?

Could you please do a more deep dive in depth video about the Vulcanair P68 please.

It won’t fail, period. You’ve pointed out some things that other manufacturers have incorporated but that hasn’t proved your point on why you’ve entitled this video “Why the Cirrus SR22 will Fail”.

@thomasgreco8102

Жыл бұрын

Click-Bait! Do NOT Subscribe!

If the Cirrus is older. every ten years the parachute needs repacking. JR Aviation's SR-20 has been grounded most of the year because the parachute repack is out of stock, hard to get and they are looking at $28k for the 'chute system alone. Cirrus is also Chinese owned, how much of that factors into good customer service? Either go for your favorite tin box or a Diamond. Why did the Cirrus have a parachute in the first place? Something about being hard to recover from a spin I believe. The 'chute got it certified. I would avoid any plane depending on a parachute. i prefer the Diamond design any day.

As i understand it the diesel used in the Diamond models cannot be rebuilt, replacement at 1000 hours is $100K that seems like $100/hour engine replacement cost. Am i wrong?

How about the Veloce 400 and it’s Aeromomentum Engine? It’s a Cirrus for half the price and a better performing engine. Yes, not certified…yet. But who cares, Cirrus and Columbia started as Experimentals

I believe the only negative point he made about the Cirrus was the power plant. We should have electronic ignition by now!! These engine are factory new but are still old school tech. Diamond has been having some issues with their own diesel design but at least it has fadec, liquid cooling and modern ignition systems. He also mentioned that Cessna blew it when they didn’t add a parachute to the ttx and really diamond should have one as well. I think it really helped the Cirrus brand. I don’t believe Cirrus will fail until something better comes out that gives it a run for the money. Great video!

I got to fly in a Cirrus SR22 GTS today. it was excellent

I guess some people don’t really understand what KZread is about, and they tend to overproduce their videos as if they were cutting spots for top 40 radio. And on top of that they don’t really have a good grasp of the content.

Feether the engine? Love the robot narration!

I think the diamond engine is pretty heavy? Nobody wants to be the first to experiment with new engines in aeroplanes, they general don't work well until the expensive bugs are worked out. Maybe the diamond engine has the bugs worked out now.

Would like to see a Cirrus that can compete with the Piper M line... 200+ktas, 1300mi range, 6 seats, and pressurized. The SR24 seems like the next logical step.

@UncleKennysPlace

Жыл бұрын

Let me think ... got it! Cirrus should make a small jet! That would fill a niche!

@ToeTag1968

Жыл бұрын

@@UncleKennysPlace Ah funny. I knew about the jet but for some reason thought it was a 4 seater. Yeah, that's ticks those boxes.

Really enjoyed this.

The DA50 RG is powered by the 300 hp Continental Aerospace Technologies CD-300.

I consider the Cirrus a first generation composite plane, and therefore will be heavier than what it should be. This was a common problem that also plaque the Beech Starship. and the Cessna Covalis. But they had 2 decades to make incremental improvements. I was also not pleased that Cirrus took a short cut and prohibit spins on earlier models instead of fixing it aerodynamically. The engine is another major issue all together. The classical air cooled Lycosaurus had to be made loose to combat shock cooling, but liquid cooling make it unnecessary. I am thinking along the line of a Chevy LS engine. I do not like Rotax, UL etc they did us no favors in prices, Rotax is a big company with lots of overheads and share holders to pay for. They were also slow in tech advances. They are only up to 140 HP now and the earlier engines still use carbs ! I also think they turboed the wrong smaller engine to make the 914. I guess that create an opening for companies like Edge Performance. Better to work on the FAA rules to allow for auto engines in certified planes. But you have to get rid of a lot of dead wood there or wait for them to retire.

@MN-RV

10 ай бұрын

The main problem with auto engines in airplanes is that they're typically not designed to, and not able to, hold up under 70%+ power loads over extended periods. The LS3 is one of the few that has been, by NASA, proven capable of it.

I soloed in 1967 and have been flying ever since. Can’t believe I’d see the day when a GA fixed-gear, single engine aircraft would sell for a million bucks. Inflation is pricing more and more folks out of aviation.

The biggest issue is the ridiculously high price tag. If I pay over $1 million for an airplane, it’s going to be pressurized and turbine powered. What a scam of an airplane.

After owning many different airplanes and settling on the SR22, I understand why it is so popular. No need to defend or convince non-owners how go this plane really is. It is.

Brah...you buy a cirrus aircraft not because of its flaws but because of the one safety feature it has...a parachute

It has long been a well-known fact that every seasoned and competent marketing specialist knows that innovation is not brought about by asking customers what they want. They are especially not competent to assess the potential of such a complex product as an airplane.

I guess the Cirrus SR22 G7 changes all the points of this video; it has a FADEC engine.

Which is more reliable the Cessna or the Cirrus?

As an aviation enthusiast the only thing I got out of this is the creator likes Diamond better than Cirrus. I don’t think Cirrus fans are going to sell theirs for something else because you like diamond more than Cirrus

I`LL take my 06 Saratoga 2 TC any day..😎🤠🛩

I think Stefan Dufrey said it best "I want to travel to Asia. But I can't because you cannot buy AVGAS!" Diesel is EVERYWHERE. JETA1 is EVERYWHERE. AVGAS isn't.

I'm trying to figure out why it would need a V8 diesel engine in the first place. The six or even a good 4 cylinder diesel puts out more than enough torque to replace that i/o550. And still have plenty of liability and even more range. Not only that there are several much lighter internal combustion engine designs out there that are more than capable of putting out way more than 310 horsepower and weighing no more than 150 lb. Everybody's just afraid to take a leap and build it. And while I'm at it, put a small turban engine in it that runs a generator and use an electric power plant. You still fill it up with fuel and I'll bet you you could get 1,500 nautical miles out of it. And quite easily with a lot less weight. That increases your cargo ability substantially. About glass cockpits, I see the usability in glass cockpits. But I have also seen how depending on technology, like a full computerized engine management system, until anything goes wrong with it. At least triple redundancy, and having mechanical or analog backup is always preferable. Plus it keeps the cost down. My idea of a perfect cockpit is glass but always at least one stack of solid analog instrumentation. Your best point is why in the world am I spending a million dollars on an aircraft and it doesn't have the latest and greatest of everything. That is what is called the used foodstuffs of the male bovine variety. And the thing that still befuddles me is that they're charging that amount, and it still has fixed gear. I did instrumentation rebuild and repair and replacement a local City airport when I first got out of the service. And we had a very well-known weather reporter that decided to land a new plan here bought a number of months before without realizing that the alarm sounding in his headset was telling him he hadn't put the landing gear down. I still don't understand how that happens. Is the workload that much that you truly forget to put the landing gear down? And at that point should you still be flying an aircraft. I could understand if the landing gear didn't work. But don't forget to put it down?

@davem5333

Жыл бұрын

You are obviously a brilliant enginear from UWT. The University of Wishful Thinking

@kenbrand8972

Жыл бұрын

Diamond doesn’t use an eight cylinder engine the guy was wrong it has a four cylinder diesel from Benz or austro the da50 uses a continental six cylinder diesel

My Diamond DA 50 need last Year from Spring to Christmas in 130 Hours 11 Gal / h

I put a 160K deposit (before release) on a G7 and now I am filled with regret. Same old power plant, NO FADEC, and a completely ridiculous price tag. You don't have to read many of the professional pilot's comments to figure out the G7 fell short of high expectations. IMHO, as a new pilot the Cirrus is overwhelming and unsafe. In general, the Cirrus experience has been less than satisfactory. New pilots, do your homework before you get sucked in...

Look at all the accidents with the same plane

If I could afford a cirrus, I would rather pay to have a RV10 built for me and save money with a better airplane.

@scottw5315

Жыл бұрын

I'd buy a used Bonanza for a fraction of the price of a Cirrus. I spent ten years with a Bonanza. Best plane of any I've flown.

Given the number built and in service i cannot consider the Sr22 a failure.

It looks nuthing like The SR22!!. How do you compare the to???

Very wrong info on the Cessna TTX. It didn't fail because they didn't put a parachute on it. It failed because when Cessna moved the composite manufacturing site from Oregon to Mexico, the new composite shop had swamp coolers in the layup and assembly rooms. This introduced water into the layups and the planes were delaminating. Actually killing important higher ups with the company due to an accident. They ruined so many TTXs that it wasn't financially recoverable. That's why the TTX is no longer.....

I don't quite get why all of the cirrus videos are basically not about cirrus at all, but about how amazing diamond supposedly is. They all read like diamond paid advertisements.

"The engine" is not just for Cirrus, it's is a problem throughout general aviation. As a non-pilot who is thinking about learning to fly, I'm surprised to see the shabby state of innovation in GA. It seems like the culture of general aviation is hide-bound, ossified to the point of fossilization, and dusty enough to trigger an allergy attack. I mean, I drove out to my discovery flight in a '21 VW GTI, a modestly nice car. Then I got in the cockpit of a 25 year old (relatively new by flight school standards) Cessna 172, the design of which was derived from the 152, which was derived from the 120 and 140, which were designed in the '40s! So the design of the plane I flew is directly descended from planes that were designed right after WWII when Truman was still president. The 172 was introduced in 1956, when Eisenhower was still in his first term as president! In 1956, you could still buy a Packard, Edsal, Studebaker, DeSoto, and Rambler - all American-made cars then at the cutting edge of design, right along with the Cessna 172. Cadillacs has giant fins and bumper bullets that looked like firm, gravity-defying double D-cup breasts for crying out loud! GA isn't growing because the whole look, feel, and culture of GA looks, feels, and smells 70 years old and boring AF. Even a brand-new 172 looks like a 67 year old airplane from a black and white movie. Now take a look at a Tecnam P2008 ($250k nicely loaded with zero hours) - especially w/o the gaudy graphics that make so many GA aircraft look like grubby old Winnebagos rusting away in trailer parks all over America. Same basic high-wing layout, but light years ahead of a brand-new 172. And like so many things from Italy, it looks like sex, and who doesn't like sex! Take a peek at a Bristell B23. Inside and out, it stirs the imagination and soul in a way that's not all that different from the dynamic sense of movement one feels when they see an F-16. Spend a minute looking at a JMB VL-3 or, God forbid, a TomarkAero Viper SD4 with its rear-hinged canopy. Even planes that almost look like animation or anime like the Flight Design F2 (with its 53" wide cockpit!) embarrass the poor bastard driving a 172. So for $200,000 - 300,000, one can get a new LSA at the high end of the luxury side of the LSA market or a used Cessna that was designed about the same time that Marilyn Monroe was on the cover of the first issue of Playboy Magazine! If you really have to have a part 23 bird and want that new car smell, you can drop $500,000 on a brand-new Cessna 172 that was designed before rock music amounted to a fart in a wind storm. It's not about money. America is full of yuppies and professionals, highly compensated lawyers, bankers, sales people, engineers, etc who would laugh at the cost of flight training and aviation. And a good many of these people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on cars, boats, and baubles to entertain themselves. Hell, some even ride bicycles that cost over $10,000. And a lot of these people are keenly interested in active lifestyle past times and spend lavishly to pursue those activities. Even a broke-ass 18-year-old waiting tables for a living who drives up to flying lessons in a 10-year-old Honda gets out of a car that feels like something from the Jetsons compared to the archaic airplane she's about to get into. No, GA is struggling because it's still living in the era of Happy Days when Richie, Fonzie, and Potsie were hanging out at a soda shop as the epitome of cool. Until GA is unshackled from the boat anchor of its "glory days," it's doomed. And LSA and SPL are the vehicles by which foreign competition will enter the market and shake up the big-3 American artifact airplane makers and inject some much-needed sense of modern life into an otherwise moribund culture. It'll be interesting to see how MOSAIC updates the LSA category and how that affects GA.

@PRH123

Жыл бұрын

Comparing cars and automobiles isn't an apt comparison for a number of reasons. Firstly the market size, if 1000 new light piston aircraft are sold in a year that is considered to be a good year. Not that many people want to or need to fly, it's a small fixed market. That's not a sector that's going to attract big investment. Secondly on the subject of age, because certified aircraft must be maintained according to strict standards, they can be in excellent condition for decades. That in addition to the fact that the utilization rate is very low (a privately aircraft might operate only 50 hours per year), means there is always a large supply of older aircraft in good condition, against which new sales must also compete. Another factor is that many or most of those older aircraft were very well designed, and are still competitive. Every aircraft is a flying compromise, and those balances were worked out long ago. Steel tube and fabric cubs are still wildly popular and very expensive. The 172 is an excellent reliable and safe training platform with upgraded instrumentation. Pilots tend to be more conservative types in general, and certainly anyone whose business involves aviation is extremely cautious. Appearance interests them much less than performance and the numbers. As exemplified by the very rapid uptake of GPS and electronic instruments, GA pilots and manufacturers are not old hidebound Luddites.

In countries like India we prefer a diesel engine. Avgas is expensive and difficult to get . Hence it will be great if Cirrus could make a diesel engined Sr 22 with the same engine that is being used in the DA 50 RG by tweeting it up .

@chaddoan4659

Жыл бұрын

What's the octane rating on automotive gasoline in India and how consistent is the quality? I ask because I've been researching building an experimental plane that will run on what's commonly available and diesels tend to be heavy.

@aroopghosh1381

Жыл бұрын

@@chaddoan4659 93 octane unleaded .

@aroopghosh1381

Жыл бұрын

@@chaddoan4659 Rotax engines in India dont use mogas in India. They use 100 LL Avgas. This fyi

@chaddoan4659

Жыл бұрын

@@aroopghosh1381 In the U.S. most people running Rotax engines run 100 octane low lead because it's what is available at the air field and don't want to transport fuel from the automotive gas stations to their plane. What I was researching was potentially using one of a few different automotive crate engines from GM or Ford in something the size of Cirrus with an off the shelf closed loop control system from Holly Performance Parts.

Anyone see Volkswagen Beetle in that back window shape? Looks like it needs to be converted to split window.

how about a fuel system and mix that is automatic or automated, at least hands off?how about ai that deploys the chute? how about a bigger chute and a steerable chute? how about air bag seats or some other fluid? how about ai controlling the rudder in cross wind landings? there are lot of innovations to be done that allow nice features and price increases while lower the price of the simple models. g8

I'll keep my 56 G35 V-tail.

So, WHEN will it fail? Over 9000 have been built now and it is still the best selling single engine plane. I have one since 2013 and I find it is a great airplane.. Of course "FADEC" would be nice to have, but have you researeched how much the certification would cost? I bet you have not ...

okay so first of all, the engine point is for sure a point of contention on this aircraft, especially after recent events. however to say that a platform this successful will fail because of something as easily replaceable as an engine? you cant be that near sited. the cirrus has been killing it for two decades, if anything the G7 will ship with the lycoming equivalent if the continentals remain this troublesome. i have 500 hours on this platform and its a solid aircraft. Ive flown a ton of GA planes but none even come close to the cirrus.

Is the cirrus sr22 a safe plane?

Thank you.

Yes, Cirrus needs to switch to a FADEC engine.

@CapeVoice

Жыл бұрын

apparently with the G7, I was told by my flight instructor that the mixture lever is going away, so we'll see.

How many FBO’s and mechanics would be willing to work on your diesel aircraft?

@TheReadBaron91

Жыл бұрын

I’ve worked on Austros, some good things about them, some bad. A single bad sensor can ground you in the middle of nowhere, but can be relatively easy to track down the bad sensor with a computer for example.

The only thing that keeps me from replacing my Archer with a cirrus is money. Lots of money. Great airplane imo

Most of their competition consists of flying around with 60ish year old designs. I think they'll be fine unless someone finally makes a flying car that isn't stupid, and that also looks less stupid.

The SR - 22 crashes much to often. Something is wrong with the design.

When Lycoming or Continental has a certified diesel, I will start considering one for a Cirrus (or any other GA unaffordable). I don't care about two levers or fuel efficiency, but I do care about PROVEN reliability. Oh, and your title is click-bait so no like, no subscribe.

Hmmmm over $1 million dollar price tag?

The problem with Cirrus is thier price, otherwise they would've put up a good fight against Cessna, Piper, Mooney, etc.

This aircraft has been made since 2001. Its a superior aircraft to anything else in its class. This video was such a bait and switch. Not sure what to think of this kind of channel.

The only disadvantage I found in this video is that the guy who made this video is a DA geek

Having worked on the prototypes of the first 3 gens I like them but yes they could use an engine upgrade. The interiors are beautiful so no need to change that.

@slploudmouth

Жыл бұрын

I would take a Cirrus over any 172 or 182 any day for sure. The Cirrus has fairly good weight and balance for payload, is fixed gear, which helps reduce annual inspection cost. The power to weight ratios is great similar to a Bonanza but without the extra gear cost on inspection TAS on average is about 160-170kts if you go higher than 14,000 you can maybe hit faster numbers. Both the Bonanza TAS 170-185kts and Cirrus are my top to single engine picks, 3rd would be Piper Saratoga TAS 160-175kts typically.

Not sure about the gas thing. I’ve been to many smaller ga airports that don’t carry jet-A

1 million for a single engine piston aircraft... yeahhhh noooo. But still he got a few things wrong about the centurion engine vs the continental for example the automation is possible on the continental but it's not certified and only approved on the experimental. Also the centurion engine can't fly as high or fast, in the US you need range, speed, and altitude.

The doors are mega easy to open and close 🤣

Cirrus’s marketing is top notch, they know how to sell airplanes. SR22 fail not sure how, their presence on the ramp is quite spectacular. The Cirrus would be at the bottom of my list for a high performance single engine aircraft. Give the SR the most technically advanced engine possible but still it is just an SR. I find the cabin uncomfortable, (forget about the poor soul in the back seat) stick forces are too heavy, lacks manual trim, and yes I want control of the propeller. The addition of a yaw damp has really helped the ride but it still is not the best ride in town. If you are willing to sacrifice all that for good looks and decent performance, the SR is acceptable. Big plus for the parachute, they deserve a pat on the back for that one. Still a good airplane and deserves to be around for a long time.

@EEEEEEE354

Жыл бұрын

I flew the SR20 recently and found the stick forces a little weird too. I've only flown about 3.0 in it so far though. I'm used to 172s, warriors and archers. Maybe you just gotta get used to it. My big issue with the planes is the stupid honeycombed seats due to the parachute. You can't just haphazardly hop in the plane. Feels over engineered.

@justusetpecator

Жыл бұрын

@@EEEEEEE354 Oh you are talking about the Cirrus brick. :) Yes those seats are firm. Sheep skin covers go along way to help improve seat comfort. If you get a chance fly a Beechcraft, they have a nice feel similar to Piper just a bit lighter. Easy to fly with your finger tips.