Cirrus or Lancair?

Matt,

Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).

They both use a combo of Garmin GNS transceivers and the Avidyne Entegra
displays. Exactly the same, though Lancair installs them in portrait
orientation, while in the Cirrus they are in landscape. Both do NOT use the
Garmin G1000.


According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is, comparatively,
somewhat unstable.

Huh? Never heard that..

Certainly Cirrus spends a hell of a lot more on advertising, don't they?


I think they compare.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,


Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).


They both use a combo of Garmin GNS transceivers and the Avidyne Entegra
displays. Exactly the same, though Lancair installs them in portrait
orientation, while in the Cirrus they are in landscape. Both do NOT use the
Garmin G1000.


According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is, comparatively,
somewhat unstable.


Huh? Never heard that..


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. Cirrus has
not, to my knowledge, demonstrated spin recovery capability any other
way (not saying it's not possible -- just hasn't been demonstrated or
approved)

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,


Also, the Cirrus uses "Big Name" Garmin, while the Lancair
uses small shop Avidyne (even if Avidyne is, IMNHO, superior).


They both use a combo of Garmin GNS transceivers and the Avidyne Entegra
displays. Exactly the same, though Lancair installs them in portrait
orientation, while in the Cirrus they are in landscape. Both do NOT use
the
Garmin G1000.


According to some, Lancair is very stable, while Cirrus is,
comparatively,
somewhat unstable.


Huh? Never heard that..


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. Cirrus has
not, to my knowledge, demonstrated spin recovery capability any other
way (not saying it's not possible -- just hasn't been demonstrated or
approved)

IIRC, only their test pilots could recover and at that only after several
turns. A Lancair can recover in one turn. Also, IIRC, that's two turns
faster than most others.

Xyzzy,

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.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Sandstone" wrote in message
...

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.



I have just recently demo'ed both the SR22 gts and the Columbia 350 & 400.
I agree-- the Columbia is a better product! The Columbia has a bigger fuel
capacity & better range vs payload capability. What I do NOT like about the
SR22 is that it is neutrally stable -- i.e. if you put it in a bank, dive,
climb, etc., it tends to stay in that configuration. Not very safe for when
you are in the soup and have no visual clues. The Columbia has a better
control feel and balance with it side "stick" vs. the SR22's side "yoke".

Cameron

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:56:25 -0400, "cameron"
wrote:


"Sandstone" wrote in message
.. .

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.



I have just recently demo'ed both the SR22 gts and the Columbia 350 & 400.
I agree-- the Columbia is a better product! The Columbia has a bigger fuel
capacity & better range vs payload capability. What I do NOT like about the
SR22 is that it is neutrally stable -- i.e. if you put it in a bank, dive,

You just described a good portion of the high performance aircraft
available including Bonanzas. That's why you find nearly any one of
them that is going to be used IFR has a good autopilot.

It does take some getting used to, but after a while the near neutral
stability feels quite natural. Makes 1702s and Cherokees feel down
right slugish though.:-))

climb, etc., it tends to stay in that configuration. Not very safe for when
you are in the soup and have no visual clues. The Columbia has a better
control feel and balance with it side "stick" vs. the SR22's side "yoke".

This one feature alone would send me to the Columbia. the side stick
feels natural, the side yoke (half a yoke) doesn't, at least to me.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Cameron

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.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
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. 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.

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:19:03 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
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.

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.