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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Feether the engine? Love the robot narration!

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

Really enjoyed this.

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?

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?

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

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.

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…

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!

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

I guess some people don’t really understand what KZfaq 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.

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

"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.

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”.

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

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...

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.

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

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.

Is the cirrus sr22 a safe plane?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which is more reliable the Cessna or the Cirrus?

Thank you.

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

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

Cirrus sold more planes than Textron, last year.

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.

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.

Look at all the accidents with the same plane

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.

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?

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.....

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.

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 haven’t flown in a Cirrus but I would take a Continental or Lycoming over an Austro or Thielert Diesel any day. Those diesel engines aren’t made to last, weigh more and provide less power. I would like to see new AVGAS engine models for the legacy manufacturers and tbh I don’t mind an extra lever, it puts more control into the pilots hands, yes you have to learn how to handle the engine and it’s getting used to for a student pilot. But I am not a fan of fadec, don’t try to fix what isn’t broken. And any system you add is one more that can fail and one more to make maintenance costs go up

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 ...

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

I'll keep my 56 G35 V-tail.

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

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

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.

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 .

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

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

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

The FAA is definitely strangling the GA industry. We need to get the FAA out of GA to a large degree and let the market work. GA in the USA is like the auto industry in Cuba, too few new or innovative vehicles results in old stuff being sold for way too much money.

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

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.

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.

Jet fuel not Diesel. The pending introduction of unleaded 100 avgas in the US makes Diesel less attractive. The economics are stacked against change in aviation.

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

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 continuous innovation is one.

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.

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

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

Hmmmm over $1 million dollar price tag?

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