This means that Cirrus is built LIGHTER (better engineering?) but the Lancair CARRIES more (better aerodynamics?). The Cirrus weighs 2,386 pounds empty (max gross 3,400)… the Lancair is 2,519 empty (max gross 3,600). Before any old-schoolers complain, the same is true of the Cessna 182 Turbo! Just put some rescue-gear in the back of the plane and you will be fine, though.
CIRRUS SR22 RANGE FULL
BOTH the Cirrus AND the Lancair are ILLEGAL to fly with full fuel and 2 heavy passengers up front: You are FORWARD OF THE ALLOWABLE CG LIMIT. So it looks like the turbo on the Cirrus may be a slightly better build than the one on the Lancair.Īnyway, before flight, a look through the Operating Handbook. The Lancair burns 38 gallons per hour in climb when the Cirrus burns 35, and the Lancair needs a 5-minute cool-down time after flight… the Cirrus does not. IT LOOKS LIKE CIRRUS MADE THE SLIGHTLY BETTER BET. BOTH the Lancair and Cirrus started life with normally-aspirated Continental IO 550’s and then got turbos added for more speed… and Lancair got the engine with the turbo from Continental, and Cirrus got the turbo from an after-market. I let Cirrus sales rep Carol Le Boeuf take me for a flight in a new G-3 (third-generation) Cirrus SR-22 Turbo the other day to find out.įirst a word on the turbo. OK so right after I got a Lancair Columbia-400, Cirrus came out with the SR-22 Turbo… a plane to match the Lancair in performance, while maybe beating it in some elements of user-friendliness.
0 kommentar(er)
