Talk:Cirrus SR22/Archive 1

2012 Update
I am not sure of the correct way to notate the fact that the SR22 and SR22T is available with both 3 and 4 passenger versions. So I am adding this as a comment here. It was added with the 2012 model year update. Also, the Perspective Global Connect option was added for both aircraft with satellite weather, phone, text messaging through an Iridium Communications system.Danjw1 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they also added ADS-B transponder as an option in 2012. Danjw1 (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft delivery
who'z got hard number for aircraft delivery. I have strange doubts that the cirrus sr22 is the best selling 4 seat single engine GA out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.3.146 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 September 2006

This is an old comment, but General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) publishes yearly reports on aircraft sales. Here is last years report: http://www.gama.aero/files/documents/2014GAMAShipmentReport10302014AHF.pdf. Danjw1 (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: Article Paragraph 2
Citation(s)/reference(s) for statistics given would be more meaningful for the article statement, "Despite that until the 2nd of December 2006 a total of 28 people have died in 40 accidents with the SR22 involved." [Just my 2¢, but references would lend greater validity to the article.] <;)))>< JamesBigBass 06:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

SR22T as a separate article
Can we make a cirrus turbo page, although not a seperate model, it will create some confusion the the SR22 PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.152.24, 2 January 2007 (talk • contribs)


 * Please have a look at the Wikipedia Aircraft Project page for some guidence in how variants are treated. The Turbo SR22 is an after-market modification to the stock SR22 and as such it would be most appropriete to mention it as part of the SR22 article.
 * Just a suggestion - please get a user account. When you do you will get some welcoming information that will help get you started on these sorts of issues.
 * Ahunt 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the "SR-22" I was after
Someone should write a Wikipedia article about the insurance document known as the "SR-22", required in many states for people caught/convicted of driving without auto insurance, DUI, etc. I would, but I don't know how, since "SR-22" redirects HERE! [to this article!]. Shanoman 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that isn't hard to do - just go to the SR22 page itself (by waiting for the redirect and then clicking on the link at the top that says "redirected from") and change it from a re-direct page to a disambiguation page and then put two links on it - one to Cirrus SR22 and one to your new page you write about the insurance document, which could be called SR22 insurance document or something similar. That way anyone who just types in "SR22" would come to the disambiguation page and can then pick which one they want. Let me know if that doesn't make sense! Ahunt 12:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, since it's not clear if there is enough information for a stub, I've put a redirect3 template to the top of the page, going to Drunk driving (United States). Should do the same thing you were after. -- RoninBK T C 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That will work fine! - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently someone has taken both our ideas, creating an SR22 dab page, and pointed the SR-22 form link to the Drunk Driving page. Whatever works, I guess... -- RoninBK T C 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

KTAS Verus kn
Although kn is the preferred abbreviation for knots in general, it's not adequately specific for aviation use. I've changed kn to KTAS in the Turbo performance section. The quoted values are correct, according to the Cirrus web site. Refer to the article on knots if you have any concerns. --Tedd (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cirrus SR22 in Google Earth
User:Hhaayyddnn has twice entered a statement that the SR22 is available "as flyable aircraft in Google Earth's flight simulator". I contend that this does not comply with Aircraft project guidelines which says:

"'A 'Popular culture' section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. This section should not be a compendium of every trivial appearance, but significant ones of relevance to the airframe. The canonical example would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Due to the large number of survey and arcade simulations, an effort should be made to avoid tallying every sim appearance unless there are very few of them. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research.'"

I don't think this use is "especially notable" and should be deleted, but I would like to hear from any other editors working on this page if they think it is notable and should be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the response I believe we have consensus and will remove the pop culture reference. - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Change performance section?
I suggest instead of the performance section we have an infobox or template containing the same information. It may be cleaner. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the whole specs section is out of conformity with WikiProject_Aircraft standards and needs to be re-written to use the Template:Aircraft specifications. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * New spec section added. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, you beat me to it! I had it on my list for later today! Looks much better, thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Crash 10 May, 20110
A Cirrus SR22 crashed at Tuscaloosa Regional Airport Tuscaloosa, Alabama 7:29 p.m Monday May 10, 2010 killing both occupants. Local officials will be investigating with NTSB and FAA officials within the coming days.

Here is a link to the article in the Tuscaloosa News: http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20100511/NEWS/100519927/1007?Title=2-dead-in-single-engine-plane-crash#

Here is the flight plan of the aircraft in question: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N424LF

The plane was on a scheduled stop on a flight from Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport. Here is a link to some preliminary whitness acounts as to what happened. This is not official information: http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=74271

this happened a day after an airshow at the airport. Dreammaker182 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fascinating, but it doesn't make the standard for inclusion in the article found at WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There was another Accident in September: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/15/5-die-in-small-plane-crash-in-missouri/57786018/1 It's the deadliest crash of this Type, killing a whole family of 5, despite the fact that the SR22 is a 4-seater. Maybe this accident meets the standard? Christoph77.181.82.67 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlikely, light aircraft crash regularly and it would have to kill somebody notable at least to be of any note. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like it would make the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. Unfortunately this aircraft type has dozens of accidents like this each year. The fact that it had five people on board may or may not have been legal, but it doesn't make the accident any more notable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fastest aircraft in this category (piston-powered propeller with turbocharged engine.)
Shouldn't the category specify single engine? I don't know how that works in aviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.51.26 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The ref says "fastest piston single airplane", so I will fix that. Thanks for bringing it up! - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar Aircraft
I would like to challenge the current article's use of the Bonanza A36, and Cessna 210 as aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era. Both the Bonanza and 210 are six-seat aircraft (one pilot, five passengers), with a higher useful load, and retractable landing gear. I hardly agree that these aircraft are similar, as they serve different functions, and can hardly be compared as comptetitors, just by seating capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan7W (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, just on era alone, so go ahead and remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Glass cockpit upgrading
'''The section includes the following text: "The previously offered Avidyne cockpit remains standard equipment". This comment about the glass cockpit seems to be no longer true the Avionics listed in the current (and last years, too, I think) price sheet only shows the Perspective cockpit. I am not sure when the change over was made, but it seems like this should be fixed.''' 69.181.208.27 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The current "Turbo" or SR22T is actually not an STC and has been its own type certification, so should that model introduced in 2010, I think, have its own page?Danjw1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Danjw1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 February 2012


 * If you check the FAA Type Certificate you will see that the SR22T was just added to the SR20/22 type certificate, so it isn't a distinct model. I have added more data from your ref above to the article, but I don't see any reason to have a separate article on what is really just an engine variant. - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

SR22T as a separate article
The SR22T hasn't been an STC since June of 2010, when Cirrus released a Turbo with the Continental TSIO-550-K. It is still a derived aircraft, but it has its own type rating. So the reasoning from the 2006 post above from Ahunt, no longer applies. I looked at the WikiProject Aircraft/page and it wasn't clear to me. The performance of the Aircraft is significantly different, but the airframe and avionics are pretty much the same. Please don't just delete my comment, without adding something to address this issue. My reference for this information is here: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/cirrus/cirrus-sr22t-turbo-without-the-stc.html. Also Ahunt has removed edits I have made to the page to add pricing for the SR22T (in addition updating the pricing for the SR22) and adding specs for the SR22T that were different then the SR22. I have seen this on other aircraft pages on wikipedia. To maximize the information available on wikipedia about SR22 and SR22T we need to either break out a separate page or include that sort of information in this article.Danjw1 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved your comment to the bottom as is convention, no point in replying to a five-year old discussion best to start again. Can users please sign contributions correctly, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is my comment from above: If you check the FAA Type Certificate you will see that the SR22T was just added to the SR20/22 type certificate, so it isn't a distinct model. I have added more data from your ref above to the article, but I don't see any reason to have a separate article on what is really just an engine variant.


 * I am not sure what you are talking about regarding removing pricing - you added it and it is still there. Also as per WikiProject Aircraft/page content we only use one set of specs in aircraft type articles. This is a general encyclopedia, not a special purpose aircraft publication that lists specs for each variant. You can note I used the P&P ref you provided to update the article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you have added separate pricing in the info box for the "T" model. That is fine, it can be done that way or alternatively just include in the article text. - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is how I have seen it on other aircraft articles so I did it that way. Danjw1 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Using this logic why are there distinct SR20 and SR22 pages? Both are on the same type certificate but are distinct models, similar to the relationship of SR22 and SR22T. Back to the SR22/SR22T discussion, the SR22T would appear to meet the notability guidelines: not only from the manufacturer recognizing different models (SR20, SR22, SR22T Pilot Operating Handbook, AD publication, Training Programs) but also from FAA registration using distinct registration "type". An ICAO type distinction is also forthcoming. Readers tend to pore through these articles for details so simply having only SR22 performnace, etc. information appears somewhat limiting. Further thoughts would be appreciated and, yes, I am Cirrus. D. Breemeersch (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What we would need to justify a separate article is enough different content to make the new article significantly different from the existing one. The new article needs to meet WP:N and that requires independent third party refs, like reviews and such, not just company content. If a split off article is just going to duplicate the existing article then there isn't much point in splitting it, it should just remain as a described variant of the SR22.


 * Not sure what you mean by "and, yes, I am Cirrus" - If you work for the company then you probably want to review WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Accident stats
I have attempted to update the accident stats using the NTSB database, but you have to manually enter the search parameters, you can't just link to a page with that data on it. I have added the parameters I used to the reference, Make=Cirrus, Model=SR22, Registration=N, so it should only include US registered planes.
 * Please check and correct if needed.--220  of  Borg 06:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Pricing
The person that updated pricing on the models made them base model pricing, which are less common than the GTS with FIKI. I know they had been the GTS with FIKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjw1 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We normally quote the base model, but that is fine to quote other prices as long as you specify what the price includes. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Right now the infobox pricing is wrong. It lists the SR22T GTS with FIKI, but the pricing is wrong, it is the pricing for the SR22 GTS with FIKI. The reference is for the SR22 price list, not the SR22T. I am going to change the wording to reflect that it is the SR22 not the SR22T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjw1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Parachute system
It is not usual for an article lead to give minor details such as safety systems, they are not definitive of the type, its major characteristics or its history. I don't see this parachute as any different, it just needs a one-liner in the main body of the article. After all, it has an entire article all to itself. Giving it too high a profile here smacks of spam. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While I fully agree the article still smells far too commercial, it must be granted that this plane has seen commercial success for several years. There is nothing special about the CAPS from a technological point of view, but it has added much to its market success. At least, that is the general opinion in specialised forums, but of course these have no encyclopedical value. So yes, the CAPS may be considered a major characteristic and I do believe it is definitive of the type - unless I misinterpret that expression. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It has been around a long time, there should be reliable sources confirming that the CAPS has contributed to its market success. It is a rather unusual selling point so its effect on sales does need citing. I am afraid that the present cite of an FAA certificate does not cut it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You must be right, hard reliable sources are not available. Neither can I imagine how they could be available - are there reliable published statistics about the decision tree of a person spending a fair amount of money? Even so, our charter obliges us to be hard and cruel, and refute any information not backed by encyclopedical sources. It must be one of the weak points of the wikipedia concept - we can't publish anything without a solid source, even if it is a fact generally agreed upon or even widely known. Nothing is perfect, this side of death... Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's one of the strongest points of the wikipedia rulebook, you would hardly believe the mad ideas some editors try to get away with. But luckily adequate sources are available in the present case, and a kind IP editor has added a selection - thank you, whoever you are. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of tongue-in-cheek in my previous reaction, apparently this was less than obvious to some. Ought I to add some smileys? To be clear: I fully agree we must be adamant on the requirement for verifyable sources. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Smiles are available from smiley. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Source for superlatives?
The intro said the SR22 "is the single most-produced aircraft made from all-composite material, accounting for over 30% of the entire piston aircraft market," and offered these reports as citations. But I can't find in these reports support for either assertion, and so I've moved that text here. If I've overlooked something, perhaps someone could add a page number to the citations. PRRfan (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see my edit has been reverted, but I'm not sure the issue I raised has been addressed., I'm not seeing the basis in the citation for those assertions; can you give a page number for the "all-composite" and "over 30%" numbers? On the first matter, must we know independently which of these aircraft are all-composite? And on the second, 30% of total units? Of sales revenue? PRRfan (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sales brochure
It all has a marketing feel to it. The intro in particular seems out of place. Other aircraft articles don't generally boast sales figures as the most defining aspect of the plane. Or is this plane not noteworthy in other ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.213.57 (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The sales numbers are factual. It is the most defining feature of this aircraft's history, that it has outsold every other aircraft in production for almost two decades. As per WP:PROPORTION, it has to be mentioned and is significant enough that it needs to be in the lede section. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)