Cirrus Aircraft you HAVE to change this... 

Hands up if you're here after watching the 2024 G7 announcement...

I love the list. Some of the end (pressurization, rear door, etc.) require complete structure redesign and would be a new certification. Not something any successful manufacture wants to take on. To go there, I think you'd see a stretched, 6-seat model. Same path Beech went. I believe there is lots of room in that space for a 6-seat Cirrus with CAPS without taking away from SF50 sales. CD300 or a Turbine would be amazing. Turbine is not efficient enough at most of our altitudes and the entry cost is not practical. CD300 is damn near perfect fit. Now the reality. The only real competition Cirrus has for the SR22 is existing owners not upgrading. There is no real competitor, in the certified space, offering the speed, options, support, and CAPS. Cirrus has little to no reason to risk a solid, very active sales base. I wish that were different and they had major incentives to expand or revolutionize, but with a 2-year sales backlog, they are clearly not losing ...

Hey Stef! Honestly you... Yes you! are the reason I've become so invested in with aviation. All your videos are just so down to earth and easy to listen to. I genuinely mean it when I say you're the reason I'm going to go for my RPC (and maybe beyond who knows!) at some point in the future when I'm either rich or it gets cheaper to do as a hobby (lol). As a bit of feedback for the videos... just keep doing what you're doing! I honestly love these videos just as much as your flying videos, so if you ever think "will the audience like this" the answer is most likely yes. PS: You should make some merch, I'd totally buy some.

Hey Stef, transplanting a turbine into your plane would mean round the world flight takes a big step forward. Thanks mate

Very informative Stef! I am 14 years old and aspiring to become an aviator, Your vids are really good and are giving me inspiration to follow my dreams!!

FADEC!!! It’s absurd it hasn’t been done yet. Great video!

Agree 100%, Stefan. Thanks for putting this out there. I hope Zean Nielson and team are listening.

I used to flight many fully retractable GA types last century. About 1970 the aviation manufactures seemed to put retractables in 'the too hard basket'. Thanks Stephan for your videos. Keep them coming.

Love the video Stef! Totally agree- especially on the new engines running FADEC and burning Jet A1. Thanks for keeping up the high quality videos:)

On the topic of buttons vs touch screen. There are some arguments (mostly around cars like telsas) that a touch screen requires more cognitive load on the driver and you need to put your attention on the touchscreen to ensure it's doing what you intend. So my question is, in an emergency when you have many things going on - are there situations where as a pilot buttons are preferable for some functions?

It would be great to see more Jet A1 aircraft around! Having trained in a DA40NG, I can confirm that full FADEC diesel burners are great to run. Super easy to start, super easy to operate, barely sipping the fuel. Zero to think about regarding leaning etc. Of course, weight is an issue. I do wish STCs were more available for Jet A1 retrofits..

Box: exists Stef: and i took that personally

I love the Cirrus SR22. I have never flown on it but I would love to do so one day. Keep it up!! Great video!! 😍😍😍

Hey Stef, great video and great to hear your viewpoints! Are you going to be at Avalon this year? If so, i'd love to see a vlog series like last time.

Step zero is a more GA-friendly regulatory environment so things can get done with fewer zeroes on the price tags. My plane’s new engine a couple of years ago required a new throttle cable. Unobtanium from Beechcraft, so we got a custom one from the OEM who make them for all the manufacturers. The paperwork (and pricetag) was pretty intense... 🤯

Time for a Diamond. Great videos. Take care.

Love ur vids Steph

Hi Stef - I have a G3 SR22 and for every one of the the reasons you have highlighted I have ordered a Diamond DA62, also add Radar to the essential options list.

Great list Stef! The one thing that I would absolutely love love LOVE to see is a proper HOTAS setup with the thottle on the left (where the stick currently is) and the stick in the centre. Also some speedbrakes (operated, of course, from the throttle) -either wing upper and lower fingers, or clamshells on the rear fuselage. Maybe the G10 :)

Piper are well ahead with some of their new Archers running Diesel Jet A1 burning engines with FADEC. They do some great videos on tiktok showcasing them as well.

Hey stef, Another great video, on Qantas right now watching your video on their wifi (737-800)!

Cirrus made a plane for people wanting more and it is the Cirrus Vision Jet.

Stef - you forgot the ONE attribute that drives everything else. Make it cost less to buy, own and operate! Great vid

Stef, you must be angling for a trip to Cirrus in the States !

Negative on the pure touchscreen. You want the option of touchscreen, but the tactile feedback of real buttons is very important. Touchscreens on cars are bad enough, let alone touchscreen going through turbulence. BMW have done a great job with their idrive system, that's an example to follow!

I’ve been flying Cirrus SR20/22 for a while and agree that significant upgrades are overdue. My gripes are: For the price, the paint quality is low, especially its ability to withstand corrosion around fasteners and skin. Efflorescence starts bubbling thru within months. Another gripe is the interior paneling low quality. Seat are good and comfortable but the door and side panels are substandard. Fit and finish C- at best. I agree with your payload increase (3600 max could stretch to 3800 and solve the fuel vs passenger dilemma). My wishlist: Speed above 200 and yes I would love retractable just because a fixed landing gear looks primitive. I object to your trailing link comment. Just learn how to land by accurately managing your speed. Cirrus are taught and flown by the numbers. Thanks for your videos and for being a Garmin ambassador. Agree on making the G3000 standard. It’s 2023….Cheers Mate from Miami Florida KOPF.

A fadec controlled engine would be nice, lycoming already makes one, the ie2 series, full fadec and single power control.

I'd love to see a high-wing or stretched 6 seater with club seating with rear entry doors. Climbing up onto the wing and then down into the cockpit isn't for everyone, and why i like flying Cessna at the moment.

Hey Stef. I also fly a Cirrus. A G5 in my case. I’m with you on the desire for a FADEC Jet-A engine. Some thoughts on your other items: - Although I would love the FADEC Jet-A engine, if we assume it’s something like the CD-300 turbo diesel, the challenge is weight. Those engines are heavier than the current engine, so it’s going to hurt payload. - The Cirrus landing gear was very carefully designed for aerodynamics to achieve the speeds it does with a fixed-gear plane. I’m not sure what effect the trailing-link design would have, but I suspect it would hurt the aero. - I would like a mix of touch screen and hard buttons. I’d say keep the current FMS keypad, which makes it easy to enter things like frequencies even in turbulence. But being able to pinch-zoom and pan the maps, for example, would be awesome. - Why do you care if the satellite phone is standard? I personally don’t want one. I don’t want the expense or the weight. It’s available as a nicely integrated factory option for those that want it. - Pressurization is absolutely not going to happen. They’d have to redesign the fuselage, shrink the windows, and make other major changes to withstand the forces. And (yet again) it would be heavier. - Cirrus already did a payload increase with the G5. 200 pounds. It required beefing up the wing spar and the flaps, and increasing the size of the parachute and the deployment rocket motor. They also had to change the flap deployment angle to ensure that it met stall speed requirements. Increasing the useful load is not trivial to do. The G5 can carry four adults with fuel to tabs. The turbo version can’t, because the combination of the turbo and the ice protection weighs about 200 pounds. Swap out the engine with a FADEC turbo diesel, it will be heavier still. - Factoring in all of the above, I think if you wanted a FADEC turbo diesel that can carry four adults with reasonable range, you’d have to boost the weights by probably at least 400 additional pounds. That’s a huge increase, and would be quite an engineering challenge to pull off.

Great video with interesting final questions Stefan! I also love flying but I get more and more torn by the sustainability discussion. Yes: we already have „electric planes“ but those (still) are not an alternative - and won’t be for quite a long time. I‘m looking forward to a reaction of Cirrus😊

Weight! A few people have already mentioned this, but wanting more payload is antithetical to almost everything else you want. The CD-300 weighs about 75kg more than the IO-550. In addition, while the CD-300 technically has the same maximum HP as the IO-550, it can only maintain it for 5 minutes. The additional weight in the nose of the plane needs to be countered with more weight aft or more trim, both of which will add more drag. A trailing link gear also has more weight. It could be minimized with a significant redesign, but that would have design consequences that cascade through the entire airframe. I think the CD-300 would be great in an SR-22 but it would ultimately be a slower plane with less payload and cost more. It would be a DA50 without the retractable gear.

I know nothing on planes, hows the sling TSI stack up?cost and specs?

Looks like and update to a TBM850....go on 🥰

Instead of fully electric will hybrid be an option in aircrafts ?

Thought on the subject of gear you might mention the floppy fragile noise wheel too.

🇦🇺 Great valid questions you ask. Given the cost of these aircraft I feel the response from the manufacturer is critical. Re landing gear. Check out what Super Petrel did with their new model, the XP. Ingenious. I would assume the new Rotax 916 turbo wouldn’t be powerful enough. Love your thinking, though 🙏

Love the DA50. The performance issues that you speak of would be more of an issue if I didn’t have a 2.5 hour rule. So its a non issure.

We where told the gears so stiff to work with the parachute system . Reason topic came up was because even the cirrus instructor would occasionally bounce the plane.

The SR22 need a full redesign!! Literally!!

Over that past 2 years I have transition over the SR20 to the SR22T mostly G6. And I must agree: these Cirrus aircraft are very advanced until you have to deal with the engine. You did not mention the care and attention it takes to keep the engine operating at the right temps. Yeah, FADEC may remove much of that, but it is still a regular piston engine. I would love to see a G8 or 9 with hybrid or full electric with the same, or slightly better performance in terms of range, speed and useful load. Keep on flying

I believe the Bonanza max gross increased came by taking it from the Utility category with higher g- loading margins down to the Normal category. Nothing structural was changed.

I recall a media report that Cirrus was testing a TDI/fadec engine ~ 3 years ago. Can you install a Continental TDI/fadec on your plane and label it experimental?

Sounds like you are ready to step up to the jet version!

Loving this Stef. You nailed it again. Being a Cirrus owner myself I couldn't agree more with your view, especially the AvGas powered engine issue. Touch screen however for me is only for the console (G3000 like). I don't think it is a good idea to put dirty fingers on important avionic screens such as PFD or MFD (Flying Avidyne with IFD and quite happy with the setup). One problem with CD300 is maintenance costs however, the more complex, the costlier but this is a great engine, very efficient also.

You got the all touch avionics in G7. Little bit of a problem on price, it's a million dollars now.

Personally, I really like the DA62, problem is, it is quite expensive at between $1.1-1.6M US.

"We're off to Broken Heel" !

Hi Stefan I agree on most of the points. Personally I would prefer DA50 if I had the money to buy it. Mainly for the engine and retractable landing gear. One thing I disagree though is the touch screen for everything. Working with touch screen even in light turbulence is a nightmare which adds much more stress to an already ... lets say not ideal situation.

My first flight was in my father's 1977 Cessna172N with the Lycoming engine at the age of 8. I still have it and fly it weekly. It's the "family Truckster" when we go on vacation. It originally had fake wood paneling on the exterior and I had it refinished in aircraft white. I just cannot make myself part with it. All original steam gauges and we added the Garmin AERA 760. So while I hear your complaints, and all are valid and make sense, all I can say is come over to my world and the Cirrus looks like a perfect GA aircraft! My plane isn't for everyone.

The SR2x power is actually not controlling the throttle only, it includes the prop. lever. Diesel, FADEC and the ability to control the prop. RPM separately would be good. I would prefer a Vantage/IFDs setup over Garmin, it's so much more intuitive to use but that's personal preference stuff. Our SR20 has dual IFDs and a DFC90 already, it will get Vantage once available. The most important change would be for me the sorry excuse for a nosewheel construction and -damper. Many AOG aircraft because of dampers not available, cracked nosewheel struts, etc. But whatever, Cirrus as a company has to start to get the maintenance times under control. If anything breaks on the plane (and owners know that's a matter of time and luck) you face months of downtime because of an unacceptable parts availability. A plane at constant risk of being AOG is not worth considering to buy. An electric SR2x would be great, but is not possible with batteries as per the poor gravimetric energy density (see the Pipistrel Stefan flew, 45 minutes endurance with 45 minutes reserve, not even suitable for the cross country part of education, requiring flying a combustion engine plane as well even for just the license). A SR22 would require 1 MWh battery (not cells), 4 tons at latest technology. Improvements are in the single digits % when an order of magnitude is missing. H2 FCs would work but most investments go into the battery electric dead end. Century old engines with eFuels is the best we can hope for for decades, sadly.

I bought a 'wreck' 1961 Cessna 172B - stripped it down to the bare metal, tore out all of the wiring and controls and replaced everything the way I wanted it. Full electronic glass panel, with more redundancy than the older steam gauges. Left the backseats out, so it's now a two seat airplane with a huge cargo area (and weight limit) for us to carry camping gear and bikes. I think the toughest part with change in certified aviation is that regulators won't loosen restrictions on GA and allow new technology in - without a huge amount of rigorous testing... we watch Trent put a $10 car horn on his experimental aircraft and wonder why we can't do the same. As for fuel - I'm with you that 100LL AvGas is horrible. The lead is a real problem, both inside the engine (fouled plugs, fouled exhaust ports, etc) and to the environment. In Canada's North 100LL is difficult to get at a lot of the 'Fly in only' communities. As a stopgap I bought the MoGas STC which allows me to use automotive unleaded. A cheap fix considering I don't have $150,000+++ for a **new Jet A burning engine. **not an option anyway since no JetA burning engines are even certified for this aircraft and likely never will be.

the perfect flying SUV would be nice

JetA-1, nice for globetrotting I guess, but then you limit where you can go in regional AU, US, UK etc. Nice wish list though. 👍

A fully agree with most of your request. On the A1, fully agree, but and A1 engine is heavier than an AVGAS one. So you loose in term of payload. If you change to A1, with the current tank of the CIRRUS you would get 10h autonomie, so taking less fuel should not be a drama to compensate the engine change. Yet with all the change I would not be able to afford a new cirrus, so would have to stick with my G3 for years to come. As like you wish to do a round the world trip with my cirrus, I will have to hurry, or eventually get the engine changed!!!! Excellent video.

Great ideas for upgrades, but the cirrus aircraft is already out of reach for over 95% of pilots and the cost to take this aircraft to the next level would be unbelievably expensive.Cirrus has the market locked already ! Corporations don't like to spend money if they don't need to! PS It is ridiculous that you can spend up to a million dollars for an airplane that you can't have 4 people and full fuel !

Good points. Is there a reason you didn't include 'further' in what piolets want in a plane?

Damn you Stef!! I've been watching your channel too much. I was in the circuit in Lismore today with Baron VH-EUZ - it took me three times to get their call sign right - I kept on wanting to say echo yankee zulu!! :-)

Agreed on the new avionics. A combination of touch screen and knobs that is similar to your setup or something like a G3X touch would be much easier to use than the g1000 perspective. And a new FADEC control would be great. Even for 4-cylinder models. You would get more horsepower on any kind of engine with that control. Because it burns so efficiently. I would say it would need a useful load increase because that sort of engine control becomes with a lot of computers and adds a lot of weight. But for me a big problem will be fixed when distribution of the new fuel that doesn't contain lead that has been approved will start to get distributed.

What would be the incremental cost impact for a FADEC and JetA1 engine on the overall design and purchase price? I imagine it is a big cost increase?

Agree with Spiro, sounds like you are ready for something more capable...a TBM perhaps?

My guess is that they don’t want to lose performance but the FADEC Jet A diesel engine would be great The pressurised cabin would probably take a significant redesign and recertification so I don’t see it happening but it’d be amazing

How about windscreen wipers?

Diesel/Jet-A engines for GA aircraft are definitely interesting, but I believe most so far don't have a Time Before Overhaul, but a Time Before *Replacement*, which makes the economics a bit more complicated. I hope engine manufacturers will eventually sort something out so GA planes can stop flying around with the best tractor engine technology the 1930s had to offer.

Stefan - I have to totally agree with you. I've just about finished up my PPL training in an SR20 and am preparing for my checkride. I love the fact that the airplane has a chute and modern avionics but am considering buying another airplane because the SR20/SR22 burns av-gas. Hopefully Cirrus will see some of these comments and seriously consider putting a diesel engine in their airplane. I'd definitely buy one if they did.

It seems as of the major enhancement was with the avionics in the G7. The ,ajor reason I went Diamond NG was full FADEC and JetA fuel. If the Cirrus offered a better engine I most certainly would have considered it.

Cirrus had the SR21 using Jet A1 and QAV, but impossible to find.

Time for a TBM 960….:D

Hey Stef Avgas is still made with lead in the fuel . I'm not sure but I don't think you can get unleaded Avgas.

Is Cirrus Aircraft continuing with the SR22 do you have indicators of evolution such as the SR23 🌏🇭🇲

Let's hope there's a Continental CD 300 Jet A engine for the G8

Is an SF50 or a Citation Max type jet knocking dear Stefan, if the SR22 isn't able to meet these specs?

Pressurized turbo would be insane.

Forewarning, I'm not trying to be negative here, just counter point to your requests... Diesels are nice, but they are significantly heavier than your standard avgas engine. The problem with engine technology right now is that we are on the cusp of taking the lead out of 100LL entirely (and that being a drop-in replacement) giving the current engines a much needed life extension. JetA1 has better availability outside of AU but generally ordinary availability inside Australia, especially in the country, especially when it comes to self-serve. One more problem is that combustion engine technology is likely to freeze or slow down in development because of the looming electric engine market. But the one real development I would like to see is a move to FADEC (with AvGas) and electronic ignition, you'd get a pretty good range bump from that (and the 100UL is looking to be a little more dense so more range again). Trailing link would be nice, but I'm not sure you could make the fairings as efficient as the current setup. Spring steel with the current fairings is very low drag. However I would like if the current gear could be made a little more gravel/grass friendly, the wheel pants a little higher off the ground and an option to have slightly bigger tyres so it handles off pavement operations a little better. The issue with pure touch screens is that they do fail, and that day is the one you'll want the keyboard/knobs for entering stuff in. The secondary problem is that if the display fails but the touch function does not that also kills it. If the backlight on a keyboard fails, you can still use the keyboard. There is also the perennial question of data entry in turbulence, I'm all for touch screens, but you'd need to cover off the redundancy issues and provide a suitable 'anchor point' for people to enter things whilst in turbulence without touching nearly every button on the screen in the process. Sat phone would be nice, only if you had CASA allowing Part91 operations without HF radios using SatPhone as an acceptable alternate means of compliance for communications with IFR aircraft in remote areas. Otherwise it's merely a nice to have and weight you are carrying around for the ability to make a call every once in a while. I would love a GA version of ADS-C, where the avionics can make position reports for you when you are outside of ADS-B/Radar coverage. These days, you would think there would literally be an app for that! Love the content though, keep it up! PS There is a drawback with more payload (although I don't disagree it would be useful)... fees are generally based on MTOW, more payload means a higher MTOW, higher MTOW means higher fees. 🙁

tbh, wouldn’t mind a retractable! happy with avgas (but I’m not planning to fly around the world). What about an HF radio?

You are asking a a lot more weight, heavier engine, landing gear and pressurized cabin. Are you willing to pay for that with lower cruise? Maybe it's time for you to move to a small turboprop like the Piper JetProp.

I don’t think you must hold your breath. You mentioned some major upgrades. Price tag jumps right up

Buy a TBM or a meridian. It'd be the same price. It would cost over $100M to develop the aircraft you've suggested and they'd need to sell a thousand at $2M/ea to make back their costs.

Stef sure what's wrong with a $1.5 million cirrus SR 22TG7. That works for most people right?

I have just read an article from a 2016 aircraft magazine of a product called Lubribor where you put 30 ml to 75 gallon mogas to replace avgas. Anyone willing to give some feedback of that product?

I would assume changing the power plant is no easy thing. They would need to ensure the right power and drive for the prop, weight/balance, crash rating/safety/reliability, fire, etc. And then there’s the whole certification process. Many many years, mojo cost. Is it fiscally worth them doing this ? Probably not!

There are very few cases where you fly with full tanks >5hrs and 4 adults on board.

Hey Stef, FADEC + Jet-A1 Fuel + payload increase + everything else on your list = VISION JET!! 😎 Maybe it's time to trade up from poor unloved EYZ?!?

Stop in Lebanon for some AVGAS.

I think missile technology beneath the wings would be useful. Maybe an 1860 gatling gun set up behind the prop. I would never fly one of these without some sort of reliable weaponry.

The cost of Jet A burning engines is a lot more than a Gas burning engine. Manufacturers might chose it to make sales in those areas where you cant get Avgas, The solution is to probably use Premium AutoGas. Then there is payload, you get what you pay for, most economical 4 seaters are fuel limited. If you want to go 4 seats with full fuel and more its going to cost a lot more. Then Electric Powered as well Thats the kind of wish list that really makes a lot of sense to someone who does not fly or probably the majority of people watching youtube who will never ever get to fly.

Interesting video. Without making major changes to SR22 I'm not sure it can be significantly improved. So I would encourage making a new model instead. Something akin to a Lancair IV-P but with two small turbofan jet engines. That could be a mach 0.7 aircraft with better fuel economy than the SR22 and it could be lighter and cheaper. The CD300 engine is fair bit heavier than IO550N and only 268HP continuous versus 310. So the jet compatibility comes as significant cost and not a clear improvement. SR22 is about 1 ton and my engineering sensibilities are quite adamant that a 4 seater can be a lot lighter than that. Through single piece carbon fiber fuselage and particularly with 2 light jet engines it can no doubt be half the weight or less. Which will translate directly to fuel economy and/or speed and actually lower cost because you need smaller engines. The DA50/DA62 are particularly awful in weight at about 1.6ton empty so imagine a comparable performer weighing a full ton less, that's a bizarre weight difference that should never be possible yet it is. That's a cubic meter full of water. Or 1.2m3 fuel. Or a full car. A pressurized light 4 seater with 2 light jets could be a fantastic performer. Being able to go mach 0.7 at 45000 feet is worlds apart from SR22. And naturally burn JetA. And naturally has dual engine redundancy for ocean flight or general safety. so the concept has extreme potential. And if Cirrus did it they would not just dominate GA like they do today, they would murder the market. Assuming the price would also be optimized instead of the absurdity they are working today. I would say it's a must that it's below 500k$. And I would actually aim lower with the intent to sell many. Let's say it's priced at 290k$ base, that would not only sweep the market, it will entice a lot of new pilots that were just lurking in the wings. Pun intended. And it will also take away from the existing twin jet market because not only is it a vastly lower entry point it's much less wasteful and costly to operate. The freedom of a plane is greatly undermined if it's a military mission of cost for just a small flight. You flew to a neighbor country, granted australia is big but still, 3k$ plus wear is not a cheap trip. Flying around the world might cost you 50-60k$ whereas you could buy a ticket for maybe 2k$ many times faster. If instead we could have light private jets that could effortlessly soar the skies instead of tractoring, both fast and cost effective, that's real freedom. Private jet mobility at prius cost. And the engineering checks out. It would be properly cool. And we could use green synthetic fuel. It's possible to make hydrocarbon fuel out of electricity, air and water. Like plants do. Plans are in the works but slowly. It could be done today but everyone is dragging feet. Inept clowns.

This is arguably more interesting than the english lesson im watching this in

Dear Stefan I know cirrus rarely go into a spin But if it did Can it recover Is it easy Or You have no option but to use the parachute

they should do a trubine electric hybrid with 400ish HP and stretch the cabin to make it a solid 6 seater. sell for $1.6M

my G5 clean tips NA can carry 4 with full fuel.

Surely this is down to the aircraft manufacturers that work closely with engine manufacturers, this can easily be accomplished, however at what extra cost, plus if their SR22 model range is selling well, why do they need to invest in a new model, although I do agree that this would improve on what is already a great aircraft. The point of complete touchscreen interaction, in turbulence, can be somewhat awkward unless the buttons are of a reasonable size.

What's the deal with "disposable" Jet A-1 reciprocating engines? Some of the piston engines that run Jet A-1 (such as the one that powers the Diamond DA50 RG) don't have a TBO (time between overhaul), but rather a "TBR" (time between replacement). Engine overhaul is expensive enough, but outright replacing a whole engine for a brand new one every 2K hours sounds like a pretty expensive proposition.

To address your shopping list look at Piper Meridian.

India 🇮🇳 has avgas available in almost all airports...

Cirrus were looking at a diesel version a few years ago, not sure what happened with it? I seem to remember it was significantly heavier than an IO550, burned more fuel and so range and payload would be reduced? The bigger issue is that the majority of Cirrus' customer base are in the US, where currently, there is no avgas issue! Re trailing link gear, no point imo, just needs an improvement in landing technique. Pressurised would be amazing but its a totally new / recertified aircraft required. For me, an overall MAUW improvement woudl be great, i agree that a diesel engine would be great but can't see it ever happening unfortunately.

Mate, great vid! Fair requests all round, and yes this is ultra first world, but all good. That's how it goes. Electric planes are great, but batteries are the pits for our Earth. It's gotta be real electric, using wireless abundant energy. Like Nikola Tesla did it. Until then, don't worry too much about your footprint. Looking forward to seeing you flying the series 7 in the near future. Tail winds and clear skies brother

I also have some key aspirations that all pilots like make it cheaper 😜

You forgot about the most important one 4.Cost to fly per hour.

I thought the Cirrus sr 22 uses the continental IO-550 engine. And the engine’s first run was in 1983 Edit: I misunderstood what Stephan said 😅

Another problem with avgas is it's still leaded. Granted most planes and airports only use 100LL, it still has and produces lead. The automotive industry got rid of leaded gas a long time ago for a reason