SR Series G7 Features 

I’m glad Cirrus is partnering with Garmin for a unique and optimized suite. After all, Textron is not. Their NXi still have 10” screens, no remote autopilot controller, or keypad.

I wonder how much this Garmin upgrade adds to the price.

@@darthmelbius 7.7%

garmin is a nobody without plane companies

You obviously dont fly an SR22T. I can put 4 people in mine with 50 gallons of gas and fly about 3 hours VFR. While I dont disagree with you on how many planes range is spec’d I don’t think Cirrus is one of them. Yea OK the engines are old, which is a double edged sword. The TSIO 550-K1B engine has been around since 2010, BUT it has proven itself very reliable.

Yeah, I was hoping for exactly that.

As an A&P, getting an engine type certificated to an aircraft isn't as easy as deciding to do so. It can take years to get a particular powerplant type certificated to a specific airframe. They'll stick with what the FAA had already approved. They can't just decide to put a left field engine in one of their airframes.

A new engine also significantly changes the W&B and requires airframe redesign.

@@MTBAviator facts

Isso mesmo que venha logo está Opção com motor Turbo Jet-A1

This is where the DA 50 RG races ahead

Agreed. They're becoming like Boeing where they're only slapping new gizmos and minor refinements on old designs and touting them as revolutionary. At least Boeing put new engines on the max, but it's still polishing a turd. Here you get a fancy new screen and gaudy new colors to paint it with. Same wing same engine same performance realistically. Whoop de doo

Agreed. They're becoming like Boeing where they're only slapping new gizmos and minor refinements on old designs and touting them as revolutionary. At least Boeing put new engines on the max, but it's still polishing a turd. Here you get a fancy new screen and gaudy new colors to paint it with. Same wing same engine same performance realistically. Whoop de doo

Agreed. They're becoming like Boeing where they're only slapping new gizmos and minor refinements on old designs and touting them as revolutionary. At least Boeing put new engines on the max, but it's still polishing a turd. Here you get a fancy new screen and gaudy new colors to paint it with. Same wing same engine same performance realistically. Whoop de doo

Agreed. They're becoming like Boeing where they're only slapping new gizmos and minor refinements on old designs and touting them as revolutionary. At least Boeing put new engines on the max, but it's still polishing a turd. Here you get a fancy new screen and gaudy new colors to paint it with. Same wing same engine same performance realistically. Whoop de doo

People have been asking for FADEC for a long time, if diamond can put one in their DA50, then why Cirrus cant? Obviously they’re not listening

@@Crossdod0flying a Diamond fadec plane was a brutal experience. It was breaking all the time and Mx took ages. The tech just isn’t there yet

Im sure both retractable gear and pressurization would add $500,000 to the plane..

Adding retractable gear or pressurization are more than added features… they require major structural changes and add weight and system complexity. Retractable gear also increases insurance and maintenance costs for pilots. For a few additional knots it’s a big pill to swallow.

Obviously, structural changes, added weight and complexity would come into play - I am aware of that! Cessna produced a pressurized version of the 210, Piper still produces the pressurized M350, Mooney had the Mustang, and RDD Enterprises has both retractable gear and fixed gear versions of the pressurized LX-7 (a reworked Lancair IVP) !! Yes! some of these models have retractable gear to begin with, but Cirrus could certainly do the same with the SR22! After all, The Cirrus SF50 jet is pressurized and has retractable gear - if Cirrus has the resources and know-how to do this with their jet, then why not the same for their SR22!? A retractable gear, pressurized SR22 is do-able and would certainly work wonders for some individuals and/or flight departments!@@MTBAviator

thank you for your feedback!

maybe

So what are you going to buy instead, clearly you're in the market for a new aircraft now so what's the aircraft company that's going to be getting your money instead of Cirrus?

@@lensaero If a four seater, and if/when MOSAIC becomes a things, a Sling TSi with a Rotax 916 is high on the list. It's a tad bit slower, but a lot less money and I can use MOGAS. If a two seater, the Risen Supervelace for the same reasons.

@@pilots10 so you weren’t really in the market for an aircraft in the Cirrus price range anyway. The Cirrus is a well proven airframe with huge passenger appeal, if avgas isn’t around in twenty years then you can be sure Diesel engines will be available as a retrofit to all GA aircraft. In the meantime those fitted with diesels now will have been through several new engines at great expense in the meantime. FADEC for a piston single isn’t such a big deal in the real world - yes I’ve flown FADEC equipped aircraft. The only direct competitor is the DA50, a fine aircraft and a step in the right direction, but it is heavy, slow, has limited range and expensive to maintain. The avionics improvements here are quite significant and as soon as a viable diesel FADEC equipped engine becomes available I’m sure they’ll offer it - they did try with the EPS V8 but unfortunately EPS went bankrupt in the home straight.

​@@lensaero Immediately, no. Most of my flying for this upcoming plane will be for myself and maybe one other person. In the next three years...yes as far as price range, but for a completely different mission (5 people + bags). That said, if the answer to the issue is "retrofit the engine", you're pretty much solidifying my point. That's at least $50K just to be able to continue flying the exact same airframe without any gain. Well, TBO will reset, but the existing engine probably won't be at TBO at that time so it's not a gain per se. Additionally, my comments apply regardless of the price range. I could get a LOT more plane in the $350K price range if I went with something slightly older with an avgas only engine. Why would I hang that over my head though if there are other options available? I REALLY like the DA50 from a cool factor standpoint, but when you look at overall performance it definitely looses out to the SR22 (and especially SR22T). It not fitting in a T hanger is also a concern. That said, I'd still choose the DA50 for the reasons stated (plus, better fuel economy doesn't hurt either). Had Cirrus went with something like the Continental CD-300, all compromises one would have to contemplate against the DA50 would have been removed.

This design keeps ownership costs manageable, and operation reliable. How is retractable landing gear going to help with that? Introducing tons of new inspections, points of failure, consumables?

@@ramr7051 that's the exact reasoning that keeps the aviation industry stuck in the past. The Cirrus is beyond $1M for a 4 seater with no RG and puts itself in competition with the DA-50 or an LX7... Check out their options and see if they edge out ahead at all in actual features. If anyone buying a G6 or G7 Cirrus was worried about operational costs they could have bought an RV-10 or a variety of other aircraft and avoided basically all of that GA expense with half the price. Barring the fact that GA and even the experimental market has done RG quite reliably for literally decades, Cirrus is one of the best-selling aircraft in its segment and the only generational updates are LED lights for "ramp appeal" and a glass panel cockpit... Cirrus is in a position to afford and drive significant change and they're resting on their laurels.

That is cheep for an aircraft most cesnas now get to 1 mil

It is desperately needed lol

Yeah 1 million dollars for an engine that will still be hard to start when hot, with manual leaning, no auto throttle, this is still a crap price new because of the engine; with a decent engine it maybe worth it

Which certified diesel fadec engine is out there that doesn’t compromise weight and performance?

@@Brimstin one of like ten IO-550 FADEC variants like the IOF-550-R, they can even work with Lycoming to certify a new type for the SR-22T, because for a million dollars the engine is to be frank - shit and holds back the SR-22T. The Cirrus has so many impressive things that it made itself, it is so good in so many things; but upgrading the engine will reduce the pilot workload way more and be way more reliable

@@misham6547 so I guess the DA50 is a better choice? I heard those are going for $1.5M+ and the range is terrible.

⁠​⁠@@misham6547I guess don’t buy one then if it doesn’t meet your requirement? No one’s twisting your arm. That’s the beauty of the free market. I for one like the improvements they made. Plus, Cirrus has a reputation for coming out with new stuff every couple of years, so who knows: maybe they’re planning fadec next. If Apple threw everything they had into the iPhone 15, they’d have nothing to add to the iPhone 16 next year. Seems like Cirrus has a similar approach.

Or a nice twin.

and how is that a stepping stone into aviation?

@@redbaronmodeling agreed

Dreaming small.

Go leverage up about 200 rentals and wait 10 years...then you can afford one...

My guess is that with the dual PFD/MFD, there is a reversionary display function, and this may eliminate the need for what would be a third backup instrument.

@@DaneJasper the previous models had dual screens with reversionary mode but still required backup instruments. But the backup instruments were kind of ridiculous and small and hard to see and weirdly placed, so I am not surprised they found a way to eliminate them while still satisfying redundancy and safety.

​@@PecekMichalYou're right, it's better that they weren't the best so they can never lose this achievement.🙄

Because they are the least outdated GA certified plane and were designed for the sizes of modern Americans, But it still is super technologically outdated especially the engine.

⁠​⁠@@misham6547least outdated? That sounds like a compliment to me. I have no problem with Diamond aircraft, but there are plenty of reasons to choose a Cirrus even though it doesn’t have a diesel engine. That’s my opinion.

@@PecekMichalThat’s why they keep making improvements! When something better comes along it will out sell it, until that day here it is!

The avionics are the most important thing to operating safely. I’m glad Garmin is there and innovating. If it weren’t for them our airplanes would probably still be using Bendix King six packs. Cirrus is partnering with them too on integrated suites. Unlike Textron or Piper that have more ‘drop-in’ type G100s.

@@MTBAviator I agree with that. However, Cirrus’ last model didn’t have a six pack. It was G1000, which is still perfectly capable and safe for the pilot and his pax. This G2000 setup is amazing, the features are very next gen. But they focus too much on the cockpit and not on the power plant. The G2000 is a very nice but unnecessary upgrade

@@mateoreyes1076 Good points but the previous Garmin was out for years and an upgrade was coming sooner rather than later. The flap speed protection and stick shaker are quite valuable and I haven’t seen people asking for it. But they will help a lot with safety. There are only 2 engine makers out there: Lycoming and Continental. Lycoming is owned by Textron and we know they aren’t investing in pistons. Continental is owned by the same Chinese company as Cirrus. But they are probably looking at the payback for the R&D of adding a FADEC. A new Jet-A engine would also change the Cirrus design and its weight & balance enough for it to be a major change. A new engine also requires Garmin to retool its coding. It all translates into a major expense that they feel the customer doesn’t want to pay for. For now anyway.

Smartglide ​? Don't think so... @@mateoreyes1076

im 6'3 with a g6 SR22, you have to click the seat back one notch

The SR20 and SR22 have different engines. The SR22 and SR22T have the same engine, but the 22T has a turbo which likely needed certification as well. Either way, they've done it before.

They are absolutely capable of it. Or what, we get the same ancient dinosaur of an engine for the next 20 years? EFI and FADEC should be the standard these days - the fact it isn't on a 7-figure aircraft that claims 'innovation, modernism and the latest tech' is bordering on ridiculous. In fact it should be embarassing.

But there are IO-550's with FADECs available

they want to sell jets, that would cut into their jet sales without a doubt

What is the benefit of retractable gear besides a few knots? It adds weight, complexity, and maintenance costs. It also increases insurance premiums. On top of an airframe redesign.

If you want that just buy a TBM or a Pilatus

@@MTBAviatorWe need a middle option. TBM or Pilatus 3 to 4x more. Something in between with both price and performance and a 6 adult seats is definitely needed.

It doesn't require leaded fuel, it is just that there is very little distribution of unleaded 100 octane fuel right now...In 10 years i doubt anyone will still be using 100LL...

Honestly, don’t get me wrong I love the digitization of aviation but stuff like the taxiway routing really just takes away any critical thought for taxiing

@@jdl2327 Young pilots may rely too much on technology.

I can guarantee that "young" pilots are not the target demographic of a new $2 million dollar plane. I'd guess young pilofs are more likely to use analog gauges and paper checklists because glass cockpit planes are expensive to rent let alone buy. There's not exactly a lot of millennial or Gen Z pilots shown in this marketing video either.

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

My big beef is the left hand controller. I think that is a huge mistake, you should visually be able to check that the ailerons are neutral. As important as VA = 1.405 IAS stall The reason is also that due to the lower stroke you can initiate PIO My design error on the prototype of the Diamant series of sailplanes. And I agree with you as Juan would.

thank you for your feedback!

Comes down to one thing. The thing that makes the world go round. $$$ The engineering effort necessary to make the plane you are picturing is not worth the costs. You are not in cirrus’ target clientele. Other things to consider. Cirrus makes only a 10-15 SR aircraft a week. For company growth, it makes the most sense to sell the most expensive aircraft. And even if/when they grow enough to support these innovations, their employee growth is severely bottlenecked since they are based in Duluth

Cessna already does a casual local flights plane = C172/182/206... I was expecting a stretched 6 place SR22, imagine that :), but they want everyone burning money in a SF50 apparently.

Buy a 50 yr old Cessna or build an experimental if you only have $100k to spend

@@2Greenlid Flying is for the wealthy. I'll learn from RU-vid and fly from my own property. Licence is not necessary.

@@eugenelayton5231 that is what a Piper cub or similar is for. Lots of farmers never get a ppl…

I take it back