I have watched 1000s of videos and this is the first comment I’ve made so yes I do have a opinion. I have owned both planes a 22T g5 (n712CM) and a m350 (N36C).. they are way different airplanes. The piper feels more like a jet when sitting in front. It has the auto pilot that is on top of the panel..cirrus is on the bottom.. the piper even has the windshield divided by two sections like a jet the cirrus is just one window. The piper has a glass window that can heat up to melt ice away, the cirrus doesn’t even have a real glass. It’s acrylic.( which has fine scratches even when using a micro fiber cloth ), the piper has ice boots which work much better then the cirrus which has the tiny pores which secretes fluid out of it. Doesn’t even compare with the way it handles in icing..the piper even has the jet sound when you come up on your altitude which sounds like even the commercial planes ( like a dial tone) where the cirrus has a tiny whimpy beep...the piper has retractable landing gear, cirrus does not..piper has the three screens (again something all jets and commercial planes have) which is a cool factor if nothing else..the cirrus has VERY uncomfortable seats in back that are cramped. If you have 4 pax in the piper you can stretch your feet better then a first class seat in a commercial plane. Even with 6 pax the rear seats are more comfortable ( although some pax find it strange to sit backwards ). This a a HUGE advantage as I routinely fly with 6 pax. The pressurization I can’t say enough about it. I have a place in Miami and a place in Los Angeles. In the hot humid summer months where you are dodging thunderstorms which isn’t fun I keep the plane in LA. Winter time where I can fly at the east coast and the warmth of Florida I keep it there. So I do cross country flights twice a year. I fly routinely at flight level 250 where the jet stream gives me a nice tail wind at 110 Knotts. I can make it easily to New Orleans on one tank then to Miami ( I have the extended tanks which give me 20 extra gallons where the cirrus doesn’t have that option). It is so comfortable up at that altitude where in the cirrus it sucked to have the mask on..pax even hated the masks more , not to mention a extra 100 dollars plus to fill up,the oxygen. And with 4 pax the o2 would be used up before the destination so yes the pressurization is worth the extra money right there. I have gone to the Bahamas and Caribbean several times. There the xm weather doesn’t work. So the onboard weather radar is a great tool. The baggage compartment is so nice to have in the me50 as you can put easily three small suitcases up front and 100 pounds in the back. Having the baggage compartment up front also allows the ride to be quieter..I can actually keep my head set off on cruise and still be able to have a normal conversation. As far as operating costs yes the piper is more of a acquisition cost , but the overall cost after that is relatively the same. Fuel burn is around 17.5 GPH on the cirrus and 22.5 on the piper. However your true airspeed is a little better as the higher up you are the faster you go especially with the tail winds so in some cases it’s actually cheaper because you arrive at your destination faster and if you choose to fly high in the cirrus it will cost you more in the filling up the o2 then the extra fuel burn..also in real world flying I will get no more then 800 miles on normal cruise , no wind in the cirrus. In the piper I can do 1000 miles and 1200 with the extra tanks. I find my annuals are around 5 k more out the door with the piper , and the insurance costs are around 5 k more a year ( increased hull value along with the retractable gear). Because of the extra 5 feet on wing length sadly some individual hangers can’t accommodate the piper and even some tie downs at some airports you have to get two spots next to you. The cirrus is more comfortable for the pilot and co pilot and yes the parachute is a nice piece of mind but let’s be honest here. A properly maintained engine with the proper run ups and your chance of a engine failure is slim to none anyways. Ramp appeal is arguable. I have half of my friends who like the pop up doors and cool paint colours of the cirrus while half like the stairs and the bigger plane look of the piper. I’m sure I’m missing things still but I know these are the main bullet points... I like the piper so much I just sold this and am under contract on a ( new for me) 2017 piper m600 (N161WA). The m350 to me is such in a different league that to me there is no comparison, although the cirrus gave me some great flying over the years.
Thanks for the reply / comment! I have 600 hours in a rented Cirrus and I would love to fly the M350. Luggage room and access to me seems much better on the M. I don't like the small door of the Cirrus and folding down the rear seats involved a lot of crawling around the interior. I like the 3rd screen and on-board radar to have current weather. Flying with dogs would be better in a pressurized cabin. (would they still need ear muffs?) Does the M have built-in 02 for a backup? If I could afford to buy either, I would go the Piper route. Your comments confirmed it.
@@Matt.Jernigan Hi Matt. I think both are very easy to fly although I would say the cirrus is slightly easier in my opinion. The piper is perhaps 5 knots faster due to the landing gear up (less drag) but of course in the piper you will fly higher due to the pressurization , thus you will get faster true air speeds. Amy questions you are more then welcome to call me 3109610598. Thx
@@JohnS-ey9si looking at getting into flying. As I think about the plane I want to end up in, I'm trying to learn in the right plane before hand. Or maybe buying a starter plane of the same brand I will end up in. Do you think that is a wise plan?
So...if anybody is interested in more owner flown real-world reports, posted below is a write-up I did for the COPA forum comparing my experience with flying our 2017 TTX [equivalent to SR22T] from San Diego to Oregon on a Saturday Morning, followed by a trip from Eugene to Phoenix the same afternoon in our M350-note that we are having an engine cooling STC [modified cowl] installed on the M350 which should hopefully eliminate some of the temperature issues [I'll find out this weekend when I pick the plane up]: It’s been just under three months, and just over 50 hours since we picked up 46LY at the factory, FWIW thought it would be fun to write up a report on ownership experience to date, something to do on a foggy afternoon here in Florence. So here goes… My memories of the comforts of pressurization had not dimmed with the years and repetitive unpressurized hypoxia. We did another “comparison flight” yesterday [more on that in a bit] which reinforced this, it really is a different flying environment. Among other things, there is one less umbilical to yank on your head when you look to the side [or to exert even more force on your headset], your insides do not feel like the Michelin Man with attendant need to outgas [always fun with others sharing your cabin] and you are going to use those high teens and low Flight Levels routinely. Other than one short trip from Eugene to Florence, all of our flights thus far have been at or above 15K. You get treated a bit differently up there by ATC, and you need to be on your game-if unfamiliar with SIID’s and especially STAR’s one stepping up needs to get up to speed on their use, because it will be expected of you to comply like your turboprop/turbojet brethren. The benefits are easily worth the price of admission in terms of the additional study [as to the other, much steeper price, that is for the pilot to decide]. Performance is very much on a par, if not slightly worse, than the TTX and I’m assuming the SR22T. In fact in some regimes, such as climb, it is inferior. Full-power climb rate is 1,100-1,200 fpm but you are not going to want to keep the power there very long because engine temps can quickly become an issue unless you are willing to tolerate CHT’s in the 410-420F range. So the drill is to use full power for takeoff and initial climb, I typically do so up to about 5K [this, of course, will vary depending on surrounding terrain, need to climb thru icing layer, departure requirements, etc.] than reduce power to a “Cruise Climb” setting of 2500/35", 125 KIAS. This will give you a solid 5-600 FPM climb all the way up into the FL’s, and will also give you max CHT’s < 380F. POH calls for leaning mixture to 32 GPH but that is going to result in substantially higher temps so I usually leave mixture full [35 GPH] and will come back to 33-34 GPH if by doing so I can keep the CHT’s below 380. In contrast, in the TTX, you leave everything forward and at 130 KIAS you will climb at 1,000 FPM up into the flight levels, with CHT’s < 380 and fuel burn of ~ 40 GPH. So, you get twice the climb rate in the TTX with marginally higher fuel burn, pretty much a wash in terms of total fuel use. Cruise performance for the M350 is also slower than the TTX, at least at the power settings I have been using. “Economy cruise” is 220/26", the POH says you should be able to run this power setting at 15 GPH, leaning to peak [ugh], but again if you want to keep the temps down you are going to be burning 17-18 GPH at this power setting and even then you are going to see 400F on hottest cylinder. LOP is verboten courtesy of the Lycoming Legal Department and even though this has been thoroughly, absolutely, and completely debunked by the late John Deakin and the good folks in Ada, OK, unlike Chuck who’s plane apparently came from the factory fitted with a magic Lycoming LOP kit, my few attempts to run LOP have been meet with a rather alarming sequence of wheeze-rumble-surge-stumble-bang!-putting an end, for the moment at least, to further experiments. Legacy Flight Training, which does factory-approved initial training for the M350, recommends running this power setting initially at 20 GPH, than leaning to keep CHT’s below 400 and ideally below 380, in my experience this is right at or under 18 GPH. This power setting results in about 180 KTAS in the high teens, and yesterday at FL 230 we were seeing 185 KTAS. In contrast, at 16K, the TTX will turn 180 KTAS on 14 GPH, running 75 degrees LOP and burning 14 GPH and while I do not routinely use the flight levels in either the TTX or the 400 at say FL 210 you will see close to 200 knots in either at the same power setting, which is ~ 62% power. Of course in the M350 you are hauling around a lot more airplane and you are flying in pressurized comfort, so the relatively slight differences in cruise speed are more than made up for with these amenities, but if anything this goes to illustrate once again that, like warships, aircraft design is largely a series of compromises. Descents are an area where the differences become more apparent, at least in smooth air. In the TTX/400 my sinuses and middle ear thank me whenever I keep the descent rate to 1K/min or less, and if flying with somebody not used to light unpressurized aircraft I prefer 5-700/min. In contrast, the M350 begs you to hustle down [conditions permitting, of course], you can easily do 1,500/min with the power up at 25" [go below say 23 and you start to loose pressurization], with the cabin descending at 400 fpm or so, wayyyyyy more comfortable, especially when you are operating in areas where terrain precludes early descent, let alone traffic. We were taught for descents of > 1K to use FLC @ 165 KIAS, which is also a speed right at the upper limit of flaps 10 and gear extension, so if things get bumpy and speed brakes alone are not sufficient, you have some other levers to literally pull to let you slow quickly if need be. ATC loves this flexibility, going into a Bravo [like we did yesterday] you can easily mix in with the turbojet traffic. True, I do this all the time in the TTX/400, but it feels more comfortable in the M350, or perhaps that is just the Piper Intracranial Implant talking? No, seriously I feel more comfortable which I guess is the relevant point. Maintenance-God, I hate to even write this…but so far, so good. During initial training Ann noticed a slight oil leak which of course I ignored, the next day on a subsequent training flight we had an oil-streaked cowling. After consulting with various folks we flew the aircraft back to Cutter in Phoenix for what turned out to be replacement of some rocker arm gaskets, and the leak stopped. About a month ago the “Oxygen Cannister Activated” CAS warning came on, indicating that one of the emergency oxygen generators had been activated, but on inspection none of them had and this is going to be dealt with at the 50 Hour inspection. Real World Comparison-Yesterday’s mission should serve as a decent example. We needed to bring the M350 from Eugene to Phoenix for 50 hour inspection [part of the “Fly For Free!” package] and to have a long-range fuel tank STC installed. This of course meant that we first had to get ourselves to Eugene…could have gone commercial, but what is the fun of that? So we decided we would fly the TTX from San Diego to Eugene. We started out at 12K, but eventually climbed [as we usually do] to 16K both for terrain and to remain clear of smoke. Ann got to do a LIFR departure at MYF, and a rather abrupt “Cleared for the Visual” at EUG, good stuff for her. 4+07, comfortable. Parked at Atlantic [where we keep the M350], had lunch inside the FBO, packed up, and we’re off! A somewhat longer flight, but subjectively much more comfortable than the flight to Eugene-at FL230 we were sitting in a ~7K cabin, plus each of us could get up every now and then and walk to the back of the plane, stretch out if need be. 4+33. Winner-M350 [duh!] but…to get that extra comfort we ended up burning 30 more gallons of gas, and spending nearly 2X in acquisition cost. Don’t get me wrong, I do not regret the purchase decision, but I think this also serves to illustrate the pretty exceptional performance you get in the SR22T/TTX/400. Lance Neibauer and the Klapmeier’s both, in my estimation, hit home runs when it came to designing fast, efficient, and safe Part 23 airplanes. So it’s all good. In contrast, Leg 3-PHX-EUG on American Eagle Saturday Evening-was by far both the fastest [2:30] and least comfortable part of the trip. A hot, full, cramped RJ packed with what appeared to us to be a disproportionate number of unhappy people, no cabin service beyond water. incessant reminders that “Masks must be worn the entire flight, and must completely cover the nose and mouth!” [a rule which appeared to be being honored more in the breach than anything else]. After deplaning at EUG we both agreed that GA travel, even in our reciprocating, lead-spewing [but hopefully for not much longer! Bring on that G100UL, so long as it actually works…] “toy airplanes” was by far the better choice for domestic travel, excepting perhaps First Class. We are all incredibly fortunate.
Hey, I'm in the research phase of possibly buying a PA46 over the next several months. Any chance you'd be up for chatting about owning one? I've been looking for an owner that would be willing to visit about it. Just thought I'd ask. Thanks.
So I'd personally go with the M350 based on range, cabin size and appearance, pressurised cabin, and normal day to day operations. Its just more ergonomic better suited for more versatile situaitons
Have owned a cirrus (Centennial) since 2003. Most of my flights have been by myself or with one passenger, and not that often need to get into oxygen breathing levels. It would be nice to be able to fly higher, have onboard weather radar, roomy cabin, and all of the other great features of the M350. A friend of mine bought one not long ago and I had a opportunity to fly co-pilot. I love everything about it except one thing, the cockpit area is extremely cramped for 6', 230 lb old man (64). This is a deal killer for me, but if I routinely carried more people farther I would choose it over the cirrus in spite of the contortion needed to access the cockpit (oh and I have to almost hold my head sideways). Both are great planes depending on your mission needs.
While it's certainly been made clear here that , these two planes aren't really equally comparable , what I have l earned in all the comments , is substantially better data/real life experience etc , than I have gotten from reading and watching hrs and hrs of other material . Marlin The Aviator ... Thanks kindly for what you started . and for what it's worth , I vote Piper . I'm sure that the Cirrus certainly has a valued place in the GA world , and no doubt , it's a excellent aircraft . As an Older guy , the comparison that I'd make , is that the SR22 is the modern fancy flashy type of plane that a younger person would fly , the the M350 is a well defined . very capable ,very comfortable , even elegant , aircraft that us older guys would fly . ( the paint jobs alone should show that ) .
Liked your recent video but you forgot some major differences between the M350 and the Cirrus SR22T. 6 seats vs 4 seats and Pressurized cabin vs none on the Cirrus. Huge difference in flight requirements on long trips as well.
It blows me away when you go and watch a Personal Aircraft video, or even check a manufacturer's website and they don't mention seating! Like HELLO! If it seats less than 6 I'm not interested! It might even be THE most important factor in choosing an aircraft! How many people do you need to fly? We don't care! Look at this plane!
These are not comparable aircraft. Though the M350 performance and range are similar to the SR22T the M350 seats six (the SR22T seats 4), the M350 burns nearly twice the fuel and requires a MUCH larger onboard fuel capacity to get the similar range (120 gallons, versus 90 gallons). Though the ceiling is the same and the panel is the same (with associated capabilities of the Garmin NXi) the M350 costs $1.35m compared to the similarly equipped SR22T at $950k. So you are paying significantly more to get the pressurization and the extra seat, including a 40% uptick in cost per hour to run the aircraft.
Using the range figures provided on the video and the fuel capacities you provided, that works out to be 11.1 nm/ gallon for the Piper and 11.3 nm / gallon for the Cirrus. How the hell did you calculate “twice the fuel?” Even without the provided specs, most people report the SR22 leans out to about 17gph and about 18-20 for the PA-46 with similar cruise speeds. Your math definitely isn’t adding up.
@@alexs3187 The Cirrus SR22T has a 16 gph burn at 75% power. The Piper fuel burn @ 75% 20.0 gph. The SR22T has a 315hp engine and cruises at 190ktas. The Piper has a 350hp engine and cruises at 190ktas. The SR22T is max gross 3600 lbs., the Piper is 4350 max gross. Both have a ceiling of FL25. Your math isn't based on the specs.
@@speedomars lol you’re over complicating it. All you need is fuel consumed over distance. But whatever, hardly worth fighting about 😂 - Anyway the DA50 RG has them both beat, 9gph at 181 ktas on cheaper Jet A.
Electronic Stability Protection is available in both aircraft which is not surprising since both airplanes use the same GFC 700 autopilot. Cirrus “Perspective” is Cirrus’s brand name for Garmin G1000/1000 NxI, so basic avionics are same in both aircraft. M350 has third screen to display radar, XM weather, moving map, and a host of other products which are displayed on the Cirrus MFD. Did I mention weather radar? Available in M350 [currently changing from GWX 68 to GWX 75] not available in Cirrus. Perhaps biggest difference of all which you failed to mention [and which others have pointed out] is pressurization, yes both aircraft have identical service ceiling of FL 250 but in the SR 22 you will be wearing a mask and be operating in a very physiologically hostile environment which is not comfortable and can be downright dangerous if you have oxygen failure. In contrast pressurization means you will routinely use the flight levels, M350 maintains sea level cabin to ~12,000 feet and 8,500 foot cabin at FL250. M350 cabin is large enough to walk around in while in flight, kinda difficult to do that in an SR22. Not sure where you got your price data base price is good place to start but nobody buys a base aircraft and BTW base price of M350 is over $1.1M, once you equip for flight into known icing and other stuff the out the door price is just over $1.5M. Having one on order I am very familiar with this figure. Similarly most well equipped new SR22T’s are approaching $1M. Both nice capable traveling machines. Mission is of course important. If you are going to routinely be doing lots of long distance flying it’s difficult to beat pressurization and with it ability to comfortably use altitudes which are often smooth and which allow you to stay above some but by no means all weather. Ever tried wearing an oxygen mask for 5 hours? Not much fun. Even staying below FL 180 and using cannula is a PITA.
The Cirrus Jet has weather radar not the piston singles. These two aircraft are not in the same class at all...sure they are both piston singles but the M350 is pressurized AND costs 40% more than the SR22T. You pay a lot for an extra seat and the luxury to fly without a cannula.
@@speedomars And...the Cirrus Jet costs 2X the M350, and 3X the SR22. You pay a lot more to fly around in the luxury of a turbofan aircraft, especially one limited to FL 310 unlike the Eclipse and Mustang and numerous other twinjets which can fly up to FL450, and have better range. As to why the OP chose to compare the SR22 to the M350, I suppose he did so because in part the M350 is a common step-up from the SR22 and in part because they use similar powerplants. If you want to talk about the SF50, you need to compare it to similar aircraft-the aforementioned Mustang, the Eclipse [which is coming back into production] and some high end turboprops like the M600, TBM 950, and now the Epic. That would make for an interesting video.
@@carlrossi7989 You totally miss the point. The M350 and the SR22T have the SAME performance and range and panel. The only difference is pressurization. Yet the 350 is 40% more in cost. That is an absurd uptick just to get pressurization. You do not need weather radar when you have NEXRAD weather via ADS-B and your celing is on ly 25k feet. The SR22T is an all weather flyer, as is the M350 but neither plane should try to challenge serious weather...they are both too small and too slow and fly too low for that....
@@speedomars Hmmm....looks like you missed a few things, starting with the fact that if you have issues with comparing the two aircraft why not complain directly to the person who created the video? . Second, the range of the two aircraft is not the same, M350 range with standard tanks is over 300 nm greater than SR22T plus you can get STC for an additional 20 gallons [=140 gal usable] so even greater range if desired. Third, M350 has a three-screen setup which means that both pilots get flight instruments full time, no need to do reversion to display PFD on right screen like in SR22 and other G1000 equipped aircraft. Pressurization does wonderful things for pilot and pax comfort particularly on long trips. Cabin is quieter due to thicker construction [needed for pressure vessel] plus engine in M350 is separated from cabin by forward baggage compartment. In addition to being able to comfortably use the mid to high teens-Flight Levels you can also descend rapidly [like thru an icing layer] without blowing everyone's eardrums and sinuses out. ADS-B is great for strategic avoidance of weather, particularly convective weather, but onboard radar [provided one is proficient in its use] is a fantastic tool, particularly in the terminal environment. M350 has all-NEXRAD, on board,and Stormscope, pretty nice to be able to compare and if you have ever done some direct comparisons between what you get from NEXRAD and what you get from onboard, you might be surprised by the differences. Yes, ideally we should avoid all the weather but sometimes that is just not possible and there have been a number of folks who found out the hard way about NEXRAD latency. How much real world experience do you have with flying the identical trip with either of these aircraft? I've got just over 500 hours of PA 46 time and 3,600 hours of Columbia 400/Cessna TTX time [comparable performance to the SR22T], using these aircraft to fly the same long trips like SoCal-Seattle, SoCal-Chicago, SoCal-Northern Canada [the last was with a bunch of Cirrus pilots, BTW], and I can tell you from personal experience which one I prefer and which one my pax prefer. Yeah, the M350 costs more to buy and maintain but there is a reason it is a step-up for many SR22 pilots, and pilots of other high performance singles. Endless threads on COPA about this with good posts from people who have made the transition [both ways].
@@carlrossi7989 You are reaching now. I am not complaining....I am helping people understand that comparing these two aircraft is not productive since the M350 is way overpriced given the few things it adds to the mix over the SR22T. You don't need three screens...you NEVER need to use reversionary mode unless you get an outage. The range of the M350 according to Piper is 1,343 (120gf, 11nm per gallon)). The range of the SR22T is 1090nm (92gf, 11nm per gallon). Your arithmetic is off...that's a meager 253nm. If you STC a fuel tank change then you need to add that to the cost...which makes the M350 even more absurdly expensive for what you get. You are paying a TON more to get the pressurization. And you are giving back even more money by having to ensure and maintain retractable gear. And you don't get the all-airframe parachute...a safety option that cannot be matched by the single-engine M350. NEXRAD latency is manageable and not a factor (3-5 mins avg).... Again, the ceiling for both planes is 25k feet. That is too low to challenge thunderstorms...the only real reason to have weather radar in the cockpit.
Piper blows it away but it’s really apples and oranges. M350 is pressurized. But let’s say the M350 added a parachute: you will take all the Cirrus fans away,lol. On more thing: Cirrus is owned by the Chinese
Agreed on the comment regarding pressurization in the 350. Also the passenger capacity. I love the Cirrus but I believe the M350 is by far my choice, for the type of flying that I want to do. Not sure what Cirrus's turbo does for the plane relative to the 350 im performance in the mountains/high altitude though.
My goal is to buy the Piper 350 in a few years, but if I can’t afford it, I may go for the Cirrus SR22T of just buy a used Piper 350 that’s a few years old and the same price as a new SR22T. The pressurized cabin, longer range, and more useful load are the big advantages for me. Speed is about the same and max altitude is the same. Downsides to the M350 are that’s it burns more fuel per hour, and the maintenance costs are higher.
I heard a owner that use to have a Cirrus but now owns an M350 compare the two as a Porsche vs. Suburban. Also, the M350 is pressurized where the Cirrus is not.
I don’t believe anyone would consider an M350, nor its TP siblings, as a “suburban” unless they were flying solo. That PA46 platform has always been noted for its poor payload capacity. That’s the primary “upgrade” of M600, it’s increased wing area improved its load, though still lagging well behind the TBM and Epic SETP’s. From memory, the M350 is under 600lb full fuel payload🤦♂️
The SR22T is a luxury car by any standard. And the safest piston single in the air. The Piper is a much more costly aircraft so you will pay for the cabin-class door entry.
The Piper M350 blows the Cirrus out of the water in many aspect. Performance in a Mirage/350 is very similar, but the experience is by far, much more worthier than a Cirrus with its pressurized, cabin class, vessel. I love and fly both aircraft.
Not sure what owners you think are flying 450hrs a year. Probably more like 50-100hrs/year for a majority of owners. Your numbers overall seem off. I am a cirrus fan, but this is not a fair comparison to be honest. Most would take the M350.
Both aircrafts are not in the same class. The piper is a pressurized cabin class aircraft, the cirrus is not. I would rather fly in the pressurized comfort of the Piper than in the Cirrus
Have you ever flown a PA-46? Unless it’s Meridian, now known as M500/600, the TSIO520 and TIO540 piston powered aircraft work best in FL120-170 flight levels. We typically only climb above FL180 to avoid weather. Above FL180 requires O2 cannula but below that level it’s up to user. We live above 9k’, so I’m comfortable flying up to FL180 w/o O2 in non-pressurised cabin. The big advantage to pressurised cabin is flying w/children. Our 340A twin is really efficient at FL220and offers very effective pressurisation for my 4 year old grandson and dogs to comfortably fly w/us. If however grandson and dogs were not issue, pressurised cabin and it’s related maintenance costs would be less of priority. If I were considering an SR22, I’d much favor a G3 w/Garmin Perspective and the TN 550 engine. 1000 hrs longer TBO and much better performance in hot weather than the TSIO550
This comment was BETTER than the RUclips video. Throughout the whole video, I was yelling, "the M350 is Pressurized" 25,000ft = 8000ft in the cabin, what is it in the Cirrus? (25,000ft)
based on the useful load difference of only 52 lbs.,there does not seem to be any advantage in the piper 350 except for the pressurized cabin. for the pressurization you are paying over $150k for the luxury plus much higher maintenance costs
Thanks for the video it is packed with a lot of great details. I'd recommend including a summary table at the end with the various features compared side-by-side allowing the audience to compare the features and highlighting features that aren't present in both (e.g pressurization).
These comparisons videos aren’t apples to apples. It’s a 4 seater vs a 6 seater. That in of itself puts these planes in completely different categories. If you wanted to say compare what you get for a price tag of a million dollars then yeah good video. But compare planes that are in the same category and have similar setups. In this video M350 wins in my opinion.
One issue with the Piper M350 is that the full fuel useful load is only 588 pounds. That’s not even enough weight for 4 people and barely enough weight for 3 people with baggage. You can never have full fuel and 4 to 6 passengers. If you go with the extra 20 gallon of fuel tanks, the full fuel useful load drops to only 468 pounds, which is just enough for 2 passengers and baggage or maybe 3 passengers with no baggage if the people don’t weigh a lot.
I agree, I like the interior space and style of the Malibu as well as baggage space. But in order to fill all the seats in the Malibu even with 85-100 gallons you better know people that are 170 lbs or less. For the money the cirrus is the way to go. The pressurization is not worth the money. I'd get a Cessna 340A or turbo prop for pressurized.
If you are going to compare such two distincly different aircraft at least provide a rationale of why you chose them. Also, please slow down so people can better absorb all the facts and figures you're throwing at them.
Parachute tied onto the plane as a last minute ditch effort to save the plane are for those who ain’t true pilots. Learn how to do guided emergency landing instead of that abhorrent contraption found on the cirrus...
I have watched 1000s of videos and this is the first comment I’ve made so yes I do have a opinion. I have owned both planes a 22T g5 (n712CM) and a m350 (N36C).. they are way different airplanes. The piper feels more like a jet when sitting in front. It has the auto pilot that is on top of the panel..cirrus is on the bottom.. the piper even has the windshield divided by two sections like a jet the cirrus is just one window. The piper has a glass window that can heat up to melt ice away, the cirrus doesn’t even have a real glass. It’s acrylic.( which has fine scratches even when using a micro fiber cloth ), the piper has ice boots which work much better then the cirrus which has the tiny pores which secretes fluid out of it. Doesn’t even compare with the way it handles in icing..the piper even has the jet sound when you come up on your altitude which sounds like even the commercial planes ( like a dial tone) where the cirrus has a tiny whimpy beep...the piper has retractable landing gear, cirrus does not..piper has the three screens (again something all jets and commercial planes have) which is a cool factor if nothing else..the cirrus has VERY uncomfortable seats in back that are cramped. If you have 4 pax in the piper you can stretch your feet better then a first class seat in a commercial plane. Even with 6 pax the rear seats are more comfortable ( although some pax find it strange to sit backwards ). This a a HUGE advantage as I routinely fly with 6 pax. The pressurization I can’t say enough about it. I have a place in Miami and a place in Los Angeles. In the hot humid summer months where you are dodging thunderstorms which isn’t fun I keep the plane in LA. Winter time where I can fly at the east coast and the warmth of Florida I keep it there. So I do cross country flights twice a year. I fly routinely at flight level 250 where the jet stream gives me a nice tail wind at 110 Knotts. I can make it easily to New Orleans on one tank then to Miami ( I have the extended tanks which give me 20 extra gallons where the cirrus doesn’t have that option). It is so comfortable up at that altitude where in the cirrus it sucked to have the mask on..pax even hated the masks more , not to mention a extra 100 dollars plus to fill up,the oxygen. And with 4 pax the o2 would be used up before the destination so yes the pressurization is worth the extra money right there. I have gone to the Bahamas and Caribbean several times. There the xm weather doesn’t work. So the onboard weather radar is a great tool. The baggage compartment is so nice to have in the me50 as you can put easily three small suitcases up front and 100 pounds in the back. Having the baggage compartment up front also allows the ride to be quieter..I can actually keep my head set off on cruise and still be able to have a normal conversation. As far as operating costs yes the piper is more of a acquisition cost , but the overall cost after that is relatively the same. Fuel burn is around 17.5 GPH on the cirrus and 22.5 on the piper. However your true airspeed is a little better as the higher up you are the faster you go especially with the tail winds so in some cases it’s actually cheaper because you arrive at your destination faster and if you choose to fly high in the cirrus it will cost you more in the filling up the o2 then the extra fuel burn..also in real world flying I will get no more then 800 miles on normal cruise , no wind in the cirrus. In the piper I can do 1000 miles and 1200 with the extra tanks. I find my annuals are around 5 k more out the door with the piper , and the insurance costs are around 5 k more a year ( increased hull value along with the retractable gear). Because of the extra 5 feet on wing length sadly some individual hangers can’t accommodate the piper and even some tie downs at some airports you have to get two spots next to you. The cirrus is more comfortable for the pilot and co pilot and yes the parachute is a nice piece of mind but let’s be honest here. A properly maintained engine with the proper run ups and your chance of a engine failure is slim to none anyways. Ramp appeal is arguable. I have half of my friends who like the pop up doors and cool paint colours of the cirrus while half like the stairs and the bigger plane look of the piper. I’m sure I’m missing things still but I know these are the main bullet points... I like the piper so much I just sold this and am under contract on a ( new for me) 2017 piper m600 (N161WA). The m350 to me is such in a different league that to me there is no comparison, although the cirrus gave me some great flying over the years.
Correction it’s n631WA for the m600
Thanks for the reply / comment! I have 600 hours in a rented Cirrus and I would love to fly the M350. Luggage room and access to me seems much better on the M. I don't like the small door of the Cirrus and folding down the rear seats involved a lot of crawling around the interior.
I like the 3rd screen and on-board radar to have current weather.
Flying with dogs would be better in a pressurized cabin. (would they still need ear muffs?)
Does the M have built-in 02 for a backup?
If I could afford to buy either, I would go the Piper route. Your comments confirmed it.
@@Matt.Jernigan Hi Matt. I think both are very easy to fly although I would say the cirrus is slightly easier in my opinion. The piper is perhaps 5 knots faster due to the landing gear up (less drag) but of course in the piper you will fly higher due to the pressurization , thus you will get faster true air speeds. Amy questions you are more then welcome to call me 3109610598. Thx
@@JohnS-ey9si looking at getting into flying. As I think about the plane I want to end up in, I'm trying to learn in the right plane before hand. Or maybe buying a starter plane of the same brand I will end up in. Do you think that is a wise plan?
@@JohnS-ey9si Thank you
Enjoyed the video, but the Piper is pressurized. That is a very significant difference that you did not mention
Absolutly right, these aircrafts are not in the same category 4 seater vs 6 seater so difficult to compare one with the other
@@michelvidal6659 Which Piper (or other man. ) would be a good comparison?
@@heavyizthacrown-5842 in this range I wouldn't see any...because CirrusSR22T is a high performer for cruising speed and avionics as well!!
@@michelvidal6659 How about Pipistrel Panthera ?
@@leeway777 Also looks good meanwhile less tailored for cross country flight than the M350 that has a wider cabin and cockpit.
So...if anybody is interested in more owner flown real-world reports, posted below is a write-up I did for the COPA forum comparing my experience with flying our 2017 TTX [equivalent to SR22T] from San Diego to Oregon on a Saturday Morning, followed by a trip from Eugene to Phoenix the same afternoon in our M350-note that we are having an engine cooling STC [modified cowl] installed on the M350 which should hopefully eliminate some of the temperature issues [I'll find out this weekend when I pick the plane up]:
It’s been just under three months, and just over 50 hours since we picked up 46LY at the factory, FWIW thought it would be fun to write up a report on ownership experience to date, something to do on a foggy afternoon here in Florence. So here goes…
My memories of the comforts of pressurization had not dimmed with the years and repetitive unpressurized hypoxia. We did another “comparison flight” yesterday [more on that in a bit] which reinforced this, it really is a different flying environment. Among other things, there is one less umbilical to yank on your head when you look to the side [or to exert even more force on your headset], your insides do not feel like the Michelin Man with attendant need to outgas [always fun with others sharing your cabin] and you are going to use those high teens and low Flight Levels routinely. Other than one short trip from Eugene to Florence, all of our flights thus far have been at or above 15K. You get treated a bit differently up there by ATC, and you need to be on your game-if unfamiliar with SIID’s and especially STAR’s one stepping up needs to get up to speed on their use, because it will be expected of you to comply like your turboprop/turbojet brethren. The benefits are easily worth the price of admission in terms of the additional study [as to the other, much steeper price, that is for the pilot to decide].
Performance is very much on a par, if not slightly worse, than the TTX and I’m assuming the SR22T. In fact in some regimes, such as climb, it is inferior. Full-power climb rate is 1,100-1,200 fpm but you are not going to want to keep the power there very long because engine temps can quickly become an issue unless you are willing to tolerate CHT’s in the 410-420F range. So the drill is to use full power for takeoff and initial climb, I typically do so up to about 5K [this, of course, will vary depending on surrounding terrain, need to climb thru icing layer, departure requirements, etc.] than reduce power to a “Cruise Climb” setting of 2500/35", 125 KIAS. This will give you a solid 5-600 FPM climb all the way up into the FL’s, and will also give you max CHT’s < 380F. POH calls for leaning mixture to 32 GPH but that is going to result in substantially higher temps so I usually leave mixture full [35 GPH] and will come back to 33-34 GPH if by doing so I can keep the CHT’s below 380. In contrast, in the TTX, you leave everything forward and at 130 KIAS you will climb at 1,000 FPM up into the flight levels, with CHT’s < 380 and fuel burn of ~ 40 GPH. So, you get twice the climb rate in the TTX with marginally higher fuel burn, pretty much a wash in terms of total fuel use.
Cruise performance for the M350 is also slower than the TTX, at least at the power settings I have been using. “Economy cruise” is 220/26", the POH says you should be able to run this power setting at 15 GPH, leaning to peak [ugh], but again if you want to keep the temps down you are going to be burning 17-18 GPH at this power setting and even then you are going to see 400F on hottest cylinder. LOP is verboten courtesy of the Lycoming Legal Department and even though this has been thoroughly, absolutely, and completely debunked by the late John Deakin and the good folks in Ada, OK, unlike Chuck who’s plane apparently came from the factory fitted with a magic Lycoming LOP kit, my few attempts to run LOP have been meet with a rather alarming sequence of wheeze-rumble-surge-stumble-bang!-putting an end, for the moment at least, to further experiments. Legacy Flight Training, which does factory-approved initial training for the M350, recommends running this power setting initially at 20 GPH, than leaning to keep CHT’s below 400 and ideally below 380, in my experience this is right at or under 18 GPH.
This power setting results in about 180 KTAS in the high teens, and yesterday at FL 230 we were seeing 185 KTAS. In contrast, at 16K, the TTX will turn 180 KTAS on 14 GPH, running 75 degrees LOP and burning 14 GPH and while I do not routinely use the flight levels in either the TTX or the 400 at say FL 210 you will see close to 200 knots in either at the same power setting, which is ~ 62% power. Of course in the M350 you are hauling around a lot more airplane and you are flying in pressurized comfort, so the relatively slight differences in cruise speed are more than made up for with these amenities, but if anything this goes to illustrate once again that, like warships, aircraft design is largely a series of compromises.
Descents are an area where the differences become more apparent, at least in smooth air. In the TTX/400 my sinuses and middle ear thank me whenever I keep the descent rate to 1K/min or less, and if flying with somebody not used to light unpressurized aircraft I prefer 5-700/min. In contrast, the M350 begs you to hustle down [conditions permitting, of course], you can easily do 1,500/min with the power up at 25" [go below say 23 and you start to loose pressurization], with the cabin descending at 400 fpm or so, wayyyyyy more comfortable, especially when you are operating in areas where terrain precludes early descent, let alone traffic. We were taught for descents of > 1K to use FLC @ 165 KIAS, which is also a speed right at the upper limit of flaps 10 and gear extension, so if things get bumpy and speed brakes alone are not sufficient, you have some other levers to literally pull to let you slow quickly if need be. ATC loves this flexibility, going into a Bravo [like we did yesterday] you can easily mix in with the turbojet traffic. True, I do this all the time in the TTX/400, but it feels more comfortable in the M350, or perhaps that is just the Piper Intracranial Implant talking? No, seriously I feel more comfortable which I guess is the relevant point.
Maintenance-God, I hate to even write this…but so far, so good. During initial training Ann noticed a slight oil leak which of course I ignored, the next day on a subsequent training flight we had an oil-streaked cowling. After consulting with various folks we flew the aircraft back to Cutter in Phoenix for what turned out to be replacement of some rocker arm gaskets, and the leak stopped. About a month ago the “Oxygen Cannister Activated” CAS warning came on, indicating that one of the emergency oxygen generators had been activated, but on inspection none of them had and this is going to be dealt with at the 50 Hour inspection.
Real World Comparison-Yesterday’s mission should serve as a decent example. We needed to bring the M350 from Eugene to Phoenix for 50 hour inspection [part of the “Fly For Free!” package] and to have a long-range fuel tank STC installed. This of course meant that we first had to get ourselves to Eugene…could have gone commercial, but what is the fun of that? So we decided we would fly the TTX from San Diego to Eugene.
We started out at 12K, but eventually climbed [as we usually do] to 16K both for terrain and to remain clear of smoke. Ann got to do a LIFR departure at MYF, and a rather abrupt “Cleared for the Visual” at EUG, good stuff for her. 4+07, comfortable.
Parked at Atlantic [where we keep the M350], had lunch inside the FBO, packed up, and we’re off!
A somewhat longer flight, but subjectively much more comfortable than the flight to Eugene-at FL230 we were sitting in a ~7K cabin, plus each of us could get up every now and then and walk to the back of the plane, stretch out if need be. 4+33.
Winner-M350 [duh!] but…to get that extra comfort we ended up burning 30 more gallons of gas, and spending nearly 2X in acquisition cost. Don’t get me wrong, I do not regret the purchase decision, but I think this also serves to illustrate the pretty exceptional performance you get in the SR22T/TTX/400. Lance Neibauer and the Klapmeier’s both, in my estimation, hit home runs when it came to designing fast, efficient, and safe Part 23 airplanes. So it’s all good.
In contrast, Leg 3-PHX-EUG on American Eagle Saturday Evening-was by far both the fastest [2:30] and least comfortable part of the trip. A hot, full, cramped RJ packed with what appeared to us to be a disproportionate number of unhappy people, no cabin service beyond water. incessant reminders that “Masks must be worn the entire flight, and must completely cover the nose and mouth!” [a rule which appeared to be being honored more in the breach than anything else]. After deplaning at EUG we both agreed that GA travel, even in our reciprocating, lead-spewing [but hopefully for not much longer! Bring on that G100UL, so long as it actually works…] “toy airplanes” was by far the better choice for domestic travel, excepting perhaps First Class. We are all incredibly fortunate.
I have owned two Cirrus SR aircraft and now own a PA46. There is no comparison the piper wins hands down.
Hey, I'm in the research phase of possibly buying a PA46 over the next several months. Any chance you'd be up for chatting about owning one? I've been looking for an owner that would be willing to visit about it. Just thought I'd ask. Thanks.
Never been in a PA46, so I am asking an opinion not saying this a fact. It seems like getting to the cockpit in the PA46 would be a pain.
@@Matt.Jernigan I did at Oshkosh. If you are not tiny, I can't imagine the difficulty of an emergency exit.
So I'd personally go with the M350 based on range, cabin size and appearance, pressurised cabin, and normal day to day operations. Its just more ergonomic better suited for more versatile situaitons
Have owned a cirrus (Centennial) since 2003. Most of my flights have been by myself or with one passenger, and not that often need to get into oxygen breathing levels. It would be nice to be able to fly higher, have onboard weather radar, roomy cabin, and all of the other great features of the M350. A friend of mine bought one not long ago and I had a opportunity to fly co-pilot. I love everything about it except one thing, the cockpit area is extremely cramped for 6', 230 lb old man (64). This is a deal killer for me, but if I routinely carried more people farther I would choose it over the cirrus in spite of the contortion needed to access the cockpit (oh and I have to almost hold my head sideways). Both are great planes depending on your mission needs.
I have flown on a PA46 as a passenger, its really just a private jet but with a prop instead. SR22 seems to be a vastly different aircraft
While it's certainly been made clear here that , these two planes aren't really equally comparable , what I have l earned in all the comments , is substantially better data/real life experience etc , than I have gotten from reading and watching hrs and hrs of other material .
Marlin The Aviator ... Thanks kindly for what you started .
and for what it's worth , I vote Piper .
I'm sure that the Cirrus certainly has a valued place in the GA world , and no doubt , it's a excellent aircraft .
As an Older guy , the comparison that I'd make , is that the SR22 is the modern fancy flashy type of plane that a younger person would fly , the the M350 is a well defined . very capable ,very comfortable , even elegant , aircraft that us older guys would fly . ( the paint jobs alone should show that ) .
Liked your recent video but you forgot some major differences between the M350 and the Cirrus SR22T. 6 seats vs 4 seats and Pressurized cabin vs none on the Cirrus. Huge difference in flight requirements on long trips as well.
It blows me away when you go and watch a Personal Aircraft video, or even check a manufacturer's website and they don't mention seating! Like HELLO! If it seats less than 6 I'm not interested! It might even be THE most important factor in choosing an aircraft!
How many people do you need to fly? We don't care! Look at this plane!
These are not comparable aircraft. Though the M350 performance and range are similar to the SR22T the M350 seats six (the SR22T seats 4), the M350 burns nearly twice the fuel and requires a MUCH larger onboard fuel capacity to get the similar range (120 gallons, versus 90 gallons). Though the ceiling is the same and the panel is the same (with associated capabilities of the Garmin NXi) the M350 costs $1.35m compared to the similarly equipped SR22T at $950k. So you are paying significantly more to get the pressurization and the extra seat, including a 40% uptick in cost per hour to run the aircraft.
Using the range figures provided on the video and the fuel capacities you provided, that works out to be 11.1 nm/ gallon for the Piper and 11.3 nm / gallon for the Cirrus. How the hell did you calculate “twice the fuel?” Even without the provided specs, most people report the SR22 leans out to about 17gph and about 18-20 for the PA-46 with similar cruise speeds. Your math definitely isn’t adding up.
@@alexs3187 The Cirrus SR22T has a 16 gph burn at 75% power. The Piper fuel burn @ 75% 20.0 gph. The SR22T has a 315hp engine and cruises at 190ktas. The Piper has a 350hp engine and cruises at 190ktas. The SR22T is max gross 3600 lbs., the Piper is 4350 max gross. Both have a ceiling of FL25. Your math isn't based on the specs.
@@speedomars lol you’re over complicating it. All you need is fuel consumed over distance. But whatever, hardly worth fighting about 😂 - Anyway the DA50 RG has them both beat, 9gph at 181 ktas on cheaper Jet A.
Electronic Stability Protection is available in both aircraft which is not surprising since both airplanes use the same GFC 700 autopilot. Cirrus “Perspective” is Cirrus’s brand name for Garmin G1000/1000 NxI, so basic avionics are same in both aircraft. M350 has third screen to display radar, XM weather, moving map, and a host of other products which are displayed on the Cirrus MFD. Did I mention weather radar? Available in M350 [currently changing from GWX 68 to GWX 75] not available in Cirrus. Perhaps biggest difference of all which you failed to mention [and which others have pointed out] is pressurization, yes both aircraft have identical service ceiling of FL 250 but in the SR 22 you will be wearing a mask and be operating in a very physiologically hostile environment which is not comfortable and can be downright dangerous if you have oxygen failure. In contrast pressurization means you will routinely use the flight levels, M350 maintains sea level cabin to ~12,000 feet and 8,500 foot cabin at FL250. M350 cabin is large enough to walk around in while in flight, kinda difficult to do that in an SR22.
Not sure where you got your price data base price is good place to start but nobody buys a base aircraft and BTW base price of M350 is over $1.1M, once you equip for flight into known icing and other stuff the out the door price is just over $1.5M. Having one on order I am very familiar with this figure. Similarly most well equipped new SR22T’s are approaching $1M.
Both nice capable traveling machines. Mission is of course important. If you are going to routinely be doing lots of long distance flying it’s difficult to beat pressurization and with it ability to comfortably use altitudes which are often smooth and which allow you to stay above some but by no means all weather. Ever tried wearing an oxygen mask for 5 hours? Not much fun. Even staying below FL 180 and using cannula is a PITA.
The Cirrus Jet has weather radar not the piston singles. These two aircraft are not in the same class at all...sure they are both piston singles but the M350 is pressurized AND costs 40% more than the SR22T. You pay a lot for an extra seat and the luxury to fly without a cannula.
@@speedomars And...the Cirrus Jet costs 2X the M350, and 3X the SR22. You pay a lot more to fly around in the luxury of a turbofan aircraft, especially one limited to FL 310 unlike the Eclipse and Mustang and numerous other twinjets which can fly up to FL450, and have better range.
As to why the OP chose to compare the SR22 to the M350, I suppose he did so because in part the M350 is a common step-up from the SR22 and in part because they use similar powerplants. If you want to talk about the SF50, you need to compare it to similar aircraft-the aforementioned Mustang, the Eclipse [which is coming back into production] and some high end turboprops like the M600, TBM 950, and now the Epic. That would make for an interesting video.
@@carlrossi7989 You totally miss the point. The M350 and the SR22T have the SAME performance and range and panel. The only difference is pressurization. Yet the 350 is 40% more in cost. That is an absurd uptick just to get pressurization. You do not need weather radar when you have NEXRAD weather via ADS-B and your celing is on ly 25k feet. The SR22T is an all weather flyer, as is the M350 but neither plane should try to challenge serious weather...they are both too small and too slow and fly too low for that....
@@speedomars Hmmm....looks like you missed a few things, starting with the fact that if you have issues with comparing the two aircraft why not complain directly to the person who created the video? . Second, the range of the two aircraft is not the same, M350 range with standard tanks is over 300 nm greater than SR22T plus you can get STC for an additional 20 gallons [=140 gal usable] so even greater range if desired. Third, M350 has a three-screen setup which means that both pilots get flight instruments full time, no need to do reversion to display PFD on right screen like in SR22 and other G1000 equipped aircraft.
Pressurization does wonderful things for pilot and pax comfort particularly on long trips. Cabin is quieter due to thicker construction [needed for pressure vessel] plus engine in M350 is separated from cabin by forward baggage compartment. In addition to being able to comfortably use the mid to high teens-Flight Levels you can also descend rapidly [like thru an icing layer] without blowing everyone's eardrums and sinuses out. ADS-B is great for strategic avoidance of weather, particularly convective weather, but onboard radar [provided one is proficient in its use] is a fantastic tool, particularly in the terminal environment. M350 has all-NEXRAD, on board,and Stormscope, pretty nice to be able to compare and if you have ever done some direct comparisons between what you get from NEXRAD and what you get from onboard, you might be surprised by the differences. Yes, ideally we should avoid all the weather but sometimes that is just not possible and there have been a number of folks who found out the hard way about NEXRAD latency.
How much real world experience do you have with flying the identical trip with either of these aircraft?
I've got just over 500 hours of PA 46 time and 3,600 hours of Columbia 400/Cessna TTX time [comparable performance to the SR22T], using these aircraft to fly the same long trips like SoCal-Seattle, SoCal-Chicago, SoCal-Northern Canada [the last was with a bunch of Cirrus pilots, BTW], and I can tell you from personal experience which one I prefer and which one my pax prefer.
Yeah, the M350 costs more to buy and maintain but there is a reason it is a step-up for many SR22 pilots, and pilots of other high performance singles. Endless threads on COPA about this with good posts from people who have made the transition [both ways].
@@carlrossi7989 You are reaching now. I am not complaining....I am helping people understand that comparing these two aircraft is not productive since the M350 is way overpriced given the few things it adds to the mix over the SR22T. You don't need three screens...you NEVER need to use reversionary mode unless you get an outage. The range of the M350 according to Piper is 1,343 (120gf, 11nm per gallon)). The range of the SR22T is 1090nm (92gf, 11nm per gallon). Your arithmetic is off...that's a meager 253nm. If you STC a fuel tank change then you need to add that to the cost...which makes the M350 even more absurdly expensive for what you get. You are paying a TON more to get the pressurization. And you are giving back even more money by having to ensure and maintain retractable gear. And you don't get the all-airframe parachute...a safety option that cannot be matched by the single-engine M350. NEXRAD latency is manageable and not a factor (3-5 mins avg).... Again, the ceiling for both planes is 25k feet. That is too low to challenge thunderstorms...the only real reason to have weather radar in the cockpit.
Need to give a score at the end on your opinions and based on the specs given
Great video..lots of info...I just felt these two planes are different classes..but close in price range!
what did you include in the operating costs? that seems to high on both.
Hi I seemed to have missed how many seats they had?
Piper blows it away but it’s really apples and oranges. M350 is pressurized. But let’s say the M350 added a parachute: you will take all the Cirrus fans away,lol. On more thing: Cirrus is owned by the Chinese
Agreed on the comment regarding pressurization in the 350. Also the passenger capacity. I love the Cirrus but I believe the M350 is by far my choice, for the type of flying that I want to do. Not sure what Cirrus's turbo does for the plane relative to the 350 im performance in the mountains/high altitude though.
I Agree With Many Of The Comments Here. Why Would You Compare Two Aircraft That Are So Dissimilar!?!
The Piper M350 is a cabin-class, pressurized aircraft. This is a comparison of apples and oranges.
How many seat positions in each plane???
Most important differences are that the Piper is a pressurised 6-seater whereas the Cirrus requires oxygen and is a much smaller 4-seater.
My goal is to buy the Piper 350 in a few years, but if I can’t afford it, I may go for the Cirrus SR22T of just buy a used Piper 350 that’s a few years old and the same price as a new SR22T. The pressurized cabin, longer range, and more useful load are the big advantages for me. Speed is about the same and max altitude is the same. Downsides to the M350 are that’s it burns more fuel per hour, and the maintenance costs are higher.
I heard a owner that use to have a Cirrus but now owns an M350 compare the two as a Porsche vs. Suburban. Also, the M350 is pressurized where the Cirrus is not.
I don’t believe anyone would consider an M350, nor its TP siblings, as a “suburban” unless they were flying solo. That PA46 platform has always been noted for its poor payload capacity. That’s the primary “upgrade” of M600, it’s increased wing area improved its load, though still lagging well behind the TBM and Epic SETP’s. From memory, the M350 is under 600lb full fuel payload🤦♂️
@@MichaelM-to4sg I totally agree the Malibu would have been one best selling single engine planes if it had a higher useful load
The SR22T is a luxury car by any standard. And the safest piston single in the air. The Piper is a much more costly aircraft so you will pay for the cabin-class door entry.
@@speedomars...plus pressurization and two extra seats
@@dalydegagne1839 $920k vs $1.4m. Is nearly $500k more worth two seats you will never fill? Nah.
Piper.
The Piper M350 blows the Cirrus out of the water in many aspect. Performance in a Mirage/350 is very similar, but the experience is by far, much more worthier than a Cirrus with its pressurized, cabin class, vessel. I love and fly both aircraft.
Not sure what owners you think are flying 450hrs a year. Probably more like 50-100hrs/year for a majority of owners. Your numbers overall seem off. I am a cirrus fan, but this is not a fair comparison to be honest. Most would take the M350.
Both aircrafts are not in the same class. The piper is a pressurized cabin class aircraft, the cirrus is not. I would rather fly in the pressurized comfort of the Piper than in the Cirrus
Yes he does this a lot, it's a bit weird.
It seems the author has little knowledge of aviation nor aircraft.
Have you ever flown a PA-46? Unless it’s Meridian, now known as M500/600, the TSIO520 and TIO540 piston powered aircraft work best in FL120-170 flight levels. We typically only climb above FL180 to avoid weather. Above FL180 requires O2 cannula but below that level it’s up to user. We live above 9k’, so I’m comfortable flying up to FL180 w/o O2 in non-pressurised cabin. The big advantage to pressurised cabin is flying w/children. Our 340A twin is really efficient at FL220and offers very effective pressurisation for my 4 year old grandson and dogs to comfortably fly w/us. If however grandson and dogs were not issue, pressurised cabin and it’s related maintenance costs would be less of priority.
If I were considering an SR22, I’d much favor a G3 w/Garmin Perspective and the TN 550 engine. 1000 hrs longer TBO and much better performance in hot weather than the TSIO550
Try all parameters side by side from the start. Don't try to manipulate watch time, earn it.
M350 the best plane all around
This comment was BETTER than the RUclips video. Throughout the whole video, I was yelling, "the M350 is Pressurized" 25,000ft = 8000ft in the cabin, what is it in the Cirrus? (25,000ft)
Just slow the voice over down just a tad. Good enough
Comparing apples to oranges here!
based on the useful load difference of only 52 lbs.,there does not seem to be any advantage in the piper 350 except for the pressurized cabin. for the pressurization you are paying over $150k for the luxury plus much higher maintenance costs
and the piper has 2 more seats.
Plus the on board radar and extendable tanks.
What about internal cabin space, one is a lot bigger than the other
Cabin class vs non cabin class. They are similar but very different aircraft.
A used Malibu is the best deal I know of. The older ones… less avionics, have about 100# more payload capability. I bought mine 20 years ago…
Thanks for the video it is packed with a lot of great details.
I'd recommend including a summary table at the end with the various features compared side-by-side allowing the audience to compare the features and highlighting features that aren't present in both (e.g pressurization).
These comparisons videos aren’t apples to apples. It’s a 4 seater vs a 6 seater. That in of itself puts these planes in completely different categories. If you wanted to say compare what you get for a price tag of a million dollars then yeah good video. But compare planes that are in the same category and have similar setups. In this video M350 wins in my opinion.
I think the Piper M350 can seat 6 people as well. The SR22T has a parachute as an advantage.
You forgot to mention that the Piper has a pressurized cabin and is a 6 seater whereas the CIrrus is not Pressurized and is 4 seater and the
Piper is my choice
I don’t see how you can compare these airplanes. Totally different airplanes.
M350 for me thanks
One issue with the Piper M350 is that the full fuel useful load is only 588 pounds. That’s not even enough weight for 4 people and barely enough weight for 3 people with baggage. You can never have full fuel and 4 to 6 passengers.
If you go with the extra 20 gallon of fuel tanks, the full fuel useful load drops to only 468 pounds, which is just enough for 2 passengers and baggage or maybe 3 passengers with no baggage if the people don’t weigh a lot.
I agree, I like the interior space and style of the Malibu as well as baggage space. But in order to fill all the seats in the Malibu even with 85-100 gallons you better know people that are 170 lbs or less. For the money the cirrus is the way to go. The pressurization is not worth the money. I'd get a Cessna 340A or turbo prop for pressurized.
Title of the next video: “Boeing 787 vs Piper Seminole. Which twin engine plane is better?”
No mention that piper is pressurized.
This is a very strange comparison. These two aircraft are apple to orange.
This video was made in a hurry...
If you are going to compare such two distincly different aircraft at least provide a rationale of why you chose them. Also, please slow down so people can better absorb all the facts and figures you're throwing at them.
And Cirrus and Continental are both Chinese owned companies.
🇩🇿👍👌
Oul temperature to high at start, abort flight and plane.
this is just comparing apples and pears. sorry
Dude sounds like he has a stuffy nose or something.
Parachute tied onto the plane as a last minute ditch effort to save the plane are for those who ain’t true pilots. Learn how to do guided emergency landing instead of that abhorrent contraption found on the cirrus...
Poor comparison. Not equal aircraft at all.