Cirrus Unveiling New Product Thursday


Cirrus is teasing a new product introduction on Thursday it calls “the next evolution of personal aviation,” but it won’t be saying what it is until the YouTube livestream starts at 7 p.m. EST that night. It’s widely speculated that it’s a new iteration of one of its current models, the next generation of the SR22 line. There is less speculation it could also be the Rotax-powered SR10 trainer based on a plane developed by its Chinese operation a few years ago that might fit the MOSAIC rules for the revamped Light Sport sector. The Chinese aircraft has been flying for more than three years there and is known as the AG100. The U.S. version was granted a type certificate earlier this year, but the company told AVweb there were no immediate plans to sell the plane in North America.

According to the certification paperwork, the SR10 has a Rotax 915 iS up front and is 900 pounds lighter than the SR20. Its wingspan is also three feet shorter and it’s rated only for day VFR use. If it is the SR10, it marks a serious effort by Cirrus to take on Textron, Piper and, to a smaller degree, Diamond in the burgeoning training market. One of its selling points for that market will be the trademark ballistic parachute common to all its designs.

In a video interview with AVweb earlier this year, Cirrus spokeswoman Ivy McIver said building the SR10 in the U.S. was not in current plans because the company lacked the necessary production capacity. She also noted Cirrus has training versions of the SR20 and SR22.

Russ Niles
Russ Niles is Editor-in-Chief of AVweb. He has been a pilot for 30 years and joined AVweb 22 years ago. He and his wife Marni live in southern British Columbia where they also operate a small winery.


  1. If the teaser image is anything to go by, they might be following Cessna’s lead and revising the interior lining. How amazing would that be? (sarc).

  2. Frankly, a two place “trainer” version with a reasonable baggage capability and decent fuel capacity (or at least the option of long range) would be a perfect fit for the upcoming MOSAIC rule. Use of the 915iS would also be perfect for such a role. IF the price was kept out of the nosebleed levels, it’d be an instant hit IMHO. IF they’re just repackaging an SR20 … they’re wasting their time.

  3. DAY/VFR trainer with a a $4-500K price doesn’t make sense.
    You have to fly at night for a PPL. All of their planes are TAA, not being able to train at night is a non starter.
    $1.5 for a retractable Cirrus is more believable.
    Neither make sense as I fly around in my Cessna.

    • I’m with you. I think I will stick with my Cardinal, regardless of what shiny, overpriced thingy Cirrus comes up with. They are nice planes, if you just won the lottery.

      • May I fly formation with you in my trusty Skyhawk, John? 🙂
        (I have a larger engine so I should be able to 🙂 )

        No matter what its design/configuration reveals tomorrow, only one thing is assured … Joe Pilot won’t be able to afford it. SO … it has to appeal to flight schools and other multi-users FIRST. And “Day VFR?” What … adding position lights and an anti-collision light is too hard?

        • I’m not sure what that saves them or why because I’m not that familiar with light sport rules, but about half my dual hours were night flights or involved partial IFR.

          I think it might mean a single spar without lightning protection. That’s a pretty big savings.

  4. Sounds expensive. Any aircraft made in Communist China would be a no-go for me. Remember the Cessna Ground-Catcher?

    • I have to agree. An aircraft is a multi decade investment, and most of us have all shaken our heads at short sighted and foolish CEO’s making investments dependent upon the CCP and their integrity.
      It’s too easy to see how the plane could lose its value and airworthiness overnight.

  5. I’m guessing it’s the SR airframe with a Deltahawk diesel engine. That information from Deltahawk about performance in the SR20 test bed it would make sense.

  6. VFR/Day only aircraft are failures out of the box.

    Just look at the Diamond DA20 which was Day/Night VRF only. Diamond admits the plane never really took-off (pardon the pun) due to an airframe design limitation preventing IFR certification.

    • Piper is owned by the Brunei Government. Cessna is a big enough deal for Textron I don’t see them selling it. Of course, Textron could sell the piston business (or the jet business) and the Brunei government can sell their holdings at any time if the price is right.

    • Cessna is part of Textron’s formula for being a second tier military contractor and general government contractor. In order to keep any leverage over the big contractors and maintain any hope of a healthy defense market, they get contracts without having to be competitive. It’s big money. Really big.
      Not sure if this allows them to keep selling obsolete and outdated aircraft that shouldn’t be certified in this century or not, but it would explain a lot.

  7. The Cessna 150 is so much more appealing. Day/night IFR and spinnable. If I were king, they’d all be built to Aerobat standards so pilots everywhere could sample aerobatics.
    Plus, it’s a decent traveling airplane for two (skinny) people and luggage.
    Why does every trainer designed since then fall short of these benchmarks?