Trying out the Cirrus SR22 GTS
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
For a single the speed is good - in fact faster than most twins.
It would be a bit quicker with upy downy uc and / or a bit more efficient but here is an interesting equation to which I dont know the answer:
Cost of liftable uc + extra service costs + extra insurance = less or more than cost of fuel saved?
For a single the speed is good - in fact faster than most twins.
It would be a bit quicker with upy downy uc and / or a bit more efficient but here is an interesting equation to which I dont know the answer:
Cost of liftable uc + extra service costs + extra insurance = less or more than cost of fuel saved?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of liftable uc + extra service costs + extra insurance = less or more than cost of fuel saved?
Service costs are debatable too. Retractable gear does cost more but not significantly so in the great scheme of things. The biggest thing is the need for lubrication, which doesn't go well with UK's "squirt a bit of an aerosol on it" lubrication mentality prevailing in the maintenance business. If you don't lube the aileron/elevator control linkages, eventually the punter will notice and moan about it, but if the gear doesn't come down, and the emergency release fails also (because of poor lubrication) you have a £30,000 landing. My maintenance costs on the landing gear over 6 years = 0.
Extra insurance I am not sure about. I pay £2500 for the TB20 (CPL/IR, 1k hrs, 195k agreed hull value) and would challenge anybody to get below that with a Cirrus, for the same hull value cover. I think this "fixed gear is cheap to insure" was an American marketing drive, which seems to have failed even out there, and never worked in Europe. American insurance rates for Cirruses are actually eye watering.
Cost of fuel saved could OTOH be very tangible. But reducing parasitic drag is a highly desirable thing, because it gives an immediate speed gain, whereas gaining speed through power (fuel flow) is very expensive once you start pushing the 75% cruise speed values. Look at the fuel flow for the quoted TAS of say the Lancair (Cessna) 400. A bit quicker than a TB20, same kind of airframe (passenger space), 2x the fuel flow... No wonder it goes faster! A TB20 at 100% power does ~ 165kt IAS and if you stuck a turbo on it and got it to run at 100% at FL200 you would be looking at ~ 220kt TAS.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been reading Garmin's advert for the SV G1000 product, in the US AOPA mag.
They practically tell you, over a couple of pages, to rely on the system in IMC for terrain clearance, and then they put in a one-liner saying it is not for primary reliance for that purpose.
They practically tell you, over a couple of pages, to rely on the system in IMC for terrain clearance, and then they put in a one-liner saying it is not for primary reliance for that purpose.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the fixed u/c on the Cirrus a result of
a) cheaper (and quicker) certification and
b) being an integral part of the BRS ?
I vaguely remember reading an article about this (not a company brochure) some years ago, when Cirrus first came out.
Would certainly look better with wheels up, but hey, if you fly it you don't see them
!
a) cheaper (and quicker) certification and
b) being an integral part of the BRS ?
I vaguely remember reading an article about this (not a company brochure) some years ago, when Cirrus first came out.
Would certainly look better with wheels up, but hey, if you fly it you don't see them
!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mt. Olympus
Age: 59
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172Driver
That's what I gathered from my brief discussion with the Cirrus company pilot as well. Plus:
c) Safer and easier to operate and maintain at PPL level.
TR
---------------------------------
ThinkRate! ThinkRate! Don't Think!
That's what I gathered from my brief discussion with the Cirrus company pilot as well. Plus:
c) Safer and easier to operate and maintain at PPL level.
TR
---------------------------------
ThinkRate! ThinkRate! Don't Think!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO5040 - yes you are quite correct about the price, I must have had a senior moment. Regarding insurance, I was told that you cannot get insured in the US on the SR22 without an IR. Admittedly, to get the best out of this you really need to be up in the airways. Also, you have to have the ground course first.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO5040 - yes you are quite correct about the price, I must have had a senior moment. Regarding insurance, I was told that you cannot get insured in the US on the SR22 without an IR.
Admittedly, to get the best out of this you really need to be up in the airways.
Also, you have to have the ground course first.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am 100.0% certain that is incorrect. Loads of U.S. "rocket ship" owners have only a PPL - they can fly VFR right up to base of Class A which is 18,000 feet, and getting CAS transits out there is generally very easy. A large % of U.S. private pilots have an IR (of the order of 20% - about 20x more than in Europe) but the majority haven't.
The SR22 is dead easy to fly - yes it is a quicker then nearly every other single - if you want it to be, and yes, the glass takes a bit of getting use to if you are new to glass and yes - it is slippery, so you need to think about more about slowing it down - but that is about it.
If you are use to a fast(ish) complex single and glass it is a doddle - if you are not the speed and capability of the aircraft could well get you into a whole heap of trouble.
I am not sure the under carriage is that much of an issue. I would be interested to know how much saving there could be in fuel burn but given the economies of scale of "investing" upwards of £300K in an aircraft and saving a few gallons of fuel an hour I doubt it is a factor for most. Moreover, their biggest market is the States by far where, rightly or wrongly, the insurance firms dont like anything other than welded uncarriage and Avgas is half the price.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that at least two rental outfits in the US that I know of insist on an IR for the SR22
When I used to rent out the TB20, I insisted on an IR too. Not because one needs one to fly a simple thing like a TB20 but to simply filter out the "stopwatch and compass" renters who would likely get lost and bust some French TRA, and leave the plane out there, leaving me to collect it and pay the 5 digit fine.
None of this is a legal requirement though.
I should add that insisting on an IR drastically narrows the customer base - unsuprisingly. Most current IRs own their own plane already. And you Fuji know the result I had with HMRC
IMHO, a retractable gear is a total non-event. With the two separate interlocks, it's extremely hard to land wheels up.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes exactly so and they do use it as a filter.
I also bet if they liked your flying they would excercise their discretion, unless they have been left with none by their insurers.
It would be interesting to know the difference (if any) between the cost of insurance with or without an IR in the States - I will ask the question and let you know the reply.
Gear is a non event - except of course on those types where either the warnings are inadequate, or it doesnt go down having exhausted all the options. The last time that happened to me the designers had cleverly contrived to link the lights to the rheostat so they never illuminated. Fortunately on that occasion the gear proved to be down and locked.
I suppose on the Cirrus if it is an integral part of the BPS, which I suspect may be the case, then I guess pulling the chute could be coupled with automatically deploying the u/c - now there is a bit of lateral thinking late in the afternoon.
I also bet if they liked your flying they would excercise their discretion, unless they have been left with none by their insurers.
It would be interesting to know the difference (if any) between the cost of insurance with or without an IR in the States - I will ask the question and let you know the reply.
Gear is a non event - except of course on those types where either the warnings are inadequate, or it doesnt go down having exhausted all the options. The last time that happened to me the designers had cleverly contrived to link the lights to the rheostat so they never illuminated. Fortunately on that occasion the gear proved to be down and locked.
I suppose on the Cirrus if it is an integral part of the BPS, which I suspect may be the case, then I guess pulling the chute could be coupled with automatically deploying the u/c - now there is a bit of lateral thinking late in the afternoon.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what its worth I personally am completely happy not having a retractable uc on our cirrus from both an operating point of view as well as maintenance, my previous flying in a retractable PA28 I was allways nervous about it after having various technical problems and failures with getting the gear down on 2 seperate occasions.
Also it seems much more experienced pilots than me have had gear up landings so it suits me just fine and does not detract from the performance or economy in my mind but I am sure technically that argument would not stand up.
Also it seems much more experienced pilots than me have had gear up landings so it suits me just fine and does not detract from the performance or economy in my mind but I am sure technically that argument would not stand up.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my previous flying in a retractable PA28 I was allways nervous about it after having various technical problems and failures with getting the gear down on 2 seperate occasions.
I used to see an old Lance around my field (a real old dog) which had constant gear problems. But it was never looked after. Parked outdoors, and left to rot. I dare say the owner didn't spend any money on it either.
RG is really simple. An 18th century team engine engineer would understand it immediately. And would know exactly where to grease it.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 and others - a couple of questions if you don't mind. firstly, what is the difference between a US IR and a UK one. I am assuming they are different from many comments over the years and correct me if I am wrong. Secondly, I have been thinking for some time about going for an IR, having got my IMC a few years ago (not current now), so how much devotion will I need bearing in mind that I have a busy job. I haven't flown so many hours in the last couple of years, but this would change if I could fly in the airways. What would you suggest? Would it be worth it?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a limit to how many people will rise to the bait every time this one comes up.
Not suggesting DeeCee's Q is not genuine; I have sent him/her a PM ref some reading material.
Not suggesting DeeCee's Q is not genuine; I have sent him/her a PM ref some reading material.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - thanks for the info. Yes, the question was genuine. I was recently told by my club that an American friend of mine with 15,000 hrs and an IR could not fly a 'G' registered aircraft IFR in the UK, and it had to be an 'N' reg.
I am certain that there are a great many excellent IR pilots on both sides of the pond, so the real question is - would an IR that is more straightforward in it's approach be a better incentive for UK pilots to get the invaluable experience and qualification?
From the previous comments it is obvious that this has been aired many times before. I didn't know that.
I am certain that there are a great many excellent IR pilots on both sides of the pond, so the real question is - would an IR that is more straightforward in it's approach be a better incentive for UK pilots to get the invaluable experience and qualification?
From the previous comments it is obvious that this has been aired many times before. I didn't know that.
"It would be interesting to know the difference (if any) between the cost of insurance with or without an IR in the States - I will ask the question and let you know the reply."
30% reduction in premium and higher limits in my case on a TB20. This seems to be typical. Airshares which runs a large Cirrus fractional wants you to have an IR or be working on one for the SR-22. It is difficult to rent anything that is HP or Complex without an IR.
An IR in the States is not that hard to get and acts as a filter. If you can't be bothered or don't have the ability I wouldn't want to rent to you. But hey I don't rent mine to anyone.
20driver
30% reduction in premium and higher limits in my case on a TB20. This seems to be typical. Airshares which runs a large Cirrus fractional wants you to have an IR or be working on one for the SR-22. It is difficult to rent anything that is HP or Complex without an IR.
An IR in the States is not that hard to get and acts as a filter. If you can't be bothered or don't have the ability I wouldn't want to rent to you. But hey I don't rent mine to anyone.
20driver
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is however possible that the Arrow you were flying was 20-30 years old and a victim of UK's "aerosol can" maintenance brigade. That kind of thing does not work on retractable gear - eventually it will give trouble. One can maintain an old fixed gear dog with aerosol cans but RG needs to be lubed properly.
By the way how do you put the blue box around a quote?
10540 - you are right about the age, not sure about the aerosol can, the culprit was metal fatigue, maybe incorrect lubrication was a factor...
Anyway back to the Cirrus - I still definately prefer fixed undercarriage when you still get great performance and reasonble fuel consumption.
By the way how do you put the blue box around a quote?
10540 - you are right about the age, not sure about the aerosol can, the culprit was metal fatigue, maybe incorrect lubrication was a factor...
Anyway back to the Cirrus - I still definately prefer fixed undercarriage when you still get great performance and reasonble fuel consumption.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20driver
Yes, I was told the range is between a 20% and 25% saving on an SR22 with some insurers being unwilling to provide cover which might suggest that welded u/c also finds favour with the insurance business.
I dont think this side of the pond it makes much difference.
Since the insurance business is driven by the claim record I guess that could mean on the whole PPLs this side of the pond are better or are more cautious.
Yes, I was told the range is between a 20% and 25% saving on an SR22 with some insurers being unwilling to provide cover which might suggest that welded u/c also finds favour with the insurance business.
I dont think this side of the pond it makes much difference.
Since the insurance business is driven by the claim record I guess that could mean on the whole PPLs this side of the pond are better or are more cautious.