cirrus sr22
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some way to go on this. One needs a really complete procedure depiction before one can do it totally automatically.
For example, (as mentioned above) a typical SID is a straight ahead climb to some altitude, or VOR radial, etc, but not to any database waypoint. So that SID cannot be flown hands-off, for several reasons some of which are pretty nontrivial in certification terms. So, I fly a SID using its chart representation/description, and throw in GPS database waypoints where there are some defined. This is pretty easy but the best one can do automation-wise is to fly on the autopilot in HDG mode - initially at least.
Even if one had full automatic departure/go-around capability, issues remain for GA aircraft, like a minimum climb gradient (for obstacle clearance) which might be tough though possible to achieve, but which cannot be achieved on a given day due to engine management issues (max CHT) which require an early transition to a higher speed, at the expense of climb gradient. I have certainly been to airports where this is an issue. Somehow I don't see the CHT being introduced into the autopilot
Approaches are already possible "fully automatic" with 20 year old kit, and arguably that is where automation is most important for safety. Enroute, automation is vital for the pilot getting some rest
For example, (as mentioned above) a typical SID is a straight ahead climb to some altitude, or VOR radial, etc, but not to any database waypoint. So that SID cannot be flown hands-off, for several reasons some of which are pretty nontrivial in certification terms. So, I fly a SID using its chart representation/description, and throw in GPS database waypoints where there are some defined. This is pretty easy but the best one can do automation-wise is to fly on the autopilot in HDG mode - initially at least.
Even if one had full automatic departure/go-around capability, issues remain for GA aircraft, like a minimum climb gradient (for obstacle clearance) which might be tough though possible to achieve, but which cannot be achieved on a given day due to engine management issues (max CHT) which require an early transition to a higher speed, at the expense of climb gradient. I have certainly been to airports where this is an issue. Somehow I don't see the CHT being introduced into the autopilot
Approaches are already possible "fully automatic" with 20 year old kit, and arguably that is where automation is most important for safety. Enroute, automation is vital for the pilot getting some rest
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One question to the Cirrus owners :
Did they reinforced the flap connection on the G3 models ?
Because that flap connection really really looked freaky light to me. Never saw that on any plane !!
Did they reinforced the flap connection on the G3 models ?
Because that flap connection really really looked freaky light to me. Never saw that on any plane !!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only flap changes I know of are an improved anticorrosion process and changing the fairings from plastic to metal but that was back around 2003. I don't know of any flap failures although I admit I think the ones on the Columbia are prettier albeit probably a lot more expensive. There were some flap relay failures but that seems to have disappeared years ago even for older planes. There was one aileron hinge failure but that was due to servicing where the nut wasn't safetied down.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to update with real data i.e. facts instead of speculation:
A chute repack has just been completed. This is the first I know of. The price was about $11,400 + 7% sales tax. ($9385 for parts + 30 hours labor).
This is an older G1 plane which lacks the access cover of G2 & G3 models. Consequently the top plastic cover had to be removed and repainted after being put back on. This is a US done replacement so I can't comment on the potential for things to be 2X the cost in Europe.
Quote:
* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.
Correct (price not known, but I won't be far off)
* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.
Correct (price not known, but I won't be far off)
This is an older G1 plane which lacks the access cover of G2 & G3 models. Consequently the top plastic cover had to be removed and repainted after being put back on. This is a US done replacement so I can't comment on the potential for things to be 2X the cost in Europe.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2x the cost for GA work in Europe compared to the USA is not unrealistic.
There are a lot of lost of control accidents on landings in a Cirrus, do you have reason for that ?
This was a few days ago in Alabama :
There are a lot of lost of control accidents on landings in a Cirrus, do you have reason for that ?
This was a few days ago in Alabama :
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a lot of lost of control accidents on landings in a Cirrus, do you have reason for that ?
This was a few days ago in Alabama :
This was a few days ago in Alabama :
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paulp: No, the Mooney has nosewheel steering, why don't the Cirrus boys have this ? You don't need it ?
Fuji Abound: Bringing up a huge list of serious points about the problems with the cirrus plane makes you conclude that I'm only ready for a 172 ? Now really, how does this makes you look ? Right, like a Cirrus moron.
Fuji Abound: Bringing up a huge list of serious points about the problems with the cirrus plane makes you conclude that I'm only ready for a 172 ? Now really, how does this makes you look ? Right, like a Cirrus moron.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I have been lucky enough to fly a great many types. I judge each on their merits and I dont have a loyalty to any one. To me an aircraft does a job - each in its own way. You have raised some good points but sometimes you go on and on and on and on and .. .. its gets a little tiresome, so a little fun is called for.
PS I have yet to find the perfect aircraft and I have been flying long enough to conclude I never will.
PS I have yet to find the perfect aircraft and I have been flying long enough to conclude I never will.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am informed by a Cirrus pilot that there are issues with ground control in strong winds, due to the lack of a steering nosewheel.
The Diamonds have the same issue.
That's only because I ain't selling my TB20
The Diamonds have the same issue.
I have yet to find the perfect aircraft and I have been flying long enough to conclude I never will.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Its too slow,
you cant turn it upside down,
its only got one engine,
its not glass,
.. .. ..
but it is really nice.
Shall we just agree that if you take the best bits of a TB20, a Mooney, a Cirrus, an Aztec, a Diamond, a Sia Marchetti and a Husky you have probably got the best aircraft in the world.
PS As for ground control it depends how much wind you mean, nearly lost control of a 42 while taxing after the 50 knot headwind became a cross wind. Good fun though even if I should own up to being more than a little uncomfortable.
Its too slow,
you cant turn it upside down,
its only got one engine,
its not glass,
.. .. ..
but it is really nice
.Shall we just agree that if you take the best bits of a TB20, a Mooney, a Cirrus, an Aztec, a Diamond, a Sia Marchetti and a Husky you have probably got the best aircraft in the world.
PS As for ground control it depends how much wind you mean, nearly lost control of a 42 while taxing after the 50 knot headwind became a cross wind. Good fun though even if I should own up to being more than a little uncomfortable.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paulp: No, the Mooney has nosewheel steering, why don't the Cirrus boys have this ? You don't need it ?
BTW, the Cirrus is 38.3' wingspan. Watch the ability to maneuver using differential braking when on the ramp. It helps a lot.
As far as my favorite gear for landing it is a trailing link setup. Unfortunately, no plane that I can afford has it all. <sigh>
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come to think about it...
Well some of the arguments of the mooney lovers were really convincing but now...
Let's see...
The Cessna 400/350 look great and everything, but being a newbie one would better go for a simple operation aircraft (single lever cirrus) than to throttle/prop lever configuration in the Cessna... The cessna is a bit priecer though... IMHO looks better than the Cirrus too... BUT no chute!
The parachute is for peace of mind! (mid air collisions, loss of control, etc...) and any technical design fault in the aircraft...
NOTE: True is that's scares me more the thought of the wing coming out of the airplane or hitting some other guy than any other thing. Though CFIT and crash/t.o/landings are more common accidents
If you ask me where I would rather be in the case of an accident(forced landing)? I'd answer that's a hard question!
The aluminium frame can diform (within it's acceptable tension range and return to it's normal), can accumulate residual tension, stress, fatigue cracks but it's easier to fix and repair. The composites are more flammable, suffer delamination, don't like the Sun (Cirrus=hangar queen), like less to hit hard stuff like fences, obstructions, etc... (I was shocked when I saw how some cirrus looked like after their accidents).Composites are strong, but have some shorter life span compared to metals, they can behave little brittle materials. BUT as engineering progresses we will see more and more advance materials in the construction with better performance... Engineering is always evolving and Cirrus represents that...
Glass cockpit are cool, if you are geeky! I don't think that it's hard to learn and get used to them & as we give way to new generation, glass cockpit won't be more than exercising flight sim in a real environment! Youngsters learn faster... was about the same discussion when computer came and some loved the good all typewriter! LOL! Before unmanned aircraft take over there needs to be a transition... That transition is Auto pilot fly-o-matic aircraft. Sit, enjoy and relax... TCAS, weather radars, gps, etc...
I'm not saying I agree, and that piloting should become that but truth is that piloting eventually will...
It's true that Cirrus have a good marketing, and if you ask any young guy that was exposed to this trend... most would take a Cirrus or any glass stuff instead of any and better metalo stuff... It's an Iphone of the air... like or not... can be that there is better, but nothing appeals or seduces more...
P.S: And flying old metal planes scares the
out of most non aviation people, so passengers love Cirrus too.
Let's see...
young and with half million in the bank? what would I buy?
Yeap the answer is a Cirrus... The Cessna 400/350 look great and everything, but being a newbie one would better go for a simple operation aircraft (single lever cirrus) than to throttle/prop lever configuration in the Cessna... The cessna is a bit priecer though... IMHO looks better than the Cirrus too... BUT no chute!
The parachute is for peace of mind! (mid air collisions, loss of control, etc...) and any technical design fault in the aircraft...
NOTE: True is that's scares me more the thought of the wing coming out of the airplane or hitting some other guy than any other thing. Though CFIT and crash/t.o/landings are more common accidents
If you ask me where I would rather be in the case of an accident(forced landing)? I'd answer that's a hard question!
The aluminium frame can diform (within it's acceptable tension range and return to it's normal), can accumulate residual tension, stress, fatigue cracks but it's easier to fix and repair. The composites are more flammable, suffer delamination, don't like the Sun (Cirrus=hangar queen), like less to hit hard stuff like fences, obstructions, etc... (I was shocked when I saw how some cirrus looked like after their accidents).Composites are strong, but have some shorter life span compared to metals, they can behave little brittle materials. BUT as engineering progresses we will see more and more advance materials in the construction with better performance... Engineering is always evolving and Cirrus represents that...
Glass cockpit are cool, if you are geeky! I don't think that it's hard to learn and get used to them & as we give way to new generation, glass cockpit won't be more than exercising flight sim in a real environment! Youngsters learn faster... was about the same discussion when computer came and some loved the good all typewriter! LOL! Before unmanned aircraft take over there needs to be a transition... That transition is Auto pilot fly-o-matic aircraft. Sit, enjoy and relax... TCAS, weather radars, gps, etc...
I'm not saying I agree, and that piloting should become that but truth is that piloting eventually will...
It's true that Cirrus have a good marketing, and if you ask any young guy that was exposed to this trend... most would take a Cirrus or any glass stuff instead of any and better metalo stuff... It's an Iphone of the air... like or not... can be that there is better, but nothing appeals or seduces more...
P.S: And flying old metal planes scares the
out of most non aviation people, so passengers love Cirrus too.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cessna 400/350 look great and everything, but being a newbie one would better go for a simple operation aircraft (single lever cirrus) than to throttle/prop lever configuration in the Cessna
It was a Cirrus marketing gimmick, for which Cirrus owners are paying with a load of fuel, and cockpit noise level, for ever......
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
???
Well actually I dunno... but my assumption is that would reduce the pilot workload during IFR flights, etc... Cause there would be no need to adjust manifold pressure and rpm... and it's better for a go around methinks.... ^^
I've went flying on a cirrus... I've been close to one of the first gen ones and looked astonishing... neither I noticed any great or visible degradation of the aircraft like the money guy mentioned so many time... looked kind of new... they always look... And maybe the fuel and vibration can be solved with flying slower? But the maintaince and ownership for those aircraft it's what's scary!
I've went flying on a cirrus... I've been close to one of the first gen ones and looked astonishing... neither I noticed any great or visible degradation of the aircraft like the money guy mentioned so many time... looked kind of new... they always look... And maybe the fuel and vibration can be solved with flying slower? But the maintaince and ownership for those aircraft it's what's scary!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the things mentioned in this thread are true - even the remarks on poor build quality of the Cirrus (in 15 hours I have not had a single flight where there was not a needless niggle, such as simple gauges U/S or intermittent, a knob coming off, an ALT2 failure due to a loose cambelt, oxygen pressure sensor failure, one cylinder is running a bit hot at altitude, and someone else had a transponder failure - on a brand new 2009 aircraft - perhaps built on a Monday, that one!).
I just don't get why people get so upset about differences that are down to personal preference. Having flown Columbia 400 (50 hours), SR22 Turbo (15 hours so far), and Mooney (>100 hours, albeit only a 201 / M20J and some time ago) I have to say all have their good bits and bad bits.
And yes, I include the saftey record in this - otherwise we would all be driving Volvos.
I prefer the sidestick of the Columbia over the sideyoke of the SR22 and the yoke of the Mooney. I love the crisp controls of the Mooney. I like the Mooney combination of speed and short-ish field capability - the Columbia lacks this. The SR22 is the easiest of the 3 to fly into short fields. I think fixed gears on high-performance singles are stupid.
My passengers like the large interior of the SR22 in the back. I don't like the uncomfortable SR22 seats (alu honeycomb to absorb crash forces). I like two doors, but don't care enough to make that a main criterium. I understand why IO540 begs to differ.
I think CAPS is a good idea and would pay extra if I could get one in a Mooney or in a Columbia, but would not go for a slower aircraft just to get it - family fathers will probably see this differently.
Horses for courses...
and if someone gave any of the three aircraft for free, I would keep it!!!
-------------------
Re castering nosewheels - in a crosswind, these aircraft need to be treated like a taildragger - the flying ain't over until you come to a full stop. On Sunday on roll-out a crosswind gust started to make the aircraft weathervane to the right and it needed a good dab of brake to keep it straight. Also nearly taxied a Columbia into a hangar door once when one of the two brakes failed. I would pay extra for a steered nosewheel on my aircraft because it lowers the risk, but again not important enough to loose much sleep about.
Wouldn't be a problem on a nosewheel aircraft. On the other hand, they turn on a dime...
I just don't get why people get so upset about differences that are down to personal preference. Having flown Columbia 400 (50 hours), SR22 Turbo (15 hours so far), and Mooney (>100 hours, albeit only a 201 / M20J and some time ago) I have to say all have their good bits and bad bits.
And yes, I include the saftey record in this - otherwise we would all be driving Volvos.
I prefer the sidestick of the Columbia over the sideyoke of the SR22 and the yoke of the Mooney. I love the crisp controls of the Mooney. I like the Mooney combination of speed and short-ish field capability - the Columbia lacks this. The SR22 is the easiest of the 3 to fly into short fields. I think fixed gears on high-performance singles are stupid.
My passengers like the large interior of the SR22 in the back. I don't like the uncomfortable SR22 seats (alu honeycomb to absorb crash forces). I like two doors, but don't care enough to make that a main criterium. I understand why IO540 begs to differ.
I think CAPS is a good idea and would pay extra if I could get one in a Mooney or in a Columbia, but would not go for a slower aircraft just to get it - family fathers will probably see this differently.
Horses for courses...
and if someone gave any of the three aircraft for free, I would keep it!!!
-------------------
Re castering nosewheels - in a crosswind, these aircraft need to be treated like a taildragger - the flying ain't over until you come to a full stop. On Sunday on roll-out a crosswind gust started to make the aircraft weathervane to the right and it needed a good dab of brake to keep it straight. Also nearly taxied a Columbia into a hangar door once when one of the two brakes failed. I would pay extra for a steered nosewheel on my aircraft because it lowers the risk, but again not important enough to loose much sleep about.
Wouldn't be a problem on a nosewheel aircraft. On the other hand, they turn on a dime...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Columbia/Cessna or Cessnalumbia built quality bette than Cirrus?
It's weird that Cessnalumbia 400 costs almost 100k more than the Turbo GS Cirrus SR22, though they have similar performance figures...
It's weird that Cessnalumbia 400 costs almost 100k more than the Turbo GS Cirrus SR22, though they have similar performance figures...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a Cirrus marketing gimmick, for which Cirrus owners are paying with a load of fuel, and cockpit noise level, for ever......
It was a good day for flying - 2.5 each way so cant be bad.