More informed thoughts on the Cirrus
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 84
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a one hour trip in the SR22 in the States as well purely for interest. Also noted the neutral spiral stability. When I asked to try stalls in all configurations, power on and off, go-around etc this caused raised eyebrows and the comment that people who are thinking of buying it, mostly only wanted to know how to handle the takeoff and landing and how to set up the autopilot.
Nice comfortable cockpit though, even for a tall person, but the fact that you couldn't reduce the 2500 rpm cruise with the single lever control system must have an influence on the fuel consumption. Also the non steerable nosewheel meant a lot of brake use taxying in a strong crosswind.
Nice comfortable cockpit though, even for a tall person, but the fact that you couldn't reduce the 2500 rpm cruise with the single lever control system must have an influence on the fuel consumption. Also the non steerable nosewheel meant a lot of brake use taxying in a strong crosswind.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: belgium
Age: 64
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very very very interesting thread
I am a 50+, this year I got my FAA PPL on a SR20 G1
So far have accumulated 120 something hours of fun on this SR20;
Of course all VFR, 50 hours of cross country.
I understand I am in the high risc group.
My flying mission is 50/50 family and friends sightseeing trips and some business or trips were timing/schedule is important
Trips across Europe, VFR are very difficult or time consuming because of weather issues. Some time ago I set myself a challenge upon receiving my PPL, I wanted to fly to Malta. So far I have not succeeded. Weather never cooperates
My next step will be to go for an IR rating.
Also I am looking at buying an aircraft; upgrading.
Cirrus SR22 is an option, but then I d need a turbo (SR22T) otherwise one cannot go high enough to stay above the weather. (my thoughts !!!)
Cessna Columbia/Corvalis TTx very similar. Also very complex,
The G1000 scares me a bit, can one on 150-200 hours per years stay on top of a G1000 ?
Mind you I kinda liked the Avidyne for its ease of use
I have also looked at refurbished aircraft. Piper Matrix ... Meridian
Bononza, Cessna Twins 320 - 340 - ...
Am confused
I would like to hear your opinions on this.
Thank you
Ronny
I am a 50+, this year I got my FAA PPL on a SR20 G1
So far have accumulated 120 something hours of fun on this SR20;
Of course all VFR, 50 hours of cross country.
I understand I am in the high risc group.
My flying mission is 50/50 family and friends sightseeing trips and some business or trips were timing/schedule is important
Trips across Europe, VFR are very difficult or time consuming because of weather issues. Some time ago I set myself a challenge upon receiving my PPL, I wanted to fly to Malta. So far I have not succeeded. Weather never cooperates
My next step will be to go for an IR rating.
Also I am looking at buying an aircraft; upgrading.
Cirrus SR22 is an option, but then I d need a turbo (SR22T) otherwise one cannot go high enough to stay above the weather. (my thoughts !!!)
Cessna Columbia/Corvalis TTx very similar. Also very complex,
The G1000 scares me a bit, can one on 150-200 hours per years stay on top of a G1000 ?
Mind you I kinda liked the Avidyne for its ease of use
I have also looked at refurbished aircraft. Piper Matrix ... Meridian
Bononza, Cessna Twins 320 - 340 - ...
Am confused
I would like to hear your opinions on this.
Thank you
Ronny
Moderator
Thread Starter
LD = Configured for landing
CR = Configured for high speed cruise.
SPO = longitudinal short period oscillation (a fast oscillation in AoA)
CAPS = Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System (os something like that)
CRM = Crew Resource Management (a set of best practices for communication and decision making in safety critical environments)
GPS = propietary USian form of GNSS (Global Navigation Safety System)
PPL = what people who pay for all of their own flying have.
I had a one hour trip in the SR22 in the States as well purely for interest. Also noted the neutral spiral stability. When I asked to try stalls in all configurations, power on and off, go-around etc this caused raised eyebrows and the comment that people who are thinking of buying it, mostly only wanted to know how to handle the takeoff and landing and how to set up the autopilot.
Nice comfortable cockpit though, even for a tall person, but the fact that you couldn't reduce the 2500 rpm cruise with the single lever control system must have an influence on the fuel consumption. Also the non steerable nosewheel meant a lot of brake use taxying in a strong crosswind.
Nice comfortable cockpit though, even for a tall person, but the fact that you couldn't reduce the 2500 rpm cruise with the single lever control system must have an influence on the fuel consumption. Also the non steerable nosewheel meant a lot of brake use taxying in a strong crosswind.
I flew three stalls and recoveries. CR / Idle / wings-level, LD / Idle / wings-level, LD / approach power / wings level, all at approx. 1kn/s decel.
All were totally benign in my opinion. 20ish lbf pull, moderate back stick pressure, moderate buffet felt through the stick 10-8kn before the stall, then a fairly loud reed stall warner about 5kn before the stall. In the two idle configurations there was a moderate firm nose-down pitching motion accompanied by 5-10 degrees right wing drop. The wing drop may have been because the aeroplane wasn't quite in balance - visibility of the slip ball was very poor from the right hand seat and the EFIS sideslip symbology somewhat ambiguous (in my opinion, and from the right hand seat) so I was mostly relying upon "seat of the pants" feel to keep the aeroplane in balance, which I did have.
Recovery was immediate using the CAA standard stall recovery (simultaneous pitch and full power) into a climb. Couldn't fault it really.
I elected not to taxi it or attempt a take-off or landing, as I wasn't captain and JZ isn't an instructor, but noted that the mechanisation of ground steering and braking seemed pretty much identical to the AA5, which I have 100ish hours on, but recall finding very intuitive and I adjusted easily to that within a few hours of first getting into one. Subsequently, I really like the AA5 in crosswinds as I can de-couple nosewheel and rudder, and can't see why the Cirrus shouldn't be similar.
G
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@vandereydt: PPL on a SR20 will give you a lot of training on the not-so-good SR20. If you managed the underpowered 20, the 22 will be much nicer. I don't think you need the 22T though, as the advantage is not that big and only for high altitudes. Only if you are cruising frequent FL200 the expensive and maintenance hungry turbo will be of benefit. Going below 200h a year I would opt for the non-turbo. To the G1000 - I guess about 100h a year keeps your basic knowledge up to date, so at 150-200 I wouldn't see a danger in such glascockpit.
(Regarding: I have also looked at refurbished aircraft. Piper Matrix ... Meridian Bononza, Cessna Twins 320 - 340 - ... -> I suggest to clarify the typical mission profiles! These machines have quite different advantages for different use, so before spending much bucks for a machine you find out unsuitable, do yourself a favor and define what you want to do.)
(Regarding: I have also looked at refurbished aircraft. Piper Matrix ... Meridian Bononza, Cessna Twins 320 - 340 - ... -> I suggest to clarify the typical mission profiles! These machines have quite different advantages for different use, so before spending much bucks for a machine you find out unsuitable, do yourself a favor and define what you want to do.)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno
I did not intend to give the impression that no Cirrus training was avalble in Europe.
IMO the Cirrus training program is the best was to ensure the very best training is avalable because of the experience gained in the biggest market for the aircraft, the very worst way to go would be EASA legislating for a type rating ( as suggested by Mad Jock).
Interference from EASA would result in a box ticking exercise that would no doubt come at three times the cost of the present arrangement.
IMO the Cirrus training program is the best was to ensure the very best training is avalable because of the experience gained in the biggest market for the aircraft, the very worst way to go would be EASA legislating for a type rating ( as suggested by Mad Jock).
Interference from EASA would result in a box ticking exercise that would no doubt come at three times the cost of the present arrangement.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: suffolk
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just completed the Cirrus Conversion course and am proud possessor of a Certificate of Completion. I am very current on Cessna 172 so this a big upgrade for a 73 year old. Excellent ground school and airborne training.7.5 hours airborne. Ultimate aircraft for long range touring and highly capable IFR. Fully agree main problem is retaining currency in the twin screen button pressing to get to the picture you want instantly. Interesting that the SOP is running a lot Lean of Peak.
Uselessly expensive for 2000 ft VFR bimbling!
would say very dangerous aircraft to jump into and hope to fly safely without approved Cirrus Conversion course.
Uselessly expensive for 2000 ft VFR bimbling!
would say very dangerous aircraft to jump into and hope to fly safely without approved Cirrus Conversion course.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok so we are all agreed you need some form of proper training to fly the thing.
Personally it was the system stuff which I would have to kick the backside out of and the various interactions and system failures.
But we are not allowed to call it a type rating.
PS my twin engine TP is 8 hours in the aircraft for a type rating.
Personally it was the system stuff which I would have to kick the backside out of and the various interactions and system failures.
But we are not allowed to call it a type rating.
PS my twin engine TP is 8 hours in the aircraft for a type rating.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting report on the Cirrus.
With the greatest respect to an old hand on this forum but the same could be said for almost any aircraft.
Moving up from whatever aircraft was used for training (say a Cessna 150) to something faster, larger, more complicated, all needs additional training. Then there are the handling quirks of certain models and even individual quirks of individual aircraft.
A low-time PPL can’t fly a Cirrus like a PA-28 any more than you can fly a fast Mooney like a Cessna 150, even if you ignore the avionics and MFDs. Unfortunately, IMHO, some people offering training on the Cirrus seem to centre only on management of the avionics and systems instead of handling and airmanship. Either their training is aimed at the highly experienced pilot, not the low time PPL or they are under the misguided belief that that excellent avionics will save a bad pilot.
I base that on my observations of the Cirrus pilots I see who don’t know how to handle an aircraft with a castoring nose wheel (as they still insist of placing a chock under the nose wheel) and don’t exhibit any other of the traits I see in truly experienced pilots yet have the latest Cirrus with all the kit.
A pilot moving up from vanilla PPL, at least in the UK, will receive differences training for variable pitch propeller and retractable undercarriage. In my experience, the poor pilot is unlikely to receive any guidance in speed/energy management or engine management, key points in flying Mooney, Cirrus, Piper Matrix, etc. Often, this is because the instructors at some clubs don’t have the experience themselves or the club simply doesn’t have anything “better” that a Piper Arrow. If the pilot gets differences training on a Piper Arrow, that is a different animal to a Mooney, a fact many new Mooney pilots tend to overlook before jumping in and heading off to their next bad landing.
As we all know, EASA is all about paperwork, not the end result. There is nothing that will convince me that a school offering an EASA Cirrus type rating is going to improve things. There are some excellent people already offering Cirrus training, a type rating will just add more bad schools to the list.
Aside from the valuable comments about the CAPS, the only exceptional fact about the Cirrus is the fact it is selling in far greater numbers than the likes of Mooney. As has been said already, it is no different to the Mooneys, Bonanzas, Commanches, Malibus of the past. The risk is not in the aircraft itself but in the fact that more pilots will come into contact with a Cirrus due to numbers in the fleet, many more than Mooney or Piper PA-46.
So, my summarised opinions:-
- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.
- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL.
- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.
- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL.
Moving up from whatever aircraft was used for training (say a Cessna 150) to something faster, larger, more complicated, all needs additional training. Then there are the handling quirks of certain models and even individual quirks of individual aircraft.
A low-time PPL can’t fly a Cirrus like a PA-28 any more than you can fly a fast Mooney like a Cessna 150, even if you ignore the avionics and MFDs. Unfortunately, IMHO, some people offering training on the Cirrus seem to centre only on management of the avionics and systems instead of handling and airmanship. Either their training is aimed at the highly experienced pilot, not the low time PPL or they are under the misguided belief that that excellent avionics will save a bad pilot.
I base that on my observations of the Cirrus pilots I see who don’t know how to handle an aircraft with a castoring nose wheel (as they still insist of placing a chock under the nose wheel) and don’t exhibit any other of the traits I see in truly experienced pilots yet have the latest Cirrus with all the kit.
A pilot moving up from vanilla PPL, at least in the UK, will receive differences training for variable pitch propeller and retractable undercarriage. In my experience, the poor pilot is unlikely to receive any guidance in speed/energy management or engine management, key points in flying Mooney, Cirrus, Piper Matrix, etc. Often, this is because the instructors at some clubs don’t have the experience themselves or the club simply doesn’t have anything “better” that a Piper Arrow. If the pilot gets differences training on a Piper Arrow, that is a different animal to a Mooney, a fact many new Mooney pilots tend to overlook before jumping in and heading off to their next bad landing.
As we all know, EASA is all about paperwork, not the end result. There is nothing that will convince me that a school offering an EASA Cirrus type rating is going to improve things. There are some excellent people already offering Cirrus training, a type rating will just add more bad schools to the list.
Aside from the valuable comments about the CAPS, the only exceptional fact about the Cirrus is the fact it is selling in far greater numbers than the likes of Mooney. As has been said already, it is no different to the Mooneys, Bonanzas, Commanches, Malibus of the past. The risk is not in the aircraft itself but in the fact that more pilots will come into contact with a Cirrus due to numbers in the fleet, many more than Mooney or Piper PA-46.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 84
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't find the takeoff any thing unusual, just followed the Vr recommended speed in the POH, although if it is your first experience of a side stick, over-rotation had to be watched. As the side stick is not vertical with ailerons neutral, you do need to check where the stick is for the neutral position.
Stick to the numbers and the landing is easy. Excess speed will lead to a long float I suspect as the flaps didn't seem to be very draggy.
Stick to the numbers and the landing is easy. Excess speed will lead to a long float I suspect as the flaps didn't seem to be very draggy.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An enjoyable, plainly written, nice and concise summary G.
Your writing style reminds me of Pilot magazines old Bob Grimstead.
I have only ever flown the SR20 and that was still a nice machine, although I guess underpowered against the later variants. It is also nice to see that the stigma has died down over the past two years or so about the chute is for poofs. The chute is obviously there with the intention of saving lives and I think that it has now successfully proven to have done that.
Thanks to Jonzarno as well. Nice one.
I trust the flight was also an opportunity to exchange some informative information. 
Your writing style reminds me of Pilot magazines old Bob Grimstead.
I have only ever flown the SR20 and that was still a nice machine, although I guess underpowered against the later variants. It is also nice to see that the stigma has died down over the past two years or so about the chute is for poofs. The chute is obviously there with the intention of saving lives and I think that it has now successfully proven to have done that.
Thanks to Jonzarno as well. Nice one.
I trust the flight was also an opportunity to exchange some informative information.
Last edited by Jetblu; 26th Nov 2014 at 18:22. Reason: Spell
Moderator
Thread Starter
With a half day with the manuals, and a different plan, I might have done. Probably another day, I will.
G
Apologies G - when you said you had your test pilot's hat on I assumed you were actually a test pilot. I don't understand why anyone - even a low hours PPL - would need "half a day with the manuals" to fly a fixed gear SEP round the patch. I've flown the -20 and 22, and they're just airplanes. I'll admit you need more than a day with the manuals to fully understand and get the best out of the avionics, but to just pole it round the pattern? Its just a fixed gear SEP, not a jetliner.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thud I think that's the problem.
It actually does require more than your normal machine.
Yes if everything works you just pole it like another SEP or for that matter twin with both engines working. Flying a twin with both engines working is pretty straight forward and most PPL's would be able to land one just doing what they would do in the SEP.
Its when there are system issues it bites your bum.
I am pretty sure he would have had no problem, but some of us just have no interest in pushing it like that. Yes we are interested in handling etc. And we like to explore the envelope higher up. But actually the TO and Landing configs and flying aren't really that interesting. We get more out of sitting and watching than doing it our selves. If we want we can do most of it in the upper air anyway.
MAybe all this CRM stuff about, Software, Hardware, Environment, Liveware, Liveware has actually sunk in with us.
It actually does require more than your normal machine.
Yes if everything works you just pole it like another SEP or for that matter twin with both engines working. Flying a twin with both engines working is pretty straight forward and most PPL's would be able to land one just doing what they would do in the SEP.
Its when there are system issues it bites your bum.
I am pretty sure he would have had no problem, but some of us just have no interest in pushing it like that. Yes we are interested in handling etc. And we like to explore the envelope higher up. But actually the TO and Landing configs and flying aren't really that interesting. We get more out of sitting and watching than doing it our selves. If we want we can do most of it in the upper air anyway.
MAybe all this CRM stuff about, Software, Hardware, Environment, Liveware, Liveware has actually sunk in with us.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) don't assume anything about Genghis' qualifications, or that of any other "PPL". I am not an ETPS (or equivalent) graduate, but I have had approved and recognised training in flight test techniques. This has nothing to do with any of my other aviation qualifications. Genghis knows a great deal about flight testing, and likely a fair bit more than most on this forum, myself included.
2) anyone with any sense of professionalism will take time to read and know the manuals for an aircraft before flying one for the first time. Especially if you're planning to carry out any kind of flight assessment. Yes, most simple SEP types will tolerate being handled in the same way, but to really understand what to look for, interesting behaviours, operating limitations and guidelines, you have to go to the books.
2) anyone with any sense of professionalism will take time to read and know the manuals for an aircraft before flying one for the first time. Especially if you're planning to carry out any kind of flight assessment. Yes, most simple SEP types will tolerate being handled in the same way, but to really understand what to look for, interesting behaviours, operating limitations and guidelines, you have to go to the books.
I hadn't prepared and briefed for it,...
'Have a plan, fly the plan'.
MJ
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even an acceptance flight or CoA test flight takes 2-3 hours of briefing amongst everyone involved.
The more involved test flights will take longer.
And that's just the "basic" level stuff I do in a type I have thousands of hours on.
The more involved test flights will take longer.
And that's just the "basic" level stuff I do in a type I have thousands of hours on.