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 :)

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 !!

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.

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.

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 :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...ane20wreck.jpg

Maybe because a Cirrus doesn't have nosewheel steering ?

I might add that to the list of things I don't like about a cirrus.

First I think that is a picture of a recent accident in Florida but then again getting the facts straight isn't a big deal to you and the state doesn't really matter. As for the landing accidents, it is a heavy plane on small wheels and comes in much faster than a 172. It also is a low wing aircraft. I guess what you are saying might be true. It might be like a Mooney in that respect. According to Aviation Consumer, over 50% of the reports on the M20R are for loss of control on or near the runway with a typical comment being "improper flare and recovery from a bounced landing." That would probably fit the accident you showed a picture of. Ok, we agree. Fast landing singles like the Cirrus and the Mooney have higher landing loss of control accidents exacerbated by a low wing causing float in ground effect if the pilot lands hot.

Sternone

What this does prove is you should stick to Cesnas - the Cirrus really is for big boys, far too complicated for the average spam can driver. :)

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.

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.

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 :) :)

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.

Wow! So you are really saying that planes with a free castering nose wheel are dangerous to land? That hits a number of very nice aircraft other than Cirrus. Also, are you saying that you use nose wheel steering to land your plane safely i.e. to prevent PIO? I flare my plane and I am rolling down the runway straight BEFORE the nose wheel touches down. I guess your technique is different. Personally, I use the rudder and stay off the brakes until safely rolling out. Cirrus landing accidents tend to be PIO and nose wheel strike first. This is very related to excess speed and float much like a Mooney.

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>

Well it's definitely another reason why I shouldn't buy a Cirrus !

Looking forward to what I will find next week !

Come to think about it...
 

Well some of the arguments of the mooney lovers were really convincing but now...

Let's see...
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 :mad: out of most non aviation people, so passengers love Cirrus too.

If you think the prop rpm control is in the slightest relevant to pilot workload, or relevant to the technical knowledge required to fly one of these things, you need a new instructor :)

It was a Cirrus marketing gimmick, for which Cirrus owners are paying with a load of fuel, and cockpit noise level, for ever......

???
 

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! :ooh:

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...

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...

You may think this and I would not disagree however if you read Flying this month they asked pilots exactly this question. As you might guess with such a large circulation they had a pretty good response - 70 something percent (I cant remember the exact figure without finding my copy) wanted single lever. To be fair what they really want is FADEC which they will get very soon (and Diamond already have) but never the less be it marketing hype and / or ignorance on the part of pilots it is what people want - it is perhaps again an example of Cirrus having got it right (albeit perhaps for the wrong reasons). As I said earlier it is no good giving people something they dont want and telling them its good for them unless you want to go the way of Mooney - which does no one any good.

It was a good day for flying - 2.5 each way so cant be bad.

The Columbia/Csrvalis is an excellent plane although strnone would hate it because it has a free castering nose wheel like the Cirrus. On early examples (circa 2002) I think it showed much better exterior fit and finish than the Cirrus. Today the planes are much closer since fit and finish on the Cirrus has improved from G1 to G2 to G3. I might still give it some exterior fit and finish advantage. It has a lot higher carbon fiber content than the Cirrus. Roll response is heavier but not necessarily in a bad way. Cirrus Perspective is the better avionics package (12" screens, SVT, EVS). The problem I see with the Columbia is that it is an expensive design to manufacture. Control surfaces are an example. On the Cirrus they are aluminum. You save little weight going composite and the control surfaces are simple shapes that are easy to do in aluminum. On the Columbia they are carbon fiber. Columbia doors seal better and have inflatable seals. However, the Cirrus doors make getting in and out of a Cirrus easier. You can stand up straight on the Cirrus wing and step into the back seating area. You have to duck under the gull wing door on the Columbia. The Columbia is slightly more aerodynamic (2 kts or so in real life is my guess) but it comes at the cost of head room. Since the cabins are about the same width this confuses people until the look at the planes head on. The Columbia curves in a lot more at the top of the cabin. I think this gives the Columbia a racier look but the Cirrus feels roomier as a result. Cirrus comes with the BRS parachute system standard. So, for a lower purchase price, the Cirrus gives you a little more room, the parachute and better avionics. Columbia fans would point out however that for a little more money you get what they consider a superior airframe with a higher maneuvering speed, utility category rating and dual wing spars. Both are excellent planes.

Based on what I have seen so far, absolutely - in 15 cirrus hours more niggles than in 50 Columbia hours. A lot more.

The performance figures are only similar - with the same fuel flow, the SR22 is a slower aircraft by 10-20 kts depending on altitude, because of its larger cabin and its lower-speed wing - you pay for that with the poor short field capability of the Columbia. You can fly the Columbia rich of peak and burn 24 gallons to get an extra 10+ kts on top of that, but that is silly. 235-240kt TAS at FL240 is nice to prove a point, but hardly sensible.

The Cirrus I currently fly struggles to keep CHT reasonable in one cylinder above FL120, but that might be a one-off problem.

12" screens are down to preference. I like the smaller screens and less bulky feel of the Columbia.

SVT and EVS are nice to haves and again down to preference - I personaly find the flight simuator SVT display irritating when flying pure IFR and switch it off - for me it leads to confusion what my primary nav is, and when IMC the horizon line is too faint - but would definitely have it on IFR in mountains...

The real advantage in avionics in the SR22 is that it has a dual AHRS, while the Columbia only has one. Definitive safety benefit, something again I would pay for - wouldn't pay for SVT..

Shame the Cirrus electrical system is so poor...

Please explain. The Cirrus Perspective aircraft have a 100 amp ALT1, 70 AMP ALT 2 and dual batteries. Due to the diode interconnect there is no action required during an alternator failure.

On older Cirrus aircraft (pre-Perspective) Alt 2 was 20 AMP. I wouldn't call this system poor but the full size alternator on the Columbia was better. You still had dual electrical system. Prior to early 2006, ALT1 was 70 AMP. Around March 2006 Cirrus went to 100 AMP ALT1 as they kept adding things to the plane.

As for 12" screens, my plane has 10" screens and I wish it had the larger 12" screens. I really like them. Call it personal preference but I believe that, on a glass panel, real estate matters. Having a friend who has SVT on his Diamond and landed it with an iced over windscreen, I believe SVT is a very nice feature. Before you say anything, I would never fly with his instructor after hearing how the guy got him into that situation.

This is not my experience but I am talking about normally aspirate aircraft. Maybe it is true on the turbos. In a head to head fly off a C350 vs. SR22 the speeds were matched on one leg and maybe the C350 was one or two kts faster on the other. I do hear the C400 is faster than the TN22 but the TN22 is more fuel efficient. The C400 is a turbocharged engine while the TN22 is turbonormalized. My CHT's tend to run in the 330 to 340 range. TN CHT's run higher and on a hot day you can't do a LOP climb (have to go ROP). The new air density controller from TAT should fix that when certified. I have flown the plane although my personal plane is not a turbo. The TAT experimental TN22 is actually a little faster than a C400 due to their new controller.

I suspect it is.

Other difference to point out, when comparing prices make sure to have A/C on the Cirrus. IIRC, A/C is now standard on the Corvalis line. Also, you can get speed brakes on the Corvalis. They are not available on the Cirrus. I really like speed brakes. Finally, I find my opinion of the handling differs from others. In my opinion the Cirrus is more fun on a VFR day. IT has a high roll rate and reminds me of a sports car I used to own albeit with less control feel than I would like. The Columbia is heavier in this regard. However, I prefer its handling as an IDFR platform which is really the mission of both planes.

It just hit me that the speed difference you are seeing is due to flying ROP on the Columbia. You are correct about the speed difference in that case. A TN22 is always flown LOP in cruise. In fact, the way you fly it is ROP and WOT in the climb and then 2500 RPM and 17GPH for cruise i.e. no lean assist or setting of EGT's. If it isn't hot then you can do a LOP climb on the Cirrus.

Re the electrical system - Cirrus fixed the anemic ALT2, but has not fixed the strange / complicated connection of BAT2 to the essential bus with no proper instrumentation. So the checklist includes a simple BAT2 on only check as part of the pre-flight, but other than that... As part of my familiarisation I go through all the failure modes in the electrical system and it took me a loooong time to figure out what exactly happens when what fails.

As I said before, all of the differences between the Columba and the Cirrus are down to preferences - you could equally say fair enough, but I don't want to do a cross-tie check as part of every pre-flight and would like an automatic failover....

nope, it is not. I fly the Columbia LOP in cruise and descent, but not in the climb. It would be possible to do a LOP climb in a Columbia, too, but POH says no... so I stick to that. FL180 is a long way up, too...

Real life figures - SR22 Turbo, FL180, 198kt TAS. Standard lean to target (blue line on FF) FF 17.5 USG/hr. Columbia400, 217kt TAS, 1650F TIT LOP, FF 17.2 USG.

A bit leaner on the Columbia because if the 1650 TIT limit - Cirrus Turbos are more robust, and I think generally the Cirrus has the more robust engine, and I just LOVE how they have simplified engine management...

Both were on close-to ISA days, but not on the same day.


And again - so the Columbia is faster - hey, not everyone wants that fast and 198kt are not that slow, either! For pure speed at low fuel flow the Mooney would be even better...

Cobalt -

Interesting comment on the electrical system. I find the Cirrus system very straight forward with some advantages. It isolates some potential faulty equipment i.e. powers just essential equipment when ALT1 goes down. Then again, on Perspective, that is still almost everything so this has become an almost meaningless feature. I thought there was a manual cross-tie on the Columbia but I could be wrong since it has been awhile. The isolation check on the diodes is quick since you just hit BAT2, flaps to 100%. check flap light off, then Bat2 when lowering flaps for preflight. In either case, I can't knock the Columbia electrical system. From everything I know it is very robust.

I said "interesting comment" because I have become fascinated lately with issues of understanding and ergonomics. For example, I find the G1000 a very nice system but my wife hates it. As I have watched her interact with different systems I have come to appreciate the ergonomics of Avidyne's R9. I have never found the Cirrus electrical system complicated but then I work as an electrical engineer.

Can you clarify here? I have continuous monitoring of both buss voltages and battery current. What do you find missing?

I agree with your "preferences" comment. I want to be clear that I really like the Columbia and find some aspects of it better done than the Cirrus. The most impressive (to me) thing I ever did in a Columbia was to put it into a 150 kt steep turn, trim, and take my hands off the stick. You can do it in other planes too (including Cirrus) but the ease and stability of the Columbia was impressive. Then again, there are a lot of fine planes out there.

I wish I could own any of those...
 

Hehehe... you all must be football player or something to own planes like that. I read somewhere that the anual cost of those it's like 30000€ year, around 2500€ month for 100 hours a year!:eek:
Seems like plastic planes brake up faster or easily...


And don't you get annoyed with having to switch fuel tanks every once in awhile... I don't understand why they didn't include a both selector in such an advance aircraft... :confused:
Since the idea is to make their operation the most simple possible... more than 10 Gallons imbalance and there is problem (maybe some crashes happened cause of that?)

The part that should be improved in these machines is certainly the engines... cause none of those run cheap on fuel...

There is. An ALT failure in the Columbia means tha battery for that bus will take the load - to get it onto the other alternator you have to hit the cross-tie switch. A cross-tie check is part of the pre-flight checks where you switch of each alternator in turn. Cirrus is simpler than Columbia in that respect. That is what I meant with "fair enough, but I don't want to do a cross-tie check as part of every pre-flight and would like an automatic failover".

The Cirrus does not have a BAT2 charge / discharge indication, so if it starts boiling and dies in flight AND the ALT2 then fails this will be the first thing you know about it. Pretty low risk and you still have ALT1, so that really just a niggle. It is one of these legacy things - the design was for a mini-BAT2 and mini-ALT2 on its own essential bus. Now that BAT2 and ALT2 have grown up this bus design is just a hangover. The Columbia was a symmetric dual-bus design from the start and better than in some twins (DA42, anyone?). Does it matter? Not really, both have good redundancy.


G1000 vs. Avidyne is a neverending other debate. Perspective fixes a few of the poor ergonomics aspects of the G1000 - in particular around page selection. Also the keypad is more ergonomic than the std. G1000 keypad, but it has NO redundancy because all AP controls are gone from the PFD/MFD. Avidyne is easier to use and the ARC-mode on the EHSI is actually useful - used it all the time except for ADF/RMI practice - complete rubbish in the G1000.

because the engine is above the fuel ports in the tanks, and so is the engine-driven fuel pump. That means that the engine "sucks" fuel from the tanks (I leave it to the pedants to point out that it lowers pressure and outside air pressure actually pushes the fuel) and if both tanks were connected to the pump, as soon as one fuel port in the tanks sucks air this is it - you will not feed reliably from the other tank. Different in gravity-fed high wing thingies such as Cessnas. You could of course fit dual fuel pumps in/below each tank...

And that is the case in any aircraft with large fuel tanks. Turbo Saratoga or Arrow no different, except they did not make it a limitation during certification - probably not required back then. Just fly along for a couple of hours in a PA32R-301T without switching tanks and your arm will become tired...

Does the Corvalis has wet tanks ? I hate wet tanks.

Since paulp has such a good connections at the cirrus factory maybe he could update us on the status of the SR20 G3 with the Diesel Deltahawk ?

Actually my Cirrus factory connections aren't super special. I have no clue on diesel work. I worry that since Alan has left that innovation will slow. I have also heard (not through factory) that they are looking at the TCM turbo (like Corvalis) as a cost cutting measure. I have a friend who is big on diesels and likes the Deltahawk. My concern is that it is one of those great new engines that will be available "real soon now." Cirrus came very close to introducing a diesel several years ago. When taken high up and the engine turned off it wouldn't restart. That killed it and it was never sold. With diesels I am always interested in how the high altitude restart issue is solved.

Where I do have some connections is Avidyne. They have really changed how they work with customers and they have been very open on some of their recent work. I just want the new DFC 100 certified since it will complete my R9 system. It is way more important to me than SVT, EVS etc.

I played with the R9 release of avidyne and it's great.

I had training in the flightmax years ago, it's easier to 'not' forget what buttons to press compared to the G1000.

Deltahawk is around for years. They take it slow. They are known to finance all their development conservatively.

Doesn't look that good over Cirrus. I don't want them to go, I want them to improve their plane.

--
A sign of the times: Cirrus Design not paying its rent
It’s been a tough year for aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Design.

According to today’s Grand Forks Herald, Cirrus is behind $845,000 in payments on the lease at its plant in the Industrial Park in Grand Forks.

The economic downturn has had a detrimental affect on general aviation manufacturers such as Cirrus Design. The company employed 330 in its Grand Forks plant in 2006; today it employs 75.

but they are still improving their aircraft and the only way anyone knows how, by still being in business unlike most other manufacturers.

There is a 99.9% chance, and possibly more, that when a manufacturer goes bust there will not be any further improvements. :)

Yes but the city is the landlord and I think they are going to do everything to help Cirrus as they are still an important employer and bring dollars to the area.

Until they run out of money to pay themselves.

This is interesting

AOPA Pilot Blog: Reporting Points Blog Archive Surprising Cirrus Stats

The author, Rick Beach who owns an SR22 has made it a personal mission to increase safety and awareness of the CIrrus fleet, he does not ever appear to me biased or particually pro Cirrus but very objective. If anyone does fly a Cirrus the $60 they spend to become a COPA member is incredible value for money and I would recommend strongly any owner does join and it is a fact for whatever reason that a non COPA cirrus pilot is 4 times more likely to be involved in a fatality.