Cirrus killer?

Not quite, and not to get too philosophical, but isn't that part of the romance of life? Isn't that why people go on hikes, push themselves physically and intellectually, like planes with blue knobs, don't just stick to the greens when skiing but hit the blues and blacks, take up surfing, mountain climbing, go for the girl that's just out of their league.. etc

I agree with this in general, but I wouldn't willingly try to teach someone to drive in an F-1 car. Those who make it are probably darned good, but the percentages are not good. Once you've learned in a trainer then go push yourself and expand your envelope. One of the most fun planes I've ver flown was an Evektor Sportstar. (I don't have a lot of types under my belt!) I do have ambition to expand my list in the hopefully near future.
 
Oh no the same goes for Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, St Louis, Phoenix, Las Vegas...

Too many idiots and not enough chlorine for the gene pool. I actually interviewed in and considered moving to Pleasanton years back. Loved the area, then I saw housing prices and ended up on 880 on a Friday afternoon. EFF that.

When I was a kid, we drove through Pleasanton on the way to the BIG City (Stockton). It was a tiny intersection of Bernal Road and the Sunol Highway. We had friends who lost their asses on spending nearly $70,000 on a house in 1968, when the housing prices crashed from overdevelopment. I'm sure that same house is valued at $2.5Mil now...
 
I still feel like the 172 lets you get away with wayyy too much. It's like playing a game on easy mode. From one perspective that makes it a great trainer, from another though it gets people in trouble when they move up

I WILL say.. the 195 is a proper beast, I wish Cessna kept building planes like that, the thing just looks seriously badass and incredibly solid

Might possibly be the most beautiful single engine airplane..

But pushing the AP button tests your skill? :rofl:
 
Okay, then why do you preach Cirrus - a plane that does it's absolute best to make high performance flying as easy as possible? Surely a Bo or 210 has more levers, and is more of a challenge.
I'm a complex individual, but to answer your question, here is my non hyperbolic internet troll actual real answer for someone who can only afford to primarily fly one type of plane:

-you are right, I have a sweet spot for the steam punk nature of knobs and dials and round instruments.. back when I played more FSX I always enjoyed "flying" the 737-200 and 747-1/2/300

-before I flew my first Cirrus I wasn't sure I appreciated what they offered to the GA world, and I totally get where a lot of the angst against it comes from. I "grew up" flying a C172 and PA28.. The C172 had the super old KLN, the PA28 did not. The PA28 was from 1971 (?) and the C172 was from early 2000... the C172 was arguably a much nicer plane, but the PA28 was so much more fun to fly, despite being looked worn to tethers.. so my love for low wings stems from that

-but back to the point, what the Cirrus lacks in mechanical knobs and steam punk appeal it makes up for in what it requires intellectually to be flown *well* and by compromising out those dorky needs with rational practicality of the flying I typically do:
--the G1000, while not hard, does take a certain skill level to know how to use it well for hard IFR flying, it's not as simple as "push the AP button" after saying "Hey Cirri, fly me to KAPC" - it also looks cool in its own right, like you're staring at one of the control panels on the Star Trek Enterprise. The Cirrus also doesn't like to go slow on approach (my CSIP basically swore me to never go under 90 KIAS until short final), with full flaps in that means you're keeping about 30%-40% power to keep it level.. you can be easily caught off guard if at idle and leveling off with flaps in. The plane stalls okay, but needs more attention than stalling a P28 or C172.. and similar to any big bored turbo plane you do have to keep an eye on your CHTs, man press, be gentle on power changes, etc., just because there is no blue knob doesn't mean that you can ignore these gauges. (some people do (Cirrus stereotypes), and then wonder why they need an overhaul at 800 hrs and give the plane a bad name). It also looks and feels modern and I do a lot of flying with non pilots and a lot of "long ish" distance flying (300-500 nm), so being able to fire up a competent autopilot and put the XM on in a comfortable seat where I'm not touching shoulders with the dude next to me is a big benefit as we cruise along at 200 KTAS above the weather in comfort. Could a Bonanza give me that? Not really.. I wouldn't be doing 200 knots and I'd be rubbing shoulders with the dude next to me. Could the Mooney do that? It would go faster (depending on model) but again, cabin width is a big thing for me. Then you've got the 210, which honestly, I was excited to get a few hours in as I always hoped it would be a high wing I could fall in love with, but at least the one I flew just felt heavy, but not in a good solid way, and again the cabin is just so narrow, you can't realistically actually use all 6 seats. The plane is also very comfortable and controlled up through 180 KIAS, if approach says "keep your speed up, I have A320 behind you" it's nice to be able to do that without feeling like you're asking the plane to do something it doesn't want to. With the fat prop you can still pull the power back and get yourself slowed and configured while maintaining a stabilized approach. That's what I mean by the intellectual challenge, it feels a bit like what I imagine airliner flying might be like

So there you have it. It's not a full 10 in any one category for me, but it averages out as what, for me, right now I like. The other reason I "preach it" is because while I generally have no issues with people hating on it, it does get tiring all the stereotypes, so I have to stand up for my little model of plane I fly. It's got the same engine and same avionics that many new Bonanza, Mooney, etc., have in them.. and it costs about the same. So objectively this tells me the hate for it comes from personal prejudice than any actual data point. But I digress on that front


I just remembered it had a parachute, honestly for me at least that's like 1% of the reason I like the plane. It's mostly for nervous passengers and family and does admittedly give some piece of mind that it's another tool I have, usually only crossed my mind though when I'm over water or inhospitable terrain, or flying through an icing layer and your mind runs (what if all the FIKI pumps break, what if I lose the engine, etc)
 
Very forgiving planes are great for trainers, true. But they are also a good fit for others that don't, (or can't) fly often. I'm guessing that's how Bo's got their nickname?

The chute's there for a reason.

With that said, I'd love to have as Cirrus.

and a Fokker...
 
Last edited:
So you enjoy some combination of being cramped and/or going slow, hodgepodge panels, poor interior ergonomics and/or heavy and slow to respond flight controls, and since you are a real pilot you don't need no stinkin' chute!


I kid I kid!!!!

Maybe you too fat. LOL.
 
Okay, then why do you preach Cirrus - a plane that does it's absolute best to make high performance flying as easy as possible? Surely a Bo or 210 has more levers, and is more of a challenge.

Actually, Cirrus does more to simplify tasks than hide faults. It actually is much harder than a 172 to fly well.

Tim
 
I'm not sure you can get a TTx/Columbia for $250k, but that would be one. A Mooney Ovation from the Mid-late 2000s would definitely fit the bill - can outrun an SR22T on much less fuel and can absolutely destroy an SR22 NA on also less, and still get you FIKI and FL200, while doing much better when flying down low. An Acclaim might cost a touch more than $250k, but it will also absolutely murder an SR22T.

There's no point in trying to justify anything that isn't an Aerostar or a Cirrus to Tantalum. I'm not even going to try. Just a waste of breath/typing.

LOL - I brow beat him for hours about the superiority of a Mooney to a Cirrus and he wouldn't listen lol

I think she does. Her Cirrus is N805MX which is registered to Chivan Productions in Los Angeles as a co-ownership, and FlightAware shows it flew from Burbank to Camarillo on July 5, although there's no guarantee she was flying it. The FAA Airman database for Angelina Jolie shows a student pilot certificate issued 6/23/2004 and a third class medical issued 8/2006, so it's very stale. I wouldn't blame her if she didn't want her info available to the public.

She trained in the US and then got a UK certificate, for whatever reason. She passed a US IFR checkride and has a piggy back certificate.

Maybe you too fat. LOL.

LOL - you haven't met my skinny b* friend Tantalum. He thinks his shoulders are way bigger than they are :p
 
..there's the rub. To fly it well takes a fair amount of intellectual finesse

To fly a Cirrus well, you need one thing - experience in a Grumman. Also, your CSIP instructor was wrong - 85 is the speed you want on the approach ;-)
 
To fly a Cirrus well, you need one thing - experience in a Grumman. Also, your CSIP instructor was wrong - 85 is the speed you want on the approach ;-)

The only operational characteristic of a Grumman that is similar to a Cirrus is the nose gear. So if all you want to do is taxi a Cirrus, train in a Grumman.
 
The only operational characteristic of a Grumman that is similar to a Cirrus is the nose gear. So if all you want to do is taxi a Cirrus, train in a Grumman.

LMAO, that's not true at all. They handle very similarly in the air and even land the same way, just using a different speed on final.
 
I'm not sure you can get a TTx/Columbia for $250k, but that would be one. A Mooney Ovation from the Mid-late 2000s would definitely fit the bill - can outrun an SR22T on much less fuel and can absolutely destroy an SR22 NA on also less, and still get you FIKI and FL200, while doing much better when flying down low. An Acclaim might cost a touch more than $250k, but it will also absolutely murder an SR22T.



LOL - I brow beat him for hours about the superiority of a Mooney to a Cirrus and he wouldn't listen lol



She trained in the US and then got a UK certificate, for whatever reason. She passed a US IFR checkride and has a piggy back certificate.



LOL - you haven't met my skinny b* friend Tantalum. He thinks his shoulders are way bigger than they are :p
The mooney will destroy the cirrus if you ignore all the things it doesn’t match up in. Look at my list again.
 
A Mooney Ovation from the Mid-late 2000s would definitely fit the bill - can outrun an SR22T on much less fuel and can absolutely destroy an SR22 NA on also less, and still get you FIKI and FL200, while doing much better when flying down low. An Acclaim might cost a touch more than $250k, but it will also absolutely murder an SR22T.
Here we go again... you are worse with Mooney than I am with Cirrus. If you spend any time on Mooneyspace or have real world flying experience with it very few people run the thing balls out and even fewer actually see that 242 knots, which you only get at its service ceiling.. people typically fly it closer to the 190 - 220 range in the mid teens, which is exactly where a well tuned 22T/TN will hang out. I wouldn't call that murdering it. And speed and fuel burn are not the only measure of a plane's abilities... that's a very one sided view. Some people actually like to carry more than themselves and appreciate an extra 9 (NINE) inches of cabin width, and being able to use the A/C waiting for a clearance on a hot day and be able to descend through that icing layer later in their flight

superiority of a Mooney to a Cirrus
I still don't how one is superior to the other. But that's fine. They're different. If you're max speed than sure. But if any kind of modern day luxury, useful load, etc., are at all important to you than it is no way superior

He thinks his shoulders are way bigger than they are
I enjoy having a bubble of personal space, it's 2019, it's deplorable (don't be triggered) that everything else we fly is some variation of a 1940s design, which, without Garmin, would basically be the same plane that was designed 80 years ago
 
85 is the speed you want on the approach
It is load dependent, the plane slows down easily enough that carrying a few knots extra is not a bad place to be.. given that while stalls are not guaranteed spins and are generally mundane, being down low and in a high drag / high power / high AoA situation is not some place I'd like to be testing the plane's stall recovery abilities, especially when caps is just dead (literally) weight

..but at least we agree on Grummans, A*, and cool turboprop planes like the TBM / Cheyenne / MU2, etc.
 
Keep reading, and get back to me on what an acre+ in the bay area with 2400sf plus a 24 x 48 work shop, plus a shooting range, runs ya.

Oh, and how much is that hangar?

(Don't worry, I'll wait 3 hours while you deal with rush hour traffic)

Price of admission is steep, I'll grant you, but CA is a wonderful place to live. :)
 
Here we go again... you are worse with Mooney than I am with Cirrus. If you spend any time on Mooneyspace or have real world flying experience with it very few people run the thing balls out and even fewer actually see that 242 knots, which you only get at its service ceiling.. people typically fly it closer to the 190 - 220 range in the mid teens, which is exactly where a well tuned 22T/TN will hang out. I wouldn't call that murdering it. And speed and fuel burn are not the only measure of a plane's abilities... that's a very one sided view. Some people actually like to carry more than themselves and appreciate an extra 9 (NINE) inches of cabin width, and being able to use the A/C waiting for a clearance on a hot day and be able to descend through that icing layer later in their flight


I still don't how one is superior to the other. But that's fine. They're different. If you're max speed than sure. But if any kind of modern day luxury, useful load, etc., are at all important to you than it is no way superior


I enjoy having a bubble of personal space, it's 2019, it's deplorable (don't be triggered) that everything else we fly is some variation of a 1940s design, which, without Garmin, would basically be the same plane that was designed 80 years ago

The Cirrus is some variation of a 1940s design, under your definition, as well. Of course, the Mooney is faster ;-)

It is load dependent, the plane slows down easily enough that carrying a few knots extra is not a bad place to be.. given that while stalls are not guaranteed spins and are generally mundane, being down low and in a high drag / high power / high AoA situation is not some place I'd like to be testing the plane's stall recovery abilities, especially when caps is just dead (literally) weight

..but at least we agree on Grummans, A*, and cool turboprop planes like the TBM / Cheyenne / MU2, etc.

That wasn't the leg we burned 4.5 quarts of TKS on so we were heavy. ;-) It is more about energy management than anything. 1.3 times stall with full flaps is 77, since all singles have to stall under 59 fully configured.
 
since all singles have to stall under 59 fully configured
I was always dubious of Cirrus actually stalling at that 60 knot requirement.. the plane really doesn't feel right and you start losing elevator around 70-75 knots lol. I wonder if you actually wind tunneled it under various conditions where it would realistically stall at. Not saying they fudged the numbers, but it was certainly determined under ideal conditions!
 
plane really doesn't feel right and you start losing elevator around 70-75 knots lol.
I disagree with this after about 110 hrs now on a Cirrus.
I just recently let my airspeed decay (my fault) to 64 on very short final (full flaps) - still had plenty elevator control.
Cirrus lists 62 KIAS (60 KCAS) as its stall speed with 100% flaps and at gross weight, I was lightly loaded.
I am very impressed with stall characteristics of the aircraft - very benign.
One day I was testing with my instructor what if you had A/P engaged in altitude hold mode and you removed all the power.
We thought the A/P would (should) disconnect at some point, never did. I think it goes against what in the POH but anyway, regardless, the aircraft was still stable, I was screamed at "stall, stall", I was using the "ball" centered aircraft and there was absolutely no tendency to fall onto a left/wing what would typically happened to me in a Skyhawk/Piper. I had to disconnect A/P and recover but it was very easy, no tendency for a spin. Very impressed with Cirrus in this regard.
 
I disagree with this after about 110 hrs now on a Cirrus.
I just recently let me airspeed decay (my fault) to 64 on short final (full flaps) - still had elevator control.
Cirrus lists 62 KIAS (60 KCAS) as its stall speed with 100% flaps and at gross weight, I was lightly loaded.
I am very impressed with stall characteristics of the aircraft - very benign.
I was testing with my instructor what if you had A/P engaged in altitude hold mode and you removed all the power.
We thought the A/P would (should) disconnect at some point, never did. I think it goes against what in the POH but anyway, regardless, the aircraft was still stable, I was screamed at "stall, stall", I was using the "ball" centered aircraft and there was absolutely no tendency to fall onto a left/wing what would typically happened to me in a Skyhawk/Piper. Yes, I was pretty impressed, I had to disconnect A/P and recover but it was very easy. Very impressed with Cirrus in this regard.
They are an awesome plane, there is a reason I love them. Most negative stereotypes you'll find are totally false

What Cirrus were you flying? The SR20 I did my original transition in was much slower and I never ran out of elevator authority. The G3 SR22TN I am flying now is heavier and needs more speed. If it is just me and someone else in the front you definitely have the stick at the aft stops to flare effectively as you come through 75 knots

As for the AP.. that depends, the STEC will happily fly you into a stall and crash. The GFC 700 with envelope protection will not. It's actually fun to demonstrate this, right around 76 knots you get alerts and around 70-72 knots the AP will basically go into "protection" mode and adjust pitch as necessary to keep you above 70 knots. It will not disconnect, but it will also disobey whatever other command you had set it to and go into "underspeed protect" mode

Happy flying, it's an awesome plane. Not sure why people hate it and the pilots who fly them
 
The stall is right around 60 when I did it in a 22 g6. Very benign, in fact you really had to pull and hold to get a break. I had the wing drop a little once during a series, but a little rudder snapped it right back. I've been told and experienced increased sink below 78 knots on short final, easily countered by power, what feels like lots of it. I try to be between 80 and 85 on short final and 78 to 80 over the numbers. On the 22 you carry a little power until just before the round out then gradually pull it out, hold the nose up and it greases on just about every time. They are great in strong crosswinds too, both with and without flaps (although full flaps are recommended). The generations are a little different but not remarkedly so. I've flown a g2, g5 and g6 22, a g5 22T and a g1, g3 and g6 20. I love them all.
 
They are great in strong crosswinds too, both with and without flaps (although full flaps are recommended).
Yes!! I actually landed much better without flaps but don't want to wear the wheels so haven't done it since initial transition. Landed at Harris Ranch over the winter and apparently my co-pilot later told me that the crosswind thing on the g1000 was showing a good 20+ knots but I honestly could hardly tell.. I would have guessed 5-10

Very benign
Indeed. I've demonstrated it to a few people who had some stereotypes about what would happen and one of the guys didn't even know I had the plane held in a stall until he looked at the airspeed indicator and saw something like 40 knots (I forget the exact number)

but yes, the sink rate does tend to increase quite remarkably as you get under 80 knots so I give myself a healthy buffer
 
2019 SR20 (Lycoming) Perspective Plus.
Cool!! The SR20 I flew way back when I didn't notice the elevator thing as much, or at all. The bigger and heavier engine in the front and heavier weights on the 22 and later models effected it. But as the other poster said most of the planes fly very similarly
 
LMAO, that's not true at all. They handle very similarly in the air and even land the same way, just using a different speed on final.

Wing loading on a Grumman is about 15 compared to 23 on an SR 22.

Constant speed v fixed pitch prop, 310 hp vs 180, basic empty weight 2300 v 1300.
 
Last edited:
..there's the rub. To fly it well takes a fair amount of intellectual finesse

LOL. You trying to tell us the Cirrus is so advanced it reads your mind?
Listen , it's just another dumb machine. Period.
 
LOL. You trying to tell us the Cirrus is so advanced it reads your mind?
Listen , it's just another dumb machine. Period.

I think he means the airframe appreciates your staying ahead of it much more than many other planes. It is flown like an airliner. An example is, per Cirrus, if you aren’t stabilized by final... go around. No chop/drop, trying to save it, you got this, get er done, etc.

I flew a Cessna before Cirrus. You could really be in the weeds over the fence and still bring it in safely.
 
Monday I took flying a pilot who owns a Bonanza , in my boring Cessna 182, guess what he wants to buy a Cessna 182 now and sell his A36.
He said its more fun.
Video of this flight coming soon.
 

Attachments

  • 66934743_2331782126874881_3525761425203003392_o.jpg
    66934743_2331782126874881_3525761425203003392_o.jpg
    172.4 KB · Views: 29
I think he means the airframe appreciates your staying ahead of it much more than many other planes. It is flown like an airliner. An example is, per Cirrus, if you aren’t stabilized by final... go around. No chop/drop, trying to save it, you got this, get er done, etc.

I flew a Cessna before Cirrus. You could really be in the weeds over the fence and still bring it in safely.
This has nothing to do with Cirrus. It's the difference between a plane designed for training and a plane designed for traveling. The same is true for any slick plane, my Mooney included.
 
The wife is already having a lot of trouble getting in and out of the Mooney, and with 1 door, I'm limited in how much I can help. It's not that important now, but it will continue to be more and more important.

Ease of boarding is an important consideration, and rather than a Cirrus, I see a 182 in your future. We all are getting there.
 
Ease of boarding is an important consideration, and rather than a Cirrus, I see a 182 in your future. We all are getting there.
182 is nice in many ways, but it's too slow for my coast to coast mission. :(
 
Back
Top