The why did they do that, thread, Cirrus edition

olasek said:
Sorry, I don't get this question, I don't feel any aileron spring-loading, perhaps there is one but the effect is way too weak for me to ponder about it and have positive/negative opinion of any kind. If we are supposed to be in a Cirrus-bashing mode I find controls fairly stiff - which is offset by the phenomenal autopilot that does most of this work for you. Yeah, no trim wheel, another blemish but again - more than enough compensated by the phenomenal autopilot.
Click to expand...
This is not a Cirrus bashing thread. As I have posted a few times, I neither love nor hate the airplane. I can see why some love it, and I can see why some get into trouble in it.

I was genuinely curious why Cirrus did some of the things they did on the airplane.

As for the ailerons, are you sure you’ve flown one?

When you move the stick to the side while taxiing, you never noticed that the controls are spring-loaded to return to neutral? Or are you just one of those pilots who taxis with his hands in his lap?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Or are you just one of those pilots who taxis with his hands in his lap?
Click to expand...
I figured that was the reason for the spring loaded controls, to make it easier to taxi hands-off. :)
 
GRG55 said:
I can't recall any airplane I've ever flown that didn't have at a minimum an elevator trim wheel or crank. Even the lowly Cessna 150 I learned to fly in had one. Can't be that hard. LOL.
Click to expand...
My 2007 CubCrafters Sport Cub S-LSA, like legacy Cubs, had an adjustable-incidence stabilizer for pitch trim. But it had only an electric rocker switch on the stick — no manual control. And yes, the switch did stick briefly a couple of times while I was flying it.

A manual control system, it was explained to me, would have been heavier; and the airplane had been demonstrated to be controllable with pitch trim stuck at the extremes of its travel.
 
Fearless Tower said:
This is not a Cirrus bashing thread.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
The way the airplane is designed and marketed, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that was true.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
It is at best on par with Cessna and even then maybe a little cheaper feel. It's like paying for a Lexus and getting General Motors build quality.
Click to expand...

This is where you lose me...

This isn't a Beech 18 bashing point I'm about to make but Beech 18s kind of suck you know?
 
The highest-performance planes I have flown had 'spring loaded controls' that generated all of the control forces felt in flight; there was no direct force-feedback from the surfaces (or any of the electronics and hydraulics in between ;) ) and had no mechanical trim system.

Companies don't typically add 'features' to a control system unless there's something driving it...One has to wonder if a centering spring helps meet some requirement in part 23? I can think of a few it would certainly affect.

Nauga,
and his lateral control sensitivity
 
I assumed it was so every turn feels like an 8 point roll.
 
olasek said:
Sorry, I don't get this question, I don't feel any aileron spring-loading, perhaps there is one but the effect must be way too weak for me to ponder about it and have positive/negative opinion of any kind, complete non-issue as far as I am concerned. If we are supposed to be in a Cirrus-bashing mode I find controls fairly stiff - which is offset by the phenomenal autopilot that does most of this work for you. Yeah, no trim wheel, another blemish but again - more than enough compensated by the phenomenal autopilot.
Click to expand...
Already covered. See post 15.
 
Tantalum said:
it's a convenient gust lock and self centering. I always hate jamming that metal thing into the Skyhawk yoke and found it incredible low-rent that the Archer's control lock is a seatbelt.. (seriously?)
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone ever crashed a PA28 because the factory gust-clock was still engaged.
 
It may not be a factory option, but I have a button bracket installed in the throttle quadrant where a gust lock is buttoned into.
upload_2018-1-18_1-2-53.png
(stock photo on a PA-28-1xx, not my Arrow. Identical quadrant installation though)
 
Pilawt said:
A manual control system, it was explained to me, would have been heavier; and the airplane had been demonstrated to be controllable with pitch trim stuck at the extremes of its travel.
Click to expand...

My Sky Arrow Only has electric pitch trim. And it is one of the very few systems that’s given me recurrent- and aggravating - problems. It never “runs away”, but occasionally does not work. At those times, when unable to trim out control pressure, I long for a manual backup.

But I think it’s somewhat analogous to having a crank starter on a car* or a kickstarter on a motorcycle - where it’s not hard to imagine situations where one might be grateful for such a backup system, money is better spent making starting systems reliable enough that manual backups have for the most part become things of the past for the majority of road vehicles. Adding the weight and complexity and failure points of two independent systems has to be considered very carefully before going down that route. Hence, most “clean sheet” designs shy away from that sort of redundant system in general.


*I think the last fitting of a crank starter on a car I remember seeing was on a friend’s MG-A. Of course, electrics by Lucas, the Prince of Darkness, may have made that a wise choice!
 
How do you do roll trim without springs on the controls? So type of controllable tab on one of the ailerons?
 
RudyP said:
This is where you lose me...

This isn't a Beech 18 bashing point I'm about to make but Beech 18s kind of suck you know?
Click to expand...
Let me break this down for you: I NEVER said Cirrus sucks. There are a few things I found flying the airplane that disappoint me and I’m generally curious why they did those things. I’m also a bit disappointed at the quality of construction compared to the sales price. I think they could do better.

But they don’t suck and I don’t hate flying the airplane.

Now, in all fairness, I do have issues with Cirrus the company in that I believe their marketing has played a role in the number of accidents, but that is not the fault of the airplane.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Let me break this down for you: I NEVER said Cirrus sucks. There are a few things I found flying the airplane that disappoint me and I’m generally curious why they did those things. I’m also a bit disappointed at the quality of construction compared to the sales price. I think they could do better.

But they don’t suck and I don’t hate flying the airplane.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with you about the build quality, seems pretty good to me, I'm flying a 2004 SR 20 and the thing feels brand new. Curious what makes you feel that way?
 
When I step off the wing of the grumman and on to the wing of the Cirrus.
I go "Holy crap this thing is a rock" Now, Grummans are a little flimsy to the contrast is high.
I feel like the Cirrus construction is solid. The interior is a little weak on the one I fly. All the light fixtures being velcroed to the headliner is lame.
The center console feels like it is going to break every time I open it.

I flew 2 different G5s recently though and the interior seemed much more durable.
 
Fearless Tower said:
There are a few things I found flying the airplane that disappoint me and I’m generally curious why they did those things. I’m also a bit disappointed at the quality of construction compared to the sales price.
Click to expand...
Curious what model / year Cirrus you flew? Even the heavily rented SR20 G2 I fly occasionally still feels loads more solid than the vast majority of planes I've rented. The issues it has are cosmetic only. Compared to the 2006 Archer I sometimes rent I still feel like the beat up Cirrus is superior in fit and finish. The G5 I flew recently felt remarkably solid and certainly felt like something you would find in a jet or very high end car.

People often bring up the price as "well for almost a million I would expect..." but let's put this in perspective. How much does a brand new Skyhawk or Archer cost? About $400K... I would comfortably say that a $900K SR22T is much more than twice the airplane when compared to a $400K Skyhawk/Archer..

dell30rb said:
It's not a pilot's airplane like a Bonanza or Baron
Click to expand...
What does this mean? I hear people often say this "well the Cirrus isn't a pilot's airplane".. I'm not sure what that means.. in many ways it's more of a pilot's airplane requiring some more vigilance and attention to speed and numbers than many other legacy planes out there require. Is it a Cub? No.. but the missions are totally different

Maybe I'm too young but I never understood the obsession with the Bonanza line.. sure in 1950 it was a game changer.. but 70 years later I'm not seeing what makes it more of a pilot's plane. If Cirrus moved the throttle quadrant up to the middle of the panel and put a massive steel bar across the cockpit in a rube goldberg yoke setup so it covers several knobs and instruments would that make it more of a pilot's airplane?

This looks like a complete disaster:
upload_2018-1-18_10-8-32.png
 
Fearless Tower said:
Let me break this down for you: I NEVER said Cirrus sucks. There are a few things I found flying the airplane that disappoint me and I’m generally curious why they did those things. I’m also a bit disappointed at the quality of construction compared to the sales price. I think they could do better.
Click to expand...

Do you think 'bashing' only means saying that a thing 'sucks'? That’s a very narrow definition.

Also, no one who has been in my airplane has complained about quality of construction. In fact, the universal response is that people are quite impressed with the fit and finish, materials and ergonomics. Very different from the average GA plane which tends to remind one of a 1980s econobox.
D4BB2681-B952-47BA-BDC6-351EAC3A9197.jpeg
 
RudyP said:
Do you think 'bashing' only means saying that a thing 'sucks'? That’s a very narrow definition.

Also, no one who has been in my airplane has complained about quality of construction. In fact, the universal response is that people are quite impressed with the fit and finish, materials and ergonomics. Very different from the average GA plane which tends to remind one of a 1980s econobox.
Click to expand...
I’d rather have the shifter on the tree but where’s the steering wheel?

That was a joke, a joke I say.
 
RudyP said:
Do you think 'bashing' only means saying that a thing 'sucks'? That’s a very narrow definition.

Also, no one who has been in my airplane has complained about quality of construction. In fact, the universal response is that people are quite impressed with the fit and finish, materials and ergonomics. Very different from the average GA plane which tends to remind one of a 1980s econobox.
View attachment 59395
Click to expand...
No rudder pedals in right seat? Is that standard or option?
 
RudyP said:
Do you think 'bashing' only means saying that a thing 'sucks'? That’s a very narrow definition.

Also, no one who has been in my airplane has complained about quality of construction. In fact, the universal response is that people are quite impressed with the fit and finish, materials and ergonomics. Very different from the average GA plane which tends to remind one of a 1980s econobox.
View attachment 59395
Click to expand...

Damn I wish I made more money.
 
paflyer said:
No rudder pedals in right seat? Is that standard or option?
Click to expand...
The ones on the left are just for display only anyway. Everybody knows that since it’s not a pilot’s airplane, the rudder pedals aren’t needed and are purely cosmetic.
 
MetalCloud said:
The ones on the left are just for display only anyway. Everybody knows that since it’s not a pilot’s airplane, the rudder pedals aren’t needed and are purely cosmetic.
Click to expand...
Mine don't even move.
 
I have never flown a Cirrus but I have built an RV-10. That inside out perspective answers many of the issues raised with the Cirrus for me.

I have Electric trim for pitch and roll. It is bone simple to design/engineer/assemble and maintain. Cheap too. A byproduct of my aileron trim is spring loading the ailerons and I suspect this a primary reason for I on the C. However my controls are light and responsive like only an experimental can be.

Full castor nose wheel eliminates a system. Works fine. I entertain myself by playing tailwheel pilot with it; full rudder deflections, full back stick and minimal brake use... just because.

The performance of fixed gear and well designed nacelles speaks for itself. One of the revelations for RV-10 builders is the practice of leaving the nacelles and pants off during engine break-in (so full power can be maintained without over speeding ), then installing them and seeing the speed increase. I measured a full 18 knots(!!).

I chose to install a belts and suspenders electrical system under the tutelage of Bob Nuckolls, a guy with extensive electrical system experience in certified craft and who has tried to apply lessons learned to experimental craft. I have 2 batteries, 2 alternators, and 2 buses. Only 4 breakers and aprox 30 fuses in a panel that is generally out of pilot reach in flight. The idea being that any failure of a fuse in flight can be tolerated and the failure is best addressed on the ground (discuss if you must but miles of threads already exist). I lack experience with resetting breakers and such but the design has worked fine for 1000 hours and counting.

My favorite reaction to my kitplane is, “that’s a Cirrus isn’t it?”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Fearless, I hope you think twice next time you start bashing/hating/badmouthing Cirrus again.


:smilewinkgrin:
 
RudyP said:
Do you think 'bashing' only means saying that a thing 'sucks'? That’s a very narrow definition.

Also, no one who has been in my airplane has complained about quality of construction. In fact, the universal response is that people are quite impressed with the fit and finish, materials and ergonomics. Very different from the average GA plane which tends to remind one of a 1980s econobox.
View attachment 59395
Click to expand...

Lol I was thinking the same thoughts
 
Tantalum said:
What does this mean? I hear people often say this "well the Cirrus isn't a pilot's airplane".. I'm not sure what that means.. in many ways it's more of a pilot's airplane requiring some more vigilance and attention to speed and numbers than many other legacy planes out there require. Is it a Cub? No.. but the missions are totally different

Maybe I'm too young but I never understood the obsession with the Bonanza line.. sure in 1950 it was a game changer.. but 70 years later I'm not seeing what makes it more of a pilot's plane. If Cirrus moved the throttle quadrant up to the middle of the panel and put a massive steel bar across the cockpit in a rube goldberg yoke setup so it covers several knobs and instruments would that make it more of a pilot's airplane?

This looks like a complete disaster:
View attachment 59394
Click to expand...

The Bonanza designed 70 years ago still does as much as a modern Cirrus design minus the chute so there's that. As far as flying characteristics, I've flown Cirrus' and now own a V-tail. No comparison. Yes, I'm biased. Yoke is a non issue and for passengers the "throw over" gives them a lot of room and makes getting in and out easier. I like the Cirrus, especially the looks of the interior and two doors, but for 100K you get a heck of a lot of airplane for the money with the Bo. When you bring $$ into the equation you are talking apples and oranges.
 
I don't look at the OP as bashing Cirrus though there is plenty of that on POA and elsewhere. I thought it was simply a matter of him pointing out a few particulars about the aircraft that made him go "huh?". I think we all do that. I also think we are more likely to do so when the aircraft is more refined and more expensive than the typical GA plane. It's no different than looking at a Bonanza or Mooney and ask "where is the effin pilot side door?" Even those who think they are great aircraft ask this question. I still complain about Cessna dropping the johnson bar and going to electric flaps in their planes. I still think they are good planes.
 
Tantalum said:
Curious what model / year Cirrus you flew? Even the heavily rented SR20 G2 I fly occasionally still feels loads more solid than the vast majority of planes I've rented. The issues it has are cosmetic only. Compared to the 2006 Archer I sometimes rent I still feel like the beat up Cirrus is superior in fit and finish. The G5 I flew recently felt remarkably solid and certainly felt like something you would find in a jet or very high end car.

People often bring up the price as "well for almost a million I would expect..." but let's put this in perspective. How much does a brand new Skyhawk or Archer cost? About $400K... I would comfortably say that a $900K SR22T is much more than twice the airplane when compared to a $400K Skyhawk/Archer..


What does this mean? I hear people often say this "well the Cirrus isn't a pilot's airplane".. I'm not sure what that means.. in many ways it's more of a pilot's airplane requiring some more vigilance and attention to speed and numbers than many other legacy planes out there require. Is it a Cub? No.. but the missions are totally different

Maybe I'm too young but I never understood the obsession with the Bonanza line.. sure in 1950 it was a game changer.. but 70 years later I'm not seeing what makes it more of a pilot's plane. If Cirrus moved the throttle quadrant up to the middle of the panel and put a massive steel bar across the cockpit in a rube goldberg yoke setup so it covers several knobs and instruments would that make it more of a pilot's airplane?

This looks like a complete disaster:
View attachment 59394
Click to expand...
I was pretty sure I wanted a 310 from the beginning but I did look at Baron's as well. They were quickly dismissed because I hate the high throttle quadrant, throttle in the middle and throw over yokes (also don't like them with the dual yoke installed with the T being in front of the panel vs behind it). Couldn't afford the newer Baron's where they have this all fixed.
 
Radar Contact said:
I was pretty sure I wanted a 310 from the beginning but I did look at Baron's as well. They were quickly dismissed because I hate the high throttle quadrant, throttle in the middle and throw over yokes (also don't like them with the dual yoke installed with the T being in front of the panel vs behind it). Couldn't afford the newer Baron's where they have this all fixed.
Click to expand...

You made the right choice...:goofy:
 
Bill Watson said:
I chose to install a belts and suspenders electrical system under the tutelage of Bob Nuckolls, a guy with extensive electrical system experience in certified craft and who has tried to apply lessons learned to experimental craft. I have 2 batteries, 2 alternators, and 2 buses. Only 4 breakers and aprox 30 fuses in a panel that is generally out of pilot reach in flight. The idea being that any failure of a fuse in flight can be tolerated and the failure is best addressed on the ground (discuss if you must but miles of threads already exist). I lack experience with resetting breakers and such but the design has worked fine for 1000 hours and counting.
Click to expand...

Good stuff. I've got a copy of Nuckolls' The Aerolectric Connection that was my bible for constructing my electrical system. Mine has a box with automotive blade-type fuses for many of the lesser functions, and rocker-breaker switches for the biggies...EFIS, avionics, lights and fuel pump. Fuse panel is accessible in flight (on subpanel behind EFIS) so a fuse could be changed on the go, but I'm with you on this one; I'd land and then change it.

My experience flying composite planes is limited to a Diamond DA-20, but it sure felt solid and robust.
 
Tantalum said:
What does this mean? I hear people often say this "well the Cirrus isn't a pilot's airplane".. I'm not sure what that means.. in many ways it's more of a pilot's airplane requiring some more vigilance and attention to speed and numbers than many other legacy planes out there require. Is it a Cub? No.. but the missions are totally different

Maybe I'm too young but I never understood the obsession with the Bonanza line.. sure in 1950 it was a game changer.. but 70 years later I'm not seeing what makes it more of a pilot's plane. If Cirrus moved the throttle quadrant up to the middle of the panel and put a massive steel bar across the cockpit in a rube goldberg yoke setup so it covers several knobs and instruments would that make it more of a pilot's airplane?

This looks like a complete disaster:
View attachment 59394
Click to expand...

Have you flown both a Cirrus and a Bonanza? I'm guessing that most who have, will understand what I am talking about. IMO the main difference is the control harmony. The Bo has lighter, more well balanced controls and is easier to trim. The Cirrus has heavier controls and the trim takes some getting used to.

The Bonanza is more responsive (and fun) in exchange for more a little more attention needed by the pilot.
 
dell30rb said:
Have you flown both a Cirrus and a Bonanza? I'm guessing that most who have, will understand what I am talking about. IMO the main difference is the control harmony. The Bo has lighter, more well balanced controls and is easier to trim. The Cirrus has heavier controls and the trim takes some getting used to.

The Bonanza is more responsive (and fun) in exchange for more a little more attention needed by the pilot.
Click to expand...

Stop bashing the Bo!
 
I know it is not entirely the same thing, but composite are pretty impressive with regards to their strengths and what they give in flexibility. I did a fair amount of competitive sailing back on the east coast and it was impressive to me the kind of abuse these boats could take, whether it be fiberglass or full carbon fiber, I couldn't believe how relatively thin and insignificant the structure would look yet the amount of abuse it could take from 10 guys running all over the deck and 750 square feet of sail area, sometimes whipping uncontrollably in a 40 knot breeze
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I cant believe all of you hate all airplanes.
Everybody on this thread is bashing every airplane made.
Click to expand...
Haha, it's all in good fun. Although to be honest sometimes I miss the debates we would get in with citizen50000000 and gsengle
 
Timbeck2 said:
Fearless, I hope you think twice next time you start bashing/hating/badmouthing Cirrus again.


:smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...
No kidding. But this highlights part of the issue that Cirrus has. I point out a few items that I didn't care for, (honestly wondering why they did it that way) while also saying that overall, I think it is an okay airplane, and several folks say 'I just never understood the all the Cirrus bashing/hating'.

While there is a perhaps uncalled for amount of Cirrus hate by people who have never flown the airplane, the flip side is a whole bunch of Cirrus fan-boys who seem to take personal offense if you don't think Cirrus is the greatest aviation product ever made. Kind of like watching a Boeing vs Airbus debate between flight simulators enthusiasts.
 
I am still waiting for someone to explain why Cirrus opted for the liquid-slinging prop de-ice vs hot blades…….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top