172 Guy Goes Cirrus...and now back to 172?

VWGhiaBob

VWGhiaBob

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
884
Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
Since resuming flying, I've been trying to figure out where to "land", planewise that is. I started with Cessna 172, then moved "up" to Cirrus SR20 and SR22.

Tonight, I jumped back in the Cessna, and remembered how easy it is to fly and how wonderful it handles in the air. Now I'm more confused than ever!

My other impressions (some controversial) are below. Would love to hear from others!

Airplane - Pilot "Feel": Cirrus 3, Cessna 10. I can't help but wonder now if the many "loss of control" Cirrus accidents are caused by zero feedback to the yoke. A Cessna tells you how it feels through touch. The Cirrus feels the same all the time, because the yoke is controlled by springs.

Ease of Control: Cirrus 5, Cessna 10. Tonight's flight in the Cessna reminded me how easy it is to control in the pattern...holding altitude is a no brainer. Just last week, a Cirrus pilot with 1000 Cirrus hours landed too fast (like Southwest), stripped the nose gear off and had a major prop strike. The Cirrus is extremely sensitive to speeds and everything else.

Parachute Safety: Cirrus 10, Cessna 10. Why 10 for the Cessna? Simple: The same chute (BRS) that's in a Cirrus can be put in a Cessna for under $15K.

Visibility: Cirrus 8, Cessna 8. The Cessna gives a better view for pilot and passengers, but blocks the runway view on turns to final. The Cirrus low wing blocks the view all the time, except on turns to final.

Maintenance Issues: Cirrus ?, Cessna ? I'm not qualified to judge, but I can tell you this: The Cirrus aircraft at my FBO have constant issues that ground them. Maybe it's just their planes, but I suspect not.

Comfort / Looks / Back Seat: Cirrus 10, Cessna 5. Face it, the back seat in a 172 or 182 is not comfy for normal adults over long distance. Even the front seats are small, and the pilot and co-pilot have to get used to rubbing legs. Not so in the Cirrus, which has big seats and a console.

I thought I had "made up my mind" to go Cirrus. Now, I'm not sure. The extra comfort (and a tad higher speed) of a Cirrus may or may not make up for it's faults. And forget the parachute, since the exact same parachute works in a 172 or 182.

Again, would love any other thoughts to help me "land" in the right plane. Next stop: Decide and purchase!
 
How many hours do you have in a Cirrus?

Based on my experience for the first few hours you really don't feel the airplane, then when you spend 5-10hrs maneuvering in it you will get a very good feel for the airplane. The controls will be much more precise than most GA planes, especially the 172.


BTW, which models of Cirrus & 172 are we discussing?
 
Away from home maintenance....everyone knows how to fix the 172 and there's parts everywhere. More and more A&Ps have composite experience, but it's not always guaranteed.
 
I didn't know that an SR22 had only a tad higher speed than the fastest 172. What are their cruise speeds?
 
MachFly...I respectfully disagree with anyone who says a Cirrus is easy to fly after 5 hours. I have about 50 recent Cirrus hours. The more hours I fly it, the more I become aware of how sensitive it is. Ask any knowledgeable flight instructor. Cirrus launched a costly (for pilots) training program to help turn around the accident rate.

There's a guy who has done a detailed post on this: http://www.stevewilsonblog.com/the-cirrus-airplane-has-serious-problems/. While he seems to have a ax to grind and overdoes it, he brings up a lot of good discussion points. I read this article a long time ago, and then reviewed key points when I got home last night from the 172. Some of it makes sense now. The Cirrus "feels" smooth, but that may be deceptive. There's near zero feedback from aileron to yoke.

Jim, point well taken. As you know, cruise speeds are all over the map. As a point of reference, I use 140knts and 170knts for the SR20 and SR22 respectively. That's more than a "tad" for most people. For me, though, the difference doesn't matter. For those doing longer runs, the higher speeds just might seal the deal.
 
Further to the Cirrus control issue:

"
Exerpts from: “Cirrus SR20“, an owner’s review by Philip Greenspun, ATP, CFII, in July 2005, updated January 2010:
In terms of avoiding an accident, one problem with the Cirrus is its unforgiving handling compared to other basic four-seaters. For pilots accustomed to learning about an impending stall by feeling reduced airloads on the flight controls, the Cirrus provides much less stall warning. This is due to spring cartridges that continue to resist flight control movement even when the airplane is not moving. In other words, the flight controls feel similar whether you’re flying or stalled."
​
 
Boy, VWGhiaBob, you are probably stirring up a hornets nest:).

I can't comment on the Cirrus (no time in one) except for what I have heard. My belief is that when Cessna developed the C-172, they got it right. If the Cessna cruised at 170 knots and everything else about it stayed the same, it would be hard to beat. I'm prejudiced, though. I like Cessna's products.
 
You forgot to mention the 172 is slow as molasses. And if you put a $15,000 chute in it, your useful load goes from bad to worse.

If you want something in between, you might consider a 182 RG. You get the same docile handling of the 172, with a 150 knot cruise speed, more interior room and more useful load.

I'm a fan of how the cessnas fly and handle. I like the high wing for the shade, keeping out of the rain, and ease of loading yourself and others into the airplane. But I rarely fly the club 172's, if i'm going anywhere these days I want to be traveling at 160 knots not 110 so I take a Mooney.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Further to the Cirrus control issue:

"
Exerpts from: “Cirrus SR20“, an owner’s review by Philip Greenspun, ATP, CFII, in July 2005, updated January 2010:
In terms of avoiding an accident, one problem with the Cirrus is its unforgiving handling compared to other basic four-seaters. For pilots accustomed to learning about an impending stall by feeling reduced airloads on the flight controls, the Cirrus provides much less stall warning. This is due to spring cartridges that continue to resist flight control movement even when the airplane is not moving. In other words, the flight controls feel similar whether you’re flying or stalled."
​
Click to expand...

Still buffets, still has a stall warning, and has better roll authority in the stall than anything else I've flown
 
Several comments after skimming the thread.

Steve Wilson either is or was a Cessna sales guy. Take what he says with a mountain of salt.

I agree that there is much better feel transmitted by the Cessna yoke (especially the 172) than in a Cirrus. Also, the Cirrus is very fast in pitch; too fast to my taste. That makes it more difficult to trim and touchier when holding altitude.

There is plenty of stall warning in a Cirrus due to the cuffed wing. To be clear, the control feel may be less and the inner wing may be stalling but the plane is still controllable and it is very noticeable. One big difference is with power on stalls just because the SR22 has so much power. A full power on stall is at a scary deck angle.

The Cirrus wing is much better than most low wing aircraft about not blocking the view below. However the view down and back is blocked. A huge difference in view out the front is that you can see the runway in the flair in a Cirrus. Visibility forward is much better in a Cirrus than in a 172. I would rate the Cirrus better for visibility.

A lot of the landing differences come down to the kinetic energy being carried when landing. I don't know any 3600 lb max gross airplane that lands like a 172. The same wing that gives the Cirrus a high cruise gives it a 59 knot stall. This all adds up to a lot more energy to dissipate when landing.

The 172 will be cheaper to maintain. It is a simpler airplane. ANy plane with more systems will cost more to maintain. The Cirrus engine is bigger, there will almost certainly be a very capable AP, etc.

The Cirrus will be much smoother in rough air due to much higher wing loading.
 
Oops, I forgot to add that you can open a window on a Cessna and not let the rain in. You can also get out in the rain and stay dry while you prep for the run to the FBO.
 
And the back seat passengers in a cirrus can stand up with the door open,

Two different planes with two different sets of compromises made.
 
Wow. Not too many people cross shop the SR-22 and the Skyhawk. That's a rarity. If your happy with the 172 and it suits your mission, go for it! You will save a ton of money in the short term and the long term. There really isn't anything controversial, or debatable about a 172. Solid plane for what it's supposed to do.

It's a personal thing I guess. I never had much love for the 172, moved on to other planes as soon as I could and never looked back. If it were me as an owner with the choices you listed, I would go SR-20 myself, but if the Skyhawk floats your boat, go get one! They aren't going to get much cheaper. Tens of thousands of Skyhawk buyers can't be all wrong.
 
So a 172 guy goes Cirrus then back. Just how many hours did he fly the Cirrus? If you have experience only in 172s then it will take you a little while to get used to a high performance aircraft. I sure hope he didn't form a final opinion on the Cirrus after just a few hours. I have never been in a Cirrus (I own a Mooney) but like everything else I suspect that it would take me a certain number of hours to become proficient and after that it will feel comfortable. I learned to fly in a 172. Love the airplane. But if eventually you want or need to move up to higher performance you may need to learn a few more tricks :)
 
I've never understood some of these discussions about the Cirrus. Compared to a 172 the Cirrus is a dream to stall. Just hold the stick full aft feet on the floor if you want, beautiful falling leaf while still maintaining aileron control. The 172 requires much more skill IMO, not that it has any bad characteristics either.

The control feel for the Cirrus does suck compared to a Cessna, but I got used to it. Beech owners for example love to talk about control feel (it is great), but honestly on a three hour flight how important is control feel?

SR22 speed vs. 172? Close to the same if you consider 50 knot difference about the same.
 
Hector...at least 50 hours in the Cirrus here. The more I fly, the more I'm wondering. I also hang out extensively at the Cirrus forum. So my hesitations are based on 50 hours plus a lot of back and forth with people who fly them.

Interestingly, I heard back from Philip Greenspun, author of the best Cirrus assessment I've seen (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20). He's a Cirrus owner, but as you can see, he's fully aware of Cirrus limitations.

His advice? Fly it by the numbers, like a jet: checklists and numbers rather than seat-of-the-pants. Funny, my instructor, who flies jets said the same thing: Cirrus may look like a GA aircraft, but it flies like a jet.

That's good and bad. Going out for a Sunday ride takes on a different meaning.

Like I said, I'm still torn. I LOVE the look, speed, and comfort of the Cirrus.

I would like to thank everyone so far for their insights. This is helping sort out a difficult decision! Much appreciated.
 
I also don't understand the comparison between the 172 and Cirrus. Isn't the Cirrus significantly in a higher price bracket? If so, would not a 182 and Cirrus be more comparable?
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Hector...at least 50 hours in the Cirrus here. The more I fly, the more I'm wondering. I also hang out extensively at the Cirrus forum. So my hesitations are based on 50 hours plus a lot of back and forth with people who fly them.

Interestingly, I heard back from Philip Greenspun, author of the best Cirrus assessment I've seen (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20). He's a Cirrus owner, but as you can see, he's fully aware of Cirrus limitations.

His advice? Fly it by the numbers, like a jet: checklists and numbers rather than seat-of-the-pants. Funny, my instructor, who flies jets said the same thing: Cirrus may look like a GA aircraft, but it flies like a jet.

That's good and bad. Going out for a Sunday ride takes on a different meaning.

Like I said, I'm still torn. I LOVE the look, speed, and comfort of the Cirrus.

I would like to thank everyone so far for their insights. This is helping sort out a difficult decision! Much appreciated.
Click to expand...


So it sounds like you are saying that the Cessna is more forgiving of sub par piloting skills than a Cirrus. My guess is that is a true statement. That does not make the Cessna a better plane but rather a better plane for a pilot whose skills may be lacking, inferior or just rusty. I don't mean any insult by that as there is a large continuim on the pilot skills graph. Belive me I know pilots who should not be flying a cirrus who do. Lancair is a fabulous plane but is an unforgiving plane from what I hear.

I don't think anyone should talk you into the cirrus. It sounds as from a safety perspective you feel more comfortable and proficient in a Cessna. If thats so that is what you should be flying.
 
I find the control feel of an SR22 and a Skyhawk to be about the same, taking into account the different weight. It's a yoke, either way.

The Skyhawk is a bit easier to land because of its slower stall speed -- that and the lower price and operating cost makes it a better trainer.

I think that mission and cost should determine which plane is best for you. The performance of the SR22 makes it the better choice if you are flying much farther than 300 NM. If your mission is shorter distances or training, then the Skyhawk is the better choice.

I agree that putting a chute in a Cessna is a good idea, but I'm not sure how commonly it is done as an aftermarket modification. It would be a great thing for GA safety if more OEMs would offer a chute from the factory along with a recommended primary training that emphasizes the chute's proper use.
 
sure sounds like an Apple vs Android discussion to me... :stirpot:
 
Two techs at our shop formerly worked at the local Cirrus Service Center. They say that owners are generally unhappy with post-warranty MX costs. The service center owner agrees.
 
The article linked above states that the owner experienced 33% downtime in the first 3 years of ownership. That's one out of 3 days it couldn't be flown when new! (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20). This is consistent with the record at my local FBO. They have 3 planes, and it's rare that they are all flying.
 
The parachute is a negligible safety feature. People do more risky flying with it because they think they always have an out. It doesn't work 100% of the time, and I don't feel good about having a rocket 6' behind my head.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
The article linked above states that the owner experienced 33% downtime in the first 3 years of ownership. That's one out of 3 days it couldn't be flown when new! (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20). This is consistent with the record at my local FBO. They have 3 planes, and it's rare that they are all flying.
Click to expand...

I read some of that article and I don't think that guy likes anything.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
The article linked above states that the owner experienced 33% downtime in the first 3 years of ownership. That's one out of 3 days it couldn't be flown when new! (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20). This is consistent with the record at my local FBO. They have 3 planes, and it's rare that they are all flying.
Click to expand...

What is keeping those aircraft in the shop and not in the air?
 
Jim Logajan said:
I didn't know that an SR22 had only a tad higher speed than the fastest 172. What are their cruise speeds?
Click to expand...

never heard of a straight legged a 180hp 172 cruise faster than 122ktas.

SR22 routinely sees 170 in the mid teens - so 48kts I define as more than a 'tad' when its 40% of the TAS of the Skyhawk . . .

Did you mean the SR20? I'd agree with that since I have about 30 min in one at it was only giving us about 125ktas . . .
 
Last edited:
Wow, mine has great dispatch reliability. That's after 6 years of ownership and about a thousand hours on the plane.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
MachFly...I respectfully disagree with anyone who says a Cirrus is easy to fly after 5 hours. I have about 50 recent Cirrus hours. The more hours I fly it, the more I become aware of how sensitive it is. Ask any knowledgeable flight instructor. Cirrus launched a costly (for pilots) training program to help turn around the accident rate.

There's a guy who has done a detailed post on this: http://www.stevewilsonblog.com/the-cirrus-airplane-has-serious-problems/. While he seems to have a ax to grind and overdoes it, he brings up a lot of good discussion points. I read this article a long time ago, and then reviewed key points when I got home last night from the 172. Some of it makes sense now. The Cirrus "feels" smooth, but that may be deceptive. There's near zero feedback from aileron to yoke.

Jim, point well taken. As you know, cruise speeds are all over the map. As a point of reference, I use 140knts and 170knts for the SR20 and SR22 respectively. That's more than a "tad" for most people. For me, though, the difference doesn't matter. For those doing longer runs, the higher speeds just might seal the deal.
Click to expand...

I never said that Cirrus will be easy to fly after 5 hours, I said you will feel the controls a lot better after 5-10hours of maneuvering. Sitting at 10K with the autopilot on logging hours won't help. You need to spend a few hours at low speed and high AoA. Do lots of slow flight, stalls, falling leafs, accelerated stalls, some emergency dives, ect... You can get a good feel for the airplane that way.

The reason why Cirrus launched that training program is because everyone who buys a Cirrus expects it to be very easy to fly because the computers are doing everything for you, and I can't blame them, that's how Cirrus markets their aircraft and that's exactly what people expect when they buy one. In the real world when one of those computers stops working your completely screwed unless you have been training to fly it manually and know it's systems very well. Plus realistically the plane is much faster and much more torquey than something that people typically train on, so yes, it is harder to fly.


Back to the original topic. You need to decide what exactly you need the airplane for. SR22 (and the 20) is quite a lot faster than the 172. So if you need something fast and have the money for it then buy the 22, if you don't need something fast and don't have the money for it buy the 172. They are very different aircraft made for a very different purpose. It seems to me that your looking for a practical family airplane that handles good, in which case I recommend you take a look at the DA40, it's a very good airplane.
 
Dave, in defense of Cirrus, the 'chute has worked 100% of the time when deployed within it's known operational limits (speed and altitude).

Ren, actually, I talked to him and he likes his Cirrus. He just notes what I have noted...it's not a 172 and requires considerably higher skill levels.
 
I've never flown a cirrus (would like to though). I have a columbia (corvalis). I also have a 172xp and a 205. I like them all. The columbia was a little harder to feel comfortable with and probably took 50 hours till I was totally comfortable. I find it is easier to fly than the 172 or 205. Maybe I'm more used to it. FLew all three last weekend about 8 hours total split pretty evenly. Had several different missions. I did find the 172 much easier to do the tight turns in I wanted to do and worked much better in my crop duster routine. Probably the speed difference more than anything and weight. For long trips the columbia wins hands down. The columbia is much more fuel efficient at lop. I relize this was cirrus versus 172 but this is my .02 worth. I think the solution is to own both!
 
LJ...let me see if I can remember a few of the maintenance issues that have taken the Cirrus aircraft at my FBO down frequently:

* Brake overheating Cirrus aircraft are extremely sensitive to this
* Cracked cylinder head
* Massive oil leaks
* Broken alternator (Alt 2)
* Prop strike / nose gear destruction due to 1000 hour Cirrus pilot landing too fast (not exactly a maintenance issue, but did the design possibly contribute to this?)

Those are the ones that come to mind. There are others in my few short months. Not saying I have a scientific sample here...only that what I've observed is similar to what I read (33% downtime). As a brand, maybe they are a lot better. Still, at my airport the old, venerable 172's are down a lot less.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
* Brake overheating Cirrus aircraft are extremely sensitive to this
* Cracked cylinder head
* Massive oil leaks
* Broken alternator (Alt 2)
* Prop strike / nose gear destruction due to 1000 hour Cirrus pilot landing too fast (not exactly a maintenance issue, but did the design possibly contribute to this?)
Click to expand...

Pilot error on the brakes. The brakes can overheat due to the wheel pants if you outrageously ride them while taxiing. Owners won't do that, but renters will.

The cooling configuration in the cowling of a Cirrus is extremely good, and the engine is the same as what is used in other planes, so I can't think of any reason cracked cylinder heads should be more common in a Cirrus. Ditto for oil leaks.

The 2nd alternator is for safety. Two batteries and two alternators for redundancy in IFR. I suppose a downside of redundancy is more stuff to break.

The early generations had less prop clearance than the G3 and G5.
 
NoHeat said:
Pilot error on the brakes. The brakes can overheat due to the wheel pants if you outrageously ride them while taxiing. Owners won't do that, but renters will.
Click to expand...

Technically I completely agree with you. However I would like to point out that Cirrus does have very small brakes that are incredibly easy to overheat.


The cooling configuration in the cowling of a Cirrus is extremely good, and the engine is the same as what is used in other planes, so I can't think of any reason cracked cylinder heads should be more common in a Cirrus. Ditto for oil leaks.
Click to expand...

That is correct for all Cirrus but the SR20 G1. SR20 G1 is very easy to overheat, and I don't think I ever climbed at Vy on that aircraft without having the engine overheat...
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
Wow. Not too many people cross shop the SR-22 and the Skyhawk. That's a rarity. If your happy with the 172 and it suits your mission, go for it! You will save a ton of money in the short term and the long term. There really isn't anything controversial, or debatable about a 172. Solid plane for what it's supposed to do.

It's a personal thing I guess. I never had much love for the 172, moved on to other planes as soon as I could and never looked back. If it were me as an owner with the choices you listed, I would go SR-20 myself, but if the Skyhawk floats your boat, go get one! They aren't going to get much cheaper. Tens of thousands of Skyhawk buyers can't be all wrong.
Click to expand...

I learned in a 172 (Hawk XP II) and flew many 172s of all types thereafter. But then I didn't touch one for almost 15 years while flying mostly Mooneys, Bonanzas and various twins.

Then a student offered me his 172 SP for a family weekend trip back in May. I kinda fell in love with the 172 all over again. So simple, so honest, so well-behaved....it was a delightful trip, much of it in solid IMC.

Only thing it lacks is speed, but for missions of a few hundred miles and lots of $100 hamburgers, it's hard to beat.
 
MachFly said:
Technically I completely agree with you. However I would like to point out that Cirrus does have very small brakes that are incredibly easy to overheat.




That is correct for all Cirrus but the SR20 G1. SR20 G1 is very easy to overheat, and I don't think I ever climbed at Vy on that aircraft without having the engine overheat...
Click to expand...

Double puck brakes on a 6.00-6 wheel, same as my 182 (and bigger than the standard brakes)
 
DavidWhite said:
The parachute is a negligible safety feature. People do more risky flying with it because they think they always have an out. It doesn't work 100% of the time, and I don't feel good about having a rocket 6' behind my head.
Click to expand...
If one believes the parachute is certain to motivate "riskier" flying I wonder what we should think of instrument flights, the ILS and the use of GPS? Heck, do the seatbelts make us riskier pilots?

Ok, so maybe an obvious wind-up, but seriously, look at Rick Beach's data and then try to argue that the parachute offers negligible safety benefits.
 
DavidWhite said:
The parachute is a negligible safety feature. People do more risky flying with it because they think they always have an out. It doesn't work 100% of the time, and I don't feel good about having a rocket 6' behind my head.
Click to expand...

The chute has saved 77 lives to date, and the only reason it hasn't saved more is that too often it wasn't used. Like having a motorcycle helmet but not having it on.

I don't ride my motorcycle more dangerously because I have a full-face helmet. If somebody else does, well, that is no argument for me to ride without the lid. Likewise I don't fly more dangerously because of the chute.

Full statistics here:http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/CAPSHistory.aspx with details for every incident. Hopefully the link works for nonmembers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top