Another Cirrus down

I’ve only flown one once so I’m going completely by what I’ve read and heard from a pilot friend with more experience in one. Basically it’s more unforgiving in handling.

- Spring loaded control yoke, reduces tactile feedback.

- Behavior in stalls and ease of entering into a spin, at which point Cirrus says pull chute.

For comparison, I was very interested in a DA40, known for having very benign flight characteristics, being very forgiving in handling, and best safety record. Ultimately I couldn’t fit in that cockpit so I went another direction for now.

Furthermore, all that being said, I still would like to have a Cirrus eventually. Like I said, it’s the one thing about them I didn’t like. I like everything else about them. Building my chops on a cheaper and easier airplane first. Currently a student approaching checkride.

Then to put it bluntly, learn more before you continue posting OWT.
Cirrus compared to a few other planes I have flow is actauly difficult to get into a spin. It stalls very straight forward, no wing drop, still has control through the root wing stall when the nose drops.
In a Cirrus, you do get minimal control force feedback in your hands, instead you feel it in your a**, see it in your eyes, feel it in your inner ear. It is a question of many pilots just being lazy on the controls and using the force feedback on the controls instead of actually listening to what the rest of the plane is saying. And what the rest of the plane is saying is much more critical.


Tim
 
If only I knew WTF a TKS panel was....

Remember in Apollo 13 when the lunar module froze up while they powered it off conserve batteries?. There was all that frozen condensation they were concerned would short the avionics?
They didnt have a TKS panel.
 
Think about what you just posted.

NTSB reports originate when someone has a problem...often because the didn’t fly it right.

I fly SR22s professionally. You do not need hard braking to land short IF you aren’t trying to race to the touchdown zone.

But people who fly them properly don’t tend to end up as the subjects of NTSB investigations.

The majority of my complaints with Cirrus are just personal annoyances (the ‘why’d the do that’ kind of thing). I have long said that the biggest issue with Cirrus is who they market the airplanes to: rich people who want to go fast and don’t have the time or desire to fly enough to be and remain proficient.

Cirrus has the most comprehensive owner training of any of the single engine piston aircraft. What other manufacturer of single engine piston aircraft have had from brake fires? Which other single engine piston aircraft do you fly that have a heat sensor and brake check as a preflight and prelanding ck list item? Does Mooney, Piper, or Cessna have great owners and just the knuckle heads own Cirrus?

I fly Cirrus too. The brakes are substandard.
 
Cirrus has the most comprehensive owner training of any of the single engine piston aircraft. What other manufacturer of single engine piston aircraft have had from brake fires? Which other single engine piston aircraft do you fly that have a heat sensor and brake check as a preflight and prelanding ck list item? Does Mooney, Piper, or Cessna have great owners and just the knuckle heads own Cirrus?

I fly Cirrus too. The brakes are substandard.

I am supposed to look at the break heat sensors as part of prelanding checklist?
My hair is going to get all sorts of messed up.



Because of all the wind.
 
Remember in Apollo 13 when the lunar module froze up while they powered it off conserve batteries?. Yes. One of my favorite movies. (getting exited I'm going to learn something) There was all that frozen condensation they were concerned would short the avionics? Yeah, i remember that too and the piece of tape labeled "NO" so Swigart didn't cut the LEM loose. Oh boy oh boy oh boy!
They didnt have a TKS panel. <blinks> yer a dick. :(
 
I am supposed to look at the break heat sensors as part of prelanding checklist?
My hair is going to get all sorts of messed up.



Because of all the wind.

When have you ever seen a Cirrus owner with messed up hair? You need to upgrade so you have a break heat indication.

  • Information and Alerts for:
    • Fuel (left and right tank)
    • TKS fluid level (basic and FIKI)
    • Brake Temperature
    • Pitot Heat off and/or required
 
Last edited:
You were responding in a chain of back and forth about a wing separation and somehow advocated that a chute pull could lead to "hit the ground totally uncontrolled" as if losing a wing wouldn't lead to "hitting the ground totally uncontrolled"

I'm just quoting you and that's a pretty dumb statement.

Furthermore, I never remotely implied that "chutes are the end all." If anything I implied that when you're spinning wildly into the ground with a wing missing, seconds from certain death and you really have nothing to lose, pulling the chute can't really hurt and it just might save your life.

Do you think this guy should have just ridden it in like a "real pilot"?
again, mis-representing the whole idea. the discussion was about pulling outside of the envelope. if the aircraft is uncontrollable and you have the ability to pull you pull, but if it is controllable and you are outside of the envelope, then that becomes a decision based on a lot of factors. if a wing fails and you have a chute of course you would pull it, if you can. 1st point was that outside of the envelope pulling may or may not be the best course. 2nd point, that in a major airframe failure you will most likely not be able to get to the handle to pull. the save in the video does not directly relate to a production aircraft with a wing failure. the aircraft in the video was an aircraft setup for aerobatics, the handle was not overhead, probably directly in front of the pilots hand on the panel. the pilot was wearing at least a five point harness ratcheted down tight. Istill believe in the event of a wing failure, the odds of being able to reach up and pull the handle are remote.
 
If only I knew WTF a TKS panel was....

Can't tell if you are kidding or not, but there is a TKS panel is on the leading edge of the rudder, by which I mean the front edge of the vertical stabilizer. On Rudy's plane, you can see, on the rudder, a stainless steel panel on that leading edge that runs from an imaginary line drawn to the bottom of the SR 22 decal up to an imaginary line drawn to the VOR antenna. This panel has hundreds or thousands of micro holes from which the magic juice seeps. These panels are also on the elevator leading edge and the wing leading edges.

If you were kidding then you got me, ;>)

Nice airplane BTW Rudy.



Thank you! And yes, that is Catalina. You can see it better in this picture.
View attachment 64248
 
Can't tell if you are kidding or not, but there is a TKS panel is on the leading edge of the rudder, by which I mean the front edge of the vertical stabilizer. On Rudy's plane, you can see, on the rudder, a stainless steel panel on that leading edge that runs from an imaginary line drawn to the bottom of the SR 22 decal up to an imaginary line drawn to the VOR antenna. This panel has hundreds or thousands of micro holes from which the magic juice seeps. These panels are also on the elevator leading edge and the wing leading edges.

If you were kidding then you got me, ;>)

Nice airplane BTW Rudy.

Nope, not kidding. I've seen black rubber "panels" on Cessnas and Bonanzas that aren't associated with FIKI at all. The "kidding" part was a dig at yet another acronym being trotted out that the trotter assumes everyone knows. It happens here a lot.
 
I disagree with this statement, 900 feet is plenty of room to pull that chute, and if the training has sunk in, first option is pull the chute, ground spinning at you should trigger that response, if you can get your hands on it and pull it then it should work.

The aircraft reached 900 ft AGL. You and I can speculate how much altitude would be lost from 900 ft AGL when the problem occurs, through recognition of the problem (it certainly would have been a surprise - which means the normal initial human reaction is one of disbelief) and time to act on it. I'll wager that altitude loss puts them well below the chute deployment altitude. In fact I'll wager they never get the chute deployed because a 3000 lb mass (actually any mass) free falling from 900 ft hits the ground in less than 8 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Then to put it bluntly, learn more before you continue posting OWT.
Cirrus compared to a few other planes I have flow is actauly difficult to get into a spin. It stalls very straight forward, no wing drop, still has control through the root wing stall when the nose drops.
In a Cirrus, you do get minimal control force feedback in your hands, instead you feel it in your a**, see it in your eyes, feel it in your inner ear. It is a question of many pilots just being lazy on the controls and using the force feedback on the controls instead of actually listening to what the rest of the plane is saying. And what the rest of the plane is saying is much more critical.


Tim

I’m just going by what I’ve heard read from the likes of Philip Greenspun. I’m sure you’d agree he knows his stuff. I’ll continue posting as I like, otherwise I’ll miss out on being corrected by those that know it all! ;)

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
 
You seem like a nice guy

Sorry about that. Patience isn’t one of my strong suits. It takes a lot of self control not to be negative when I see comments from people that clearly don’t know what they’re talking about. Their comments just lead to more misinformation being spread.
 
I’m just going by what I’ve heard read from the likes of Philip Greenspun. I’m sure you’d agree he knows his stuff. I’ll continue posting as I like, otherwise I’ll miss out on being corrected by those that know it all! ;)

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

Actually, I find I disagree with a fair amount of his analysis. And you can post what you like. I just said passing on OWT does a disservice.

Tim
 
I am supposed to look at the break heat sensors as part of prelanding checklist?
My hair is going to get all sorts of messed up.



Because of all the wind.

Couldn't the carb ice dispenser be ducted to cool the brakes?
.
.
.
.
Oh ya...forgot there's no carb on those fancy Cirri planes.
 
Nope, not kidding. I've seen black rubber "panels" on Cessnas and Bonanzas that aren't associated with FIKI at all. The "kidding" part was a dig at yet another acronym being trotted out that the trotter assumes everyone knows. It happens here a lot.

Fair enough, glad I could explain, I hate acronyms myself, in fact I forget what TKS stands for, it might be the company that designed the system. The panels are really cool, thousands of micro holes in rows, tough for older guys like me to see. My understanding is that there is a membrane behind the panel that helps distribute the TKS fluid to the holes. The pump has about 4 ranges, the oh crap, that's a lot of ice mode, which will empty full tanks in about a half an hour, and three other modes that will emit less fluid and last up to a couple hours. The tanks, located on each wing, hold 4 gallons of fluid each, totaling 8 gallons. The membranes need to be "wetted" every month or so to keep them from drying out, which would be bad. It was explained to me that it's a system you want to have running before you hit the ice as the panels can be iced over rendering them ineffective. If you haven't seen one up close, check one out next opportunity.
 
When I read an accident report with no fatalities

Glad they made it out alright.
 
Last edited:
Sorry about that. Patience isn’t one of my strong suits. It takes a lot of self control not to be negative when I see comments from people that clearly don’t know what they’re talking about. Their comments just lead to more misinformation being spread.

Nothing I said was outlandish, in fact it was very defensible. Maybe two expert pilots can even disagree on this very matter.
 
- Spring loaded control yoke, reduces tactile feedback.
Anyone who thinks feel springs reduce tactile feedback either doesn't understand what they do or has them hooked up wrong.

Nauga,
springing forward
 
Anyone who thinks feel springs reduce tactile feedback either doesn't understand what they do or has them hooked up wrong.

Nauga,
springing forward

Explain. I think it does.
Obviously the roll rate goes down and such but controls don't get sloppy as they do on some other aircraft.
 
Nothing I said was outlandish, in fact it was very defensible. Maybe two expert pilots can even disagree on this very matter.
My comment was not specifically directed toward you. Aside from your comment on the Cirrus not being docile in handing, I think I agreed with most of what you said, though I didn’t go back an re read comments. I think you posted the video of the acro pilot with BRS that lost the wing and walked away. I firmly believe if the Embry plane that lost its wing at 900’ and had BRS, the pilots would have been home that night for dinner. By rough calculation, they would have had about five seconds before they were at 500’, minimum caps altitude in a G3 or earlier Cirrus. That’s plenty of time to pull, regardless of the attitude of the plane.
 
Cirrus controls, yes they are spring loaded, but if you really feel any resistance more than just slight from that you are kind of limp wristed. As most know, the Cirrus has a side stick, that acts kind of like a yoke. It doesn't move around a single point as a game controller generally does, it acts more like a yoke for pitch control, it slides in and out and it turns about a point, similar to wheel control for roll control. Most standard yokes on GA aircraft will rotate almost 90 degrees to the left and 90 degrees to the right to fully deflect the ailerons left or right. For a control like the Cirrus, that is too much rotation for your wrist. Think about it, the stick is canted about 30 degrees to the left for the pilot's side, if they used the control wheel standard rigging the stick would be turned 60 degrees from vertical to the left and 120 degrees from vertical to the right for full aileron deflection. That's too much twisting for your wrist to do efficiently. So what they did was change the ratio of the rigging. The Cirrus stick turns maybe 30 to 45 degrees in either direction to obtain full deflection of the ailerons. This means you get less leverage to turn those ailerons than with a control wheel. You are also using weaker muscles, more in your wrist than the rest of your arm like other planes. This may make the stick feel stiffer when you first try it, but it really isn't, it just moves the ailerons more than you are used to with less stick movement. It literally takes a few minutes to get used to, but it is different. You make less of a movement in the stick roll axis to make things happen. I love it, a Cessna control feels sloppy to me now, great, but sloppy compared to the Cirrus, and that is why.
 
Explain. I think it does.
Obviously the roll rate goes down and such but controls don't get sloppy as they do on some other aircraft.
The spring(s) increase the force per unit deflection of the stick, they don't limit deflection of the stick. If you you have to work harder to get the same aileron deflection we say the *sensitivity* has decreased, but as long as the aileron deflection doesn't change increased forces will not decrease the roll rate.

As far as stall cueing, increasing aft stick force to go slower is a characteristic of longitudinal stability (or "apparent" longitudinal stability for the flight test crowd). Some claim that it masks the decrease in stick force as airspeed decreases, which some use as a stall cue; however, decreasing stick force with decreasing speed is a cue of static *instability*, not stability. The increase in force is a cue that you're pulling when you should be pushing regardless of the airspeed (assuming (a) you started from trimmed flight, and (b) you want to remain in trimmed flight).
*Every* certificated airplane with irreversible hydraulic (or electric) flight controls has some type of artificial feel to provide this apparent stability, and in my experience the good ones have better handling qualities throughout the flight envelope than the typical GA airplane even though you can't "feel" the airloads "talking" to you.

As for "sloppy", even with a typical force gradient provided by springs you can feel the controls getting "sloppy" because of the larger stick *deflection* (and resultant force) to get the surface deflections you need to get the response you want...assuming no stability augmentation to make that transparent as well. It may be masked by a short-throw stick but it's there.

Nauga,
with feeling
 
The spring(s) increase the force per unit deflection of the stick, they don't limit deflection of the stick. If you you have to work harder to get the same aileron deflection we say the *sensitivity* has decreased, but as long as the aileron deflection doesn't change increased forces will not decrease the roll rate.

As far as stall cueing, increasing aft stick force to go slower is a characteristic of longitudinal stability (or "apparent" longitudinal stability for the flight test crowd). Some claim that it masks the decrease in stick force as airspeed decreases, which some use as a stall cue; however, decreasing stick force with decreasing speed is a cue of static *instability*, not stability. The increase in force is a cue that you're pulling when you should be pushing regardless of the airspeed (assuming (a) you started from trimmed flight, and (b) you want to remain in trimmed flight).
*Every* certificated airplane with irreversible hydraulic (or electric) flight controls has some type of artificial feel to provide this apparent stability, and in my experience the good ones have better handling qualities throughout the flight envelope than the typical GA airplane even though you can't "feel" the airloads "talking" to you.

As for "sloppy", even with a typical force gradient provided by springs you can feel the controls getting "sloppy" because of the larger stick *deflection* (and resultant force) to get the surface deflections you need to get the response you want...assuming no stability augmentation to make that transparent as well. It may be masked by a short-throw stick but it's there.

Nauga,
with feeling

Nice summary. Now, how the frick am I supposed to remember that the next time someone brings up how the springs dampen the feel....

Tim
 
Now, how the frick am I supposed to remember that the next time someone brings up how the springs dampen the feel....
MIL-HDBK-1797, Flying Qualities of Piloted Aircraft
USNTPS-FTM-103, Fixed-wing Stability and Control Theory and Flight Test Techniques

...then come back in a few years.

:thumbsup:

Nauga,
who pulls 'til the houses get bigger
 
Cirrus controls, yes they are spring loaded, but if you really feel any resistance more than just slight from that you are kind of limp wristed. As most know, the Cirrus has a side stick, that acts kind of like a yoke. It doesn't move around a single point as a game controller generally does, it acts more like a yoke for pitch control, it slides in and out and it turns about a point, similar to wheel control for roll control. Most standard yokes on GA aircraft will rotate almost 90 degrees to the left and 90 degrees to the right to fully deflect the ailerons left or right. For a control like the Cirrus, that is too much rotation for your wrist. Think about it, the stick is canted about 30 degrees to the left for the pilot's side, if they used the control wheel standard rigging the stick would be turned 60 degrees from vertical to the left and 120 degrees from vertical to the right for full aileron deflection. That's too much twisting for your wrist to do efficiently. So what they did was change the ratio of the rigging. The Cirrus stick turns maybe 30 to 45 degrees in either direction to obtain full deflection of the ailerons. This means you get less leverage to turn those ailerons than with a control wheel. You are also using weaker muscles, more in your wrist than the rest of your arm like other planes. This may make the stick feel stiffer when you first try it, but it really isn't, it just moves the ailerons more than you are used to with less stick movement. It literally takes a few minutes to get used to, but it is different. You make less of a movement in the stick roll axis to make things happen. I love it, a Cessna control feels sloppy to me now, great, but sloppy compared to the Cirrus, and that is why.
I’ve found that in flight, I really don’t notice the springs. It’s on the ground taxiing that I find them annoying and that is simply because I am so used to applying control inputs while taxiing tailwheels. In the Cirrus, it just feels like the airplane is resisting me. Kind of like trying to do steep turns in the Malibu and the autopilot kicks in automatically and tries to level the wings.
 
Then to put it bluntly, learn more before you continue posting OWT.
Cirrus compared to a few other planes I have flow is actauly difficult to get into a spin. It stalls very straight forward, no wing drop, still has control through the root wing stall when the nose drops.
In a Cirrus, you do get minimal control force feedback in your hands, instead you feel it in your a**, see it in your eyes, feel it in your inner ear. It is a question of many pilots just being lazy on the controls and using the force feedback on the controls instead of actually listening to what the rest of the plane is saying. And what the rest of the plane is saying is much more critical.


Tim


Spinsz
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft “departs controlled flight,” the CAPS must be deployed.
While the stall characteristics of the SR22 make accidental entry into a spin extremely unlikely, it is possible. Spin entry can be avoided by using good airmanship: coordinated use of controls in turns, proper airspeed control following the recommendations of this Handbook, and never abusing the flight controls with accelerated inputs when close to the stall (see Stalls, Section 4).
If, at the stall, the controls are misapplied and abused accelerated inputs are made to the elevator, rudder and/or ailerons, an abrupt wing drop may be felt and a spiral or spin may be entered. In some cases it may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a spiral or the beginning of a spin.
• WARNING •
In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not expected before ground impact, immediate deployment of the CAPS is required.
The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one-turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.
 
I’ve found that in flight, I really don’t notice the springs. It’s on the ground taxiing that I find them annoying and that is simply because I am so used to applying control inputs while taxiing tailwheels. In the Cirrus, it just feels like the airplane is resisting me. Kind of like trying to do steep turns in the Malibu and the autopilot kicks in automatically and tries to level the wings.

Do you fly any newer Cirrus with the ESP? It does the same thing as the Malibu, you can stall it with the system working if you work at it, but you have to be a real dork to accidently stall it in level flight.
 
Actually I am not arguing, I just pointing out what the AFM says about what you might feel.
 
Spinsz
has not been tested or certified for spin recovery characteristics (In the United states). The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery (In the United states) is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System

It was spun 61 times in the EU and recovered every time w/o use of CAPS.
 
Cirrus and spins.
This is one of those rumors that people spread that turn into "if a Cirrus stalls it spins" or "it couldn't pass spin testing so they had to put a chute on it"

BS on both accounts

The designers wanted a chute for safety, primarily because they lost someone in a midair collision.. they figured that with a chute at least you have a shot at survival in the event of a midair or some other catastrophic in flight event

SPINs.. the plane wasn't required to be spin tested because of the chute. So why would a manufacturer go above and beyond the already onerous requirements of FAA certification? However... note that Cirrus did in fact spin the plane when they introduced it to the European market, and to quote the flight test pilots "they reported no unusual characteristics" scroll to the bottom of this page: http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx note that the warning doesn't command you to do it, just says that if you "recovery is not expected" then to pull it. Which just seems obvious in my opinion

PS, I don't mind the spring loaded controls, I think it helps keep your flying and flight path more deliberate and intentional. You can still feel the plane just fine.. and, in a sense, the designers have effectively eliminated the possibility of someone taking off and crashing because the control lock was still on. For some reason we don't see threads "another Centurion crashed because the control lock was in place!"
 
Do you fly any newer Cirrus with the ESP?
What a cool feature. Also makes it somewhat challenging for an adventurous CSIP to do unusual attitudes with a student
 
Back
Top