Steve
En-Route
Cirrus Design brought 3 SR-22 GTS aircraft to Madison, MS (MBO) for the weekend. I responded to their mass mailing to pilots in the area and got a slot for a demo ride this morning. I thought I'd share a few observations for those interested.
When I arrived at MBO I basically stepped out of the IAR and into the Cirrus and had a very brief review of the aircraft systems prior to engine start and takeoff. The demo pilot was pretty laid back, but I'm sure he was on a schedule to get in as many rides as possible in the time they were in town.
First off, let me say that my comments are made in the context of comparing the Cirrus to the IAR and other aircraft I have flown and may not be applicable when comparing a Cirrus to the aircraft you normally fly. Those of you with substantial Cirrus time may take exception to my comments, but they are what they are. That said, here are a few of my observations, in no particular order.
Sitting in the left seat a few things come to mind. The seats are mounted on inclined tracks so the further back they are the lower the seat sits. At 6'1 I was a little concerned about headroom at first but I did not have a problem closing the door, which is a semi-gull wing design. The IAR door is a gull-wing design with a bit more headroom, but the cabin on it is slightly narrower. Also, compared to the "greenhouse" of the IAR, visibility out of the Cirrus is a bit limited. I take pride in spotting traffic in the IAR, but the TIS equipped Cirrus pointed out a couple of aircraft that I never saw until they were past me overhead during the demo flight. The view directly ahead in the Cirrus is great, but I found myself having to duck down to look up occasionally.
There is no "prop" control in the SR-22. The throttle lever actually operates both the throttle and the propellor governor through two linkages that are designed to keep manifold pressure (MP) and RPM "in the green", so to speak, at all times. There is a technique to establish a particular MP for a given RPM if desired, but I didn't have the opportunity to sort that out during the short flight. Power is also displayed in % and that seemed to be the preferred parameter to use for power settings. Mixture setting was simplified by the multi-probe analyzer that identified the "hot" cylinder automatically, but I left it to the demo pilot to manage the fuel flow on this flight.
I have little flight experience with "glass panels" and I didn't expect to become an expert regarding them in a short intro flight in a high performance aircraft. I was more interested in the handling characteristics of the airframe than learning the glass panel features so I didn't spend a lot of time trying to sort out the various locations of the displayed data. I mainly wanted to know where the airspeed and altitude was shown and I let the demo pilot find the other info for me. The weather was excellent VFR after the frontal passage yesterday, so most of the time I was using outside references anyway. Pitch cues, however, were primarily from the AI on this introductory flight.
Engine start was fairly routine for a fuel injected engine. You do leave the fuel boost pump on during start, ground operations, climbout and landing. We demonstrated the need for it during landing, too, where the engine died as we cleared the runway. I guess I had the demo pilot so shook up he forgot to mention it on downwind...lol. On the IAR the boost pump is used prior to start only and then not turned on again unless the air temperature is above 80° F (or engine-driven pump failure) per the POH.
The plane was equipped with a dual Garmin 430 setup mounted on the lower center console. I'm sure the frequencies can be displayed on the larger screens, but I found myself looking down a lot to check the more familiar GPS display than the big screen above them. Something more time in type should cure.
Taxiing was easier in the Cirrus than the IAR, both of which have castering nosewheels. The gear on the Cirrus give a softer ride on the ground than the IAR, about like comparing a pick up truck and a Town Car. It reminded me of a "big AA5B" in its ground handling.
Takeoff was a bit different than the IAR. Because of the nosewheel geometry on the IAR it is recommended to do a soft field technique for every takeoff to get the nosewheel off quickly. The Cirrus "rotates" in a much "flatter" attitude. In fact, I apparently applied back pressure a little quicker than recommended. The demo pilot said to lift the nose at 75kts and liftoff at 80, with climbout around 100. I was feeling for the elevator to become effective and not really looking at the airspeed, but down the runway trying to maintain centerline in the light x-wind during the takeoff roll. I think I should have asked about take-off trim before starting, but anyway, the plane more or less "levitated" off the runway than "rotated" to climb attitude as I released back pressure at the suggestion of the demo pilot. I discussed this later on the ground with the demo pilots and the consensus was the "sight picture" in the Cirrus takes some getting used to as the cowl slopes away more so than most planes and people tend to over compensate with too much nose up during take off until they get more familiar with the plane. The takeoff reminded me of Cessnas which can be trimmed for takeoff and then will do it without much additional input from the pilot. Also, soft field operations are not recommended for the Cirrus with its close fitting wheel fairings, so I guess there's not much market for developing a technique for it in the Cirrus.
Climbout was solid with just two adults on board and temperatures in the low 60's (310hp will do that). We flew out from under the KJAN Class C airspace and then did a little airwork so I could observe the handling. I trimmed it for level flight using the electric trim "coolie" and then did a few steep turns (60° bank) left and right at low cruise. The SR-22 is quite responsive in roll, I must say, but not as crisp as the IAR, which is fully aerobatic.
Then I asked to do some slow flight and I got the impression that was not something they (or at least this demo pilot) do routinely on demo flights as the demo pilot took over for a few minutes, as he put it "it's been a while since I was an instructor". Maybe he thought I might do a hammerhead or something...lol. He set the plane up at 75kts, which I surmise as "slow" in a Cirrus, and then let me do some level flight and turns with 0 flaps, half flaps, and full flaps. I never did see the flap position indicator on the screens, but the flap control has presets that can be selected by feel. The switch positions have indicator lights, too, to verify with, although they are low on the center console also. After I flew in this configuration for a while, the demo pilot showed me an approach to landing stall with 0 flaps and full flaps, to show how much different the pitch attitude is between the two, and to demonstrate the roll authority still available in a fully developed stall. With full back pressure you can maintain a level attitude and heading in an approach stall with a substantial sink rate. There was a noticeable pre-stall buffet, unlike the IAR, which has very little advance notice. We also did a couple of lazy-8's to get a feel for the control responsiveness at various airspeeds. I must say the Cirrus handled very predictably with no sluggishness even at the lower end of the ASI.
While performing the slow flight maneuvers it was mentioned that you land a Cirrus in a fairly level attitude to prevent a tail strike, as the fuselage does sit rather low to the ground. Full flaps give a much more desireable pitch attitude for landing.
One thing I should mention is that we were using the lightweight Bose headsets and combined with the well insulated Cirrus airframe the airspeed cues from wind and prop noise I normally get in older aircraft are not as prominent in the Cirrus and I found myself chasing the VSI somewhat. I think that could be overcome with more time in type, but I tended to fixate more on the screen than on the windshield than I prefer during manuevering flight trying to maintain altitude. There's not a lot of "cowl rivet on the horizon" attitude references with the Cirrus cowl. This is definitely an airplane designed for IFR operations.
Speaking of the flight display I found myself thinking of the aviation sim games like JetFighter, F-16, and Air Combat that came out back in the '90's when looking at it. I know the display is "state-of-the-art", but I chuckled at the comparision. It would be easy to fixate on the screens, with their multitude of data points displayed. The ability to manage information overload would be a plus in flying this plane to its maximum potential.
Landing the Cirrus reminded me more of the C177B I use to own than the IAR. With the side stick in the Cirrus there's not a lot of control movement for elevator control, but it's not overly sensitive, either. Slowing to approach speed was simpler than expected, but I probably could have done a better job of power management if I had known the specific power setting for a normal approach beforehand. Despite that, I did an okay job, as I ended up with a "roll-on" touchdown. I made a somewhat steeper approach than the VASI recommended, as I was looking more at the trees off the end of the approach end of the runway than the visual slope indicator. But, with full flaps and coming off the power just as I started the slight flare, it all worked out. It did seem I was "driving it on" more than I do in the IAR, but I was reminded not to use too much nose up attitude to avoid a tail strike. Like the C177B, when landing the elevator travel ran out just as the wheels touched with full flaps. The IAR will run out of elevator just before touchdown with full flaps unless you have excess speed.
I did not ask, nor was it volunteered, to demonstrate autopilot operation. I wish I could have flown a precision approach hands on, but would have taken more time to set up with KJAN approach than my time slot allowed and I felt I had burned enough of their avgas already. I would have been nice to compare hands-on vs. coupled, too. Maybe next time. I consider it a plus, though, that autopilot operation was not used as a marketing tool. At least not in my flight session.
Did I have a problem with the side stick? Not really. I was a little tenative with it at first. And I could feel the rudder coupling through the side stick while taxiing, but once in the air I was soon using it effectively without conciously noticing it was a side stick. The stick in the IAR may have helped in that regard. Like most late model aircraft the Cirrus does cause one to forget the rudder pedals, though, which I attribute to the cross-connect.
Would I buy one? Well, considering the IAR can carry as much as far, only 40kts slower, and I could buy 5 IARs for price of 1 SR-22 GTS, it would be a pretty hard sell. Price is relative, though, and if I could afford a stable of aircraft in the Cirrus price range, I'd use one for long distance A to B travel. But not to grass strips, as taking off the wheel pants subtracts 20 kts from cruise. And at this stage I more interested in enjoying the novelty of the IAR on the smaller strips around the area and elsewhere.
[and it took me longer to write this than the flight time involved in traveling to, from, and during the Cirrus demo...]
When I arrived at MBO I basically stepped out of the IAR and into the Cirrus and had a very brief review of the aircraft systems prior to engine start and takeoff. The demo pilot was pretty laid back, but I'm sure he was on a schedule to get in as many rides as possible in the time they were in town.
First off, let me say that my comments are made in the context of comparing the Cirrus to the IAR and other aircraft I have flown and may not be applicable when comparing a Cirrus to the aircraft you normally fly. Those of you with substantial Cirrus time may take exception to my comments, but they are what they are. That said, here are a few of my observations, in no particular order.
Sitting in the left seat a few things come to mind. The seats are mounted on inclined tracks so the further back they are the lower the seat sits. At 6'1 I was a little concerned about headroom at first but I did not have a problem closing the door, which is a semi-gull wing design. The IAR door is a gull-wing design with a bit more headroom, but the cabin on it is slightly narrower. Also, compared to the "greenhouse" of the IAR, visibility out of the Cirrus is a bit limited. I take pride in spotting traffic in the IAR, but the TIS equipped Cirrus pointed out a couple of aircraft that I never saw until they were past me overhead during the demo flight. The view directly ahead in the Cirrus is great, but I found myself having to duck down to look up occasionally.
There is no "prop" control in the SR-22. The throttle lever actually operates both the throttle and the propellor governor through two linkages that are designed to keep manifold pressure (MP) and RPM "in the green", so to speak, at all times. There is a technique to establish a particular MP for a given RPM if desired, but I didn't have the opportunity to sort that out during the short flight. Power is also displayed in % and that seemed to be the preferred parameter to use for power settings. Mixture setting was simplified by the multi-probe analyzer that identified the "hot" cylinder automatically, but I left it to the demo pilot to manage the fuel flow on this flight.
I have little flight experience with "glass panels" and I didn't expect to become an expert regarding them in a short intro flight in a high performance aircraft. I was more interested in the handling characteristics of the airframe than learning the glass panel features so I didn't spend a lot of time trying to sort out the various locations of the displayed data. I mainly wanted to know where the airspeed and altitude was shown and I let the demo pilot find the other info for me. The weather was excellent VFR after the frontal passage yesterday, so most of the time I was using outside references anyway. Pitch cues, however, were primarily from the AI on this introductory flight.
Engine start was fairly routine for a fuel injected engine. You do leave the fuel boost pump on during start, ground operations, climbout and landing. We demonstrated the need for it during landing, too, where the engine died as we cleared the runway. I guess I had the demo pilot so shook up he forgot to mention it on downwind...lol. On the IAR the boost pump is used prior to start only and then not turned on again unless the air temperature is above 80° F (or engine-driven pump failure) per the POH.
The plane was equipped with a dual Garmin 430 setup mounted on the lower center console. I'm sure the frequencies can be displayed on the larger screens, but I found myself looking down a lot to check the more familiar GPS display than the big screen above them. Something more time in type should cure.
Taxiing was easier in the Cirrus than the IAR, both of which have castering nosewheels. The gear on the Cirrus give a softer ride on the ground than the IAR, about like comparing a pick up truck and a Town Car. It reminded me of a "big AA5B" in its ground handling.
Takeoff was a bit different than the IAR. Because of the nosewheel geometry on the IAR it is recommended to do a soft field technique for every takeoff to get the nosewheel off quickly. The Cirrus "rotates" in a much "flatter" attitude. In fact, I apparently applied back pressure a little quicker than recommended. The demo pilot said to lift the nose at 75kts and liftoff at 80, with climbout around 100. I was feeling for the elevator to become effective and not really looking at the airspeed, but down the runway trying to maintain centerline in the light x-wind during the takeoff roll. I think I should have asked about take-off trim before starting, but anyway, the plane more or less "levitated" off the runway than "rotated" to climb attitude as I released back pressure at the suggestion of the demo pilot. I discussed this later on the ground with the demo pilots and the consensus was the "sight picture" in the Cirrus takes some getting used to as the cowl slopes away more so than most planes and people tend to over compensate with too much nose up during take off until they get more familiar with the plane. The takeoff reminded me of Cessnas which can be trimmed for takeoff and then will do it without much additional input from the pilot. Also, soft field operations are not recommended for the Cirrus with its close fitting wheel fairings, so I guess there's not much market for developing a technique for it in the Cirrus.
Climbout was solid with just two adults on board and temperatures in the low 60's (310hp will do that). We flew out from under the KJAN Class C airspace and then did a little airwork so I could observe the handling. I trimmed it for level flight using the electric trim "coolie" and then did a few steep turns (60° bank) left and right at low cruise. The SR-22 is quite responsive in roll, I must say, but not as crisp as the IAR, which is fully aerobatic.
Then I asked to do some slow flight and I got the impression that was not something they (or at least this demo pilot) do routinely on demo flights as the demo pilot took over for a few minutes, as he put it "it's been a while since I was an instructor". Maybe he thought I might do a hammerhead or something...lol. He set the plane up at 75kts, which I surmise as "slow" in a Cirrus, and then let me do some level flight and turns with 0 flaps, half flaps, and full flaps. I never did see the flap position indicator on the screens, but the flap control has presets that can be selected by feel. The switch positions have indicator lights, too, to verify with, although they are low on the center console also. After I flew in this configuration for a while, the demo pilot showed me an approach to landing stall with 0 flaps and full flaps, to show how much different the pitch attitude is between the two, and to demonstrate the roll authority still available in a fully developed stall. With full back pressure you can maintain a level attitude and heading in an approach stall with a substantial sink rate. There was a noticeable pre-stall buffet, unlike the IAR, which has very little advance notice. We also did a couple of lazy-8's to get a feel for the control responsiveness at various airspeeds. I must say the Cirrus handled very predictably with no sluggishness even at the lower end of the ASI.
While performing the slow flight maneuvers it was mentioned that you land a Cirrus in a fairly level attitude to prevent a tail strike, as the fuselage does sit rather low to the ground. Full flaps give a much more desireable pitch attitude for landing.
One thing I should mention is that we were using the lightweight Bose headsets and combined with the well insulated Cirrus airframe the airspeed cues from wind and prop noise I normally get in older aircraft are not as prominent in the Cirrus and I found myself chasing the VSI somewhat. I think that could be overcome with more time in type, but I tended to fixate more on the screen than on the windshield than I prefer during manuevering flight trying to maintain altitude. There's not a lot of "cowl rivet on the horizon" attitude references with the Cirrus cowl. This is definitely an airplane designed for IFR operations.
Speaking of the flight display I found myself thinking of the aviation sim games like JetFighter, F-16, and Air Combat that came out back in the '90's when looking at it. I know the display is "state-of-the-art", but I chuckled at the comparision. It would be easy to fixate on the screens, with their multitude of data points displayed. The ability to manage information overload would be a plus in flying this plane to its maximum potential.
Landing the Cirrus reminded me more of the C177B I use to own than the IAR. With the side stick in the Cirrus there's not a lot of control movement for elevator control, but it's not overly sensitive, either. Slowing to approach speed was simpler than expected, but I probably could have done a better job of power management if I had known the specific power setting for a normal approach beforehand. Despite that, I did an okay job, as I ended up with a "roll-on" touchdown. I made a somewhat steeper approach than the VASI recommended, as I was looking more at the trees off the end of the approach end of the runway than the visual slope indicator. But, with full flaps and coming off the power just as I started the slight flare, it all worked out. It did seem I was "driving it on" more than I do in the IAR, but I was reminded not to use too much nose up attitude to avoid a tail strike. Like the C177B, when landing the elevator travel ran out just as the wheels touched with full flaps. The IAR will run out of elevator just before touchdown with full flaps unless you have excess speed.
I did not ask, nor was it volunteered, to demonstrate autopilot operation. I wish I could have flown a precision approach hands on, but would have taken more time to set up with KJAN approach than my time slot allowed and I felt I had burned enough of their avgas already. I would have been nice to compare hands-on vs. coupled, too. Maybe next time. I consider it a plus, though, that autopilot operation was not used as a marketing tool. At least not in my flight session.
Did I have a problem with the side stick? Not really. I was a little tenative with it at first. And I could feel the rudder coupling through the side stick while taxiing, but once in the air I was soon using it effectively without conciously noticing it was a side stick. The stick in the IAR may have helped in that regard. Like most late model aircraft the Cirrus does cause one to forget the rudder pedals, though, which I attribute to the cross-connect.
Would I buy one? Well, considering the IAR can carry as much as far, only 40kts slower, and I could buy 5 IARs for price of 1 SR-22 GTS, it would be a pretty hard sell. Price is relative, though, and if I could afford a stable of aircraft in the Cirrus price range, I'd use one for long distance A to B travel. But not to grass strips, as taking off the wheel pants subtracts 20 kts from cruise. And at this stage I more interested in enjoying the novelty of the IAR on the smaller strips around the area and elsewhere.
[and it took me longer to write this than the flight time involved in traveling to, from, and during the Cirrus demo...]
Attachments
Last edited:
