Neither. It's no more likely to enter a spin than the 172 unless you try to fly it at 172 speeds. In any event, if your instructor is a CSI using the CSIP syllabus, you should be able to go online at http://cirrusaircraft.com/training/ and do the preparatory work -- ask your instructor to get you a login to do that.
More distinct than a 172, but still fairly benign with no bad quirks.
That's rather subjective, and not everyone would agree. I think the 172's feel is a lot sloppier/mushier than the much crisper and more positive response of the Cirrus models. Overall, I think the best word to describe it is "different", and whether any pilot prefers one over the other will be purely personal taste.
Not really. Unless you whipstall it, you will still have the outboard sections flying long after the inboard portions have stalled. That's a function of the segmented wing -- and the 172's twisted wing produces the same effect. In either case, you can hold it in a full-yoke-aft stall and still have aileron effectiveness as long as you use your feet properly to prevent any yaw divergence.
If by "flatter" you mean it won't be quite as nose-down at proper approach speed, I'd disagree -- pitch attitude at 1.3 Vs0 is pretty close to zero in both. And the approach path is about the same, too -- you can bring it in at a 6-degree glide path for a landing over obstructions just as easily as a 172, albeit at a higher approach speed. The biggest difference in the approach is the much better visibility over the nose in the Cirrus.
I've got enough time in Cirrus aircraft to say that is utter nonsense.
Again, I've done enough stalls in Cirrus aircraft to say that it is neither quick nor exciting, and further that unless you whipstall it (a prohibited maneuver in both the 172 and the Cirrus, and one I've never attempted in either), you can't stall the outboard portion of the wing. Further, that's a Part 23 certification issue, and the plane wouldn't be certified if it were any other way. In any event, the fact that a wing has a laminar flow airfoil doesn't automatically create a quick/exciting stall -- ask any Cessna Cardinal pilot.
The reason the 22's are hard to stall (especially the ones with both turbo and a/c) is how far forward the cg is with only two people aboard. Same for making a nice landing on the mains without the nose dropping on -- just a little harder thanks to the cg location with nothing in the back seat.
And the accident record and forensic reconstructions support my statement. But I know how your long history in aviation is enough to refute multiple crash investigations, accident statistics, human-factors design, and physics.
OK, let's see those "multiple crash investigations, accident statistics, human-factors design, and physics" which tell us that you can fully stall the entire wing on a Cirrus without doing a prohibited whipstall, and that any such stalls have actually occurred. Because I can point you to the FAA certification standards which say this airplane would not be certified if that were true. As for the rest, just ask anyone with more than 50 hours or so in type and who's actually given training in them.
Ayup. Just ask the person who flies one.
Hmm.. and what about if you carry/suspect ice? Extending flaps could be deadly.
The last three flights have been dropped due to snow. Hopefully I'll be signed off early March . Sounds like your having a blast too
Well if the snow would cease I'd be alright
I am but it is a bit overwhelming.
I am greasing my landings but I suck at slowing it down. I flew a nice 120 downwind leg 500 feet above TPA today because I couldn't get it to slow down.
That has been the biggest struggle aside from learning the bells and whistles.
That part of the flight in between take off and landing has been just awesome
To compete with the RV flyers.
