Flew A Cirrus today. Long

Oh, and before I get flamed, I know -and am deeply bugged- by the heading bug not being sync’d. (Pardon the pun.)
 
But wait - are you fully converted?

zima.jpg
 
What was it they said in Japan about Zima? Estrogen in a bottle. LOL.

What exactly are you implying?
 
Jorge Borbolla said:
As to the seating position, I am 6’ and have plenty of headroom. I remember I used to pull the seat farther forward than I do now. The pedals seemed too far away at first, but that was just a first impression issue. I don’t see how the plane won’t comfortably fit pilots of most sizes.
Click to expand...

I'm 6' 1", 245 lbs, and pretty long legs, and I feel I fit just fine in the SR20s I've been training in thus far. Haven't noticed any lack of headroom, even with a headset on. I do have to move the seat all the way back to get in and out comfortably, but even with my long legs, I still move the seat up a couple notches to better reach the rudder pedals.
 
Jorge Borbolla said:
What was it they said in Japan about Zima? Estrogen in a bottle. LOL.

What exactly are you implying?
Click to expand...

It’s the latest side-splittingly hilarious joke of the anti Cirrus brigade. I guess “Cirrus drivers are obsessed with their TV screens” got a little uncomfortable when even ‘real pilots’ started putting aspens and G500s in their real metal airplanes. And the whole “real pilots don’t need parachutes” thing also got old when too many military aviators who ride ejection seats for their day job started showing up here. So now we have Zima...

I don’t get it either but it seems to make them giggle.
 
Jorge Borbolla said:
What exactly are you implying?
Click to expand...
I just assumed it was an inside joke thing I wasn't a part of. No idea the correlation to Cirrus

Frankly, Cirrus shares a lot more in common with Opus One...
 
Tantalum said:
Frankly, Cirrus shares a lot more in common with Opus One...
Click to expand...

I think Opus One is the only winery I've visited where I paid more for a tasting than I have for good bottles of wine. I do have a bottle of Opus One in the cabinet, waiting for a special occasion. Maybe the day I pass my checkride!
 
LoneAspen said:
I think Opus One is the only winery I've visited where I paid more for a tasting than I have for good bottles of wine. I do have a bottle of Opus One in the cabinet, waiting for a special occasion. Maybe the day I pass my checkride!
Click to expand...

It was not as good as the hype. Do not get me wrong, I think the wine is really good; my last bottle was from 2011. However it is way overpriced. Personally I prefer more unknown vineyards.
I always thought the following review of Opus One was kinda illuminating:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUse...e_Winery-Oakville_Napa_Valley_California.html


Tim
 
tspear said:
It was not as good as the hype. Do not get me wrong, I think the wine is really good; my last bottle was from 2011. However it is way overpriced. Personally I prefer more unknown vineyards.
I always thought the following review of Opus One was kinda illuminating:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUse...e_Winery-Oakville_Napa_Valley_California.html


Tim
Click to expand...

Agreed - There are much better bargains than Opus One. My friends and I have three wineries in Sonoma we regularly visited (at least when I lived there): Seghesio, Mauritson, and A. Rafanelli. All three have some really nice wines (especially Dry Creek Valley Zinfandels, which I prefer) and for anywhere from $25 to $50 you can get a great bottle of wine.
 
I liked the 2014 Josh Cab and I like the J Lohr cabs. The J Lohr are consistently good in my opinion.
 
PaulS said:
I flew a Cirrus, 2016 SR20 this morning, and it is probably the best flying airplane I have flown, although I have not flown too many. Should I buy an airplane, it will probably be an SR 22 or 22T
Click to expand...
you probably married your sweetheart from preschool
planes are like women, they all have different scents. I had the pleasure of having flown at least 25 different types and i can tell you that the cirrus is last on my list. You need to go out and smell an old snj-5 and get the pleasure of doing an overhead on a real airplane, or after learning how to dance with a lancair IV-P or an evolution lancair and feel the speed and stability of a real plastic airplane you cannot tell me that a cirrus is the best airplane. It feels like a toy, the control stick is not even natural, like the old french citroen 4x4 gear shift piece of sh* same feeling . please try some other ones before you make a comment and sorry no harm intended. About the only airplane i can compare the cirrus is my old tigermoth with the wires in the outside and dampened controls that take 10 minutes to activate. i can't imagine paying so much money for so little class.
 
magyarflyer said:
you probably married your sweetheart from preschool
planes are like women, they all have different scents. I had the pleasure of having flown at least 25 different types and i can tell you that the cirrus is last on my list. You need to go out and smell an old snj-5 and get the pleasure of doing an overhead on a real airplane, or after learning how to dance with a lancair IV-P or an evolution lancair and feel the speed and stability of a real plastic airplane you cannot tell me that a cirrus is the best airplane. It feels like a toy, the control stick is not even natural, like the old french citroen 4x4 gear shift piece of sh* same feeling . please try some other ones before you make a comment and sorry no harm intended. About the only airplane i can compare the cirrus is my old tigermoth with the wires in the outside and dampened controls that take 10 minutes to activate. i can't imagine paying so much money for so little class.
Click to expand...

Well, I have flown over twenty planes, with over twenty hours in each major brand (Cirrus, Piper, Cessna and Beech products).
And you nose needs to be trained better, and for your eyes to connect to the brain a little better. @PaulS stated it was the best he has flown. Not the best overall, just the best he has flown.

Tim (could not resist)
 
tspear said:
Well, I have flown over twenty planes, with over twenty hours in each major brand (Cirrus, Piper, Cessna and Beech products).
And you nose needs to be trained better, and for your eyes to connect to the brain a little better. @PaulS stated it was the best he has flown. Not the best overall, just the best he has flown.

Tim (could not resist)
Click to expand...


Thanks Tim, that was kind of a turd post by that guy, but whatever floats his boat. If it makes him feel better, I'm fine with it.
 
You know, I wasn’t trying to slam the Cirrus or its pilots. I flew it and wrote what I thought.
 
tspear said:
Well, I have flown over twenty planes, with over twenty hours in each major brand (Cirrus, Piper, Cessna and Beech products).
And you nose needs to be trained better, and for your eyes to connect to the brain a little better. @PaulS stated it was the best he has flown. Not the best overall, just the best he has flown.

Tim (could not resist)
Click to expand...
thanks for the advice, i shall get my nose trained and will get eye to brain coordination. But my god 20 hrs in 4 type of airplanes must be a record.
A friend of mine who lived in hungary told me that the trabant car he drove was the best one he ever had and swore by it. i thought this is a forum for an exchange of opinions and advise but i was wrong, sorry about my post. Your friend call it a turd when my advise was to fly a few more airplanes before making a decision. I was so wrong. Have a good day. You can get a trabant for 500 bucks right now. good car
 
magyarflyer said:
thanks for the advice, i shall get my nose trained and will get eye to brain coordination. But my god 20 hrs in 4 type of airplanes must be a record.
A friend of mine who lived in hungary told me that the trabant car he drove was the best one he ever had and swore by it. i thought this is a forum for an exchange of opinions and advise but i was wrong, sorry about my post. Your friend call it a turd when my advise was to fly a few more airplanes before making a decision. I was so wrong. Have a good day. You can get a trabant for 500 bucks right now. good car
Click to expand...

Oh lighten up, your first sentence made your post a turd, now I'll defer to your piloting greatness.
 
magyarflyer said:
thanks for the advice, i shall get my nose trained and will get eye to brain coordination. But my god 20 hrs in 4 type of airplanes must be a record.
A friend of mine who lived in hungary told me that the trabant car he drove was the best one he ever had and swore by it. i thought this is a forum for an exchange of opinions and advise but i was wrong, sorry about my post. Your friend call it a turd when my advise was to fly a few more airplanes before making a decision. I was so wrong. Have a good day. You can get a trabant for 500 bucks right now. good car
Click to expand...

Ah, the written language....
You did not give advice to fly a few more planes. You flat out basically stated his opinion was worthless because of the vaunted experience you have.
Hence, why I signed it (could not resist) as I was pulling your chain about pontificating.
If you want, I can pontificate rather long and well on the wonderful attributes of many planes and I can give my full credentials. But they are rather pointless. I mean, I started flying Dec 2009, and have only flown about 700 hours since then. Almost all of it in the first four years, just now really getting back into it.....
But I believe the old statement about computer programmers applies to aviation and is often overlooked. Many people say they have 25 years of experience, they do not, they have one year of experience repeated twenty five times.

Tim
 
From a 2005 G2 SR22 owner, the fuel consumption you experienced seems high. In my Cirrus, the difference between Rich of Peak and Lean of Peak is remarkable. Rich of Peak I'm near the figure you quoted...at least 18gph...165 knots IA, 180ish true. Lean of peak, depending on altitude, I'm around 12gph at 148 knots IA, 160's True. In my book, 148 knots is just fine, and for a 50% increase in fuel consumption I'd have to see a whole lot more than 148 to 165knots.

When you think about it, at Lean of Peak, the Cirrus is a super fast aircraft that doesn't burn that much more fuel per mile than a 172 or 182.

Also, regarding flying "flat"...if you look at pitch on landing, Cirrus and others are actually very similar. It just looks that way because you sit so much higher relative to the panel top in a Cirrus...pure optical illusion.

And regarding landings, having flown them all, Cirrus is the hardest to get right. Airspeed must be managed way more than other aircraft. As an owner, I have many hundreds of landings under my belt. With no wind gusts, I grease it in almost every time. With wind, it's a crap shoot. Because the Cirrus is unforgiving, gusts that impact airspeed can cause rough landings.

So there are some thoughts from someone who has flown 'em all and settled on an SR22.


j1b3h0 said:
Brand new SR22t. Flew from Livenomore to Monterey. Warm and pleasant weather. Just thought I’d jot down my impressions - The airplane was very slick, with a modern metallic maroon and silver paint and fancy scissor doors. The interior was like a new Lexus combined with a Falcon 7X. The pilot’s seat adjustment doesn’t merely move closer to the panel-it moves the seat higher, too. I’m a shade under 5’11” and when close enough to comfortably work the rudder pedals my noggin was uncomfortably close to the roof (within an inch). The side control was natural to get used to, and the controls felt Mooney-ish. Heavy spring in pitch, aileron was direct but not light. Brakes and (hence steering by brake) was easy and predictable. I fell in to a habit I got used to flying Turbo Commanders, instead of tapping or riding the brake to keep the airplane from weathervaning, I just held a rudder to the floor while taxiing, which elicited a comment from Beth the nice CFI demo pilot. Thought I used the rudder too much. True, I’m sure but I own a Stearman, so...before I speak to the actual flying I should mention that a lot of focus is necessarily aimed on programming the Garmin glass: the airplane was equipped with a version of the G1000. Not only were there prompts like one might receive before driving a Prius, all normal and non-normal checklists are conducted by scrolling and acknowledging by pushing the enter button. I found all this a little tedious, not being used to programming the FMC like it requires a type-rating, for an airplane no faster than a Bonanza, but I admit I’m an old school grump.
On takeoff the airplane accelerated about the same as similarly powered machines. The pitch attitude is fairly nose-low and the side stick control heavy, but has a ‘chinese Hat’ pitch trim button that was sensitive enough that made it easy to adapt the the controls. We climbed out between 120-130KIAS. There are flaps to retract, but no gear, no fuss engine management, and the fancy glass panel made it easy to fly very precisely, if you’re used to glass which I am. In cruise @ 5500ft at 79% power we putted along at about 170 true, burning 17gph. A little slower than my V35A on a little more gas. The airplane doesn’t build speed in the descent like the Bonanza so slowing is easy and half flaps can be extended at 150kts. I found it interesting that power adjustments are to a percentage, rather than MAP or RPM. Beth warned me the she has been very entertained during landings with airline pilots flying the Cirrus, and true to form, I fugoided in the flare while attempting to full-stall it on to the runway. Wasn’t pretty but hey it was on the centerline. When I spoke with Beth earlier I mentioned that for $925K a guy like me might rather have an immaculately cared for Merlin IIIB, or dash ten Turbo Commander, and take 5-9 of my friends for a 310kt cruise. She understood but told me they’re selling about one new Cirrus a day despite my value concerns.
Clearly Cirrus has a very successful business model and, now that they’re involved in training folks who buy their product, the sky is the limit, so to speak. As a tool to travel, the SR22 is well equipped to battle the elements, what with its turbo and FIKI certification. But to me there is what an airplane can do (the SR22R can do plenty - good payload, fly high and fast and with the Garmin suite, present a great deal of info to the person in the hero-chair) and then there is the way an airplane feels to the person flying it. On that score my Bonanza wins, hands down.
Click to expand...
 
VWGhiaBob said:
When you think about it, at Lean of Peak, the Cirrus is a super fast aircraft that doesn't burn that much more fuel per mile than a 172 or 182.
Click to expand...

They're amazingly efficient. My trip from S FL to N GA took about 5 hours in my Tiger at about 132 kts and at 10 gph burned about 50 gals. Fairly efficient but with 50 gals fuel on board, nearly always needed a fuel stop.

In my SR22, the same trip took about 3.5 hours at about 172 kts, and at 13.5 gph burned about 47 gals. Substantially faster on less fuel. Amazing.

Also, regarding flying "flat"...if you look at pitch on landing, Cirrus and others are actually very similar. It just looks that way because you sit so much higher relative to the panel top in a Cirrus...pure optical illusion.
Click to expand...

True. Screen shot of a "full stall" landing in a Cirrus:

14175266199_f6be63ba5f_m.jpg


And regarding landings, having flown them all, Cirrus is the hardest to get right. Airspeed must be managed way more than other aircraft.
Click to expand...

Here we disagree. I found it no harder and not much different from my Tiger. Similarly, airspeed management is consistent with any other relatively clean airframe. IMHO, of course.
 
I designed that knob - it is a 3 position rotary switch in the form factor of a flap on a wing. It was the former company so I don't have a picture. It was what Cirrus asked for . When we did the Columbia/TTx
the center light bar flashed while the flap was in transition
 
VWGhiaBob said:
And regarding landings, having flown them all, Cirrus is the hardest to get right.
Click to expand...

This is why I don’t get it, why people rave about the things.

Not saying it’s great but almost any hamfisted pilot who hasn’t flown and hasn’t stayed proficient can plop a typical Cessna or Piper on to a runway badly and they’ll come away unscathed.

There’s many who say this is one of the problems of trainers and the next step up aircraft based on them, that they’re too rugged, too easy, etc. But... there’s a lot of rusty pilots out there.

Buying something at least double the price if not ten-fold over a large Cessna or Piper product and not paying attention that it’s got some flight characteristics and handling characteristics that require constant practice, and piles of avionics that sometimes give a false sense of security, just seems like a setup for problems... for SOME of them.

And the numbers seem to bear that idea out, it’s not just an intuitive gut feeling.

Not saying they’re bad. Not starting an argument. Just saying that it seems there’s some characteristics that aren’t ideal for the “I don’t fly enough” crowd.

It’s just my warning light flashing in my head after reading that. Nothing super deep or important.
 
denverpilot said:
This is why I don’t get it, why people rave about the things.

Not saying it’s great but almost any hamfisted pilot who hasn’t flown and hasn’t stayed proficient can plop a typical Cessna or Piper on to a runway badly and they’ll come away unscathed.

There’s many who say this is one of the problems of trainers and the next step up aircraft based on them, that they’re too rugged, too easy, etc. But... there’s a lot of rusty pilots out there.

Buying something at least double the price if not ten-fold over a large Cessna or Piper product and not paying attention that it’s got some flight characteristics and handling characteristics that require constant practice, and piles of avionics that sometimes give a false sense of security, just seems like a setup for problems... for SOME of them.

And the numbers seem to bear that idea out, it’s not just an intuitive gut feeling.

Not saying they’re bad. Not starting an argument. Just saying that it seems there’s some characteristics that aren’t ideal for the “I don’t fly enough” crowd.

It’s just my warning light flashing in my head after reading that. Nothing super deep or important.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with most of what you say. But I will say the esp package makes it particularly more difficult to screw up in the newer Cirrus. Part of the checkout is to explore the system and what it does, unless you really want a workout you need to hold the AP disconnect button to stall the thing. And the vortex generators on the fuselage give a great indication of impending stall. But things happen more quickly than a 172, you are going at least 60 knots when the wing gives up flying on landing versus 47 or whatever it is for a 172. So I do believe you have to stay proficient.
 
FastEddieB said:
They're amazingly efficient. My trip from S FL to N GA took about 5 hours in my Tiger at about 132 kts and at 10 gph burned about 50 gals. Fairly efficient but with 50 gals fuel on board, nearly always needed a fuel stop.

In my SR22, the same trip took about 3.5 hours at about 172 kts, and at 13.5 gph burned about 47 gals. Substantially faster on less fuel. Amazing.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your math.
132kts/10gph=13.2nmpg
172kts/13.5gph=12.74nmpg

5hrs*132kts=660nm
3.5hrs*172kts=602nm

I'm sure there's a detail that I'm missing, (e.g. how you are factoring in the stop).
 
Scott Philiben said:
I designed that knob - it is a 3 position rotary switch in the form factor of a flap on a wing. It was the former company so I don't have a picture. It was what Cirrus asked for .
Click to expand...

Well done! I like that knob.

Unlike the similar-looking knobs for cabin heat and cabin air. If I turn them halfway, they don’t stay there, and the passenger soon complains about the temp.
 
r: 27758"]I agree, if I had the money and was in the market for a traveling machine, a Cirrus would be high on the list. For getting from A to B, keeping momma comfortable and happy is the most important tasks. The Cirrus does what it was designed to do well.[/QUOTE]

Beech A-36 would be my top pick for getting from A to B. Don't think I would like the side yoke on the SR-22. Can you fly it with your right hand?
beechcraft-a36.jpg

STANDARD DATA: (A36) Seats: 6; Gross weight: 3,600 lbs.; Empty weight: 2,195 lbs.; Fuel capacity: 74 gals.; Engine: 285 hp Continental.
PERFORMANCE: Top speed: 206 mph; Cruise speed: 193 mph; Stall: 60 mph; Initial climb rate: 1,030 fpm; Ceiling: 16,600 ft.; Range: 802 nm; Takeoff distance, 50 ft.: 2,040 ft.; Landing distance, 50 ft.: 1,450 ft.

STANDARD DATA: (A36TC) Seats: 6; Gross weight: 3,650 lbs.; Empty weight: 2,278 lbs.; Fuel capacity: 74 gals.; Engine: 300 hp Turbocharged Continental.
PERFORMANCE: Top speed: 246 mph; Cruise speed: 223 mph; Stall: 66 mph; Initial climb rate: 1,165 fpm; Ceiling: 25,000 ft.; Range: 774 nm; Takeoff distance, 50 ft.: 2,012 ft.; Landing distance, 50 ft.: 1,449 ft.
 
Last edited:
AKBill said:
Beech A-36 would be my top pick for getting from A to B. Don't think I would like the side yoke on the SR-22. Can you fly it with your right hand?
.
Click to expand...

If you fly from the right seat ;) Most people just use the AP. Not the funnest plane to handfly, although it does OK, just not really a stick and rudder aircraft.
 
Rockymountain said:
If you fly from the right seat ;) Most people just use the AP. Not the funnest plane to handfly, although it does OK, just not really a stick and rudder aircraft.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I've done formation flying in the Cirrus. It's fun as hell and totally responsive. And that's all stick and rudder
 
Rockymountain said:
Most people just use the AP
Click to expand...
It's a cross country machine and the perspective has a beautiful and useful avionics package that make using the AP something that's actually useful and dependable.. unlike some other systems. Other APs I've used (the 1970s relics in the rental fleet, even including the Stec line) need much more constant babysitting and fiddling. So I wouldn't blame a pilot for using the tools available to them to the best of their extent to balance work load. For what it's worth I always keep my hand on the control stick to feel the AP

MetalCloud said:
It's fun as hell and totally responsive
Click to expand...
I completely agree. It's a real pleasure to hand fly. It is deliberate and solid.. feels like it is on rails and goes exactly where you point it. Back in 2009 when I did my first transition in the SR20 I had read all this bad press about the plane (so I wanted to go try it), I was blown away with how beautifully it flew and how solid it felt. Mind you, I wasn't planning to go the "Cirrus route" but after a few hours in it I was sold. The stalls were also completely non events (I was sitting there sweating bullets ready to spin and pull the chute.. when nope, it simply stalled. And this was the older g1/g2 with the old wing)


By the way, in the other thread someone brought up that the title "another Cirrus crash" suggested that these planes are asking for trouble. May the souls of both the 210 crash, and frankly all fatal crashes, rest in peace. It is interesting to note though that that 210 crash thread was not titled "another crash".. and, one could make the argument that had that pilot been in a Cirrus he might very well be alive today given that a gear "issue" is near impossible and when he realized he was out of options he may have been able to pull the chute (like the folks who climbed out of the burning Cirrus in AZ recently and literally walked away). No, we don't have all the facts yet.. but I'm pointing out that there is consistently a different reaction to crashes when a Cirrus is involved, where in some capacity either the pilot or the plane are personally blamed for the accident, vs in other crashes when it is chocked up generally to bad luck or inexperience
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top