The Cirrus is far, far from a trainer and shouldn't be presented nor even joked as such.
Not sure I agree with that. Aside from the avionics suite, the Cirrus, either 20 or 22 is as simple a plane to fly as any I have been in. Neither of them have any untoward handling characteristics, neither of them will bite for slight inattentions. They are stable yet responsive. The 22 can be a bit frustrating with the trim sensitivity, but most students aren't trimmed out properly regardless what they're flying. The 22 is certainly easier to fly than a 182, and I know several people, even
wimmin
who learned from hour 1 in a 182. Hell, I know people who learned in a Seaplane and even....a Jet!
They are a bit faster at the top end, but you don't have to fly that fast, and landing speeds are well within the range of aircraft commonly considered Trainers. Cirrus's marketing is really no worse or more misleading than anyone else's. The fact that it does have a BRS that attracts people stupid enough to use that as a sole determinant, well, you can't hold stupid people against Cirrus really. The BRS is a good thing regardless your level of knowledge, experience, training or proficiency. It buys you a level of survival options you normally need a second engine to buy. Is the 22 a high performance plane? Yes it is, nothing wrong with training in a high performance plane from flight 1, just a matter of cost.
Fact, Cirrus 20 or 22 are fixed gear, single handle control for the engine, differential brakes on both sides. A NASA wing that is nearly stall proof and completely predictable and docile at the bottom end of the speed envelope and maintains aileron effectiveness even in the stall. It requires a concerted effort to put it into a spin. It's actually if anything, too docile to be a proper trainer. Speed in and of itself is not such a critical thing. What makes it critical is its relationship to situational awareness. As far as that goes, there is a steeper learning curve on systems than in your typical 172 or PA 28 trainer, but now, the new models of those are similarly equipped, so a comparative argument there falls pretty flat. Once you know how to work the avionics suite though, the level of situational awareness required for operations at SR-22 speeds is easy for even a student to achieve.
The only disadvantage the Cirrus's have in regards to complexity is the BRS/CAPS system, because it adds another branch in the ADM decision tree/flow chart...pick your Six Sigma term.... and ADM is the hardest thing to teach/learn. Outside of that, I'd not advise anyone away from a Cirrus as an aircraft to learn to fly in if they had the required money.
The "more money than sense" thing.....ya know, I know a good few people with a lot of money, enough that if you would use the standard of being able to buy a top end new SR-22 cash for something to learn to fly in to qualify on the "more money" part, they definitely qualify. I know one guy who could pull the cash for a deposit/down payment out of the console of his car. These people have sense for the most part, trust me. They may make decisions differently than you or I because time has a greater comparative value to them than money, but for the most part, their decisions make sense for the parameters they are made under.
Are there people who buy a Cirrus because they don't want to have to "learn all that" or "risk" because the features of a Cirrus? Sure, but Ercoupe had the same basic marketing strategy.
In fact, if someone came to me and asked what would be a good airplane for them to buy and learn to fly, I might even go so far as to say that the SR20 is the best airplane for them to purchase.
