New Cirrus CEO

Old97 said:
Honestly he is not asking totally illogical questions.
Click to expand...

I agree. Now, that's not to say that he should be tossing around those thoughts publicly before discussing with his sales staff/engineers/pilots, but his approach is just fine. Sometimes having an outside perspective can challenge why we design things a certain way, or why we haven't adopted certain technology enhancements to handle basic operations. Those kind of questions can push Cirrus forward and help them keep their edge in the market, even if they result in relatively small changes to the aircraft.
 
EdFred said:
...When you get that high up, its more about business operations than the product.
Click to expand...

I’ll agree with this, especially given the context of the article. I read the comment as an business observation and thought exercise, especially considering he put their mission in seven words at the end: “Be safe. Be comfortable. Arrive in style.”

Agree with it or not, that’s simple enough for everyone there to understand and broad enough to allow anyone there to challenge the status quo.

Sure wish the guys in Kerrville could have a focus like that.
 
I think it's better to have someone at the top that DOESN'T know the finer details of that specific industry, as long as they are willing to admit that they don't know the details and don't try to shoehorn it into an industry that they DO know about. With that scenario, they ask questions that everyone else in the industry has brushed over as "that's just how it is". Sometimes it forces outside thinking to what may be simple problems to fix or easy wins to push the market farther.
 
SoonerAviator said:
running off of both is fine and leaves switching to a particular tank for when you just want to balance out the fuel to keep the wings level (without aileron trim/input).
Click to expand...
this is true, I was always a little paranoid though in the club 172 switching tanks, I always felt like that knob hadn't been touched in over 30 years since it rolled off the assembly line. I never did understand the uneven fuel burn in the 172.. I get that the vent design is different which can add dynamic pressure to one tank, however the tank vent lines are connected, at least on the 172N they were per the POH. I was crazy bored on a cross country flight a few years ago and flew the plane uncoordinated with a fairly strong slip to see if I could get the gas to slosh back.. (the things we do when we get bored)
 
Tantalum said:
this is true, I was always a little paranoid though in the club 172 switching tanks, I always felt like that knob hadn't been touched in over 30 years since it rolled off the assembly line. I never did understand the uneven fuel burn in the 172.. I get that the vent design is different which can add dynamic pressure to one tank, however the tank vent lines are connected, at least on the 172N they were per the POH. I was crazy bored on a cross country flight a few years ago and flew the plane uncoordinated with a fairly strong slip to see if I could get the gas to slosh back.. (the things we do when we get bored)
Click to expand...

In early 172s there is a warning of the possibility of vapor lock if running above 5000DA and on both tanks. No idea why because I haven't dug into the fuel system setup, but it's in the POH to run on 1 tank above 5k.
 
EdFred said:
In early 172s there is a warning of the possibility of vapor lock if running above 5000DA and on both tanks. No idea why because I haven't dug into the fuel system setup, but it's in the POH to run on 1 tank above 5k.
Click to expand...

I think that’s because they were rated to run on the old 80 octane (?) stuff and the spec for the partial pressure at which that evaporated was lower...

But I’d have to check that. Feel free if you’re bored, but I don’t think it’s an issue with 100LL.

Same reason all the vapor lock testing was done for the various Mogas STCs.
 
Tantalum said:
this is true, I was always a little paranoid though in the club 172 switching tanks, I always felt like that knob hadn't been touched in over 30 years since it rolled off the assembly line. I never did understand the uneven fuel burn in the 172.. I get that the vent design is different which can add dynamic pressure to one tank, however the tank vent lines are connected, at least on the 172N they were per the POH. I was crazy bored on a cross country flight a few years ago and flew the plane uncoordinated with a fairly strong slip to see if I could get the gas to slosh back.. (the things we do when we get bored)
Click to expand...

You're probably right to be a bit concerned. The fuel selectors in the 172 always seem to be pretty stiff and squeak a bit when turned, lol.
 
If he truly was being rhetorical and asking the question from a "business observation", any CEO worth their salt would know the technological regression of GA is due entirely to cost. So he's not positing anything earth shattering here, even from a business perspective.

If he were in our squadron he d be met with a "stand up and tells us about yourself....." :D

Its amazing that labor class can make that many multiples of the line workers wage. Worse ROI than airplane ownership afaic. Lol
 
SoonerAviator said:
You're probably right to be a bit concerned. The fuel selectors in the 172 always seem to be pretty stiff and squeak a bit when turned, lol.
Click to expand...
the procedure on our club 172s is to turn the selector to the left tank every time we park, so our selector gets used twice on every flight. Moving from Left to Both during preflight, and moving from both to Left during postflight/securing the airplane.
 
MIFlyer said:
the procedure on our club 172s is to turn the selector to the left tank every time we park, so our selector gets used twice on every flight. Moving from Left to Both during preflight, and moving from both to Left during postflight/securing the airplane.
Click to expand...
I flew with my recently licensed nephew recently, great flight btw, down somewhere in FL, and they had the same policy. Looked like their planes were 172R. It did make me feel better tbh. Someone also said that it helps when the fueling truck fills the tanks, otherwise one tank feeds the other when fueling and it can be hard to really top them both off (no idea if that's true, but from the fueling diagram it seems plausible)
 
Tantalum said:
this is true, I was always a little paranoid though in the club 172 switching tanks, I always felt like that knob hadn't been touched in over 30 years since it rolled off the assembly line. I never did understand the uneven fuel burn in the 172.. I get that the vent design is different which can add dynamic pressure to one tank, however the tank vent lines are connected, at least on the 172N they were per the POH. I was crazy bored on a cross country flight a few years ago and flew the plane uncoordinated with a fairly strong slip to see if I could get the gas to slosh back.. (the things we do when we get bored)
Click to expand...

Cessna Pilot’s Assn has a library of crap on how to get them to even out. You can drive yourself mad trying to do it.

As far as the valve never being moved, that’s one of the reasons the POH specifically says to move the valve to left or right in the shutdown checklist. The real reason is to keep fuel from venting overboard if parked on a slope with one wing down...

But people don’t use their checklists... :)
 
denverpilot said:
The real reason is to keep fuel from venting overboard if parked on a slope with one wing down
Click to expand...
..cool, so it is true then if a fuel truck dude is filling up a 172 with tanks on both some of the gas is crossfilling into the other tank. That's another paranoi, if for some reason one tank gets contaminated (not necessarily from fuel truck, but some other reason.. I once had a guy accidentally poor 3 gallons of TKS into a fuel tank) then you've basically screwed yourself

denverpilot said:
But people don’t use their checklists
Click to expand...
#CirrusLife
 
Old97 said:
Honestly he is not asking totally illogical questions.
Click to expand...

He's asking questions a customer might ask.
Instead of a perspective from someone inside the company making the planes.
 
GRG55 said:
He's asking questions a customer might ask.
Click to expand...
Which is not necessarily wrong either if your goal is to sell more and you are new to a company or field. When our new CTO started (and yes, the guy actually knows dev technicalities with a degree from MIT, so not totally apples:apples) but he spent his initial time here looking at our products from the eyes of the user, and asking what seemed like sort of "dumb" or obvious questions to people within the company, but honestly were the kind of questions that people new to the products may have

I just hope the new CEO doesn't take a good and (relatively) successful product and try to overhaul things too much and ruin a good thing. He'll need to be gentle on how he innovates. Also, with a huge backlog on the Cirrus jet I hope they don't go the way of Cessna and 20 years from now will only be catering to the turbine crowd
 
Tantalum said:
Also, with a huge backlog on the Cirrus jet I hope they don't go the way of Cessna and 20 years from now will only be catering to the turbine crowd
Click to expand...

Oh they will, and in much less than 20 years time. The recession would have hit hard by then. Writing's on the wall for certified piston. Only the 'antiquers', or those for whom OPP and labor costs are free, will be able to endure.
 
Tantalum said:
Which is not necessarily wrong either if your goal is to sell more and you are new to a company or field...
Click to expand...

Agree completely. That's what I meant by the observation.
Cirrus is selling a lifestyle luxury product. High product differentiation, limited production numbers, personal attention, ability for the customer to personalize their plane to some degree, an air of exclusivity - all the right ingredients. Same as Louis Vuitton, Hermes or Cartier.

Unlike Tesla (who completely lost the program trying to build a cheaper, volume produced "mass market" car), so far Cirrus has been astute enough to stick with its strategy. It canned the trainer (e.g. its "Model 3"), deciding instead to improve the "entry level" SR-20 (and making it both better and more expensive, of course).
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Oh they will, and in much less than 20 years time. The recession would have hit hard by then. Writing's on the wall for certified piston. Only the 'antiquers', or those for whom OPP and labor costs are free, will be able to endure.
Click to expand...
let's wait and see before assuming the worst, although the pessimist in me tends to agree with you.. so far I think they have a pretty good product line up from entry to higher end. Piper and Diamond were able to maintain their piston focus and hopefully Cirrus will do the same.. granted, both Piper and Diamond failed to launch a jet offering for their lineup however Piper has not let their turbine offerings lead them astray from piston.. so I'm cautiously optimistic
 
denverpilot said:
Cessna Pilot’s Assn has a library of crap on how to get them to even out. You can drive yourself mad trying to do it.

As far as the valve never being moved, that’s one of the reasons the POH specifically says to move the valve to left or right in the shutdown checklist. The real reason is to keep fuel from venting overboard if parked on a slope with one wing down...

But people don’t use their checklists... :)
Click to expand...
but SOME people don't use their checklists....

Our club is good in that the instructors and officers are really good about coachingup anyone that leaves one of our planes in anything less than "shutdown checklist" condition. 99% of the time when I get to the plane, it's tidy, fueled, gust locked, etc exactly as it's supposed to be. We have a good culture, but I realize that's not universal.
 
Tantalum said:
..cool, so it is true then if a fuel truck dude is filling up a 172 with tanks on both some of the gas is crossfilling into the other tank. That's another paranoi, if for some reason one tank gets contaminated (not necessarily from fuel truck, but some other reason.. I once had a guy accidentally poor 3 gallons of TKS into a fuel tank) then you've basically screwed yourself


#CirrusLife
Click to expand...

Yes. When you’re filling a Cessna tank in the later models with the cross vents inside the bladder tank varieties, some is going to the other side once you’re above the cross vent level.

Many fill one side and then move the ladder and do the other side and their expected number of gallons is a little lower. They scratch their heads and wonder why and know they filled the other side to the brim so they just go fly.

If they’d go back to the other tank they’d see it wasn’t quite full.

If you need a Cessna REALLY topped off you have to go back to the first tank and add a little more.

It’ll cross feed back the other way when you fill the second tank too, so you can just wait at either side as it slowly equalizes if you like.

And if you fill it super full it’s almost guaranteed to pee out of the single vent under the left wing on mine as soon as you start taxiing and make a right turn.
 
EdFred said:
I guess because the FAA wouldn't like us sitting right on top of a fuel tank? I can't imagine it would need to be much more than a gallon though.
Click to expand...

GRG55 said:
Added weight, more failure modes, and the tank almost certainly has to be somewhere in the fuselage, which is the last place one should want any quantity of fuel.

Even the header tanks in a Cub give me pause.
Click to expand...

The early wood wing Mooney M20's had a center fuselage tank under the rear seats.

Three tanks (removed) the one on the left is the center tank:

20190802_143306.jpg 20190802_143252.jpg

Two filler holes on LH wing.
 
david.h said:
The early wood wing Mooney M20's had a center fuselage tank under the rear seats.
Click to expand...
So was there an "all" option or did you have to pick between L, C, and R?
 
^or did you just go off the center tank and assume L and R would drain into it?
 
I'll get back to you on Monday, I haven't crawled around inside in a while.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Oh they will, and in much less than 20 years time. The recession would have hit hard by then. Writing's on the wall for certified piston. Only the 'antiquers', or those for whom OPP and labor costs are free, will be able to endure.
Click to expand...

You down with OPP?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
No brainier. I've wondered why this isn't on most low wing aircraft for years.
Click to expand...

The downside is that you are then sitting on top of that third tank - I have it on my little plane and doesn’t bother me but some people do object.
 
Tantalum said:
this is true, I was always a little paranoid though in the club 172 switching tanks, I always felt like that knob hadn't been touched in over 30 years since it rolled off the assembly line. I never did understand the uneven fuel burn in the 172.. I get that the vent design is different which can add dynamic pressure to one tank, however the tank vent lines are connected, at least on the 172N they were per the POH. I was crazy bored on a cross country flight a few years ago and flew the plane uncoordinated with a fairly strong slip to see if I could get the gas to slosh back.. (the things we do when we get bored)
Click to expand...

I've done that. In a Cardinal. The early ones just had on and off. This one had some vent issues that caused uneven burn. It was a common issue and Cessna put in a Left/Right/Both in 73.
 
dell30rb said:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...1/new-cirrus-ceo-looks-to-modernize-airplanes

Just a few weeks into his new role, Nielsen (whose first name is pronounced like “Shawn”) began flight training the week before EAA Airventure. During a brief discussion with AOPA at the show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, he noted that numerous things about modern airplanes still perplex him. “You have to move that fuel selector from one tank to another? Why doesn’t that just happen?” he wondered. And setting up the radios before a flight, making those calls. “Why is that not a text message?”

Discuss
Click to expand...

..."“We need more people,” he said of the pilot community. “Every day what we do is to try to create pilots. If we have the best product, they will fly with us.” The Cirrus Lifestyle campaign has shown how learning to fly can change peoples’ lives. “The new currency is time,” said the new CEO. A GA airplane allows people to get more out of life and do things that others can’t do."... I'm not so sure he's using the word when he says "create 'pilots' "
 
Tantalum said:
^or did you just go off the center tank and assume L and R would drain into it?
Click to expand...
Sure seems like a three position (maybe four position with "off") selector valve was used, there are no cross feed lines. I could not see the actual valve, it must be in a box with some other interior stuff. If I get a chance I'll try to confirm if the old part number is available somewhere.
 
luvflyin said:
..."“We need more people,” he said of the pilot community. “Every day what we do is to try to create pilots. If we have the best product, they will fly with us.” The Cirrus Lifestyle campaign has shown how learning to fly can change peoples’ lives. “The new currency is time,” said the new CEO. A GA airplane allows people to get more out of life and do things that others can’t do."... I'm not so sure he's using the word when he says "create 'pilots' "
Click to expand...
For what it's worth it's not all marketing buzz.. if it were then since 2001 people would have caught on to it and they wouldn't have made it this far (see the whole Juicero thing for example). Granted, I 100% agree with you that they're not just selling a plane, they're selling a brand and a lifestyle, in much the same way that Apple does (for better or worse)
 
GRG55 said:
I'd be happy if someone came up with fuel quantity indicators for my Piper that are as accurate as the ones in my pickup trucks. :D
Click to expand...


They did and I have them in my Piper.

Cies digital senders

ciesfuellevelsender1.jpg


Plus

Aerospace Logic Digital fuel gauge

10-04443.jpg
 
Timbeck2 said:
They did and I have them in my Piper.

Cies digital senders

ciesfuellevelsender1.jpg


Plus

Aerospace Logic Digital fuel gauge

10-04443.jpg
Click to expand...

That’s on a UPS plane right now, getting delivered tomorrow. Can’t wait to put 2 gallons at a time and calibrate it
 
Yep, that's quite the chore but well worth it. I recommend getting someone to help you so you aren't climbing in and out of the plane after every two gallons in addition to pouring fuel and filling the tank.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Yep, that's quite the chore but well worth it. I recommend getting someone to help you so you aren't climbing in and out of the plane after every two gallons in addition to pouring fuel and filling the tank.
Click to expand...

I am putting the indicator top left of the panel, under clock, I am hoping I can just reach in and press the button from the spot window. Quick question.... does the indicator auto dim at night? I got an electric ammeter last year and that darn thing doesn’t auto dim and almost blinds me at night. It’s not even connected to a dimmer per STC. I have put a FAA approved scotch tape on the display though
 
That's exactly where I put mine and reached through the storm window to reset. Works good for the left wing but not on the right unless you run around the prop. Yes, it has an auto dim function.
 
luvflyin said:
..."“We need more people,” he said of the pilot community. “Every day what we do is to try to create pilots. If we have the best product, they will fly with us.” The Cirrus Lifestyle campaign has shown how learning to fly can change peoples’ lives. “The new currency is time,” said the new CEO. A GA airplane allows people to get more out of life and do things that others can’t do."... I'm not so sure he's using the right word when he says "create 'pilots' "
Click to expand...
 
I thought about putting digital sensors in my Mooney, who's gas gauges make a nice decoration but serve no useful function. But he time I bought them and the engine analyzer to go with them I was looking at a five thousand dollar investment for the boxes, not counting installation. My rule of thumb vis a vis installation is it's roughly as expensive as buying the boxes in the first place. Hence a 10 AMU investment. I think I'll have to live without.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top