The only Cirrus I ever flew was the SR-20 prototype when I lived in Duluth.

Now I am about to start a new job with an FBO that might (no promises, just discussion) send me for the Cirrus CFI training. I have no glass panel experience, so I am curious, of course.

If it happens, I will be happy to share my impressions. I have about 1,300 hours in my Bonanza and have a hard time imagining anything I would like better.

Everyone I know who has owned a Cirrus, is happy with it. A physician friend of mine bought an SR20 new, has since upgraded to a 22, and is on the list for The Jet. Guess he's happy with it (although I did not like his smarty-pants comments about Bonanzas, although to be fair, I did not yet have one at that time).

Lots about 'em to like. But, if I had a turbo-normalizer and air conditioning on my Bo, it would be the perfect plane for me.

Here's one of only two encounters with an SR-22...

The wife and I are flying in our RV towards Paso Robles from San Jose. The autopilot is on and the world is good as I daydream and scan the sky. I'm brought back to the moment by an elbow to the ribs as my wife points to a plane passing us off our right wing about 1/4 mile out. She then wounded me with "What is that, and why didn't you build one of those."

"Plastic" guns, too.

Robin,

The SR22 has an approach/target speed of about 80kts with 73kts over the fence. The G36 requires 85kts to 90kts on final with an over the fence speed of about 80kts. Not sure what you mean about "flat, high speed approaches." Both fly more or less the same on final/landing.

-Neal

Can someone please point me in the right direction for the forum on Beech aircraft? I took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up in the Cirrus forum...

We have to talk about other planes now and then.

How else would we fully appreciate the Beechcraft prizes we fly?

Geez, guys.

This is one thread of thousands. If saying the word "Cirrus" is that painful for you, ignore this ONE thread.

Many other types of airplanes are discussed, viewed, videoed, and critiqued here. It's all good.

The SR22 has an approach/target speed of about 80kts with 73kts over the fence. The G36 requires 85kts to 90kts on final with an over the fence speed of about 80kts. Not sure what you mean about "flat, high speed approaches." Both fly more or less the same on final/landing.

Neal:
I'm sure it was my own inexperience in type that made it seem that way. The airplane I normally fly has very powerful flaps that allow for approaches so steep they make the uninitiated nervous. The Bonanza has fairly powerful flaps, too. You know it when they go out. The flaps on the Cirrus seemed kind of dinky and ornamental by comparison, and the landing attitude felt very flat to me. No doubt with time and attention to target speeds this illusion would go away. I know Thom Leveque (RIP) landed an SR-22 on a football field inside a stadium as a demo, so flown right the airplane can get down and stopped well. The interior was nice, though. Kind of like sticking your head in a nicely upholstered egg.
Robin White

Understood. I've found that if I fly the configuration the book warrants at the proper speed, it all sort of takes care of itself. I also do power on approaches and don't close the throttle until rounding out. Just my technique but makes jumping in and out of different types of GA airplanes all the time pretty easy.

As for Thom, yes he was a talented stick (to a point obviously). He worked for a close friend of mine. Sadly his judgement was severely lacking and he is the prototypical "Rogue Aviator" as defined by Tony Kern (author and military pilot who studies human factors, accidents, etc). I like to have fun in planes too but I think that operating limitations in the AFM are to be strictly adhered to as they are there for a reason. He sadly killed himself but fortunately didn't hurt anyone else in the process (if I remember correctly).

-Neal

I just recently demoed a Cirrus, so my perceptions are based on all of 1 hour in type.

I found the flaps and approach angle fine, the thing that was a little different in my mind was the composite prop. That thing acts like a speed brake when you pull the power out. The prop helped a lot slowing down during approach, but made power in the round out necessary or it wants to fall out of the sky. I still prefer the speed brakes and standard prop of the 400 vs. the Cirrus setup.

Those with more experience may find hand flying a non-issue, but the disconnected feel and odd trim made me very nervous. I wouldn't want to lose the A/P in IMC, and for me that is enough not to own that particular aircraft.

I also had a hard time getting comfortable and I am only 6'1. I wanted to put the seat to far forward and my headset was touching the headliner the whole time.

Otherwise, I couldn't agree more that Cirrus has done some amazing things for GA and really helped push technology forward.

Alex

I like the Cirrus except for the following...

Will not tolerate any ice.

Limited load capacity, will hardly carry the pilot and a full load of gas.

Cannot see the engine during preflight, as no easy open cowls.

Seats are miserable after one hour.

If the "Panel of the Day", doesn't function the plane is grounded.

I don't like the linked engine controls.

No rear passenger door.

Other than those couple of items its a pretty nice airplane.

IME, that is absolutely correct. Minimal ice -----> BIG effect.


With full fuel, the average SR22 can carry nearly 700 pounds. That's a pretty big pilot.

My wife is totally disinterested in flying and has never said anything about an airplane until she saw the Cirrus at Oshkosh and sat in it. Upon getting out she said "I really like that plane"-there was even a faint hint of emotion in the comment.

Maybe I was not seeing average SR22's when I was looking at them, but full-fuel payloads of less than 400 lbs was not uncommon if AC was installed.

I love the Cirrus. It has made flying a lot less expensive by adding a ton of supply into the market. If Cirrus was never started, I bet it would have cost $100K more to purchase my airplane.

My main gripe with Cirrus, and any composite airframe for that matter, is that they are not lighter or stronger than the aluminum airframes they were supposed to make obsolete. Composite technology may work on the 787, but is did not deliver a lighter airframe at the same strength or a stronger airframe at the same weight.