Yes, I did. It had been a lease back plane and had not been well taken care of, except the engine. But it had the options and avionics I wanted and it was a heck of a deal.

I'm not sure I'd ever even sat in a plane as new as an '08, and I wanted it to look new. And it really does. They did a terrific job.

I'm kinda shy about it, but since you asked....

Thanks Arlen. My buddy is in a partnership with two other guys. They all wanted me involved as they may be looking at a 22 Turbo in future, and want to see how we all fit. It's a relatively inexpensive rate just $15 more ph than the Archer I'm getting my IR in. It has the exact avionics. We all get along, they have a T hanger with a fridge in it so it's fun also hanging out. Feel I can't lose.

I'm got back into flying to visit my kids. Yesterday was doing 140 kias which translated to 165 gs due to winds. At 8.6 ff per hour. Blew me away.

Arthur,

It is great that you like the Cirrus but I would suggest you pay attention to some of these comments. They are harder to land than most and having flown both (Bo and 80+ hrs in a Cirrus) they are harder to land than the the A36 that I am currently building hours in right now. But before getting too confident about your landings, go do a couple in strong crosswinds. They are easily blown off course and hence the runway. They are very nose heavy and and unless you are in a newer model, you have to watch your flare and keep the nose high or prop strikes are easily accomplished---great planes but don't be fooled by the "automation" of the plane...........Best of luck

Matt

That's got to be the best looking '08 SR22's out there Nate. Have you been able to fly it much yet??

Arthur,

It is great that you like the Cirrus but I would suggest you pay attention to some of these comments. They are harder to land than most and having flown both (Bo and 80+ hrs in a Cirrus) they are harder to land than the the A36 that I am currently building hours in right now. But before getting too confident about your landings, go do a couple in strong crosswinds. They are easily blown off course and hence the runway. They are very nose heavy and and unless you are in a newer model, you have to watch your flare and keep the nose high or prop strikes are easily accomplished---great planes but don't be fooled by the "automation" of the plane...........Best of luck

Matt[/quote]

Matt, definitely will look out. My CFII has been certified to do Cirrus training, and is recommended by the factory for new deliveries. Not getting too confudent but I wasn't expecting the landings I had. I'll be going through a lot of transition training.

Matt

It's a 2004 year Archer III. Avidyne PFD, MFD, twin 430W, STEC55X.

Thursday was the first day, Don. I did my transition training Thurs. - Sat., and now have 14 hours. But it was a high quality 14 hours, with 25 landings, unusual attitudes, power on & off stalls, full flap, 50% flap, no flap, and engine out landings, DME arcs, ILS, LPVs, VORs, STARS, DPs, ODPs, with a decent amount of actual IMC, and some under the hood. In addition, we plugged the plane in and worked with the Perspective (G1000) quite a lot.

My CSIP was very demanding, pulling fuses while under the hood, pulling power while under the hood, and I scramble for the NRST feature to find the airport. The second time I was high, and she asked if I forgot how to slip aggressively.

It's a plane that handles aggressive very well. Incredibly well. You have to nail the numbers on landing to be accurate, but you can really yank it around and make her do what you want in the air.

Contrary to what most people say (who mostly haven't flown them), they are a blast to hand fly.

The "Go Around" button on the throttle (unsuspends approach and loads missed, disconnects a/p (depending on configuration)) is cool. I've never flown with a flight director before, and it almost feels like cheating.

I love how the throttle is right there on the console, and how comfortable it is to use. Well, everything is placed just right to easily get to. The room is outstanding with the side yoke, and very comfortable. And, the air conditioning works super - not a small thing!

All in all, I'm really happy with it. Having bought one before ever flying one, this is more than a relief. I love it.

I had probably ~50 hours of prep work assigned before we started.

I don't think that they are easily blown off course. In fact, their side profile is way leaner than that of the Bo. unlike the Bo, the POH recommends that you use full flaps even on X-wind. The reason they are more challenging on X-wind is due to the fact that the Bo's nose wheel is sturdier, the Cirrus also has the catering nose wheel thus making it more critical than you land straight.

Wow, very rare I completely disagree with a post but this one is way off. Sundowner was as nose heavy as a Cessna 210 in my experiences and I didn't feel that heaviness in the cirrus I flew. (I don't know about A36) . See my post in this thread on my one time flight experience of a cirrus.

Bottom line to a successful landing is speed control. Stick to the POH values and landing a cirrus isn't any different than a Sundowner. Also, trim is a pilots friend in reducing back pressure on a nose heavy plane. :-)

In my limited time, I'd agree the x-winds are handled very well. We did a lot of x-wind. Abilene had opened up 22, which they rarely do, and we requested 17.

In comparison, with the heavier wing loading of the SR22, you would get blown off course more easily in the BO.

To be clear, my V35B handled x-winds incredibly well. I'm just saying the Cirrus equals that ability. Short field is another story. I don't ever expect to be able to land the SR22 in as short of a distance as I did my V tail.

Where I don't agree is there is a difference in emphasis on where the plane is pointing on touchdown. Yes, they Bo has a steerable wheel - via bungees. I much preferred it when taxiing, but rudder authority is VERY good in the SR22. Surprisingly - to me - good. I had no trouble controlling direction of roll-out in the Cirrus.

I'd heard on take-off, you might have to bump the brakes a few times to keep it straight, but every time I maxed the throttle, I had instant rudder authority.

I've always enjoyed x-winds, and plane direction & location on landing is important in both, but didn't seem less so in one or the other.

see below

In my limited time, I'd agree the x-winds are handled very well. We did a lot of x-wind. Abilene had opened up 22, which they rarely do, and we requested 17.

Where I don't agree is there is a difference in emphasis on where the plane is pointing on touchdown. Yes, they Bo has a steerable wheel - via bungees. I much preferred it when taxiing, but rudder authority is VERY good in the SR22. Surprisingly - to me - good. I had no trouble controlling direction of roll-out in the Cirrus.

I'd heard on take-off, you might have to bump the brakes a few times to keep it straight, but every time I maxed the throttle, I had instant rudder authority.

I've always enjoyed x-winds, and plane direction & location on landing is important in both, but didn't seem less so in one or the other.

I don't know of any gear in a single piston sturdier than a Bo.

It was originally design for the military trainer T-34, yes I don't think any other GA single has as sturdy set of legs as the Bo.