Talk Me Out of a Cirrus

NealRomeoGolf

NealRomeoGolf

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
5,113
Location
Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
NRG
I've been dabbling in changing planes over the past 8 months. That's what happens after you drop tons of money into avionics. You waste it and go to another plane, right? Currently I fly a PA32R (Piper Lance) and I do so because of how much it carries. However, as I've switched companies and can now fly myself for work, I wish I could go faster and have some ice protection. My biggest limitations are hangar width and opex. I'd love to have an Aerostar but I'd be bankrupt in 5 years and don't have a hangar big enough to store it. I'd love to have a PA46 (Malibu....not Meridian) but the hangar issue comes into play again. They don't make them that wide here. I looked at Senecas but everything on the market is junk and I'm not convinced I want to be in a twin.

So now I'm looking at SR22T G5s. The problem is I don't want to give up the useful load. I could go without the T but flying up higher gives better speed. Those usually come with AC and that helps kill the useful. I'm seeing mostly 1100 pounds. My current plane gets 1430.

I get torn between my mission. 60%-70% of the time I don't need 1430. But sometimes I do need it for LifeLine Pilots flights and they specifically call me when they have a heavy one that is harder to fill. But on the flip side, I mostly fly solo. Having the AC would be nice too. As I get older, I hate sweating when flying more and more.

I've actually never flown in a Cirrus (well...not a piston. got to fly in the jet twice) so I need to do that. Really this post is just me rambling on. You're welcome to reason me one way or the other. Heck I was looking at a $900k TBM 700 the other day. I've hit full on midlife crisis really. :cool:
 
Cirrus are great planes. Personally, I can’t deal with the side stick. You’ll be dealing with UL limitations like most high performance birds. Have you looked at the DA50RG? It’s pricey, has performance that is just OK (20k ceiling, 180KTAS cruise or thereabouts). It’s a FADEC turbo continental that runs on jet fuel. Has a UL of around 1250# Big wingspan, and pricey.
 
Nick Geber said:
Cirrus are great planes. Personally, I can’t deal with the side stick. You’ll be dealing with UL limitations like most high performance birds. Have you looked at the DA50RG? It’s pricey, has performance that is just OK (20k ceiling, 180KTAS cruise or thereabouts). It’s a FADEC turbo continental that runs on jet fuel. Has a UL of around 1250# Big wingspan, and pricey.
Click to expand...
Beyond the budget and won't fit the hangar. Max wingspan I can handle is 39 feet.
 
You’ve probably seen me say this already, but I found the cirrus to be a soul less, boring plane to fly. I hated their implementation of the side stick. The feedback is crap and you just don’t feel connected to the plane. If you want to push buttons and watch the plane fly, it’s the plane to buy.
 
Salty said:
You’ve probably seen me say this already, but I found the cirrus to be a soul less, boring plane to fly. I hated their implementation of the side stick. The feedback is crap and you just don’t feel connected to the plane. If you want to push buttons and watch the plane fly, it’s the plane to buy.
Click to expand...
Have to say that I agree with you. Soulless is a good way of describing them.
 
Salty said:
You’ve probably seen me say this already, but I found the cirrus to be a soul less, boring plane to fly. I hated their implementation of the side stick. The feedback is crap and you just don’t feel connected to the plane. If you want to push buttons and watch the plane fly, it’s the plane to buy.
Click to expand...
I'm more utilitarian I guess. I just need it to get me places.
 
Fully agree on the poor feedback of the Cirrus sidestick. You really need to fly one, preferably with a good crosswind landing to understand what we're sharing. Plus the added expense of parachute repacks for the infintesimally small chance it would ever be useful. Plus the very high percentage of that particular Continental to not make it to TBO. The best sidestick and the fastest speed was the TTx, but you'd have to be comfortable maintaining a discontinued model. I fully endorse the opinion on Diamonds. Incredible aircraft.
 
Salty said:
If you want to push buttons and watch the plane fly...
Click to expand...
I hear ya, been giving myself a pretty hefty paycut last 10 years. I know it's not rational, but the thought of it just cramps my stomach, hearts start racing, vision goes starry then everything goes dark for me. I usually wake up to my wife's face, her hand holding my head off the floor, and with the most compassionate nursing voice softly says: "it's ok darling, you don't have to hit 'submit' today..." And just like that, my tummy feels better again. :rofl:
 
Amazing coincidence, possibly a perfect demonstration of the dangers of poor sidestick feedback on a Cirrus. The spring-loaded mechanism does not allow natural tactile feedback at slow speeds. Of course other factors could be involved, but the point remains. You have to land a Cirrus by the numbers, like an airliner, because you can't do it by feel

Cirrus accident in Texas today
 
Here’s the skinny…

Cirrus really are great airplanes - but - unless you’re buying new, forget about it. Once the warranty runs out, they don’t want anything to do with them other than to get you into another new one. Think of them as disposable. Parts are hard to come by and the chute repack is $25k in of itself, plus expensive annuals. I love flying the SR20, but the thought of owning one long term gives me pause.
 
Nick Geber said:
Personally, I can’t deal with the side stick.
Click to expand...

Salty said:
I hated their implementation of the side stick.
Click to expand...

David Loftus said:
Fully agree on the poor feedback of the Cirrus sidestick.
Click to expand...

Don't have a lot of time in them, but the side stick is one thing that bothers me. You do a lot of gymnastics with your wrist in a gusty cross-wind. I think I like even less than the center Y-stick shared between the two pilots in the Sonex or Zenith planes.
A co-worker owns a 20. Probably 13 years old (the plane, not the co-worker :D). Quite frequently we talk about another avionics/electrical gremlin he's experiencing. He does like the plane, though.
 
Last edited:
Go with the Cirrus T. Just get all the training so you don't stall it at low altitude.
The speed, efficiency, and BRS are an incredible combo.
 
I'm sure the FBO over here at BMI (Cirrus Service Center) would love to host you. It's a damn plague of Cirri over here.
As long as they do their runup on the ramp and not at the hold short line I can tolerate them as that's as much as I have to interact with them.
Damn good looking airplanes though and the new one's they have over here are quite colorful.
 
Here is what I dislike about SR22s

1. They are rather high to step into and if you have an average woman traveling it is really a high step for them.
2. Getting in and out of the cabin is like getting in and out of a bath tub. I call the plane the bath tub.
3. The single lever throttle prop control is an insult to good pilots and you lose a level of constant speed prop versatility with it.
4. The SR22s are an electrician’s best friend as they have work chasing electrical issues.
5. The plane has about zero short field capability.
6. Useful load is not very good.
 
Plugging various flying options into ForeFlight helped showed me the limited utility in a marginally faster plane.

Ac seems needed a few months, on the ground, and maybe for a few minutes into the flight. I question the marginal utility of this also.
 
Full midlife crisis? Keep the Lance. Buy an rv10/14 for the solo trips. If youve got the height in the hangar I know a guy that can build a lift.

Why not add a/c to the Lance?

Cirrus you also have that rocket repack every 10 years. It's not that much faster than what you've got
 
Another vote for keep the Lance. Especially if you’re going to keep carrying medical patients. The rear door makes entry so easy. It’s not blazing fast and the gear ups the maintenance a little bit, but it’s pretty hard to beat a PA-32 for all-around utility and comfort, especially for the price.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
You're welcome to reason me one way or the other.
Click to expand...
I've found with a Cirrus your maintenance options can be reduced depending on location for various reasons. While I refrained from working on them I did assist in looking for several Cirrus mx providers. So you might want to include the availability of mx options in quest.
 
Don’t get a Cirrus. I tried.
 
Bell206 said:
I've found with a Cirrus your maintenance options can be reduced depending on location for various reasons. While I refrained from working on them I did assist in looking for several Cirrus mx providers. So you might want to include the availability of mx options in quest.
Click to expand...
The FBO at the Charlie 5 minutes away is a Cirrus center.
 
ateamer said:
Another vote for keep the Lance. Especially if you’re going to keep carrying medical patients. The rear door makes entry so easy. It’s not blazing fast and the gear ups the maintenance a little bit, but it’s pretty hard to beat a PA-32 for all-around utility and comfort, especially for the price.
Click to expand...
I love that door in back (which sounds dirty to say). It is so convenient.

Unfortunately my gear has upped my maintenance more than most. But hopefully it will behave for a while now.
 
k9medic said:
In the Lance you will get there about 5 minutes later than in the Cirrus but you won't have to make two trips to get all your stuff there. Keep the Lance.
Click to expand...
Won't I be 40 knots faster up in the teens? At my typical 4 hour flight that's almost an hour saved, no? Maybe I can't math properly today.
 
Since you're specifically asking to be talked OUT of it:

1) The Cirrus will only be marginally faster. About as much faster as the Seneca I've been trying to talk you into for years.

2) Entry/exit, as mentioned above, is more difficult. Getting in & out of an SR front seat is similar in effort to a Piper. The door opening is bigger and it's more up/down than roll & tumble, but it's a deeper step in. Also, losing the back door means all passengers have to make that step. The step from the ground to the wing is big, too. The Cirrus guys I've handed LLP off to usually carry a stepstool to help make that step up. I've found the PA32/34 rear door to be MUCH easier for limited mobility patients. Even had a guy transfer out of a wheelchair into my back seat.

3) The flights I see you NOT take in the Lance, I don't think you'd take in the SR. I'd also suggest that the marginal icing protection of a FIKI SR above the Lance is about the same as the speed difference. Yeah, you can legally hang out in icing conditions, but you still shouldn't. If you're just using it to blast though a layer, well the FIKI MIGHT buy you 1-2 extra flyable days/year.

Now, I 'm concerned I may have planted this particular seed, so here's the reasons I was looking at the SR22T:

My next plane will have 2 doors, be as comfortable as the Lance, have a backup for the propulsion system (I would accept twin, 'chute, or turbine), be faster, FIKI, fit in the 42' hangar I hope to have soonish, and have forced induction (turbocharger or turbine). This list pretty well filters it down to the Seneca II+ and the SR22T.

I think both planes have the same downsides: opex and capex. A nice Seneca is hard to find for sure, but for the amount you'd spend on a Cirrus, you can have THE NICEST Seneca. It'll just take some time & legwork. Opex I think probably goes to the Cirrus. You're only feeding and caring for one turbocharged six cylinder engine, and the airframe should have less issues. No bendy gear and no 50 year old aluminum. Also, a nice Cirrus isn't hard to find. They're pretty much turnkey.

I keep coming back to the Seneca because I don't want to give up the extra seats. I think the Cirrus fits your typical mission very well, other than the Lifeline piece. For that, you're going to have to go Seneca or keep saving and build a box hangar for your Meridian down at Pekin. Or accept that you're not going to be able to do some of those heavier missions and you'll have to help folks in & out more.

Racerx said:
Wouldn't be able to fly the lifeline flights in an experimental. Why I suggested keeping the Lance.
Click to expand...
I don't THINK we restrict experimentals, but I could be wrong. The bigger issue for Neal is he REALLY wants FIKI, and I don't believe that is an option on the RV. If it is, I've certainly never seen one.

NealRomeoGolf said:
Won't I be 40 knots faster up in the teens?
Click to expand...
I plugged an SR22T into Garmin pilot. Their performance chart shows 175 at 18k. If that's right it's about 30 min faster on a 4 hour leg. Works out to be almost identical to a Seneca, but burning a little less gas.

Thinking out loud.....how about a Turbo 'Toga/Lance? Probably not a big enough step up to justify changing planes though.

FIKI Turbo 210/P210? That'd check a lot of your boxes. P210 you'd be able to take Lifeline pax above 12.5 without O2. Easy to get in/out. Hmmm...
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Won't I be 40 knots faster up in the teens? At my typical 4 hour flight that's almost an hour saved, no? Maybe I can't math properly today.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Unless you wanna wear oxygen, those flights are going to be a few and far between. The difference between a flight at 9000 feet and a flight at 15,000 feet does not yield that much more true airspeed and the wind gradient between those altitudes is not that significant.

My buddy just bought a SR22 G5. His milk run is an average 2.7 hour flight. At 9500’ he sees around 165kts ground speed. Looking at all his previous flights, he is managing between 160 and 175 consistently.

As an example, I own a 310Q and a 421C. we actually flew both aircraft to the islands this past summer. my buddy took off in my 310 approximately five minutes prior to me taking off in the 421. I landed and had just shut down the engines as he was on final approach.

This was a flight that was a distance of about 360 nautical miles. He was at 7500’ and I was at 17,500’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top