172 Guy Goes Cirrus...and now back to 172?

VWGhiaBob said:
LJ...let me see if I can remember a few of the maintenance issues that have taken the Cirrus aircraft at my FBO down frequently:

* Brake overheating Cirrus aircraft are extremely sensitive to this
* Cracked cylinder head
* Massive oil leaks
* Broken alternator (Alt 2)
* Prop strike / nose gear destruction due to 1000 hour Cirrus pilot landing too fast (not exactly a maintenance issue, but did the design possibly contribute to this?)

Those are the ones that come to mind. There are others in my few short months. Not saying I have a scientific sample here...only that what I've observed is similar to what I read (33% downtime). As a brand, maybe they are a lot better. Still, at my airport the old, venerable 172's are down a lot less.
Click to expand...

Most of it is related to the engine. The IO-360 and IO-540 burn oil. Brake overheating can happen in any airplane really, but due to the Cirrus saving weight and not having a steerable nose wheel, differential braking is used. New pilots to the Cirrus will overuse the brakes and ride them during taxi at high power settings. Lack of instruction, not design if used properly.

Energy management is something that can bit you in any airplane, the Cirrus lands a lot more flat than your Pipers and Cessnas, and excess airspeed on final can be dissipated if done properly, just like any other plane. Still poor planning on the part of the pilot and can happen in any airplane regardless of how much he has in type.
 
Brakes -- They were increased in size in (I think) 2005. My 2006 has the larger brakes. Also, temp sensors were added. That and awareness ended the brake fires.

Landing -- A Cirrus can be landed flat but generally only looks flat inside the plane because of the low panel. Heck, when I first transitioned I tended to climb since the panel was so much lower.

Engine maintenance - It is an IO 550. Same issues as any other IO550 installation.

Prop strike -- Usually due to landing on the nosewheel first and entering PIO and not adding power and going around.

Tail strike -- I don't hear about these much now. In the early days they happened when practicing zero flap landings.

Other - Early aircraft (early G1) are prone to electrical issues due to intermittent connections in the engine compartment. Wires were short with little play. This has been upgraded since but even on my 2006 I did an upgrade to stop the manifold pressure sensor wire from chafing.
 
LDJones said:
I learned in a 172 (Hawk XP II) and flew many 172s of all types thereafter. But then I didn't touch one for almost 15 years while flying mostly Mooneys, Bonanzas and various twins.

Then a student offered me his 172 SP for a family weekend trip back in May. I kinda fell in love with the 172 all over again. So simple, so honest, so well-behaved....it was a delightful trip, much of it in solid IMC.

Only thing it lacks is speed, but for missions of a few hundred miles and lots of $100 hamburgers, it's hard to beat.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if it works for you, go for it. The 172 is good, solid airplane. I just don't want one.
 
Some questions have been raised about the objectivity of the "lives saved" reports.

NoHeat said:
The chute has saved 77 lives to date, and the only reason it hasn't saved more is that too often it wasn't used. Like having a motorcycle helmet but not having it on.

I don't ride my motorcycle more dangerously because I have a full-face helmet. If somebody else does, well, that is no argument for me to ride without the lid. Likewise I don't fly more dangerously because of the chute.

Full statistics here:http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/CAPSHistory.aspx with details for every incident. Hopefully the link works for nonmembers.
Click to expand...
 
Don't see the comparison as being realistic.not only are you comparing high wing to low but speed is also not in the same league.For us old guys the Cessna is easier to get in and put of,and just about anyone can fly one with minimal time.
 
In my view the Cirrus has many things going for it that the 172 does not have:

1. cool factor, neat, slick, fast, modern, clean...... That doesn't appeal to some guys who want old silver tail draggers possibly but it is cool to most of us.

2. technology both in speed without requiring pull up landing gear and in avionics. Does have some minor draw backs like we do not really know useful life, sharper on the edge could be considered as less safe just as in comparing a 172 to an experimental. It even defies logic that one would seriously consider one against the other. The guy flying 172 might compare against a Warrior, Cherokee, tiger, traveler..........

3. Avionics out the kazoo. You can buy a $122-140k used airplane and have 100k in avionics in it with duel Garmin, flight management, engine management, autopilot..... This is the best deal around if you are spending over 100k for a used airplane this puts the Cirrus right up front IMO.

If I were considering a plane in this price bracket the SR22 would be a real contender to me. Is it safer? Than what? Compare safety by missions you would likely compare the 170 knot plane to Turbo 210's, Turbo Comanches, Turbo Bonanza F33/A36, Turbo Super Vikings.

I think the real safety issue with SR22 is that it has all this hand holding technology that might shield you from crisp decision making and lull its pilot into a sense of complacency until it is knee deep in ship. Then it is how the hell do I get out of this? I woudl agree that Cirrus/Columbia and even some of the faster experimental are the new Doctor Killers of today.

Once Beech Craft identified why so many Bonanza's (irrespective of the V tail issues) were taking dives with Doctors they changed their marketing, training and I think most of us today think of a Bonanza as a reasonably tame high performance airplane.

I guess I am saying that these slick new airplanes and fancy avionics suites might make us feel like super man until we run into a wall of kryptonite.

I would not let that deter me from flying or buying one but I would make the decision that whatever I fly I would get plenty of in type training and expertise and have it maintained by type specialist to boot.

I think the 172 is a great airplane and if that is what meets your needs and your skills that is what I would go with. I do think slipery planes require more attention to detail, more skill, more experience or a great deal more training if lacking in skills/experience.

Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. For me flying the Cherokee over 550 hrs before stepping up to the Comanche was extremely safe. I feel safer in the Comanche since it is such an easy transition with 500 hrs from the Cherokee. I have no time in the Cirrus but if I were going to make that jump I would bring my lunch and plan for it to be an ordeal and tackle it with full vigor.

You know the feedback on the yoke is not there so you can learn to train your senses to detect other feedback to compensate.
 
FWIW, I flew an SR22 G3 demo flight at Sun 'n Fun 2007. At the time I had roughly 100 hours in 172s and a variety of LSA. I did three landings myself - the demo pilot's hand was always near the side yoke, ready to rescue me, but he never touched it - and by following his guidance on target landing speed and approach angle, all three landings were passable. I was amazed how "easy" it was to fly it onto the runway.

Cirri may indeed be more finicky on landing than a 172, though like any other airplane, it's a matter of training and respect for airspeed control. (I'll add that SR22 was much easier to land than the Remos I'm flying now.)
 
I suspect a big differentiator is whether you're flying just to fly around, or flying to get from point A to point B.

If your goal is to spend an hour or two in the air or fly between a few local airstrips, well, a 172 will work just as well as an SR22, and be a lot cheaper while you're at it. The 172 also gives you more options in terms of short-field/etc if you want some variety. You can also hand out older 172's as Christmas presents for what you'd spend on an SR22.

On the other hand, if your goal is to get from point A to point B then the SR22 with standard equipment is a lot more IFR-capable, equipped for icing (accidental or known depending on how recent), and will carry more payload and get you there a lot faster. Sure, you can upgrade the avionics on a 172, but you're still not going to get there that much faster. The SR22 has a higher comfort level as well for a longer trip, or even just for tooling around in hot weather.

So, as with anything it depends on your mission...
 
As the original poster, these posts are all valuable to me.

At the end of the day, perhaps someone should have better oriented me:

"Bob, the Cirrus flies more like a jet than a 172. It's not going to give you 5 chances to flare on each landing, and then accept whatever speed you decide to settle in. It's not going to scream at you near a stall with the Yoke almost to your chest. And don't yank it around in the pattern, as many folks have stalled it...even those with lots of experience. Remember to lengthen your downwind a bit, since the Cirrus MUST be stable long before touchdown."

The recent porpoise and bad prop strike by a super-experienced Cirrus pilot reminds us: Fly a Cirrus by the numbers just as you would a bigger plane. It's not your friend like a 172. Turn your attention away, and the risks faster than many other planes.

For folks who can accept these limitations, and the costs, this is a way-cool, comfortable, incredible machine. I'm leaning towards buying one as the facts accumulate. At least my eyes are wide open now.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
The recent porpoise and bad prop strike by a super-experienced Cirrus pilot reminds us: Fly a Cirrus by the numbers just as you would a bigger plane. It's not your friend like a 172. Turn your attention away, and the risks faster than many other planes.
Click to expand...

Yes you can prop strike it, but that's just like saying you can gear up any retractable. Learn how to flare it and don't screw up.

As far as flying by mainly by the numbers, I completely disagree, you need to feel the airplane (especially if it's as small as the Cirrus). Check my sig.
 
MachFly, You will find many folks who feel a Cirrus must be flown by the numbers. That said, I think you raise a good point.

The Cirrus is a more difficult plane "make an extension of yourself". That doesn't mean don't try. It means try...but realize that where many planes will talk to you, your Cirrus won't in some circumstances. Cirrus pilots MUST recognize that and compensate for it.

I guess it's like having a very quiet friend who rarely shares their thoughts without lots of prompting versus a friend who's always out there, friendly, but letting you know how they feel.
 
Oh yeah, a lot of Cirrus pilots do fly by the numbers, and a lot of them get killed. My policy is (after you get the feel for the plane) you mainly fly by the feel and use numbers for redundancy. There are two big problems with flying by the numbers, one is you can't do any real maneuvers, and two is you can't scan for traffic.

I only have about 10hrs in a G3 (rest my Cirrus time is in a G1), and twice during those 10hrs I lost both my RPM and % Pwr gauges. Slightly off topic, I'm not calling the plane unreliable, in my case the maintenance facility sucked. Back on topic, if I was used to flying the plane only by the numbers I don't see how I would have been able to land it without my primary engine gauges.
 
I have no dog in this fight, never flown a Cirrus, but y'all got me wondering if you can retro-fit those two skinny windows in the top of a Cessna. You know, the one's right above the pilot and co-pilot's head.

Anyone got a Cessna with those? Do they give you vision of the field in pattern turns? Are they worthless? I've never been in a Cessna with them, but I see them in pictures.
 
txflyer said:
I have no dog in this fight, never flown a Cirrus, but y'all got me wondering if you can retro-fit those two skinny windows in the top of a Cessna. You know, the one's right above the pilot and co-pilot's head.

Anyone got a Cessna with those? Do they give you vision of the field in pattern turns? Are they worthless? I've never been in a Cessna with them, but I see them in pictures.
Click to expand...

I have about 60hrs in a 172 that had those windows, it's been a few years ago and I don't remember much, so that it for what it's worth.
When you move the seat forward into the flying position the windows become right above your head, you literally need to turn your head 90 degrees up to use them. Maybe someone who is taller would have their seat further back so the windows would be more useful, but that's just a speculation.
Also the windows aren't big enough for you to be able to check your high 6, you can use them to look only directly above you. Kinda like an airline passenger's window, but half a foot above your head. So I say their useless, but again it's been a while, so maybe I forgot something.
 
MachFly said:
I have about 60hrs in a 172 that had those windows, it's been a few years ago and I don't remember much, so that it for what it's worth.
When you move the seat forward into the flying position the windows become right above your head, you literally need to turn your head 90 degrees up to use them. Maybe someone who is taller would have their seat further back so the windows would be more useful, but that's just a speculation.
Also the windows aren't big enough for you to be able to check your high 6, you can use them to look only directly above you. Kinda like an airline passenger's window, but half a foot above your head. So I say their useless, but again it's been a while, so maybe I forgot something.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply. You sound like me.

If I sleep two nights in a row, I can't remember siht ..... :D
 
I thought the overheads were a nuisance. Nothing to see and direct sunlight in the cockpit where I don't want it. Pulling the seat forward for pattern work has become a habit that helps improve viz. They can be added if you want them.
 
wabower said:
I thought the overheads were a nuisance. Nothing to see and direct sunlight in the cockpit where I don't want it. Pulling the seat forward for pattern work has become a habit that helps improve viz. They can be added if you want them.
Click to expand...


I've heard enough. 51S will stay stock.

I turn a little early on base to final and end up on about a 45+ angle to the weeds anyhow.

I hate over-shooting final centerline. It looks awful from where I sit and I'm sure from on the ground too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top