All things Cirrus

neilw2 said:
Ok I'll bite. I need the full story on this. Sounds...um...interesting.
Click to expand...

We were on the second stretch of a long flight (OH to TX). He just did the P's safety check - plane, pilot, plan, pax, whatever... said he admitted to being "a little tired," but overall feeling good. The plane was on autopilot.

Things got quiet for a while. Then all of a sudden I hear him say, "Oh wow, I fell asleep for a bit there!" I thought he was joking at first, but he didn't laugh and then I realized he was serious. Not sure how long he'd been out... maybe 5 minutes.

It's a great plane and all... I have some time logged in it and really loved the experience, but I can definitely see how with a pilot not on their game, it can easily breed complacency. I noticed that, despite it being a beautiful VFR day, he rarely looked outside the window for situational awareness or to scan for traffic. Mostly glued to the glowing screens - the glass panel and his iPad.

So, yeah, after that, me and the other pilot in the plane were much more hyper-alert to him and everything else. It's easy to just trust the PIC to be PIC, but when they are falling asleep on ya, kinda changes the game.

Thankfully, we landed shortly after.
 
gsengle said:
There is some misleading info here. But I'm not allowed to comment ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Who says you can't comment? Just try to stick to facts and objective observations and you should fine.
 
citizen5000 said:
Who says you can't comment? Just try to stick to facts and objective observations and you should fine.
Click to expand...

It's called sarcasm, just trying to fit in lol

I always stick to facts, and to the degree I have personal observations based on actual experience I label em as such...

My weakness is I have a hard time letting false statements go by!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
Ever wonder why the Cirrus is central to so much aviation discussion? Ever wonder why Cirrus sells more piston singles than anyone else? Ever wonder why Cirrus managed to get into production with the only single-pilot VLJ? Just makes one wonder.
Click to expand...

Just curious...

...have you ever flown one?
 
N659HB said:
Bryan, do you think there are any concerns with low-speed maneuvering due to the linked controls?

FastEddie?
Click to expand...

I owned a G1 SR22 and instructed in G1 SR22's and SR20's. Including one primary student in his own SR22.

Personally, it just felt like any other plane to me. Certainly a bit heavier on the controls than the Tiger I migrated from, but that's to be expected.

Not to say others might not find the linked controls objectionable. They just never bothered me.
 
I don't know how the more modern ones work but when my chute was repacked they had to physically cut a hole in the top of the hull and remove and replace the rocket. Afterwards they rebuild it and repaint it. You have to look really hard but in the right light you can see subtle evidence of a seam where the repair was done. I was always very surprised they didn't just put a door on it
 
Actually the whole idea that that rocket literally blows a hole in the top of the aircraft I find really surprising. I think a lot of people think it comes out the back window. I did initially.
 
Personally I love the plane. My only small issues is the spring loading on the stick seems a little tight and the electric trim is a little touchy in the roll axis. But otherwise it is a fast, comfortable, safe, and capable plane. People love to trash even the lowly SR20s useful load and performance... but what other "simple" non turbo'd plane can you comfortable get you and a passenger into and cruise along easily over 140 TAS? And a plane that is accessible to a 100hr PPL? Skyhawks, Archers, Warriors, etc., the "usual" crowd of renter planes just come nowhere near what even an SR20 will give you.. and if you can afford it then you can find SR22s for sale for well below $200K out there... that's not at all unreasonably expensive. If I had $250K to drop on a plane right now the SR22 would be at the very top of the list

I honestly think the people that don't like them don't like them due to fundamental philosophical outlooks on aviation, IE, "real" planes don't need chutes, "real" planes have retractable gear, "real" planes are not made of "plastic", "real" planes don't feel like luxury cars inside... and the list goes on

But honestly, the plane are f****** amazing, and despite differences in management and marketing there is a reason they're outselling everyone right now, despite the fact that they're not pumping to flight schools, etc
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Actually the whole idea that that rocket literally blows a hole in the top of the aircraft I find really surprising. I think a lot of people think it comes out the back window. I did initially.
Click to expand...

Owners not reading the POH, or knowing how to properly operate the "Sky Brakes"

:D
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
physically cut a hole in the top of the hull and remove and replace the rocket
Click to expand...
Thanks, I always wondered that actually, how the repack itself was done. I suppose putting a door would have resulted in a permanently visible seam, and blowing through the glass would have it's own issues. For the 2 or 3 times (maybe 4) these planes will have their chutes repacked I can understand why cutting the whole and fixing it would be the "path off least resistance" (so to speak)

EDIT: typo
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Actually the whole idea that that rocket literally blows a hole in the top of the aircraft I find really surprising. I think a lot of people think it comes out the back window. I did initially.
Click to expand...

I saw a G2 demo plane that had clear plexiglass over the chute.

I thought it was a cool idea, like some exotic mid-engined sports cars have done.

If you've got it, flaunt it!
 
Incidentally, the lesser known and lesser loved VK-30 was a cool Cirrus plane as well.. and kudos to the marketing guys for knowing that an "unconventional" plane like that wouldn't be a good seller on the market, even if its performance specs were relatively decent and it looked more like a rocket ship than another GA plane
 
I love the plane. The safety, the capabilities, the performance, the safety, the comfort, the roominess, the safety, the design. I love the side stick and love the spring load too, and I don't feel it interferes with the "feel" of the plane. You have to get used it it and learn how to feel it. But it's there. No other plane came close to matching my wants and expectations when I was looking to buy.

I love the training. Cirrus transition training (my insurance required it along with IPC but I would have done it anyway) is amazing. I learned so much, refreshed a lot of things, and it mentally made me a better pilot. So much current material sponsored by Cirrus. No other company does what they do for training.

The community. People help each other. People are genuinely excited about flying and are generally pretty cool. The COPA forum is outstanding. I come here for entertainment. I go there for knowledge.

The company in general. They stand behind their product. The company is stable and growing. They're innovating (and not just the "we now have two doors!" crap). They listen to their customers and they go out of their way to help (even if you buy pre-owned). They do interesting events and get togethers. Every single employee or service center tech I've met has an enthusiasm about flying and Cirrus. And it's easy to understand why.

On Spins:

People can argue spin vs BRS all day long. I really don't care. You know my thought on it? Actual spin recovery isn't a required part of training. Yes you have to know how to recover, but how many people actually do it? (I did). So with that in mind, I wonder how many POA super pilots that spout off about Cirrus spin capabilities could actually recover from a spin. Most of the garbage I read about here is just internet keyboard warrior bullcrap. Plus, if I get into a spin in IMC, I want a chute.
 
Last edited:
Vance Breese said:
It is my observation that many Cirrus pilots start their cold engines and run them at high rpm (1,800?) immediately while taxiing to the run up area.

Why do they do that?
Isn't it hard on the engine?
Click to expand...

Because they weren't taught how to properly start a Cirrus in medical school.
 
citizen5000 said:
Ever wonder why the Cirrus is central to so much aviation discussion? Ever wonder why Cirrus sells more piston singles than anyone else? Ever wonder why Cirrus managed to get into production with the only single-pilot VLJ? Just makes one wonder.
Click to expand...

No
 
Vance Breese said:
It is my observation that many Cirrus pilots start their cold engines and run them at high rpm (1,800?) immediately while taxiing to the run up area.

Why do they do that?
Click to expand...
In my experience:
1.) the plane needs a bit of juice to start moving... I assumed this is because the plane is a tad heavier and because the automatically adjusting CS prop doesn't get much "bite" at the low throttle settings
2.) the differential steering can take some getting used to, I think a lot of people drag the brakes around to keep it pointing straight and overcome that with relatively high-ish power settings

Do I taxi around at 1,800 RPM? No... I have no problem getting it moving 1,200-1,500 RPM and then taxiing it like any other plane 700-900 RPM
 
I assume no one in a Cirrus is running their engines up over 1000 rpm before the oil temp gets to 103f. Once that temp is reached you can rev to taxi thrust. And you can do a mag check which requires 1700 rpm.
 
I love mine. Its simply amazing. The service from Cirrus has been amazing. When I bought my Cessna all they cared about was when I was buying my next Cessna. Cirrus, my salesman, my CSIP, and others I have met along the way have checked in on me regularly, not wanting anything other than to just make sure I am happy. Field support has been amazing.

The plane flies so much better than my 206 did. Faster, less fuel, handles turbulence and winds completely differently. Did an IPC last week with winds 25 gusts 35 and didn't even notice the wind the entire flight.

For those that hate the Cirrus so much, if you are ever in my area, look me up, I'd be glad to take you up and change your mind
 
Tantalum said:
In my experience:
1.) the plane needs a bit of juice to start moving... I assumed this is because the plane is a tad heavier and because the automatically adjusting CS prop doesn't get much "bite" at the low throttle settings
Click to expand...

Hard to tell if you're implying there's something unique about the Cirrus having the prop and throttle linked in this regard.

At the rpm we're talking about, we're well out of the constant-speed range, with the prop fully flat against the stops, regardless of whether there's a blue knob or not.

Right?
 
FastEddieB said:
Right?
Click to expand...
Maybe the ramp where the club parks the planes has a slight slope, but I do notice the SR20 at least needs a little oomph to get moving. Once taxieing it moves like any other plane. I thought maybe at near idle setting the prop was more fine than what you might find on something like a Skyhawk. I have no idea, but it does seem to need a little extra juice

Either way I love it. People who trash the plane have never given me a solid reason why, as I think we've shown that it's not some auto-spinning plastic demon!
 
I owned one and became a CSIP and did a fair amount of flight instructing in them.

For the most part, wonderful planes.

To be fair and balanced...

1) I was at times disappointed with some engineering design choices. At least in 2003, the wing root fairings were secured with double-sided tape, the #2 GPS antenna was secured to the bottom of the glare shield with standard Velcro, standard brakes as delivered were not robust enough to handle imperfect technique and key electrical connectors were really cheaply made. Made me wonder about the plane's overall long-term durability.

2) Parts prices and price increases bordered on extortion-level at times.

3) Parts availability was an issue, even on important stuff like rocket motors and reef cutters that Cirrus should have anticipated the need for.

Not saying other brands might have similar or worse issues - only that the things listed were disappointments to me.

Hopefully newer Cirrus models have rectified some of my complaints.
 
Where is Maui Wowie when we need him? He can help us understand Cirrus and AOA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top