Cirrus musings

S

Sundancer

En-Route
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
3,525
Display Name
Display name:
Sundog
I've been getting recurrent in a 2007 Cirrus SR20 - my subjective, personal observations are: I like the Avidyne Entegra/twin Garmin 430s a LOT more than the similar vintage G1000 equipped C-182 I flew.

The Entegra has more intuitive and obvious buttonology to my mind. Not a fan of the vertical tape airspeed in either system; for that function, and VS, an analog representation is superior. But not a real problem - the backup steam gauge is/was in full view in both airplanes.

Seating comfort is about the same in both airplanes. The Cirrus is probably a slightly better instrument platform, and has hands-down better visibility. The "inter-connect" in the Cirrus that combines the throttle and prop into a poor-mans single lever engine control is kinda crude - it works, but is annoying. Then again, the 182 is the other extreme with five do-hickeys for power management. You still set power by MP, either airplane.

My impression is the 182 climbs better in my typical configuration, which is me alone and less than full fuel.

Though they aren't digital both their A/Ps handle enroute and approaches well. They both need hand flying in rougher air.

Fuel management in the 182 is by God's Own "G" - the Cirrus requires a boost pump and tank switching.

The Cirrus side-stick isn't an issue, if you've been flying a yoke equipped airplane. It's still in your left hand. Not a proper stick anyway - the stick pivots for roll, but you push in/pull back for pitch - makes it a "stoke" I guess? The Cirrus has trim on the stick, including aileron trim - I don't use aileron trim much - it's hyper-sensitive in pitch trim compared to the Cessna, though it might be a little more convenient.

I think the Cirrus is a "Doctors" airplane - a good traveler, as is a 182, but not as good at crash-and-dash shorter field stuff. The parachute is more marketing than practical, but other than the GW impact, it's not a problem either.

The Cirrus circuit breaker panel is down low, by the pilots lower right leg, and is big-time inconvenient, and if you lack flexibility it is nearly inaccessible.

Both panels are a little too tall. Cirrus wins the back seat - the 182's is a dungeon.

This sounds silly, but the Cirrus has much better doors! Cessna doors are a PITA, and the smooth action on the SR20 is great. Seat adjustment on the 182 is much better. I don't see hoping in and out of grass strips as a regular thing in the Cirrus - more practical in the 182 to do.

Just my opinions. I could be wrong.
 
The cost of the chute repack at 20yrs is something to consider but, as of late, the bigger issue is obtaining one it seems.
 
You should check out an SR-22, what the SR-20 lacks in climb performance the SR-22 more than makes up for it and has fantastic true air speeds

As far as a cross country cruising machine when you have three or four people in the plane the Cirrus wins hands down. Both the 172 and the 182 have garbage for back seats

Overall neither the SR20 or the 22 are fair comparisons against a 182, the missions are totally different.

One is a rugged and generally go anywhere plane with few major compromises. The other it's faster and more comfortable but lacks some of that ruggedability. If your mission involves going into some unpaved strips or beat up strips that are shorter a 182 might make more sense. If you're flying from FBO to FBO the SR series is the way to go


PS - chute. People love to critique this but it's one of the main reasons the plane sells in huge numbers (relatively) while everybody else barely hangs on and exists purely as a result of flight schools. Non-flying passengers love it too..
 
It would be hard to over come the lack of a chute ( from a sales perspective ) to a non-flying spouse if a purchase was being contemplated.
 
I have some time in a 22GTS, nice plane, though the tail is a little small for the round out and seems to ask to keep ether speed or power in during the round out, probably contributing to how damn fast lots of people land the things.

Keyless entry is cute, and the blended wing tip lights look nice, as does the interior.

All that being considered, I wouldn’t pay just shy of a million bucks for one, I don’t think it’s that much airplane. But it is nice, just lots nicer options for the price point.
 
Mxfarm said:
It would be hard to over come the lack of a chute ( from a sales perspective ) to a non-flying spouse if a purchase was being contemplated.
Click to expand...

Education is the fix for that, both for pilot and fear porn pax.
 
I can't believe you like 430s over the G1000. Sounds like you don't have much time with the G1000, which is hands down, a better system. I believe all the G1000 Cirrus use the GFC 700 AP, which I have flown in some pretty miserable turbulence. It has not disconnected on me yet.

The prop/throttle combo make flying the airplane as simple as a fixed pitch. The G6 20 has a Lycoming 390 with 215 hp in it, which really helps climb performance and makes the airplane a consistent 150+ ktas cruiser.

Cirrus stalls at 61 knots (the 22), which is why they land fast. Cirrus recommended procedure was to land faster than necessary. This caused problem with people mucking them up on the ground, so Cirrus changed and approach speeds are appropriate now for the airplane performance.

The chute has saved a few hundred lives.
 
PaulS said:
I can't believe you like 430s over the G1000. Sounds like you don't have much time with the G1000, which is hands down, a better system. I believe all the G1000 Cirrus use the GFC 700 AP, which I have flown in some pretty miserable turbulence. It has not disconnected on me yet.

The prop/throttle combo make flying the airplane as simple as a fixed pitch. The G6 20 has a Lycoming 390 with 215 hp in it, which really helps climb performance and makes the airplane a consistent 150+ ktas cruiser.

Cirrus stalls at 61 knots (the 22), which is why they land fast. Cirrus recommended procedure was to land faster than necessary. This caused problem with people mucking them up on the ground, so Cirrus changed and approach speeds are appropriate now for the airplane performance.

The chute has saved a few hundred lives.
Click to expand...

I’m in the same boat, I have time in most garmins from hiking GPS to g3000, the 430 is a very fast to use GPS if you know it well, G1000 is nice and has most of the same menus.

Now if the choice was a G1000 or a plane with vac gyros, I’ll go G1000 all day long.
 
Last edited:
Until I started flying them, I just couldn’t fathom 1M+ for a 4/5 place fixed gear single. Still can’t really, but they fit the mission for a lot of owners. The 22T is an extremely capable cross country machine. If I want to hand fly, give me a Bonanza all day every day, but the systems, automation, and fit n finish of the Cirrus is hard to beat
 
And it feels new and at least commensurate with 2022. Everything else seems like the same old 1960s design with just a g1000 wedged into it
 
Tantalum said:
And it feels new and at least commensurate with 2022. Everything else seems like the same old 1960s design with just a g1000 wedged into it
Click to expand...

Feels new?

The dash is nice and the gull wing doors do remind me of the Southern California Honda modifications, keyless entry is fun but a gimmick, it really doesn’t feel newer, at a real base level, than most any other fixed gear turbo with a fancy interior job and paint.

Here’s a much “newer” plane than the cirrus, 210hp giving you a 230kts cruise. Just add a swoosh on the paint, some fancy fabric and mod a keyless entry on it

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/white-lightning/
 
Jackk said:
Feels new?

The dash is nice and the gull wing doors do remind me of the Southern California Honda modifications, keyless entry is fun but a gimmick, it really doesn’t feel newer, at a real base level, than most any other fixed gear turbo with a fancy interior job and paint.

Here’s a much “newer” plane than the cirrus, 210hp giving you a 230kts cruise. Just add a swoosh on the paint, some fancy fabric and mod a keyless entry on it

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/white-lightning/
Click to expand...
Sure, but where can I buy one?

The TTx had a modern look, arguably even more so than the Cirrus and so do Diamond.

I'm flying a 1967 largely original Aztec (a 530 is the most it can technologically offer), see avatar, so I don't mind the older look but I can understand why Cirrus sell in droves compared to other piston planes you can buy new
 
Tantalum said:
Sure, but where can I buy one?

The TTx had a modern look, arguably even more so than the Cirrus and so do Diamond.

I'm flying a 1967 largely original Aztec (a 530 is the most it can technologically offer), see avatar, so I don't mind the older look but I can understand why Cirrus sell in droves compared to other piston planes you can buy new
Click to expand...

I think it’s also people who don’t know much about aviation, they view a old plane like a old car.
 
Jackk said:
Feels new?

The dash is nice and the gull wing doors do remind me of the Southern California Honda modifications, keyless entry is fun but a gimmick, it really doesn’t feel newer, at a real base level, than most any other fixed gear turbo with a fancy interior job and paint.

Here’s a much “newer” plane than the cirrus, 210hp giving you a 230kts cruise. Just add a swoosh on the paint, some fancy fabric and mod a keyless entry on it

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/white-lightning/
Click to expand...
Certainly smells newer. 60 years of butt sweat, a little 5606 brake fluid leak, old cushions and that red vinyl so many Cherokees still have

But seriously, look at the seats compared to a 60's Cherokee. Much more ergonomically friendly. Was that even a word back then?
 
Racerx said:
Certainly smells newer. 60 years of butt sweat, a little 5606 brake fluid leak, old cushions and that red vinyl so many Cherokees still have

But seriously, look at the seats compared to a 60's Cherokee. Much more ergonomically friendly. Was that even a word back then?
Click to expand...

I’ll take a PA28 and replace the butt sweat smell with the smell of $850,000.00 of cold hard cash I’d have left over lol
 
PaulS said:
I can't believe you like 430s over the G1000. Sounds like you don't have much time with the G1000, which is hands down, a better system. I believe all the G1000 Cirrus use the GFC 700 AP, which I have flown in some pretty miserable turbulence. It has not disconnected on me yet.

The prop/throttle combo make flying the airplane as simple as a fixed pitch. The G6 20 has a Lycoming 390 with 215 hp in it, which really helps climb performance and makes the airplane a consistent 150+ ktas cruiser.

Cirrus stalls at 61 knots (the 22), which is why they land fast. Cirrus recommended procedure was to land faster than necessary. This caused problem with people mucking them up on the ground, so Cirrus changed and approach speeds are appropriate now for the airplane performance.

The chute has saved a few hundred lives.
Click to expand...
Oh, believe it - the spin up/learning curve was much better for the Avidyne. People vary, but I found the G1000 interface/buttonology klunky and awkward, and after quite a bit of time it remained annoying. It really shows in the Cirrus, in the contrast even between the G430's and the Avidyne - the menu/interface on the Avidyne is much "shallower" and far more intuitive. But it's a personal preference. Still, I was pretty comfortable with the Avidyne in short order, while the G1000 takes longer to make friends, and is obscure in it's navigation.

I didn't intend to malign either A/P - neither has disconnected on me; they just don't do real well in real rough air (the kind where you don't want a baseball cap with a button on top of it.) I'm no AP expert - that might be a characteristic of rate based APs, having to "chase" and work hard in strong turbulence.

The throttle/prop interconnect just strikes me as both crude and clever. It works, and you can feel it when it crosses the "fence", but it takes the constant speed prop out of the pilot's hands. For the Cirrus mission maybe not all that bad, but crude.
 
Jackk said:
I have some time in a 22GTS, nice plane, though the tail is a little small for the round out and seems to ask to keep ether speed or power in during the round out, probably contributing to how damn fast lots of people land the things.

Keyless entry is cute, and the blended wing tip lights look nice, as does the interior.

All that being considered, I wouldn’t pay just shy of a million bucks for one, I don’t think it’s that much airplane. But it is nice, just lots nicer options for the price point.
Click to expand...
Oh, concur, sure! I'd never consider BUYING one! Couldn't make the lift for a new one, and in the used market there are very good choice for far, less money.
 
Sundancer said:
Oh, believe it - the spin up/learning curve was much better for the Avidyne. People vary, but I found the G1000 interface/buttonology klunky and awkward, and after quite a bit of time it remained annoying. It really shows in the Cirrus, in the contrast even between the G430's and the Avidyne - the menu/interface on the Avidyne is much "shallower" and far more intuitive. But it's a personal preference. Still, I was pretty comfortable with the Avidyne in short order, while the G1000 takes longer to make friends, and is obscure in it's navigation.

I didn't intend to malign either A/P - neither has disconnected on me; they just don't do real well in real rough air (the kind where you don't want a baseball cap with a button on top of it.) I'm no AP expert - that might be a characteristic of rate based APs, having to "chase" and work hard in strong turbulence.

The throttle/prop interconnect just strikes me as both crude and clever. It works, and you can feel it when it crosses the "fence", but it takes the constant speed prop out of the pilot's hands. For the Cirrus mission maybe not all that bad, but crude.
Click to expand...


I agree with the annoying part and the learning curve part on the G1000. Add in that it's a perishable skill can make it super annoying. But it works really well, plus the 1000 is much more capable than the 430, once you learn it you loathe to go back. At least for me.

I'll have to disagree on the 700, even in head smacking turbulence it's really good IMO. Tracks well and maintains altitude well. You are probably thinking of the Stec on the Cirrus, which is a good AP, but does do some funky things.
 
PaulS said:
I agree with the annoying part and the learning curve part on the G1000. Add in that it's a perishable skill can make it super annoying. But it works really well, plus the 1000 is much more capable than the 430, once you learn it you loathe to go back. At least for me.

I'll have to disagree on the 700, even in head smacking turbulence it's really good IMO. Tracks well and maintains altitude well. You are probably thinking of the Stec on the Cirrus, which is a good AP, but does do some funky things.
Click to expand...
I'll demur then on the AP, especially with much less time so far in the Cirrus. The SR20 I'm flying has the Avidyne Entegra along with two G430's for GPS sources, so I was sorta comparing that mix to the G1000. Working with the Avidyne PFD and MFD I get to compare those with the Garmin boxes - even with a lot of time with Garmin, my impression is Avidyne has done a better job with interfaces. G1000 will do everything well, for sure - just IMHO the interfaces suck.
 
cruiserandmax said:
I remember sitting in the third row seat in my dads 182 when I was young- now THAT was a garbage seat;)
Click to expand...
I didn't even realize 182 ever came with a third row seat! I'm bitter, we flew a 182 from MYF to ATW last year, we had 3 of us so I spent my allotment of time in the back seat
 
Tantalum said:
I didn't even realize 182 ever came with a third row seat! I'm bitter, we flew a 182 from MYF to ATW last year, we had 3 of us so I spent my allotment of time in the back seat
Click to expand...
It was an option, a place to put small children you didn't like.

C-182-205 1964.jpg

Amazingly, a baggage-area child seat was also optional on the 172, 177 and even 150.

cessna_172d_skyhawk_int.jpg

cessna_150f_int.jpg
 
These old marketing bits are fantastic
 
Jackk said:
I’ll take a PA28 and replace the butt sweat smell with the smell of $850,000.00 of cold hard cash I’d have left over lol
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top