Flew a Cirrus SR 20 today

A

asgcpa

En-Route
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
2,559
Location
Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
CPA
The plane that I'm training in for my IR is booked.

As I mentioned in another post, I've been named as a pilot for insurance purposes on my friends' SR 20.

Today, I flew my instructors SR20. It has the same configuration as the Archer I'm using for my training. Did 2 VOR approaches, a hold, and a RNAV GPS approach at KCMI (University of Illinois).

I loved the SR 20. Greased both landings, take offs were great, and it was easy to fly. Approaches were no big deal. I loved the 160 knot ground speed.

Where have you been my whole life? I'm in love with this type.
 
Ahhh, life with out rivets is a grand thing...
 
If you like that then try a mooney. I get 160 TAS on 10 GPH. I love seeing my fuel totalizer say 20nm/gal.
 
Congrats,how did you find the fuel flow? Nice airplane,very slick,very pricey.
 
frcabot said:
If you like that then try a mooney. I get 160 TAS on 10 GPH. I love seeing my fuel totalizer say 20nm/gal.
Click to expand...

The Mooney is a fine, efficient plane. Lots of hours in them, both solo and training students towards Commerical ratings.

The Cirrus line can rival them for efficiency, however. I could see 160k+, close to 170k, on less than 10 gph in the mid- to high-teens in my SR22.

Here's 172k on 12.5 gph @ 15,500' for example:

14186642867_e86a2f205d_c.jpg


Leaning to well LOP could knock off at least two gph at the cost of about 10k TAS.

I love the build quality and solid feel of the Mooney. A bit heavy on the controls compared (especially with "Positive Control") to the Grumman line, which I've owned concurrently with flying them. I just always found them a bit cramped, bordering on claustrophobic, with the panel so close and seating so tight and limited visibility and the single door.

But That's Just Me™, and many like the feel, much like a sports car.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
The Mooney is a fine, efficient plane. Lots of hours in them, both solo and training students towards Commerical ratings.

The Cirrus line can rival them for efficiency, however. I could see 160k+, close to 170k, on less than 10 gph in the mid- to high-teens in my SR22.

Here's 172k on 12.5 gph @ 15,500' for example:

14186642867_e86a2f205d_c.jpg


Leaning to well LOP could knock off at least two gph at the cost of about 10k TAS.

I love the build quality and solid feel of the Mooney. A bit heavy on the controls compared (especially with "Positive Control") to the Grumman line, which I've owned concurrently with flying them. I just always found them a bit cramped, bordering on claustrophobic, with the panel so close and seating so tight and limited visibility and the single door.

But That's Just Me™, and many like the feel, much like a sports car.
Click to expand...
It does get a little cramped and I miss the avionics of the cirri. I also hate having a single door but oh well. If given the choice between SR22 and Mooney, cost being equal (which it never would be), I'd take the SR22. Maybe even the SR20. But since cirri are so much more expensive, the decision has been made for me.
 
Never ceases to amaze me. We fly for fun. We live for the moments we spend in the plane.
Guys spend many years dreaming of being a pilot, then many thousands of dollars getting the training, then mucho dollars buying that fast plane - just so they can get back on the ground ten minutes sooner.

Which syllable of :dunno: am I failing to grasp here?
 
Dr. O said:
Never ceases to amaze me. We fly for fun. We live for the moments we spend in the plane.
Guys spend many years dreaming of being a pilot, then many thousands of dollars getting the training, then mucho dollars buying that fast plane - just so they can get back on the ground ten minutes sooner.

Which syllable of :dunno: am I failing to grasp here?
Click to expand...

The allure of fast planes is on the wane for me. If I could convince my partners to trade the 201 for a Citabria or Decathlon I'd be all over it.
 
Dr. O said:
Never ceases to amaze me. We fly for fun. We live for the moments we spend in the plane.
Guys spend many years dreaming of being a pilot, then many thousands of dollars getting the training, then mucho dollars buying that fast plane - just so they can get back on the ground ten minutes sooner.

Which syllable of :dunno: am I failing to grasp here?
Click to expand...

Exactly! :yes:

It always amazes me that the first questions people ask is how fast does it go. When I tell them I don't fly it that fast I like to fly economy and take my time they look at me weird. I guess they don't want to miss the latest episode of "Dancing with the Stars", or Justin Bebers latest felony.
 
We were using 8.4-9 gph. We were getting the same economy as my car but 3 times as fast.
 
Dr. O said:
Never ceases to amaze me. We fly for fun. We live for the moments we spend in the plane.
Guys spend many years dreaming of being a pilot, then many thousands of dollars getting the training, then mucho dollars buying that fast plane - just so they can get back on the ground ten minutes sooner.

Which syllable of :dunno: am I failing to grasp here?
Click to expand...
That makes me reflect a bit on my own flying. I've done more than my fair share of 'flying for fun'. I've only flown for fun and still only fly for fun.

My latest fun flight involved laying around in bed until we both felt like getting up, packing, going out for a latte at our favorite shop in Durham, and taking a call from an old friend in Pgh asking me if I was in town yet for the reunion picnic and ball game.

"No, we're still at home but will be taking off in a few minutes".

"You're still in NC! Man, you are going to miss everything."

"No, we're good, will be in town in less than 2 hours. See you at the park"

We proceeded to arrive in Pgh on a 'top ten' day with blue skies and bone clear skies. We considered flying over the picnic since we could see the park as we entered the pattern at KAGC but decided to just land since I hadn't planned a low excursion under the Class B and over the rolling hills of one of the beautiful cities around.

Jumped in the rental car with our bags and cooler and was biting a brat 30 mins later with high school friends I hadn't seen in 40 years.

We live with our plane that lives in the hangar shop in which we built her. We fly her to have fun and live most richly in the moments that she enables us to enjoy. Soaring was one kind of fun, traveling by light plane another. Speed has been a big part of both pursuits for us.

I did look at the factory Eclipse jet and marketing truck parked on the ramp at KAGC and experience a moment of desire.... But then I thought how simple and easy our relationship with Tigressa is and quickly forgot about the pretty little jet
 
Last edited:
Dr. O said:
Never ceases to amaze me. We fly for fun. We live for the moments we spend in the plane.
Guys spend many years dreaming of being a pilot, then many thousands of dollars getting the training, then mucho dollars buying that fast plane - just so they can get back on the ground ten minutes sooner.

Which syllable of :dunno: am I failing to grasp here?
Click to expand...

Because some people fly for fun and to get somewhere. If the getting somewhere requires a boring 9000ft cruise over flat fields in a straight line, going faster is preferred. Especially if the real treat of the trip isn't the flying at cruise but the beauty of the destination.
 
Last edited:
A red flag always goes up when someone says Cirri are "easy to fly". Let's adjust that a bit: "Cirrus Aircraft feel solid and easy to fly. The truth is the Cirrus has a poor safety record, in spite of the 'chute (though it's getting better through a massive training program)."

So the truth from someone who has tons of hours in the Cirrus and Piper and Cessna: If you're really aware and a good pilot, you will come to understand that the Cirrus is much harder to fly than comparable aircraft. Ask (almost) any flight instructor (9 of 9 I've asked agree) and all insurance companies. The Cirrus:

* Lacks control "feel" (spring loaded side yoke)
* Feels smooth and nice, even when it's near an uncontrolled attitude
* Is extremely sensitive to speed on final...slightly too fast...expect a porpoise; slightly slow, you have no margin for error on the flare...expect a hard landing

The Cirrus safety record has improved dramatically in the most recent quarter. This is due to a massive, costly training program. Many flight schools now have required annual recurrent training.

So dont' get me wrong: I love Cirri and may buy one. But don't get lulled into thinking they are easy to fly. They CAN be as safe or safer than any other airplane. Plan to build way more effort into your training (now and on-going) and never, ever allow yourself to believe they are easy to fly. They just aren't.
 
asgcpa said:
I loved the SR 20. Greased both landings, take offs were great, and it was easy to fly. Approaches were no big deal. I loved the 160 knot ground speed.



Where have you been my whole life? I'm in love with this type.
Click to expand...


Oh yea? Well I worked on my complex on Saturday in a 1981 172RG and got 135 kts. Show off. (OK, yes, I'm jealous.) :D

All the best on your wedding, Arthur. We expect NO posts from you for at least two weeks.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
A red flag always goes up when someone says Cirri are "easy to fly". Let's adjust that a bit: "Cirrus Aircraft feel solid and easy to fly. The truth is the Cirrus has a poor safety record, in spite of the 'chute (though it's getting better through a massive training program)."
Click to expand...

"Easy to fly" and "good safety record" aren't equivalent. There are many many (different) variables that go into each. For example, the B747 has a much better safety record than a C172, but I don't know anyone who would argue that the 747 is easier to fly.

I'm not taking a position on what's easier to fly or what's safer. Just saying one doesn't mean the other.
 
Mcmanigle...Good point, but in this case, a study of the safety record shows that many Cirrus accidents are due to loss of control in circumstances that a 172 would just say "that's OK...I'll handle this for you; next time you'll do better!"

In the same way a 747 needs more training to be safe, a Cirrus needs more training than a 172. A Cirrus can be perfectly safe. But ask Cirrus...they are complex enough and hard enough to fly that Cirrus had to come up with a very detailed transition syllabus and written / pratical flight test before most FBO's will rent them to you.

The point, again, is Cirrus is not "easy to fly". Those who approach it with this in mind will get the needed training and will love both the SR20 and SR22.
 
You know, I just don't think that there is a hard answer when it comes to the easy vs hard to fly, safe vs. non-safe...

For example, I may find the SR20 to be extremely easy to fly, but a C210 a big heavy challenge. (Illustration only). Likewise, many Mooney's end up on their bellies, but, they are almost all easily repaired, and fully airworthy aircraft for a very long time due to the structural design.

That aside, back to the OP's original intent... plane babble.

I loved flying the SR's. I am going to go get a checkout done in one later this week as a local flight school just put one on the line (at $210 YIKES). They are a joy to fly, and like anything else, take training and currency. For me, a C172/182 pilot with 20 different types under my belt, it seems to land with a flat sight picture, similar to the DA40 I've flown in SoCal. Different, not worse, just different. And you DO need to be on your speeds, but that's the case in just about all planes if you want to impress the tower controllers. Sure, a 182 will let you bounce your way to a stop without nosing in (had to keep in more speed then I like the other day to avoid a tower educed runway incursion, I bounced a couple of times, but they were light, and I just held attitude and settled nicely on the last touch).

I think someone else was referencing speed. Sometimes I like to go slow (joy ride on a nice night with a friend in his cherry C150), and sometimes I want to get somewhere (C182 to a Packer game in Green Bay)... It's about the mission for each pilot. It would be pretty boring if there was just ONE plane for everyone to fly, though it might be cheaper ;)

My perfect fleet: An Amphib SuperCub, an Amphib C206, and a Piper Malibu... :)
 
nddons said:
Oh yea? Well I worked on my complex on Saturday in a 1981 172RG and got 135 kts. Show off. (OK, yes, I'm jealous.) :D

All the best on your wedding, Arthur. We expect NO posts from you for at least two weeks.
Click to expand...

Thanks Stan. I will post I am sure.....when I got my complex endorsement it was on an Arrow....135 kias and using more gas. So ya got me beat!
 
Last edited:
Dr. O said:
Never ceases to amaze me. We fly for fun. We live for the moments we spend in the plane.
Guys spend many years dreaming of being a pilot, then many thousands of dollars getting the training, then mucho dollars buying that fast plane - just so they can get back on the ground ten minutes sooner.

Which syllable of :dunno: am I failing to grasp here?
Click to expand...

Flying = Fun
Speed = Fun
High speed flying = Very Fun
 
Babble continued: I would probably be an owner of a used Cirrus if I hadn't decided to build and if I lived on a smoother field. Why? Because I owned high performance sailplanes, I loved them, and the Cirrus reminds me of them for all the obvious reasons. It's a look and feel thing.

I would have been a Mooney owner if I lived on a smoother, longer, less obstructed field. Why? Efficiency. I like the sports car-like attempt to get the most out of the least (thinking older Mooney here). Getting my commercial ticket in one confirmed it, Johnson bar and all. Instead I got a Maule that eats rough fields for lunch. Slow as sin but the tailwheel was a character builder and it's good not to be in a 172/180 like everyone else.

The RV10 has been the best choice of all. Fixed gear and a big engine produce the same numbers as the old Mooneys and SR20s; 160 knots at 10gpm at 9K anytime. I can and do take that up to 166 for another .5gpm or 155 to save .5gpm. Easy and fun to fly without a stiff bone in her. Eats up the rough surface at my home field, departs with authority and routinely rewards arrivals with grease jobs. Two gull wing doors to keep you dry in the rain. It's a pleasure to sit up high while watching a couple extricate themselves and their stuff from a late model Mooney.

The RV10 kicker is that it can be Owner Built And Maintained. OBAM isn't for everyone but it can work real well for those that can.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
So the truth from someone who has tons of hours in the Cirrus and Piper and Cessna: If you're really aware and a good pilot, you will come to understand that the Cirrus is much harder to fly than comparable aircraft. Ask (almost) any flight instructor (9 of 9 I've asked agree) and all insurance companies.
Click to expand...

How about some data to back up your claims. I asked my insurance agent and a Bonanza with comparable hull value is just as expensive to insure as an SR22.

Even several years ago Cirrus rates were similar to Bonanza accident rates. I believe current Cirrus accident rates are lower. For several years the accident rate for Cirrus has been below the average for personal use aircraft,

A 172 and an SR22 aren't comparable aircraft. I agree that the 172 is very safe. It is a great trainer. The SR22 isn't a trainer but rather a cross country plane much like the Bonanza.

You clearly asked different instructors than I did. Or... Perhaps you asked if the 172 was safer rather than asking about Bonanzas and Mooneys.
 
FastEddieB said:
The Mooney is a fine, efficient plane. Lots of hours in them, both solo and training students towards Commerical ratings.



The Cirrus line can rival them for efficiency, however. I could see 160k+, close to 170k, on less than 10 gph in the mid- to high-teens in my SR22.



Here's 172k on 12.5 gph @ 15,500' for example:



14186642867_e86a2f205d_c.jpg




Leaning to well LOP could knock off at least two gph at the cost of about 10k TAS.



I love the build quality and solid feel of the Mooney. A bit heavy on the controls compared (especially with "Positive Control") to the Grumman line, which I've owned concurrently with flying them. I just always found them a bit cramped, bordering on claustrophobic, with the panel so close and seating so tight and limited visibility and the single door.



But That's Just Me™, and many like the feel, much like a sports car.
Click to expand...


I'm highly skeptical I think 10gph is going to get you about 145kts maybe under ideal circumstances 148kts in the cirrus.....no way.

And is it my eyes or is the 172kts picture showing a slight decrease in altitude indicated in the vfpm indicator.

Sorry just skeptical.....
 
Nice catch on the VSI.

I believe I was on autopilot, and it may have been correcting back to altitude when the photo was taken.

Still, that was the approximate cruise speed I got at that altitude. Somewhere between 168k and 174k at that fuel flow depending on conditions and weight.

As far as cruise performance, this is from the SR22 POH:

14378360716_5d98f733dc_o.jpg


At gross at 16,000', showing 162k on 10.7 gph throttled back on a standard day. Lighter, I think I went faster on that fuel flow or could come back to about 9.8 gph and still see right around 160k.

But...

...I sold the plane in 2007, so my recollection may be fuzzy.

I do remember being impressed by how fast an SR22 could go on the same fuel flow (10 gph) that only took my Tiger to 132k.

As an aside, now I'm burning about 5.5 gph of mogas to go about 95k - and the world is good!
 
Last edited:
Would love to get a Cirrus some day...at the very least fly one. We are still at least 10 years away from buying a plane so we will see what my needs and wants are then.

It would be interesting to see the age break down of those that want/like Cirrus to those that don't.
 
If I ever won a big lottery, I would have 4 planes. I'd keep my Maule for leisurely flying, hauling stuff and landing in the back country. The second plane in my stable might be a go-fast XC machine for those times when the goal is to get somewhere quickly. The other additions would be an aerobatic toy and a motor-glider. That would satisfy all of my flying needs. Unfortunately, I'll never win the lottery because I don't buy tickets. That's not to say that buying a ticket would improve my chances of winning much...As another poster said, there are different planes for each mission, and each of us has a lot of different flying missions over time. There is a rental SR22 at the local FBO. I doubt I will ever spend the time or money to get fully checked out, but I might have to pay for an hour of dual just to see what I am missing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top