Flew A Cirrus today. Long

Tantalum said:
Such a polarizing plane. Rarely can we go more than one page without an insinuation that they're not flown (or designed) by real pilots, or just flat out calling it "stupid"



The Klapmeier brothers aren't millenials, born at the end of the 1950s they're squarely in the baby boomer generation and did a ton of research into their product. I am pretty sure I read that these guys were flying planes before they were driving cars. What they did was take all the small things "wrong" with existing aircraft design and try to resolve and tweak them to create something comfortable and fast. While Cirrus is not the fastest, I am pretty sure that every faster plane is narrower and generally smaller.. so they've got a good compromise there. Not many planes will let you cruise well north of 170 knots true in a 49 inch wide cabin; that's a full 7 inches more elbow room than Bonanza, Baron, and still 6 inches more than a Stationair.. even 1 inch beyond the Saratoga


very well said, and much more eloquent than I would have (and did) put it!
Click to expand...
Didn’t bring my tape measure but the Bonanza feels a lot roomier in the front seats. It might in fact be narrower but it’s way taller with bigger windows.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Didn’t bring my tape measure but the Bonanza feels a lot roomier in the front seats
Click to expand...
Interesting. Comfort is going to be a subjective factor for most. I'm fairly tall and I have the most arm, leg, and headroom in the Cirrus. Depending on where you slide the front seat can have an impact too.. since it's on an angle. I have to keep mine relatively far back to get the right headroom height
 
j1b3h0 said:
not being used to programming the FMC like it requires a type-rating,
Click to expand...
Once you learn it, it is easy. But it is imperative to have a G1000 simulator (Garmin calls it PC Trainer) on your desktop computer in case you want to refresh certain procedures.
 
j1b3h0 said:
From a business prospective, Cirrus has hit a home run with its intended buyers, hell, I’d buy stock in the company if it were public. But my favorite airplanes are ones that have silky, responsive flight controls that can be flown most of the time with the tips of your fingers. By comparison the Cirrus I flew was a tank. I jumped in my Bonanza to fly home and thought Beech really got it right (and has been refining it for 50 years!). Sure, it’s got some quirks, like that control column thing that looks like it belongs in a dentist’s office, and it wags in turbulence, but it flys beautifully and despite being 50 yrs older, and non-FIKI, my steam-gaged will carry 4 fat guys and fuel for Denver and deliver 163KTAS on 12.3gph - or 172KTAS @ 15.5gph, faster on less fuel than the Cirrus.
Click to expand...

If you cannot fly Cirrus with just the small muscles in your forearm, then you are over controlling the plane.
Every Beech I have flown is not nearly as precise on the controls as a Cirrus, now the bungee cords on a Cirrus deaden the feeling/feedback in the side yoke. Most pilots confuse the perceived feedback on the yoke with the precision of the plane, that just is not accurate. Try moving the ailerons about five degrees in cruise on both planes and see how they respond, do the same in a climb, in slow flight... in every case Cirrus is much more twitchy and responsive.
Beech many years ago went another direction, because an A/P was not as common, or as accurate, hand flying for hours on end was much more common. Therefore, the wing is not nearly as laminar, the gear retracts to reduce drag instead of going for airfoil efficiency.... All based around the requirements of the average pilot being able to fly it hours on end. A different set of choices by the manufacturer. A very solid set of compromises that lasted decades. But as Cirrus has proven, it is no longer required to make such compromises. Instead you can sacrifice complexity (gear) for simplicity and match (or come close) on performance with much better comfort.

Tim
 
Tantalum said:
Such a polarizing plane...The Klapmeier brothers aren't millenials, born at the end of the 1950s they're squarely in the baby boomer generation and did a ton of research into their product. I am pretty sure I read that these guys were flying planes before they were driving cars. What they did was take all the small things "wrong" with existing aircraft design and try to resolve and tweak them to create something comfortable and fast. While Cirrus is not the fastest, I am pretty sure that every faster plane is narrower and generally smaller.. so they've got a good compromise there. Not many planes will let you cruise well north of 170 knots true in a 49 inch wide cabin; that's a full 7 inches more elbow room than Bonanza, Baron, and still 6 inches more than a Stationair.. even 1 inch beyond the Saratoga...
Click to expand...

Pretty difficult to argue with the numbers on the clean white page when it comes to Cirrus. Particularly the SR-22T. That is one seriously high performing airplane, with few peers by the numbers (the Tornado Alley V-tail Bonanzas and the turbo-Mooneys two of the few exceptions, on some measures).

But like so many things in life (motorcycles, cars, choice of neighborhood, girl/boy-friend, and even spouses), for most pilots I suspect the numbers alone are only a part of the equation about why we, as individuals, find something more, or less, attractive.

Cirrus reminds me of Toyota - who strove to build as close to the safest (chute), most reliable (its not 50 years old :D) and most appealing (Cirrus Life) car possible, until one day it had both the market share and the reputation to legitimize that claim. The problem with Toyotas is most of them are just a little too perfect. They work so well they have no personality and are generally bland as hell to own and drive.

It's the quirks, imperfections and known character flaws that create the personality in any piece of performance machinery - and its those very things that differentiate them from others (say, a Ducati from a Kawasaki) and create the most rabid followers too. The Cirrus might be the much better plane on paper compared to a Bonanza, and any number of other worthy alternatives. But, just like a comfortable perfected Toyota sedan, I seriously doubt it will ever develop the fanatical loyalty Bonanzas, Mooneys and some other less-than-perfect but unique legacy aircraft enjoy - you see that even here on PoA.
 
Last edited:
@GRG55 totally true. The airplane buying and loving process is maybe 30% about practicality and the rest about romance and what YOU want.. my brother had a Ducatti, absolutely loved the thing
 
j1b3h0 said:
Didn’t bring my tape measure but the Bonanza feels a lot roomier in the front seats. It might in fact be narrower but it’s way taller with bigger windows.
Click to expand...

I’m flying a Baron, and occasionally a SR22, and I can tell you the SR22 is definitely wider in the front two seats. The heights are listed as the same size. Seat positions and padding may make a difference.
 
Tantalum said:
@GRG55 totally true. The airplane buying and loving process is maybe 30% about practicality and the rest about romance and what YOU want.. my brother had a Ducatti, absolutely loved the thing
Click to expand...

To love ANYTHING made in Italy (cars, bikes, girls) requires a certain, um, acceptance of potentially mercurial temperament I expect. :D
 
GRG55 said:
Cirrus reminds me of Toyota - who strove to build as close to the safest (chute), most reliable (its not 50 years old :D) and most appealing (Cirrus Life) car possible, until one day it had both the market share and the reputation to legitimize that claim. The problem with Toyotas is most of them are just a little too perfect. They work so well they have no personality and are generally bland as hell to own and drive.

.
Click to expand...

That’s harsh man! I like my Cirrus but definitely am NOT a Toyota guy (tantalum’s is ok, im referring more to the majority of Toyota’s - Prius, corrola, Camry etc).

As a Porsche guy (primarily), I wouldn’t say a Cirrus reminds me of a Porsche but it’s more like a BMW 5 series, Audi A6 or MB E class. Nice, well designed, well optioned, practical, still pretty fun to fly but no one will confuse it for a genuine full on sports car. But I’ve done 2000 nm in one day in mine and there aren’t a lot of piston singles I’d do that in. Especially at 6’6”
 
GRG55 said:
Sez the man who borrows a plane in order to fly it. :D

(but then, those are ALWAYS the best airplanes to fly!)
Click to expand...
I also don’t have to pay for anything. I’d say I’m pretty smart haha! One day if I become a millionaire I’ll own one.
 
A successful small a/c company, whoo-hoo!!!
More power to them!
And it's a decent traveling machine they produce.
Love it!
 
Lachlan said:
Nice write up. Flying a Cirrus sounds.... like pretend flying. I'm 100% certain that I would be in awe flying one, although I have no interest. Not my style of flying, I prefer high wings, and I can't afford one. :) They sure are impressive machines and seem to be incredibly capable of doing a lot of IMC flying by computer, wrapped in a luxurious cabin. For that price, though, they should be.
Click to expand...

A simulator is pretend flying, I'm pretty sure a Cirrus is actually flying through the air.
 
Since Aerostars were mentioned in this thread...

If I were ever so fortunate to be able to get my own plane, for a piston single I'd go for an older SR22T. But since I'd plan on doing most of my flying around the Rockies, I think I'd rather go for a twin, and for me, the Aerostar is right at the top of the of the piston twin category. In fact, I think the only thing that would deter me from an Aerostar (well, besides price) is how relatively few of them are out there, maintenance, and parts availability. It seems a real niche aircraft, but damn it is sexy!

One of these days when I have a LOT more training under my belt and can appreciate flying (or even riding along in) such machines, I'd love to go up in one.
 
jordane93 said:
I also don’t have to pay for anything. I’d say I’m pretty smart haha! One day if I become a millionaire I’ll own one.
Click to expand...

And that will be the first step to losing your fortune. ;) :D

There's and old adage among bankers regarding corporate clients. When the first plane shows up start cutting their credit lines.
 
GRG55 said:
Cirrus reminds me of Toyota
Click to expand...
So I had a whole response typed up then deleted it (remember the thread about not posting?), anyway... and since @RudyP mentioned me and Toyota I figured I had to chime back in

I bought my FJ Cruiser (Toyota) so I could do things like the photo below and romp in the desert

I am a "BMW guy" though at heart (yes I use turn signals) with my first car a '98 M3 manual. The Cirrus flies and feels much more tight and sporty like a BMW than any other plane I've flown. The FJ has a lot more in common with a 182...

I do appreciate Toyota's quality and the analogy to Cirrus though

..and since we brought up Italy.. I have my heart set on a Giulia Coupe (because who doesn't want 641 bhp).. but I'll leave that for the car forums, won't bore you all here!



20151017_112927.jpg
 
GRG55 said:
To love ANYTHING made in Italy (cars, bikes, girls) requires a certain, um, acceptance of potentially mercurial temperament I expect. :D
Click to expand...

Having owned both a Fiat 124 Spyder* and a Ducati, I know what you mean.

That said, my Eye-talian-built Sky Arrow has been pretty darn solid for 11 years and just over 500 hours - probably less problems than any other plane I've owned. Of course, many components source from outside of Italy - Engine from Austria, US-built prop, and lots of other multinational components. Still, they did a fine job of sourcing and assembling all the varied components.


*The new "Fiat" 124 Spyder looks intriguing. It's actually a modified and re-badged Miata. May take a test drive some time!

2018_fiat_124_spider_angularfront.jpg
 
The only Toyota I've ever owned is the Land Cruiser I had when I was living in the Persian Gulf. I bought it after I witnessed how the Saudis drive, and decided I wanted my wife in the biggest, toughest, safest vehicle I could afford. Fantastic vehicle. Big, comfortable, go anywhere in the desert, never left me stranded. But not exactly exciting. :)
 
FastEddieB said:
Having owned both a Fiat 124 Spyder* and a Ducati, I know what you mean...

*The new "Fiat" 124 Spyder looks intriguing. It's actually a modified and re-badged Miata. May take a test drive some time!

2018_fiat_124_spider_angularfront.jpg
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the Miata. An MG without the oil leaks on the driveway... ;)
 
GRG55 said:
The only Toyota I've ever owned is the Land Cruiser I had when I was living in the Persian Gulf. I bought it after I witnessed how the Saudis drive, and decided I wanted my wife in the biggest, toughest, safest vehicle I could afford. Fantastic vehicle. Big, comfortable, go anywhere in the desert, never left me stranded. But not exactly exciting. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah the Land Cruiser is unstoppable. They're great desert overlanders. You can still buy (I think) very basic crank window proper Landcruisers in Australia
 
Toyota makes a diesel version with a solid front axle. We used to refer to those as Land Bruisers.

I wish I had been able to ship it back in a container when I moved back, but there was no way to meet the emissions regs here with a Middle East vehicle that still ran on leaded gasoline (at the US$ equivalent fixed price of ~80 cents per gallon the entire 8 years I lived there).
 
LoneAspen said:
Since Aerostars were mentioned in this thread...

If I were ever so fortunate to be able to get my own plane, for a piston single I'd go for an older SR22T. But since I'd plan on doing most of my flying around the Rockies, I think I'd rather go for a twin, and for me, the Aerostar is right at the top of the of the piston twin category. In fact, I think the only thing that would deter me from an Aerostar (well, besides price) is how relatively few of them are out there, maintenance, and parts availability. It seems a real niche aircraft, but damn it is sexy!

One of these days when I have a LOT more training under my belt and can appreciate flying (or even riding along in) such machines, I'd love to go up in one.
Click to expand...
Parts are not a problem. AAC responds quickly, support is great.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
But did you have a irresistible craving for a Zima afterwards?
 
GRG55 said:
And that will be the first step to losing your fortune. ;) :D

There's and old adage among bankers regarding corporate clients. When the first plane shows up start cutting their credit lines.
Click to expand...

My wife is a banker, and that's why she doesn't want us to own a plane. She's seen too many companies go downhill after buying a plane.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Didn’t bring my tape measure but the Bonanza feels a lot roomier in the front seats. It might in fact be narrower but it’s way taller with bigger windows.
Click to expand...

Specs I checked have the SR22 at 49 inch cabin while the Bonanza is 42. That's a lot wider.
 
Are the rudder pedals adjustable? My discomfort in the Cirrus was not from the WIDTH of the cabin, but from the height- my head was almost hitting the roof. Maybe less cushions? And while the cabin is wide, the extra width is taken up by the throttle console. Got to admit the back seat was roomy indeed. Big windows, too. Beth, our demo pilot is a tiny thing; might be the hero-chair was set up for her, and without some trouble not easily set up for me. Hell, some times I get in a 737 cockpit and wonder “who sits like this?” 3ft. High and 9 inches from the panel!
 
I know it's cool to hate on Cirrus, but if I had the money and could own a roomy, A/C equipped (I live in the south), glass cockpit bird that gets 170+ knots, and that has a Choooot, I'd fly the crap out of it and would prefer that over many of the legacy birds I've flown.

So pass the Zima.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Are the rudder pedals adjustable? My discomfort in the Cirrus was not from the WIDTH of the cabin, but from the height- my head was almost hitting the roof. Maybe less cushions? And while the cabin is wide, the extra width is taken up by the throttle console. Got to admit the back seat was roomy indeed. Big windows, too. Beth, our demo pilot is a tiny thing; might be the hero-chair was set up for her, and without some trouble not easily set up for me. Hell, some times I get in a 737 cockpit and wonder “who sits like this?” 3ft. High and 9 inches from the panel!
Click to expand...

The pedals are not adjustable and the cushions are part of the 'chute system, they absorb the shock of a chute landing. I think your issue could be alleviated by tilting the seat back rearward slightly, sometimes they are too upright for me and I adjust back a little, something Beth probably should have thought of. I think shorter pilots move the seat more upright to make it more comfortable to reach the controls.
 
Bonchie said:
I know it's cool to hate on Cirrus, but if I had the money and could own a roomy, A/C equipped (I live in the south), glass cockpit bird that gets 170+ knots, and that has a Choooot, I'd fly the crap out of it and would prefer that over many of the legacy birds I've flown.

So pass the Zima.
Click to expand...

I agree, if I had the money and was in the market for a traveling machine, a Cirrus would be high on the list. For getting from A to B, keeping momma comfortable and happy is the most important tasks. The Cirrus does what it was designed to do well.
 
wayne said:
A Rockwell Commander 112A is the only low wing I've flown with a "both" setting on the fuel selector. There's probably others, but that's the only one I've seen.
Click to expand...

The Piper factory turbines don't have a tank selector. Has boost pumps in both wings and a computer that monitors fuel balance. Makes you lazy though. When I fly a plane with tank selectors, I have to set a timer because I forget to look ;-)
 
RudyP said:
That’s quite common in low wing airplanes where a fuel pump has to do the work that gravity does in your Cessna 172s. Not just a Cirrus thing.
Click to expand...

Don’t some 172s have fuel pumps?
 
High wings with injection have fuel pumps, but the supply can be selected on both since it gravity feeds to the pump.
 
FWIW - flying under ~10,000ft, the SR22NA is a better performer, imho, than the T.

I typically see about 175 KTAS, around 14gph flying at 9,000 LOP.

As to the seating position, I am 6’ and have plenty of headroom. I remember I used to pull the seat farther forward than I do now. The pedals seemed too far away at first, but that was just a first impression issue. I don’t see how the plane won’t comfortably fit pilots of most sizes.
 
I want to post a video showing the performance, but alas, I need to have completed 5 posts. 2 to go. Let me find someplace(s)/to add thoughtful comments on.
 
Jorge Borbolla said:
I want to post a video showing the performance, but alas, I need to have completed 5 posts. 2 to go. Let me find someplace(s)/to add thoughtful comments on.
Click to expand...

You still have just three. Reply to this post. :D
 
I should be there now. Thanks!

Sweet tailwinds that day :)

This is pretty typical performance. It was ISA+7 that day. 3 people with bags on board. I am very happy with the plane’s performance, especially considering this is economy cruise and the engine is nice and cool.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top