Handling and speed of SR20 vs. C172

About 6,000 - 8,000 feet or so. My employer requires us to cruise at 75 deg rich of peak EGT (not my decision). Lean of peak I'm sure the fuel flow would be closer to the 9gph mark. We follow the Cirrus POH recommendation for best power.

Ok, 9.2 is what I fly that engine at at 25"/WOT 2500 climb and 8.7 at 25"/WOT 2400 cruise. Right in there I would figure 140kts light load and would be pleasantly impressed if it did not drop off performance too badly with a load which is possible.

Your owner/employer is f-ing himself, but that's not my worry.
 
Revisiting your post, I am wondering about your numbers for the Skyhawks. With the 172R, I -could- get 115 knots, but everything had to be perfect. With the 172S, I expect about 115 knots, but sometimes see 120--but never 125. (All numbers here are TAS.)

Granted, these are all aircraft without wheel pants.
Wheel pants on planes like this are usually good for 5-7 knots, and I was assuming they were installed. So, our experiences seem to correlate.
 
With wheel pants, plan on a TAS around 138 - 142 knots with a fuel burn around 10.8 - 11.2 gph. Without wheel pants plan 127 - 131 knots true. I found my students transitioned very nicely to the Perspective system, I found it fairly intuitive.

It is a very comfortable airplane and I fully realize that I am spoiled instructing in a fleet of brand new SR20s. That said, they are still awesome comfort wise. It is much more comfortable than a C172 in my opinion.

Hmmm, I am right at 140 kt true at 9 gph in my Arrow (that is up near 10,000 feet with lots of speed mods) so not so impressive number there. Regarding rental, I would pay a 10% $$/mile premium to take the Cirrus cross-country vs a 172; I would prolly pay 30% more.
 
Update:

The flight school has an extensive workbook I have to complete, which I will do along with the PIM. After that, there's ground, scenario-based. Then my CFI is saying 2-5 hours to be comfy.

I'm going to think more in terms of two sessions of however long we need.

The instrument part shouldn't be hard, because it is a G1000, BUT, it is different. It is a Perspective, and it has an alphanumeric keypad (which I am hoping will be easier than pushing menu, and scrolling through stuff).

I think I'll need more time on the flight characteristics. I've flown a stick, but not a side-stick.

Also, I've heard it is hard to land. I hear stories of long floats, or tail-scrapes, etc. Is it hard to see out the front during the flare?
 
It is a Perspective, and it has an alphanumeric keypad (which I am hoping will be easier than pushing menu, and scrolling through stuff).

Oh believe me it is awesome! It will feel weird to climb in something else and have to crank the knob to enter waypoints after typing on the Garmin Control Unit (GCU) in the Cirrus.

I think I'll need more time on the flight characteristics. I've flown a stick, but not a side-stick.

It is more of a side-yoke that is spring loaded to neutral as opposed to a side stick (such as in a Cessna 400). It takes a little getting used to but I have found most pilots transition very easily to the side-yoke.

Also, I've heard it is hard to land. I hear stories of long floats, or tail-scrapes, etc. Is it hard to see out the front during the flare?

I don't believe it is very difficult to land the SR20 in fact since you sit so high, you can see the entire runway during the roundout and flare. You have to fly the airplane at the proper airspeed (we aim for 77 KIAS in our SR20s) and it will land just fine. Any faster and the airplane just keeps on floating. You would have to get the pitch attitude fairly high to strike the tail on the Cirrus. I relate landing the Cirrus to landing a jet. You roundout and hold about 2 degrees of nose up pitch and hold it there until the aircraft settles on to the runway. No significant flare of any sort that you may be used to from other aircraft. Here is a video I took last fall with a primary student.

 
Update:

The flight school has an extensive workbook I have to complete, which I will do along with the PIM. After that, there's ground, scenario-based. Then my CFI is saying 2-5 hours to be comfy.

I'm going to think more in terms of two sessions of however long we need.

The instrument part shouldn't be hard, because it is a G1000, BUT, it is different. It is a Perspective, and it has an alphanumeric keypad (which I am hoping will be easier than pushing menu, and scrolling through stuff).

I think I'll need more time on the flight characteristics. I've flown a stick, but not a side-stick. BTW, not really side stick, it's side yoke. I have heard they squared away the trim issues from the early days.

Also, I've heard it is hard to land. I hear stories of long floats, or tail-scrapes, etc. Is it hard to see out the front during the flare?

I have not really found a control system I wasn't comfortable with.
 
Last edited:
Oh believe me it is awesome! It will feel weird to climb in something else and have to crank the knob to enter waypoints after typing on the Garmin Control Unit (GCU) in the Cirrus.



It is more of a side-yoke that is spring loaded to neutral as opposed to a side stick (such as in a Cessna 400). It takes a little getting used to but I have found most pilots transition very easily to the side-yoke.



I don't believe it is very difficult to land the SR20 in fact since you sit so high, you can see the entire runway during the roundout and flare. You have to fly the airplane at the proper airspeed (we aim for 77 KIAS in our SR20s) and it will land just fine. Any faster and the airplane just keeps on floating. You would have to get the pitch attitude fairly high to strike the tail on the Cirrus. I relate landing the Cirrus to landing a jet. You roundout and hold about 2 degrees of nose up pitch and hold it there until the aircraft settles on to the runway. No significant flare of any sort that you may be used to from other aircraft. Here is a video I took last fall with a primary student.


Really, that's how you teach to land the plane? Wow, never heard the stall horn, just a slam into the runway like nobody was landing. Was that Cat III?:dunno: Go 10 kts slower and aim much lower, 150' before the threshold to start your flare, and just keep rolling in back trim till you hear the stall horn as you hold that attitude 1' off in G/E and settle in.
 
Last edited:
Oh believe me it is awesome! It will feel weird to climb in something else and have to crank the knob to enter waypoints after typing on the Garmin Control Unit (GCU) in the Cirrus.



It is more of a side-yoke that is spring loaded to neutral as opposed to a side stick (such as in a Cessna 400). It takes a little getting used to but I have found most pilots transition very easily to the side-yoke.



I don't believe it is very difficult to land the SR20 in fact since you sit so high, you can see the entire runway during the roundout and flare. You have to fly the airplane at the proper airspeed (we aim for 77 KIAS in our SR20s) and it will land just fine. Any faster and the airplane just keeps on floating. You would have to get the pitch attitude fairly high to strike the tail on the Cirrus. I relate landing the Cirrus to landing a jet. You roundout and hold about 2 degrees of nose up pitch and hold it there until the aircraft settles on to the runway. No significant flare of any sort that you may be used to from other aircraft. Here is a video I took last fall with a primary student.


Thanks for the info and the video! I can't really judge the roundout and flare from the video, for some reason. It looks unlike what I'm used to in other aircraft where there is a two or three-part roundout. It looks like power-off, raise the nose and wait.

The landing was good, but it looks like it might have been better if there was a second part, or just raising the nose a bit more right before touchdown. (I have no experience in Cirri, obviously, so please correct me!)
 
As it should.

Why is that? I'm asking very sincerely, because I've flown a lot of different types of airplanes, and I'm grappling with the idea of a one-move flare.
 
Why is that? I'm asking very sincerely, because I've flown a lot of different types of airplanes, and I'm grappling with the idea of a one-move flare.

You don't need to Drive On an SR20. Even in it, it is subject to maximum Vso speed. Look it up, work it through CAS and tell me what the IAS for 1.3 and 1.2 Vso lies. Please, if you can show me in the Cirrus Training Curriculum where higher approach speeds are recommended or less than full flaps flaring into a floating stall, smacking it into the runway nearly flat is advocated as recommended technique; it's poor stick. It's when you snicker as you walk by the cockpit, "F.O. landing huh?"
 
Last edited:
Why is that? I'm asking very sincerely, because I've flown a lot of different types of airplanes, and I'm grappling with the idea of a one-move flare.

I am not going to critique the video but why are you interested in "one move flare". Alan Bramson teaches a very separate round-out and then the hold-off and flare:

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Better-Landings-Ellesmere-Bramson/dp/0711019525

That book really helped me get on the right track with landings.

A Cessna is very easy to land that way, round out 20' or so above the runway. A CTLS is low mass and the round out portion is very quick and low to the ground.
 
You don't need to Drive On an SR20. Even in it, itis subject to maximum Vso speed. Look it up, work it through CAS and tell me what the IAS for 1.3 and 1.2 Vso lies. Please, if you can show me in the Cirrus Training Curriculum where higher approach speeds are recommended or less than full flaps flaring into a floating stall, smacking it into the runway nearly flat is advocated as recommended technique; it's poor stick. It's when you snicker as you walk by the cockpit, "F.O. landing huh?"

So, you're not questioning my question; you're questioning the idea of landing it like a jet?
 
Also, I've heard it is hard to land. I hear stories of long floats, or tail-scrapes, etc. Is it hard to see out the front during the flare?
Long floats come from too much speed. Too much speed comes from the nose being too low. The nose being too low comes from being too scared of dragging the tail. Don't have long floats -- don't be too scared of dragging the tail.

Sorry for sounding like a DirecTV ad.

The earlier SR's had shorter landing hear, and if you overpitched in the flare, it was not hard to skag the tail. As a result, Cirrus tended to teach people to carry plenty of speed and then land flat. Of course that creates a lot of other problems, like bouncing, porpoising, going off the far end, etc. My personal experience in that regard is that it does take pretty fine pitch control to make a good tail-low, mains-first landing without skagging the tail in those short-leg SR's, but it's not that hard if you keep your speed under control on final so you don't overcontrol in pitch in the flare.

The later SR's have longer landing gear, and it's pretty hard to drag the tail unless you come in at the speed of stink and then really snatch the nose in the flare. In the 22's, the extra weight of the larger engine actually results in making it possible to run out of aft stick in the flare, especially with the air conditioner and turbocharger installed, both of which move the cg forward.

If you come in on speed, and do the flare right, you will have no trouble seeing over the nose. In fact, you have better over-the-nose visibility in an SR than in the 172 to which it is being compared in this thread. If you can't see the end of the runway over the nose, you've overpitched the plane and it would be a good idea to stop pulling with your left hand and start pushing with the right, i.e., to go around and start over.

As for the videos, I like the one Ben posted a lot more than the one Jason posted. Jason's appeared to be a bit nose-low in close, and not flared enough, resulting in a thump-down with the nose wheel banging on at a higher speed than necessary.
 
Last edited:
Long floats come from too much speed. Too much speed comes from the nose being too low. The nose being too low comes from being too scared of dragging the tail. Don't have long floats -- don't be too scared of dragging the tail.

Sorry for sounding like a DirecTV ad.

The earlier SR's had shorter landing hear, and if you overpitched in the flare, it was not hard to skag the tail. As a result, Cirrus tended to teach people to carry plenty of speed and then land flat. Of course that creates a lot of other problems, like bouncing, porpoising, going off the far end, etc. My personal experience in that regard is that it does take pretty fine pitch control to make a good tail-low, mains-first landing without skagging the tail in those short-leg SR's, but it's not that hard if you keep your speed under control on final so you don't overcontrol in pitch in the flare.

The later SR's have longer landing gear, and it's pretty hard to drag the tail unless you come in at the speed of stink and then really snatch the nose in the flare. In the 22's, the extra weight of the larger engine actually results in making it possible to run out of aft stick in the flare, especially with the air conditioner and turbocharger installed, both of which move the cg forward.

If you come in on speed, and do the flare right, you will have no trouble seeing over the nose. In fact, you have better over-the-nose visibility in an SR than in the 172 to which it is being compared in this thread. If you can't see the end of the runway over the nose, you've overpitched the plane and it would be a good idea to stop pulling with your left hand and start pushing with the right, i.e., to go around and start over.

Thanks Ron! And you're reminded me that my perception of tail-skaggs is based on those earlier models. The ones at the flight school where I fly are the newer models with longer landing gear.

Also good to know that the vis is better than 172s!
 
So, you're not questioning my question; you're questioning the idea of landing it like a jet?

I don't watch the good jet pilots land a jet like that either unless the conditions are tough.

Here's a landing, my 2nd in the 18 on floats:
 
Last edited:
Really, that's how you teach to land the plane? Wow, never heard the stall horn, just a slam into the runway like nobody was landing. Was that Cat III?:dunno: Go 10 kts slower and aim much lower, 150' before the threshold to start your flare, and just keep rolling in back trim till you hear the stall horn as you hold that attitude 1' off in G/E and settle in.

Yes it is. You can't really tell from the video but we did not slam into the runway and the pneumatically activated electrical stall warning hole in the right wing doesn't always activate on every landing due to the position on the wing. If we flew 10 knots slower, that would have put us much closer to the stall speed. I teach my students to fly the airplane with speeds referenced in the POH. Could there have been a little more flare? Yeah, probably. But flying 10 knots slower would have caused a much higher sink rate and would result in flying the approach much closer to stall speed which is not something I am about to teach.

I teach to approach in the SR20 at 77 KIAS on final, reduce power, increase pitch, hold it, settle on to the runway at full stall, or close to it.
 
Last edited:
The landing was good, but it looks like it might have been better if there was a second part, or just raising the nose a bit more right before touchdown. (I have no experience in Cirri, obviously, so please correct me!)

There probably could have been a little bit more pitch held in the flare, I'm not sure if you can hear me saying that to my student in the video or not. It was something I mentioned though.
 
Yes it is. You can't really tell from the video but we did not slam into the runway and the pneumatically activated electrical stall warning hole in the right wing doesn't always activate on every landing due to the position on the wing. If we flew 10 knots slower, that would have put us much closer to the stall speed. I teach my students to fly the airplane with speeds referenced in the POH. Could there have been a little more flare? Yeah, probably. But flying 10 knots slower would have caused a much higher sink rate and would result in flying the approach much closer to stall speed which is not something I am about to teach.

I teach to approach in the SR20 at 77 KIAS on final, reduce power, increase pitch, hold it, settle on to the runway at full stall, or close to it.



You teach poor technique because you do not have the feel for the airplane. I bet you have way more sim time than plane time. All those numbers in the book are for max weight, calculate what they should be at lesson weight. You want to be 1.3 Vso on final, 1.2 Vso low over the fence so you touch down near the threshold. Sorry, long. The 360 is due to a Cirrus in a 4 mile final pattern in front of me doing what you do.

 
Last edited:
There probably could have been a little bit more pitch held in the flare, I'm not sure if you can hear me saying that to my student in the video or not. It was something I mentioned though.


What flare? You transitioned to not quite landing attitude till it smacked the runway after overshooting 1000'+ down from the threshold like you were driving an ILS to the ground. You are teaching them no finesse whatsoever. You are teaching a manual version of a CAT III approach. Go practice with someone and really learn to fly the airplane before you teach it.

BTW, If there is a plane that is safe to fly close to stall, it is the Cirrus.
 
Last edited:
You teach poor technique because you do not have the feel for the airplane.

Ok

I bet you have way more sim time than plane time.

Nope.

What flare? You transitioned to not quite landing attitude till it smacked the runway after overshooting 1000'+ down from the threshold like you were driving an ILS to the ground. You are teaching them no finesse whatsoever. You are teaching a manual version of a CAT III approach. Go practice with someone and really learn to fly the airplane before you teach it.

Pre-briefed touchdown point was the 1000 foot markers, not the threshold. I am perfectly fine accepting that this technique may be different from what you would teach and will speak with a few instructors around here to see what they do. I am not invincible and recognize that but I try my best to teach good technique. If you say I don't then I will try to fix it but I am only teaching what CSIP instructors taught us.
 
Last edited:
Ok



Nope.



Pre-briefed touchdown point was the 1000 foot markers, not the threshold. I am perfectly fine accepting that this technique may be different from what you would teach and will speak with a few instructors around here to see what they do. I am not invincible and recognize that but I try my best to teach good technique. If you say I don't then I will try to fix it but I am only teaching what CSIP instructors taught us.


If I landed like you did that Cirrus I'd collapse my gear in 500 cycles. Why are you teaching poor technique? That was not a quality landing result. Just because you were taught poor technique does not mean you can't refine it. Play with it at the bottom of the envelope. Unless you do an accelerated stall skidding right steep turn kick, you will not get it to spin.
 
Last edited:
I don't watch the good jet pilots land a jet like that either unless the conditions are tough.
How many jet landings have you observed from the inside (I don't mean inside in the back)?
 
How many jet landings have you observed from the inside (I don't mean inside in the back)?

Maybe 1/2 dozen, but I've ridden through hundreds, not like you can't tell attitude and slam from the cheap seats.
 
I am not invincible and recognize that but I try my best to teach good technique. If you say I don't then I will try to fix it but I am only teaching what CSIP instructors taught us.

You have the right attitude :yesnod:

BTW, there is nothing wrong with you striving to do a much better job of teaching than your CSIP instructors. Sounds like you just may be striving for that. Good luck! :)
 
Ok



Nope.



Pre-briefed touchdown point was the 1000 foot markers, not the threshold. I am perfectly fine accepting that this technique may be different from what you would teach and will speak with a few instructors around here to see what they do. I am not invincible and recognize that but I try my best to teach good technique. If you say I don't then I will try to fix it but I am only teaching what CSIP instructors taught us.

The lighter the plane, the less inertia counts, and jets give Vref way more accurately than is being demonstrated in the SR 20. It almost appeared as flaps weren't fully extended.
 
How old? Which prop? The XL and new models are a bit quicker, and honest to god, the 3-blade prop is a solid 8 knots slower. I flew the last flight on a DA-40 that had a 3-blade prop and the 1st on a 2-blade. It's a solid 8 knot difference.

If the 3 blade is 8kts slower, what is the advantage for a plane with a CS prop? Why are people doing this mod?
 
Revisiting your post, I am wondering about your numbers for the Skyhawks. With the 172R, I -could- get 115 knots, but everything had to be perfect. With the 172S, I expect about 115 knots, but sometimes see 120--but never 125. (All numbers here are TAS.)

Granted, these are all aircraft without wheel pants. But I wanted to ask you if you've really seen 125 knots in the S?

By way of comparison, I expect 135 knots in the C182, but sometimes get 140 knots.

I have an ASI with TAS on the outer dial. Not sure how accurate it is, but I saw about 131KTAS on Tuesday @ 4500MSL @ ~2350 RPM.
 
Thanks Ron! And you're reminded me that my perception of tail-skaggs is based on those earlier models. The ones at the flight school where I fly are the newer models with longer landing gear.

Also good to know that the vis is better than 172s!

Nit pick, narrower track higher stance from gear legs rotated further down.:wink2:
 
I don't watch the good jet pilots land a jet like that either unless the conditions are tough.

Here's a landing, my 2nd in the 18 on floats:

Awesome airplane; great landing!
 
So do you think you are supposed to keep pulling back until you get the stall warning?

I think you're supposed to pull all the way up into landing attitude, not leave the nose down in 'smack flat in' attitude.
 
Back
Top