If you plan to fly a Cirrus should you train in a Cirrus?

[RussR]

"Train in the airplane you plan to fly"

I wanted to talk about this a little bit. While I can understand why this seems appealing, I wanted to point out some significant negatives to this approach.

- "you plan to fly" - what, forever? Plans change of course, we never know where things will take us.
- I know a guy who built an airplane, learned to fly in it, and has only flown it since. He has flown no other airplanes of any sort. He may be competent in that airplane, but certainly I wouldn't call him a "well-rounded aviator". He has no depth of experience to pull from in event of some unusual situation.
- A personal example - at the flight school where I learned to fly, it was a fleet of 1970's - 1980's 172s. BUT nothing was standardized. They had different radios, some were in mph, some in knots, different audio panels, some had 40 deg of flaps, some 30, some with the momentary flap lever, some with the "pre-select" lever, etc. I flew whatever was available. Rather than being a stumbling block, it taught me to be aware of the plane I was flying in, be able to operate the different systems, and not assume that all airplanes are alike. This taught me far more about the operation of different systems than I realized at the time - I see people struggle with things like audio panels because they've only ever used one model and don't have the "big picture" of what it's doing.
- A pilot who has only flown one airplane will likely have only one view of how things are to be done, and assume this applies to all airplanes. I imagine this would only be made worse by the very well-standardized Cirrus training regimen and procedures.
- There is a great case study provided by the AOPA ASF as part of their "Transitioning to new airplanes" course. Direct link: https://www.aopa.org/lms/courses/transitioning/#3e-sideways&08-a-simple-mistake . This is a great example of what I'm talking about and just happens to involved a pilot who did his training in an SR-20 (although this type of thing could happen in any airplane). He then rented a 172, and had a few hours of training in it. Due to the differences in flap lever operation and takeoff setting for the flaps, he ended up taking off with full flaps in the 172, couldn't climb out, and crashed off the end of the runway, killing all onboard. While the cause of the crash is obvious, the "why" goes back to negative transfer of learning - he lapsed into what he knew with the Cirrus, and forgot the different procedures in the Cessna. His experience was very limited and, in my opinion, he didn't have enough varied experience to fall back on, to realize that "all planes are different, I need to be careful and make sure to double-check some things".
- The more different airplanes I fly, the more I realize that each type has their idiosyncrasies that demand attention. A pilot with experience in only one model may not understand or appreciate this when getting into something else. Most FBO checkouts I've had are woefully inadequate, basically consisting of "can you takeoff and land a few times in a row without bending the airplane" and not going into any great detail on the systems, likely because a) the CFIs don't take time to understand the pilot's previous experience, and b) the pilot doesn't want to pay more than they absolutely have to.

If the OP does his private pilot training in a Cessna or Piper, and then transitions to the Cirrus, he will then have experience in twice the types of aircraft that he would have had otherwise. I think this is a good thing. Or, heck, maybe even just solo in the Cessna or Piper, then transition - that's not a bad plan either (IMO).

 

[Ryan F.]

I was wondering if you could talk about how you handle Private checkrides in technically advanced aircraft, specifically, how do you check, or do you check for VOR proficiency. Also, do you require demonstration things like the autopilot, flight director and things like that. I got my ticket way before the ACS came out and was curious.

I know it's a common line, but it's the truth... I just go right by the ACS. The task isn't any different just because it's being performed in a "TAA."

If the aircraft presented for the practical test is equipped with an operable autopilot the applicant is required to demonstrate its use, per the ACS.

 

[tspear]

That makes no sense. The flap in a Cirrus you take off in the half switch; and it is nothing like the Cessna.

Tim

 

[RussR]

That makes no sense. The flap in a Cirrus you take off in the half switch; and it is nothing like the Cessna.

Tim

Did you watch the video, or just read my brief summary?

 

[tspear]

Did you watch the video, or just read my brief summary?

Yes. I think there is way too much guesswork to use as an example.
For example, to mix checklists, the pilot would have had to have both checklists handy and confuse them; and there is usually some type of "book" having everything from preflight to normal landing with emergency procedures. Does not seem logical.

Tim

 

[Tantalum]

I was wondering if you could talk about how you handle Private checkrides in technically advanced aircraft, specifically, how do you check, or do you check for VOR proficiency. Also, do you require demonstration things like the autopilot, flight director and things like that. I got my ticket way before the ACS came out and was curious.

..thought I'd reply as the CFI who did both my IR and CSIP was "old school" but also embraced technology.. a good mix. In the SR22T he was pretty aggressive with real world stuff, we pulled CB's for MFD (didn't just turn the screen down, because that's cheating), did a legit VOT check on the ground at SEE, etc., hell once we taped paper over both PFD and MFD and flew off the little standby gauges and the compass.. VFR, but it was at night over the desert so may as well have been IMC. I will tell you, I hope to never have to fly that plane by using that itty bitty compass at the top of the windshield. He also wasn't happy when I flipped on the Foreflight AHRS from the Stratus.. so the iPad got a cozy seat in the back for this exercise..

Rather than being a stumbling block, it taught me to be aware of the plane I was flying in

This kind of contradicts your point below. The dude in a 172 died because he apparently doesn't know to set a flap switch, but then on the other hand you're saying different planes are good (I get your point, but in practice this often is not the case).. sorry if I am misunderstanding the point, but that's how it reads. Incidentally, many of our clubs "issues" arise from people renting different planes and forgetting things because of that. In the most egregious cases they forget to put the gear down, in other cases they don't know to have to slave or align the HSI, or simply don't and end up flying vectors 20* off and annoying SOCAL. In other cases, thanks to the hodgpodge nature of 1970s spam can sh$tboxes they end up leaving strobe lights off, batteries on, not turning on alternators, not shutting avionics before the engine, forgetting the fuel pump in a PA28 after flying a 172, lower flaps instead of gear (the more experience I get with old Bonanzas the more I hate them), etc.

This is a great example of what I'm talking about and just happens to involved a pilot who did his training in an SR-20 (although this type of thing could happen in any airplane). He then rented a 172, and had a few hours of training in it. Due to the differences in flap lever operation and takeoff setting for the flaps, he ended up taking off with full flaps in the 172, couldn't climb out, and crashed off the end of the runway, killing all onboard

I've seen this video, and almost came to PoA to post about it at the time but decided to save my rant for another day, and it looks like that day is today! The guy who crashed this (I'm sorry, I know he perished and took people with him), but he's a freaking idiot. I don't think you can blame an erroneous full flap takeoff on the fact that you were flying an SR20 before. Namely, Cirrus does not take off with full flaps, the switch is ENTIRELY different, and you never take off with flaps in a 172. If he's going to forget something as basic as that, and not realize immediately on rotation that something is wrong and cut the power and stop, then this guy should not have been flying. What other mistakes was he going to make or checklists confuse.. will he forget that the 172 has a yoke and flail about with his left hand grasping for a sidestick that isn't there? Will he reach up and pull a non existent CAPS?

Apologies.. no personal harm intended.. but that AOPA video and any assertion that he crashed that 172 as caused at all by his experience on SR20 is ridiculous..

Yes. I think there is way too much guesswork to use as an example.
For example, to mix checklists, the pilot would have had to have both checklists handy and confuse them; and there is usually some type of "book" having everything from preflight to normal landing with emergency procedures. Does not seem logical.

Tim

much more diplomatically put

 

[tspear]

@Tantalum

That diplomatic reply took me about twenty minutes to figure out how to say it.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[RussR]

This kind of contradicts your point below. The dude in a 172 died because he apparently doesn't know to set a flap switch, but then on the other hand you're saying different planes are good (I get your point, but in practice this often is not the case).. sorry if I am misunderstanding the point, but that's how it reads. Incidentally, many of our clubs "issues" arise from people renting different planes and forgetting things because of that. In the most egregious cases they forget to put the gear down, in other cases they don't know to have to slave or align the HSI, or simply don't and end up flying vectors 20* off and annoying SOCAL. In other cases, thanks to the hodgpodge nature of 1970s spam can sh$tboxes they end up leaving strobe lights off, batteries on, not turning on alternators, not shutting avionics before the engine, forgetting the fuel pump in a PA28 after flying a 172, lower flaps instead of gear (the more experience I get with old Bonanzas the more I hate them), etc.

I would suggest that in most of those cases, it's an example of the pilot having been taught how to fly "an" airplane, instead of being taught how to fly "airplanes". A pilot needs to be able to understand the purpose and intent of what they are doing, not just the mechanical switchwork to make it happen in a particular plane. I actually see this a lot as a CFI. If they are not turning on the alternator, to use one of your examples, then I'd suggest it's likely because instead of being taught "next, you turn your alternator on", they are being taught "flip this switch". Unfortunately, I see some of that is NOT a result of training per se, but some people just can't get the big picture. I would also suggest that flying only one aircraft type would tend to exacerbate this problem, while actually _learning_ multiple airplanes would tend to do the opposite as they gain a broader picture. But, at least if your club is like the club I am associated with, some of the members fly so seldom that they're going to forget lots of this stuff regardless (and perhaps shouldn't be flying).

I've seen this video, and almost came to PoA to post about it at the time but decided to save my rant for another day, and it looks like that day is today! The guy who crashed this (I'm sorry, I know he perished and took people with him), but he's a freaking idiot.

If you are being blunt enough, you can say this about virtually every accident where there is pilot error involved. Unfortunately, that does not help get to the "why" or provide anyone with a possible solution.

I took off with full flaps one time. Was it because I'm a freaking idiot? Perhaps, but that is for others to decide. I was distracted, it was night, and I apparently missed that line on the checklist. It happens. Fortunately, I was not in an overweight, underpowered airplane, and my first warning was when I raised the gear and the gear horn started making noise (as it should in that configuration).

I don't think you can blame an erroneous full flap takeoff on the fact that you were flying an SR20 before. Namely, Cirrus does not take off with full flaps, the switch is ENTIRELY different, and you never take off with flaps in a 172.

Was that actually the case here? I have no idea - it was one of AOPA's hypotheses though, and I will say that I have seen over and over again similar types of things, so it wouldn't surprise me.

For example, older 172's have the momentary flap switch. In the mid-70's or so they went to the preselect switch. This is a specific focus of mine when I do checkouts in the older aircraft for pilots used to the newer ones. Even after talking about it on the ground, many have problems. In this case, putting them down is usually not a big problem - they press it down but it springs back up and they realize they put in about 1 deg of flap, so then they remember and hold it down as needed. But then we get to a go-around, and I've seen them move it up one notch just like they'd do with the newer flaps - but in this case, moving the lever up doesn't go from 30-20 degrees, it stays in the up position and retracts ALL the flaps. Or, alternately, sometime the lever does NOT stay up, returns to neutral, and now they are going around with virtually full flaps.

I see this not as a problem created by flying different airplanes, but as a problem created by a mental thought process that is essentially "move the flap lever up" instead of "I need to raise the flaps. What do I need to do to accomplish this, and how do I verify that it is working correctly?"

IMO, developing a "big picture" and not getting lost in the mechanics of it is vitally important to being a good aviator. Typically, the more and more varied experience you get, the better you are at seeing that big picture.

 

[dmspilot]

- There is a great case study provided by the AOPA ASF as part of their "Transitioning to new airplanes" course. Direct link: https://www.aopa.org/lms/courses/transitioning/#3e-sideways&08-a-simple-mistake .

As usual the AOPA video suffers from poor attention to detail. The Cirrus and WMU checklists don't tell you to set the flaps for takeoff during preflight inspection. The walkaround is done with the flaps extended fully. Second, the Cessna 172M flap switch has detents at "up" and "off", and does not have to be held "up" to retract the flaps. While aircraft differences may have paid a role, it would seem poor checklist discipline was more likely the direct cause.

 

[tspear]

As usual the AOPA video suffers from poor attention to detail. The Cirrus and WMU checklists don't tell you to set the flaps for takeoff during preflight inspection. The walkaround is done with the flaps extended fully. Second, the Cessna 172M flap switch has detents at "up" and "off", and does not have to be held "up" to retract the flaps. While aircraft differences may have paid a role, it would seem poor checklist discipline was more likely the direct cause.

Not sure I follow your statement. But for Cirrus: http://www.whycirrus.com/safety/23020-002_RA_Std_FOM.pdf
Pre-flight down 100%. Page 3-8,9
Taxi: Back to 0%. Page 3-27
Pre-takeoff: 50% and visual inspections. Page 3-33

I have the same steps in my G1 SR-22

Tim

 

[PaulS]

Not sure I follow your statement. But for Cirrus: http://www.whycirrus.com/safety/23020-002_RA_Std_FOM.pdf
Pre-flight down 100%. Page 3-8,9
Taxi: Back to 0%. Page 3-27
Pre-takeoff: 50% and visual inspections. Page 3-33

I have the same steps in my G1 SR-22

Tim

Thing about the 22 is that you can get like 750 fpm at sea level with full flaps. Not that I would try it, you would turn the engine into a ball of molten lava pretty quick, but it does make for pretty good initial climb out on go around or missed. I'm thinking the 20 will climb too as long as you are not at too high an altitude. A 172? Probably not so much.

 

[dmspilot]

Not sure I follow your statement. But for Cirrus: http://www.whycirrus.com/safety/23020-002_RA_Std_FOM.pdf
Pre-flight down 100%. Page 3-8,9
Taxi: Back to 0%. Page 3-27
Pre-takeoff: 50% and visual inspections. Page 3-33

So you do the walkaround with the flaps at 100%, which is what I said? The AOPA video quoted it wrong.

 

[tspear]

So you do the walkaround with the flaps at 100%, which is what I said? The AOPA video quoted it wrong.

Yes. You need the flaps down to inspect the pins.
But your statement reads that flaps are not part of preflight checklist. They are, they are on the last checklist before taxi off to confirm correct position.

Basically the AOPA video has a pilot mixing checklists (not likely) or not following the Cirrus checklist and missing two flap changes (raise taxi, flaps half at pre takeoff).

It is a bad video.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[dmspilot]

But your statement reads that flaps are not part of preflight checklist.

Seriously?

"The walkaround is done with the flaps extended fully."

 

[tspear]

Seriously?

"The walkaround is done with the flaps extended fully."

Yes. the previous statement "The Cirrus and WMU checklists don't tell you to set the flaps for takeoff during preflight inspection."
Which checklist does the "The walkaround is done with the flaps extended fully." reference? WMU or Cirrus?

Which reminds me. Why do we call it preflight? Cause doesn't the checklist before engine start, before taxi, before takeoff... all count as preflight?

Tim

 

[dmspilot]

Which checklist does the "The walkaround is done with the flaps extended fully." reference? WMU or Cirrus?

Already specified:

The Cirrus and WMU checklists

On both checklists, the flaps are extended fully on the "Preflight Inspection." They are retracted to 0° on the "Before Taxiing" checklist and set for takeoff on the "Before Takeoff" checklist.

Which reminds me. Why do we call it preflight? Cause doesn't the checklist before engine start, before taxi, before takeoff... all count as preflight?

No, the "Before Taxiing" checklist and the "Before Takeoff" checklist is not part of the "Preflight Inspection" checklist.

 

[Ryan F.]

...doesn't the checklist before engine start, before taxi, before takeoff... all count as preflight?

No.

 

[tspear]

@Ryan F. @dmspilot

My question was a linguistic curiosity. Not one of current usage. preflight; literally means before flight. Therefore calling the exterior walk around preflight, but not including the engine start, tax, before takeout which all must be complete BEFORE FLIGHT is a rather poor word choice.

Tim

 

[Ryan F.]

@Ryan F. @dmspilot

My question was a linguistic curiosity. Not one of current usage. preflight; literally means before flight. Therefore calling the exterior walk around preflight, but not including the engine start, tax, before takeout which all must be complete BEFORE FLIGHT is a rather poor word choice.

Tim

Not once in my 30 years of flying aircraft has anyone around me ever been confused about that.

 

[tspear]

Ugh I give up.
Curiosity has nothing to do with confusion.

Tim

 

[RyanShort1]

He asked if he should fly a Piper, and the answer is yes, he should definitely get a few hours in a J-3 from somebody, then do whatever else he wants.

 

[Tantalum]

With zero flying experience and just by researching, eventually, after PPL, I will rent and fly a Cirrus. There are a few reasons why a Cirrus, but the major one is CAPS. I understand that CAPS is not the end-all in safety and I am reading about the flaws etc but it is important to me, especially when my family is onboard.

This is huge, it's like going out on a boat without life-jackets aboard. When I'm flying over water or mountainous terrain the CAPS gives me huge piece of mind. And remember, the brothers originally put CAPS on their design as the result of a midair accident that resulted in a fatality.. it was deemed that with a chute the guy may have survived instead of spiraling to his death with a part of the wing missing

--- With the thinking above, I am trying to decide if it is worth it to pay the extra money and learn to fly in a Cirrus (and all the technology etc that comes with it) or if I will be better off learn in a Piper and save the money. Based on some research in my area, the total cost (rent, instructor etc) for training in a Piper will end up being around $15K. Training in a Cirrus SR20 (2017 G6), in a Cirrus Certified Training Partner facility, total cost will be around $22K (in both cases the estimation is for about 60 hours. I understand it might be more or less). As a side note, I budgeted for the large amount.

If the Cirrus is your long term vision of what you want to fly just learn on that. It's not a "hard" plane to fly at all, it goes exactly where you point it and is very stable and predictable in the air. It just goes faster than the PA28/C172 and has slightly less tolerance for a pilot who will get behind the airplane. Plus, by learning on a Cirrus you will not have to correct or refine any bad or sloppy habits you learned from flying more forgiving planes

--- Mostly for safety reasons, eventually (but not right away), I will also get IFR rating.

It's great to have, and the Cirrus is a wonderful platform for it

--- Obviously, becoming a good and safe pilot is the number one priority. I do have concerns that by learning in a Cirrus I will rely more on technology, automation etc. I am reading that learning to fly with a 6-pack will serve you better in the long run (since you don't have to rely on technology during the training) but that is debatable. It is a concern of mine though.

I honestly doubt that it's true that a 6 pack teaches you to be a "better" pilot. This is an assumption by an earlier generation of pilots who learned to fly by VORs and steam gauges. What's ridiculous about this argument, is that many of these people have installed G5s, 650, etc in their planes.. heck even a basic 430 gives you a magenta line. The STEC, avidyne, and Garmin autopilots found on Cirrus are virtually (and in some cases are) the same ones you'll find a new/upgraded PA28/C172. Just because your HSI, airspeed, and altimeter are contained on one screen that's more natural for your eyes to follow I don't see how that's possibly a bad thing. In my experience people with "glass" tend to be much better at following headings and altitudes as even small deviations are very easy to see.. (I'm talking +/-10 ft are obvious on the tape, something you wouldn't even notice on a steam altimeter)

--- I am hoping that by training in a Cirrus, and in a Cirrus Certified Training Partner, I will not have to do the Cirrus Transition Training and save some money there. Anyone knows if this is a correct assumption?

Ultimately the Cirrus is just an ASEL. The manufacturer has a fantastic training program (that frankly, I wish all manufacturers offered), but there's no legal requirement you do that stuff. You could theoretically (legally) earn your PPL in 40 hrs and go buy an SR22T the next day. These individual requirements (time, transition, etc.) are going to depend on the individual club/school and their insurance. If you know where you plan to rent from you should ask them directly. For what it's worth, the -22T out here I was flying for a while had a 250 hr PIC min requirement. So depending on costs, etc., this could be the one deterrent for you and may relegate you to something cheaper until you build hours (but check with your club, etc. first)

--- Finally, maybe stupid thought is, after PPL, if I rent a faster airplane (more expensive to rent) and I get to my destination faster, I will end up spending a similar amount of money with renting a slower airplane (less expensive) and getting to my destination later. If not similar, the difference will not be that much. Probably I am wrong on this but it is a thought.

It's easy to figure out that ratio.. just look at the KTAS of a plane and it's hourly rate. If you can fly a Skyhawk $120/hr (wet) or a Cirrus $350/hr (wet) the math works out in the Skyhawk's favor unfortunately (and quite dramatically):
$120/110KTAS = $1.09 per KTAS knot
$350/180KTAS = $1.94 per KTAS knot (*22T in this example)
..mind you, time itself has value also, there's an opportunity cost there. The typical Sand Diego -> Mammoth run is about 2hrs in -22 vs about 3hrs in a 172.. That extra hour is worth it for me, especially in the winter when daylight hours are limited, and your trying to maximize skiing on a weekend. You can be wheels up at 7am and skiing down your first run by 10am in the Cirrus. Plus, what this approach doesn't capture is that the cabin of a Cirrus overall is much wider and generally more comfortable, with a higher wing loading you get a smoother ride too. But NO, it is certainly not cheaper even though it is faster.. you are paying for more than just the speed


**as you can tell, this is a polarizing topic and elicits a strong response. My responses above are based on the last 500 hrs or so of flying, almost all of it in Cirrus, but I started on PA28 and C172. I'm a oft labeled "Cirrus fan boy" on this site.. it's not a perfect plane, but honestly the Klapmeier brothers did a fantastic job at designing something that will do lots of things well. The "Bo" is everyone's favorite plane, but it's slower, less comfortable, and there's no real way to use all six seats, heck, for the older 4 seat planes I doubt you can even fill four seats and gas.. it's a little easier to fly, but that's about it, no chute, and the added risk of someone landing it gear up, or the maintenance costs associated with RG. Some Mooney are much faster.. but it's an itty bitty airplane made by a defunct company. Sure Al Mooney was a tall guy, but a Mooney is really something you "wear" vs fly, you'll be shoulder to shoulder with anyone sitting next to you. The Piper Saratoga and 210 are great planes.. but they're slower and in my opinion the parachute, solid tip to tip wingspar, etc., make up for having less seats

 

[XSi]

Great responses from everybody and good discussion. I would like to provide an update.

I had my flight in a 1976 Piper PA-28-151. A few notes:

--- This was an old plane (especially when I compare it with the SR20 G6) but well maintained. Outside looked a bit scary but for some reason the engine looked like new; very clean and everything looked perfect. The cockpit had really old equipment; steam gauges all the way with what looked to me pretty old communication system. The only thing that was new inside was the transponder.

--- I barely fit in it but... I fit. Yoke is really low so in general I do have to open my legs. It felt like I was driving a bumper car Not a big deal (I think). Height-wise it is just enough. The concept of just one door is interesting but you just have to deal with it only when you get in or out.

--- I did the semi-takeoff. Instructor had the pedals and I had the throttle and yoke (similar to what I did with the Cirrus). Experience-wise it was much better than the Cirrus for only one reason: I knew what to expect this time. I knew how it was going to feel. I was much more relaxed and that helped.

--- We did a few turns (including a steep 45 degrees one; pretty intemedating ), climbs, descents, and back. As some already said, Piper's controls feels looser compared to Cirrus. In terms of speed, this thing is sloooooow compared to Cirrus. Now I understand what people said about Cirrus being faster. It took forever to go from downwind to landing. Felt like you might need 10 minutes to round the pattern. Cirrus was much better. Providing you are at a low traffic airport I can see being able to do many more training takeoffs and landings in the pattern with a Cirrus in the same amount of time.

--- I managed to get us over the numbers and a little bit beyond but asked the instructor to take over at that point as I wasn't feeling that comfortable (or brave). I was just shadowing her after that. She recorded that as a landing in my log book for some reason. No idea why but... whatever. I will take it


Time to make a decision. A lot of things to factor in. Pretty good arguments to go either way... or stay in the middle and do half and half

Will keep you all posted

 

[woodchucker]

Did you get air sick on the second flight?
I got a touch queasy on my first flight and after that no issues.

That speed difference won’t help get more laps in the pattern if there’s even one other plane doing the same. You can’t just blast them out of your way! It will make it more difficult I would think in blending in with the pattern flow.

My opinion? I think the two aircraft are far enough apart in capabilities that you probably want to finish your ppl in the one you start with. My 0.02

I also don’t think it would hurt to do 2-3 flights in each at this early stage (if possible), and then make a commitment.

 

[friskygeek]

@XSi

I had the *exact* same predicament when I was starting out on my training. Like you, my goal was to eventually rent (and if I hit the lotto, buy) and fly SR2X and use that platform for my IR training, post PPL. I ended up going the Cessna 172 route for my basic training and getting the "fundamentals" right: ie: sight picture, not relying too much on PFD, etc etc - basic things that have already been discussed here. The main reason for this was that the 172 is extremely forgiving and is a sloooow beast of an aircraft. This helps you learn to get ahead of the plane and Im a slow learner, so it fit my learning style. YMMV. Knowing that I was going to transition to the SR2X, I chose a G1000-equipped 172.

Anyways, I flew the 172 all the way till around my solo cross country and now have switched over to the SR20 and will eventually take my checkride in the SR20. The main reason that precipitated the move was that post-COVID lockdown, Id have to get back into the swing of things anyway having not flown since February so why not move up my planned move to Cirrus now? I know a lot of people here will raise eye brows at this and find that odd, but hey, I plan to fly SR20 and SR22 after I get my PPL.

So would I still go the 172 -> Cirrus route now? Absolutely. I think I gained valuable muscle memory and stick-n-rudder skills by starting out in the 172. But I would have switched much earlier. Like at least 20 hours earlier (Im at 55 now). I *love* flying the Cirrus. As a tech nerd, I just love the innovation Cirrus is putting into GA and disrupting the legacy manufacturers with their products. Call me a fanboy, I dont mind.

Yes, it will take me a bit longer to get the PPL this way than if Id stuck with just one platform, but hey, flying is flying! I love it. Whether its solo post-PPL or now with a CFI whilst still a student. I dont care. All I care about is being a safe, competent pilot. Im also in no rush to get my checkride done. I'll know when Im ready.

Good luck with your training. We'll be following along!

 

[wayne]

It's easy to figure out that ratio.. just look at the KTAS of a plane and it's hourly rate. If you can fly a Skyhawk $120/hr (wet) or a Cirrus $350/hr (wet) the math works out in the Skyhawk's favor unfortunately (and quite dramatically):
$120/110KTAS = $1.09 per KTAS knot
$350/180KTAS = $1.94 per KTAS knot (*22T in this example)
..mind you, time itself has value also, there's an opportunity cost there. The typical Sand Diego -> Mammoth run is about 2hrs in -22 vs about 3hrs in a 172.. That extra hour is worth it for me, especially in the winter when daylight hours are limited, and your trying to maximize skiing on a weekend. You can be wheels up at 7am and skiing down your first run by 10am in the Cirrus. Plus, what this approach doesn't capture is that the cabin of a Cirrus overall is much wider and generally more comfortable, with a higher wing loading you get a smoother ride too. But NO, it is certainly not cheaper even though it is faster.. you are paying for more than just the speed

That's just the napkin math. Which climbs up to the cruise altitude quicker and therefore gets up to cruise speed faster? Toss in 20 knots of headwind and the faster plane gets even better. That's especially true if the extra time pushes the flight to have a stop for fuel or a bathroom break. I learned that early-on with a high headwind flight. That started my search for more speed. Or climbing higher for weather or terrain. Or large deviations around weather; not the little 10* left or right, but a 50-100 nm swing around bad weather.

Speed is options.

 

[Tantalum]

Speed is options

Damn straight! And good point on headwinds, etc. With a 180 KTAS even battling a 40 knot straight headwind is tolerable. It sucks.. but you're still hitting decent groundspeeds. And yes.. even if you can't outclimb the weather speeds like that certainly help you maneuver around weather more effectively

 

[XSi]

Anyways, I flew the 172 all the way till around my solo cross country and now have switched over to the SR20 and will eventually take my checkride in the SR20. The main reason that precipitated the move was that post-COVID lockdown, Id have to get back into the swing of things anyway having not flown since February so why not move up my planned move to Cirrus now? I know a lot of people here will raise eye brows at this and find that odd, but hey, I plan to fly SR20 and SR22 after I get my PPL.

Good points and definitely an option. How easy/difficult was to adjust to speed difference, especially on landings?

 

[friskygeek]

Good points and definitely an option. How easy/difficult was to adjust to speed difference, especially on landings?

Yea that was one of the biggest things to get used to. First couple of landings I kept looking at how fast I was on final and I had to fight my instinct to slow down more. And landing profile is also a bit different in the SR, in that it lands a bit flat. One thing that the slooow speed on final helped me get just right was how the power/pitch combination work to get a stablized approach. Landings were always something I struggled with and its all part of the learning experience. Id say landing a 172 is definitely easier - at least for now until I get the SR's landings down right with more practice.

 

[Tantalum]

fight my instinct to slow down more

YES! This is why I worry about people transitioning to a Cirrus after learning on a 172/PA-28. Any SR series plane is not something that will tolerate C172/PA28 approach speeds.. if someone plans to fly an SR plane long term it's easier to learn on that

If you occasionally fly a 172/PA28 it's a much easier plane to fly and you'd rather be a little fast on approach and float a bit then get used to be slow and stall/spin it

 

[tspear]

That's just the napkin math. Which climbs up to the cruise altitude quicker and therefore gets up to cruise speed faster? Toss in 20 knots of headwind and the faster plane gets even better. That's especially true if the extra time pushes the flight to have a stop for fuel or a bathroom break. I learned that early-on with a high headwind flight. That started my search for more speed. Or climbing higher for weather or terrain. Or large deviations around weather; not the little 10* left or right, but a 50-100 nm swing around bad weather.

Speed is options.

About three months after getting my PPL; I was flying south over I81 in my SR20 at likely 6500. I was watching the trucks below pass me as I was fighting a major headwind. I texted my instructor and said I need a faster plane.

Tim

 

[Linh Tran]

Great responses from everybody and good discussion. I would like to provide an update.

I had my flight in a 1976 Piper PA-28-151. A few notes:

--- This was an old plane (especially when I compare it with the SR20 G6) but well maintained. Outside looked a bit scary but for some reason the engine looked like new; very clean and everything looked perfect. The cockpit had really old equipment; steam gauges all the way with what looked to me pretty old communication system. The only thing that was new inside was the transponder.

--- I barely fit in it but... I fit. Yoke is really low so in general I do have to open my legs. It felt like I was driving a bumper car Not a big deal (I think). Height-wise it is just enough. The concept of just one door is interesting but you just have to deal with it only when you get in or out.

--- I did the semi-takeoff. Instructor had the pedals and I had the throttle and yoke (similar to what I did with the Cirrus). Experience-wise it was much better than the Cirrus for only one reason: I knew what to expect this time. I knew how it was going to feel. I was much more relaxed and that helped.

--- We did a few turns (including a steep 45 degrees one; pretty intemedating ), climbs, descents, and back. As some already said, Piper's controls feels looser compared to Cirrus. In terms of speed, this thing is sloooooow compared to Cirrus. Now I understand what people said about Cirrus being faster. It took forever to go from downwind to landing. Felt like you might need 10 minutes to round the pattern. Cirrus was much better. Providing you are at a low traffic airport I can see being able to do many more training takeoffs and landings in the pattern with a Cirrus in the same amount of time.

--- I managed to get us over the numbers and a little bit beyond but asked the instructor to take over at that point as I wasn't feeling that comfortable (or brave). I was just shadowing her after that. She recorded that as a landing in my log book for some reason. No idea why but... whatever. I will take it


Time to make a decision. A lot of things to factor in. Pretty good arguments to go either way... or stay in the middle and do half and half

Will keep you all posted

@XSi can you give a status update? I’m going through the same decision making progress (considering a DA40 instead of 172), and this thread was a huge help!

 

[Tantalum]

I texted my instructor and said I need a faster plane

..and then you started flying an aerostar

 

[tspear]

..and then you started flying an aerostar

Yup. I love the Aerostar. Even though the KTAS is almost double the SR20, when you consider head winds it was almost three times as fast on 500+ mile trips.
I miss that plane; until I think of the fuel bills. I never did get used to the fuel costs.

Tim

 

[XSi]

@Linh Tran Reading all the responses here you can tell there is no right or wrong answer. There are so many different factors to weight (most some very personal) that no-one can give you the right answer, other than your self. At the end of reading this thread you should have a pretty good idea what makes sense for you to do based on your personal situation (or maybe not )

As for me, I decided to do my training on a Warrior III (PA-28), with standard 6-pack gauges and Garmin GNS 430. For my situation I think I made the right decision:

1) As I am almost 50 years old, it took me a LOT of hours to get where I am today, that is 107 hours training in about 10 months period. I moved overseas, so I had to stop training just 0.7 hours before completing my 10 hours solo requirement and take the check ride. Huge bummer but I will finish for sure when I get back. The point here is that I wasn't grasping the whole thing quickly (or I wasn't a good pilot ... for some). 107 hours on a Cirrus it would cost me a lot more money. So from a cost/budget standpoint it was the right decision I think

2) The school I decided to do the training had about 8 PA-28s and just 2 Cirrus (1 SR20 and 1 SR22). Just from a scheduling stand point it was easier to find a PA-28 anytime I wanted. It wasn't that easy to schedule the SR20/22. Not only because there were only 2 of them but also not all instructors were CSIPs.

3) Finally, and this is really the number one reason I decided on the PA-28, I took the advice from some in this thread and based on some reading/video watching on my own, I decided to do my training on a plane without much technology. So the standard 6-pack gauges was all I wanted. It also helped that my instructor was all about fundamentals. No EFB allowed, no GPS use etc). With that said, the GNS 430 was already in there and although nowhere near glass cockpit, I think it will help a bit when I do the transition to the Cirrus. (this video, for some reason, helped me with the decision as well

)

So, the decision was to go with the PA-28 but unfortunately I don't have any experiences to share on how easy/difficult the transition to the Cirrus is. Maybe/hopefully I will be able to provide an update in the next 6 months or so.

 

[tspear]

@XSi

Good luck when you get back!

@Linh Tran
In terms of six pack versus glass; to reduce training time, it will boil down to what you are most comfortable with.
Older generations grew up with analog, e.g. analog watches. When my kids, especially my youngest who is 17 try and read an analog dial, they are very slow. They live in a digital world. While I see my parents read the analog clock with a flick of the eyes while the digital clock requires actually looking at it.
I am slightly faster on the glass tapes versus the dials, but not by much. This is largely because I have lived in both analog and digital times.
So, like I said before, go demo a couple planes and see what you like. It then comes down to emotion and motivation to determine which way you should go. For example, you may be faster on a six pack but decide the comfort of a chute means you will be slower learning the tapes version.

Tim

 

[wayne]

So, the decision was to go with the PA-28 but unfortunately I don't have any experiences to share on how easy/difficult the transition to the Cirrus is. Maybe/hopefully I will be able to provide an update in the next 6 months or so.

Depends upon your experience and which model of Cirrus. At first I thought it would take a few to several sessions to get use to the side stick. After we ended the first session I realized I was using the side stick without even thinking about it.

The glass was different for me as I'd flown only six-packs before that, other than a few flights in a DA-40. It was a model with Avidyne and two 430s, and I had plenty of 430 experience. One of the biggest changes for me was a good autopilot. I hadn't had much experience with a good autopilot. When I joined into a group (non-equity partnership) on a SR22 it had a six-pack, which made it even easier. Now I'm flying a 2006 with a PFD. So, I've been easing into it.

If you come from planes with a six-pack and limited/no autopilot to a G1000/Perspective it will be a big jump. Largely from an avionics perspective. I've flown a Perspective SR22 a little bit, I still just barely know much about that system. Transitioning to flying the SR22 is pretty easy. It's the transition to the avionics that can be a challenge, depending upon one's experience.