The why did they do that, thread, Cirrus edition

Fearless Tower said:
I don't know I'd call it 'problematic'. More like slightly annoying.

The system works. But WHY do that? I saw the theory about the need to center the ailerons with the angled stick, but it just struck me as a feature designed for lazy pilots who want to taxi with their hands in their laps.

My overall feeling about the airplane as I mentioned in another thread as to why I would never want to own one is that in the Cirrus, I feel like an airplane driver, not an aviator. It's a job. Not something that brings me joy like other airplanes. But alot of that is just my personality.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason for the spring centering of the controls is to avoid the need for gust locks. You can just park a Cirrus on the ramp, tie it down, lock the doors (by remote now) and walk away.

The airplane was designed with a lot of convenience in mind - which I suppose goes a bit against the grain for some people who fly for the romance and experience of it first and the utility second.

I used to be more like you and loved to just go flying for flying's sake, in the simplest, most analog and raw airplane possible. I have a lot of time in my logbook with no particular destination in mind... Now, I fly mostly to travel and to avoid the indignity of flying on the airlines. And the Cirrus suits me very well. It isn’t as antiseptic and automated as many seem to believe, it is still a pleasure to fly it and fly it well and rewards an attentive pilot with a very honest and fun flying experience. But it also gets me where I need to be with 99% dispatch reliability at a cost that it is a fraction of the next major step up in capability (jet A burners).
 
It’s been over a decade since I owned a Cirrus, and nearly as long since I’ve flown one.

In the spirit of this thread, the worst design decision overall was the location of the breaker panel, as has been mentioned prior.

It was Cirrus Design failing to heed the maxim “Form follows function”. In its quest to make the interior more car-like, they decided to hide the breaker panel away down by the pilot’s right shin. I found it nearly impossible to identify breakers under the best of circumstances, and I was not alone. Many reverted to putting grommets on certain critical breakers so they could find them by feel. I printed out and laminated a photo of the panel so I could count down a certain amount of slots to find the desired breaker.

cirrus-breaker-panel.jpg


Very poor design, in my book.
 
This thread reminds me of a post I made to COPA in 2007:


Several recent threads on declining Cirrus values, what a used Cirrus is worth, Cirrus reliability, etc. have got me thinking.

What I think they need at Cirrus is an "Obvious Drek* Inspector".

Much of the Cirrus is well thought out, well engineered and substantial. Good job there, Cirrus.

But I have to think back to the first time I saw that the double-sided tape holding on the wing root fairings of my 2003 SR22 was coming loose. I mean double-sided tape! The kind you might use around the house, but never for a critical application.

Here's a possible end result of that choice (Rick McClanahan's plane here - I just meant to link the last photo):

(searching for photo now)

I mean, what were they thinking? Someone must have looked at options for attaching a needed fairing and decided tape was a good idea. Did they stop to consider its long term durability? The affect of cleaners, or weather, or just time on it?

Someone should have been in a position to look over their shoulders and say "NO - that's obviously drek!".

Similar items are critical navigational antennas held on with regular Velcro, and the quality of some of the electrical connectors chosen.

When my plane was grounded due to a broken ALT1 field wire, I had to look at the broken ring terminal and think "drek!". And this is drek the failure of which takes out a substantial amount of the plane's "all-electric" capability. I'm sure many of you looked at the original Emax connectors and thought the same thing.

I'm sure there are other examples.

If someone was looking at a Beechcraft and a Cirrus side-by-side, little "drek-y" things like this on the Cirrus would really stand out and might make one question the long term durability and short term reliability of the Cirrus. This may be part of the drop in value many of you are seeing on your planes.

Just a thought!



* a slang Yiddish word meaning "trash" or "dung"
 
The breaker panel position is indeed in a terrible spot. It’s virtually impossible to see while flying the plane. Also, the ELT manual trigger is an unprotected button at the bottom of the panel. More than one person I know has accidentally set the ELT off because they bumped this button with their foot or hand while reaching down for something. Overall I generally like the Cirrus and fly one regularly but the breaker panel position is just bad design.
 
Cirrus are VERY capable and flyable airplanes. No plane is perfect. Yes Cirrus have a parachute. You aren't required to use it.
 
Look back at the breaker panel photo.

Imagine it’s an emergency and you need to pull the autopilot breaker.

Note the parallax error, putting the label between two breakers.

In the heat of the moment, which one might you pull?
 
FastEddieB said:
Look back at the breaker panel photo.

Imagine it’s an emergency and you need to pull the autopilot breaker.

Note the parallax error, putting the label between two breakers.

In the heat of the moment, which one might you pull?
Click to expand...
Hopefully you've thought of this ahead of time, and you reach down, find the first row, bottom breaker, count up 3, pull, then go to the third bank, go to the bottom, count up, pull 3 and 4. But I think you knew that.
 
That panel does need some help. I'd definitely put colored caps on the important breakers.


upload_2018-1-15_12-7-23.jpeg
 
PaulS said:
Hopefully you've thought of this ahead of time, and you reach down, find the first row, bottom breaker, count up 3, pull, then go to the third bank, go to the bottom, count up, pull 3 and 4. But I think you knew that.
Click to expand...

Of course. I also had grommets on a few key breakers. But I think having to do so as a workaround just emphasizes the design flaw.
 
FastEddieB said:
Of course. I also had grommets on a few key breakers. But I think having to do so as a workaround just emphasizes the design flaw.
Click to expand...

Agree, I can't twist myself up enough to get a good view of the panel when flying.
 
I guess every airplane ever manufactured was flawed, then. All those breakers that all look the same.

Those that have mentioned putting caps/grommets on the important breakers, you are on to something. I'm not sure how many Cirrus pilots rent their aircraft (vs those that own/partner in a club acft), but with such an advanced aircraft systems knowledge/EPs can make the difference in surviving a malfunction and becoming a statistic.

I have never flown an SR-2x of any variety, but have enough time in technologically advanced airplanes in the transport category to offer an opinion (that will no doubt be disputed by those that refuse to accept aviation has changed, for better or worse).

A basic training aircraft (C150/152/172, PA28 140/160, etc) are just complex enough to barely kill you. A pilot can wing it through an abnormal situation and come out on the other side just a little worse for wear, but with a more automated and technological aircraft, complacency and laziness to not adequately prepare for every scenario (differences/recurrent training, practice EPs, chair flying) it is very easy to find yourself behind the curve when things go bad. Like the poster earlier mentioned the flaps not being on the essential bus. That's good info to know ahead of time to plan your electrical failure approach appropriately, not at the time of the event.

There are plenty of aircraft being flown these days by pilots that don't have the motivation and/or aptitude to study their craft and master it. Those that insist on stick and rudder alone to get by will be presented with the opportunity to demonstrate those superior skills when the need arises, instead of equipping themselves with the knowledge to avoid those situations beforehand.
 
AWACSEng said:
I guess every airplane ever manufactured was flawed, then. All those breakers that all look the same.
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point - they’re located in a spot that’s very difficult for a person of normal stature to see and identify. An overweight pilot, or an inflexible one, might not be able to see or reach them at all.

On later models, Cirrus found room for a “glove box” on the panel. It’s hard to believe there wasn’t room for breakers. But that would have detracted from the “car-like” vibe they were looking for.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think you miss the point - they’re located in a spot that’s very difficult for a person of normal stature to see and identify. An overweight pilot, or an inflexible one, might not be able to cope with them.

On later models, Cirrus found room for a “glove box” on the panel. It’s hard to believe there wasn’t room for breakers. But that would have detracted from the “car-like” vibe they were looking for.
Click to expand...
Point not missed. There are plenty of aircraft with oddly placed CB panels/switches. Like I said, I've never flown a cirrus, but take Gulfstream for example. Critical CBs are directly behind the Pilot/CoPilot heads. Without having a 99% idea where certain breakers are by feel/memory, an EP can rapidly get out of hand.

So my point was more universal than just Cirri. If pilots take the time to learn the airplane, some of the apparent design oddities can be mitigated. That's all.
 
FastEddieB said:
It’s been over a decade since I owned a Cirrus, and nearly as long since I’ve flown one.

In the spirit of this thread, the worst design decision overall was the location of the breaker panel, as has been mentioned prior.

It was Cirrus Design failing to heed the maxim “Form follows function”. In its quest to make the interior more car-like, they decided to hide the breaker panel away down by the pilot’s right shin. I found it nearly impossible to identify breakers under the best of circumstances, and I was not alone. Many reverted to putting grommets on certain critical breakers so they could find them by feel. I printed out and laminated a photo of the panel so I could count down a certain amount of slots to find the desired breaker.

cirrus-breaker-panel.jpg


Very poor design, in my book.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would want the autopilot and trim breaker on the panel where I could get at them immediately.
 
Just noticed the elt switch/light. How'd they get away with that? I was under the impression it had to be in direct view of the pilot or is there a horn also?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Did they? What year? We have at least two with long standing latch issues.
Click to expand...
Some G5’s have the improved door latch. I believe 2016 and newer. They are so much better. Don’t have to worry about the artic air coming in through the bottom on the door.
 
How does a 350/400/ttx compare? Any drek?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Having recently joined the ranks of Cirrus pilots, there are a couple things that left me scratching my head:

Spring loaded ailerons: What is up with that? Any particular reason? As a tailwheel guy who has been conditioned to apply control inputs when taxiing in the wind, I found this really freaking annoying. Kind of like the airplane is fighting me. Also creates an odd feel hand flying.

Prop anti-ice: ok, Cirrus, the 1930s called and they want their prop anti-ice back. I mean seriously: this is the 21st Century! Why are they producing airplanes from the factory with fluid based prop anti-ice????

And speaking of anti-ice, why is there no fluid level gauge?

Trim: why no means of manually adjusting trim??? How hard is it to put a manual trim wheel or crank in the airplane?

Anyway, those were the first oddities that jumped out at me. I may come up with more as I fly it.
Click to expand...

Having a few hours in an SR22 myself my first impressions were the same. It's not a pilot's airplane like a Bonanza or Baron.
 
Just like the chute, the trim is also controlled by a rocket. "hmmmm..... I seem to be rolling slightly to the left.... Now... just a tap on the OH MY GOD WHY AM I SPINING VIOLENTLY TO THE RIGHT? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!!?!?!"
Spring loaded controls are to make you feel like a fighter pilot at cruise. You bank hard for a half second and let it go and the plane freezes in place. Every turn feels like the start of a 4 point roll.


But yeah, my 2 least favorite features.
 
FastEddieB said:
Found that photo of the wing root fairing tape degrading:

39709528051_06815590a0_z.jpg


Not my plane. Not sure what happened to that inspection panel.
Click to expand...

Mine did the same thing. They forgot to put a screw back in the front of the inspection panel.
The wind forced the front of the panel down and the air blew the wing root seal open.

They ordered more double sided tape from Cirrus and fixed it.
 
Cirrus made some compromises in the design to keep costs in check, and keep the plane simple to fly. One benefit of the spring cartridges is that you don't have to put gust locks on the plane. There is a tiny bit of safety (no gust locks to forget to take off), and convenience. I am not a fan of the feedback it creates at low airspeed, but you train accordingly. The lack of a manual trim is cost saving. I like planes with both electric and manual trim, it gives you a backup, and manual trim is quicker and more precise. The one thing that does bother me, is that in an all electric airplane, the backup instruments are tied to the ships battery. The only plane that I have seen, except for maybe the legacy Eclipse jet, where the backups do not have their own power source in case you lose all ships power. So with a catastrophic electrical failure where you lose both alternators and both batteries, you also lose your back up instruments. Low likelihood scenario, but imagine in an electrical fire, may want to shut down all electrical sources.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But WHY do that?
Click to expand...
it's a convenient gust lock and self centering. I always hate jamming that metal thing into the Skyhawk yoke and found it incredible low-rent that the Archer's control lock is a seatbelt.. (seriously?)

EminiTrader said:
But there is undoubtedly a huge dislike for Cirrus around here
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't get it either. I would suggest anyone who hates the plane to spend a few hours flying it (not just sit in it somewhere and say "yeah I hate it"). It's a very fun plane to fly.. it's laser precise and rewards your hard work with very smooth and deliberate responses, it doesn't do anything unpredictable (as some people think). Some of my best landings have been in the Cirrus, if you have it dialed in right the plane feels like it's on smooth train tracks as it glides down and kisses the pavement. I never got that satisfaction in any high wing.. the Archer sometimes yes but it's nowhere near as precise

luvflyin said:
Or is it through tension on the springs
Click to expand...
I think someone else already replied, but just spring tension. I find it simpler and to me I don't have to worry about the little trim cable breaking or getting stuck somewhere..

SixPapaCharlie said:
Just like the chute, the trim is also controlled by a rocket.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've gotten used to the trim by just tapping it.. but I agree, I wish it was progressive. Electric trims in other planes I've flown are much smoother/slower, on the Cirrus it definitely needs no more than just a tap here and there. If it were progressive that would be a real pleasure. I don't mind there not being a manual trim wheel to be honest

Honestly, compared to many of the board members on here I'm still on the lower side of hours, but the most rewarding flying I've done is in the Cirrus. No, not because it is fast, or has fancy glass or because it makes me feel fancy or something (or because I'm a #millenial).. but I just find it flies better. Stalls, steep turns, all sorts of various maneuvers are beautifully executed if you fly the numbers and the plane right.. that's what's rewarding about it. In a Skyhawk or Archer you can half-ass your way through the flight regime and no one will notice. In the Cirrus if you get everything right it feels beautiful.
 
dell30rb said:
Having a few hours in an SR22 myself my first impressions were the same. It's not a pilot's airplane like a Bonanza or Baron.
Click to expand...

I guess I’m not a pilot. :oops:

I’m in a Baron partnership, but for most flying I’d rather fly a SR22. I’m not saying a Baron is bad. Some of it is th Baron is 40+ years old and something’s don’t work as well as they did when new. Some is the ergonomics, such as the GPS/radio/audio panel on the far right since the prop/throttle/mixture control sit so high.

The SR22 isn’t perfect. It just fits my needs well.
 
Most people that complain about the spring loaded ailerons only fly a Cirrus once and write it off. After you fly it for a few hours it flies like every other GA plane. It’s a non issue.
 
jordane93 said:
Most people that complain about the spring loaded ailerons only fly a Cirrus once and write it off. After you fly it for a few hours it flies like every other GA plane. It’s a non issue.
Click to expand...
We’ll see how I feel as I fly it more. I agree that it is an overall non-issue. Just something that annoys me.
 
Rockymountain said:
, with a catastrophic electrical failure where you lose both alternators and both batteries, you also lose your back up instruments.
Click to expand...

You wrote instruments plural, but actually, it should be singular. Only one of the four backup instruments will be lost in that total-electric-failure scenario.

In the older SR models, which are the most common, the four backup indicators are an electric backup attitude indicator, an airspeed, an altimeter, and an inclinometer bubble. The latter three require no electricity, except for illumination at night.

Only the gyroscopic attitude indicator requires electricity. Some owners replace it with something digital with its own backup battery, so they will survive the Chicken-Little scenario of total electric failure in IMC without a chute pull.
 
Fearless Tower said:
We’ll see how I feel as I fly it more. I agree that it is an overall non-issue. Just something that annoys me.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’ll have any issues. It certainly feels different but not something that was large enough to get my panties in a wad! I only had a few hundred hours and a few types of aircraft under my belt when I first flew one so maybe my inexperience contributed to my sentiment.
 
jordane93 said:
I don’t think you’ll have any issues. It certainly feels different but not something that was large enough to get my panties in a wad! I only had a few hundred hours and a few types of aircraft under my belt when I first flew one so maybe my inexperience contributed to my sentiment.
Click to expand...
I figure if I could get used to the Citation yoke moving with the rudder pedals when taxiing, I can probably get used to the Cirrus ailerons.
 
Yeah, you only use the AI and lights with a battery failure, but you would have to be pretty good to keep the sunny side up holding a flashlight in your mouth and using the altimeter for primary attitude and the compass for primary bank. Certainly above my pay grade ;-) Would have been so easy to just put a battery pack behind the backups, like almost every other airframer does.

As far as getting used to the spring cartridges, you get used to flying by pitch power and attitude as the control feel is very reduced compared to most small aircraft. The controls feel about the same at 58 KIAS as they do at 90 KIAS, so you miss some significant feedback on air-speed. Not sure that the Cirrus is more prone to pattern accidents than some, but there are a significant number of pattern accidents in that aircraft, mostly stall spin as compared to say a DA40 with very precise control feedback. Again things you train for. I have 550 hours in Cirri. Good aircraft, but quite different from many. Main thing is to get and maintain type specific training to avoid the pitfalls.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Spring loaded ailerons: What is up with that?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't get this question, I don't feel any aileron spring-loading, perhaps there is one but the effect must be way too weak for me to ponder about it and have positive/negative opinion of any kind, complete non-issue as far as I am concerned. If we are supposed to be in a Cirrus-bashing mode I find controls fairly stiff - which is offset by the phenomenal autopilot that does most of this work for you. Yeah, no trim wheel, another blemish but again - more than enough compensated by the phenomenal autopilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top