The why did they do that, thread, Cirrus edition

[Rockymountain]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why Cirrus opted for the liquid-slinging prop de-ice vs hot blades…….

A different way of doing things. Is innovative, but not a panacea. The good is that you don't need as much electrical power, no brushes to replace, the extra TKS slung off the prop protects the windscreen front and bottom of the plane a little. The bad is that you have to run it all the time in icing conditions, even if you are not for sure getting ice, since the prop deice is tied to all the other panels, that means you go through a lot of TKS just to protect the prop. The prop is more susceptible to some types of ice than the rest of the plane, so you will see a big speed drop off if the prop ices. If you wait to turn it on when the prop ices, the TKS is not good at removing ice as it is not deice, it is anti-ice.

Overall the FIKI system on the Cirrus works pretty well, but if you are in prolonged ice, watching those TKS levels drop can give you a little anxiety. Personally, I like a hot prop. Turn it on in IMC icing conditions and forget about it. If you get ice elsewhere then you can use the appropriate anti-ice deice systems, but don't have to run the whole system just to protect the prop.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Curious what model / year Cirrus you flew?

2015 G5

What does this mean? I hear people often say this "well the Cirrus isn't a pilot's airplane".. I'm not sure what that means.. in many ways it's more of a pilot's airplane requiring some more vigilance and attention to speed and numbers than many other legacy planes out there require. Is it a Cub? No.. but the missions are totally different

What you describe is what I call the difference between being an airplane driver and an aviator. Its a feel/preference. One isn't better than the other, just different.

It is admittedly subjective, but to me hand flying with finesse has a lot to do with it. The Cirrus is more like a jet. You fly it by the numbers more than by feel primarily by pushing buttons and turning knobs. Which can be enjoyable but it's an entirely different kind of flying altogether. Yes, it can be hand flown, but most people don't and it really isn't that pleasurable. I'm not the only pilot who has flown a Cirrus and feels this way.

Like someone said, it has an excellent, very capable autopilot. I have the exact same STEC 55 A/P in my Twin Beech. I like it a lot, but I also like to kick it off frequently and hand fly it. There is something I enjoy about finessing a large airplane like that around the sky with two fingers. If you have ever ridden a horse, it is a lot like that. Having a true feel for the airplane.

I don't get that feel in the Cirrus anymore than I get it when I'm flying the Citation. Doesn't mean I hate flying the Citation. It just isn't; something I'd want to own/fly as my personal airplane.

But, that's just me. Doesn't mean I think you are a bad pilot for liking the Cirrus just stop acting so put out and surprised that I'm not crazy about the airplane.

 

[FloridaPilot]

The Bonanza designed 70 years ago still does as much as a modern Cirrus design minus the chute so there's that. As far as flying characteristics, I've flown Cirrus' and now own a V-tail. No comparison. Yes, I'm biased. Yoke is a non issue and for passengers the "throw over" gives them a lot of room and makes getting in and out easier. I like the Cirrus, especially the looks of the interior and two doors, but for 100K you get a heck of a lot of airplane for the money with the Bo. When you bring $$ into the equation you are talking apples and oranges.

I love the Bonanza!!

 

[Fearless Tower]

I cant believe all of you hate all airplanes.
Everybody on this thread is bashing every airplane made.

This thread needs a chute to pull….

 

[Fearless Tower]

Curious what makes you feel that way?

What I consider fit and finish. Screw holes that don't line up well. Paneling with gaps. Cheesy environmental controls that attempt to look fancier than they are. Not horrible, but hardly the 'Bentley' that someone else tried to describe. Cessna is no better. You'll hear similar comments from new Citation owners, but I do feel that the fit and finish is superior on the Beechcraft airplanes I have flown. I've never flown a newer Piper or Mooney so can't compare those.

 

[nauga]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why Cirrus opted for the liquid-slinging prop de-ice vs hot blades…….

Might be faster if you asked someone who's likely to know.
https://www.cirruspilots.org/
https://cirrusaircraft.com/

Nauga,
and his diminished expectations

 

[Fearless Tower]

Do you think 'bashing' only means saying that a thing 'sucks'? That’s a very narrow definition.

Read your own posts. You are the one who made that correlation.

 

[Tantalum]

Doesn't mean I think you are a bad pilot for liking the Cirrus just stop acting so put out and surprised that I'm not crazy about the airplane.

Thanks! Different strokes, appreciate the pragmatic response. Actually my favorite flying was an old Blanik I flew once.. I guess the Bo is more like that in some regards

 

[RudyP]

2015 G5
(snip)
I have the exact same STEC 55 A/P in my Twin Beech.

Can you tell me more about this 2015 Cirrus with the STEC 55 that you flew? It must be a really special version since Cirrus hasn't put a 55X in any of their planes since about 2008.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Can you tell me more about this 2015 Cirrus with the STEC 55 that you flew? It must be a really special version since Cirrus hasn't put a 55X in any of their planes since about 2008.

I could be wrong. I was told by the guy checking me out it was a 2015, but the company does have 3 or 4 SR22s, so he may have been confused.

 

[RudyP]

I could be wrong. I was told by the guy checking me out it was a 2015, but the company does have 3 or 4 SR22s, so he may have been confused.

Yeah, it's probably the other guy who is wrong.. You seem to have a lot of expertise. Couldn't be you who is wrong.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Yeah, it's probably the other guy who is wrong.. You seem to have a lot of expertise. Couldn't be you who is wrong.

Well, you certainly fit that fan boy profile I was referring to.

I didn’t make up the 2015. If they didn’t put STEC 55s in the airplanes after 2008 then I was clearly wrong by posting it, but it really doesn’t matter. You clearly love Cirrus and have thin skin. Enjoy your airplane while I enjoy mine while getting paid to fly your baby.

 

[Tantalum]

For what it's worth the GFC700 is beautiful. The STEC is *okay* but no real comparison to the GFC700

 

[olasek]

I have the exact same STEC 55 A/P

STEC 55 In 2015 Cirrus, LOL, now I am starting to get a full picture about your Cirrus 'expertise'. This actually sumps up all your Cirrus posts quite well, you might have sat in one, I frankly doubt you flew any.

 

[RudyP]

Well, you certainly fit that fan boy profile I was referring to.

I didn’t make up the 2015. If they didn’t put STEC 55s in the airplanes after 2008 then I was clearly wrong by posting it, but it really doesn’t matter. You clearly love Cirrus and have thin skin. Enjoy your airplane while I enjoy mine while getting paid to fly your baby.

I have neither excess love for Cirrus or thin skin. I just call BS when I see it. If you look through my posts you will never see me disparaging another airplane or even really advocating for Cirrus. I like many types of airplanes and realize that no one type (even my current choice) is perfect for everyone. What I don't do is go around passive aggressively implying that people who make different choices are less of a pilot or person than I am. I also don't stretch the truth to make my points.

 

[hindsight2020]

and they're off!

 

[Fearless Tower]

I have neither excess love for Cirrus or thin skin. I just call BS when I see it. If you look through my posts you will never see me disparaging another airplane or even really advocating for Cirrus. I like many types of airplanes and realize that no one type (even my current choice) is perfect for everyone. What I don't do is go around passive aggressively implying that people who make different choices are less of a pilot or person than I am. I also don't stretch the truth to make my points.

I have looked through your posts. You seriously act like I screwed your wife and then told everyone she was a sorry lay.

Get over it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

STEC 55 In 2015 Cirrus, LOL, now I am starting to get a full picture about your Cirrus 'expertise'. This actually sumps up all your Cirrus posts quite well, you might have sat in one, I frankly doubt you flew any.

Never ever claimed to be an expert. As my posts have highlighted, I simply flew one for the first time last week. 4.5 hours with more to come. And I did look up the N# last night….it was a 2006. The company I fly for apparently has a 2015, so if I ever fly that one I'll compare.

But you are demonstrating my point about the Cirrus love/hate: On one side you have Cirrus haters who mock the chute and the airplane overall and most have never set foot in one. Then on the other side there are Cirrus zealots who seem taken aback that anyone would say anything negative about their beloved airplanes. My theory is that a lot of the mockers do so because the zealots are so easily stirred up and this thread certainly demonstrates that.

Look back through this thread. Several experienced Cirrus pilots have said things along the lines of 'yeah, I noticed that too and not crazy about it, but I still like the airplane overall'.

Then there are guys like you and Rudy who respond in pure disbelief that anyone could not love everything about a Cirrus. You are absolutely entitled to love your airplane and enjoy it. But why one earth does it bother you so much to see people who don't share your same level of enthusiasm for it??? While I'm passionate about my airplanes, I hardly think that they are the perfect airplanes for everyone. Yours isn't either.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Such a polarizing airplane.

No idea why people get so passionate about this particular toy.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Such a polarizing airplane.

No idea why people get so passionate about this particular toy.

I know, right? ANY airplane that has the third wheel in the front is for pretenders.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I know, right? ANY airplane that has the third wheel in the front is for pretenders.

That's the first wheel.

 

[Ken Ibold]

That's the first wheel.

On landing?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Such a polarizing airplane.

No idea why people get so passionate about this particular toy.

Not unlike Airbus

 

[Fearless Tower]

I know, right? ANY airplane that has the third wheel in the front is for pretenders.

Truth is I don’t fly any nose wheel airplanes unless I’m getting paid.

 

[Stephen Shore]

I have never flown a Cirrus and probably never will (money issues). I did walk within 6 feet of one on the tarmac at Madison WI late last year. It was a beautiful dark red / maroon SR22. What struck me was the size - I think more than anything else that Cirrus did, they came up with the right SIZE.

I know there is alot of technology in that airplane and I get that, but I think Cirrus may be the first airplane manufacturer that finally came up with the concept of a comfortable GA single engine airplane. The difference between the Cirrus and a Bonanza is only a few inches, but those few inches make a big difference.

I have had the chance to fly in what I consider the most successful complex GA single engine airplane - Bonanza - but you still are going to rub shoulders with your front seat partner and you still have to crawl over the copilot seat to enter or exit the airplane.

Most of us would never consider a car that was so tight and hard to get into, and yet we settle for that in GA airplanes.

Cirrus blew that line of thinking out of the water. They started with a comfortable cockpit and then built the airplane around that. What a novel concept.

I will probably never be able to own one and I don't really understand all of the technology built into that airplane, but they definitely have to get credit for the best airframe in the single piston GA class of aircraft.

 

[dell30rb]

Such a polarizing airplane.

No idea why people get so passionate about this particular toy.

Personal airliner. Cirrus lifestyle. “Arrive, be seen!” Look at my wingtip lights, they are just like my Audi! Not a toy!

They are nice airplanes and the older ones are becoming reasonable in terms of price/speed/capability, but I have to laugh at the marketing

 

[Sluggo63]

I have no dog in this fight at all, it just cracks me up that if you replace “Cirrus” with “Apple” in this thread, it reminds me of every conversation I have when I dare to say in public that I’m not a fan of Apple products.

 

[Clark1961]

I have no dog in this fight at all, it just cracks me up that if you replace “Cirrus” with “Apple” in this thread, it reminds me of every conversation I have when I dare to say in public that I’m not a fan of Apple products.

Apple basher! You should be pilloried! Off with his heads.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Apple sucks. You get 1 button. Cirrus gives you a panel full of buttons.

 

[CC268]

Such a polarizing airplane.

No idea why people get so passionate about this particular toy.

PoA yearly boxing match would solve these issues! Wooo hooo! Go at it!!! Personally I hate Beechcraft. They just aren't a pilot's airplane. Just kidding.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Apple sucks. You get 1 button. Cirrus gives you a panel full of buttons.

But can you zoom climb in a Cirrus?

Because we all know that is safer since it gets you up to minimum chute pull altitude quicker!

 

[Rockymountain]

It is interesting how passionate people are one side or the other about the Cirrus. Maybe it is an Apple Android kind of thing. When I owned a Cirrus, I surely appreciated it, but did not seem to drink the same kind of Kool-Aid that some do. I think when Cirrus owners take a hard stand that any plane without a chute is a bad and unsafe design, it ****es people off. Then they take their lives in their own hands and go ride on a Boeing or Airbus. How many chutes does it have? I appreciated the chute, as a tool but it has limits. The overall safety record, particularly back then was not stellar compared to competing airframes, seemed like that chute needed to be used an awful lot, whereas people flying DA40's with little training and no chute still seemed to enjoy a better safety record. I flew the plane like it did not have one, which meant careful training, flight planning, and matching the plane with the mission.

I bought mine mainly for the FIKI and G1000 avionics. Not a lot out there at that time that I could justify in price with that combination. Almost every other aircraft I have flown has a better feel on the controls, and there are a lot of planes out there with more speed, more weather capability, more useful load, more range in the same price range. With proper training, currency and maintenance, they all have essentially the same safety record. So address the real problems with flying. Starting to see it with the SF50 as well. People saying now that there is a turbine with a chute, they would not fly another turbine. Really? Just seems a little strange to me.

I love all planes, would really hate to be married to just one. As long as it remains legal in all 50 states, I am going to remain a Polyaviationist.

 

[Bill Watson]

You guys... 14 screens of crap with about 2 screens of actually interesting observations, smh.

So here’s my part; Blanik L-13? A flying truck, though aerobatic. I like it but glad they aren’t around any longer. Discuss not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rockymountain]

You guys... 14 screens of crap with about 2 screens of actually interesting observations, smh.

So here’s my part; Blanik L-13? A flying truck, though aerobatic. I like it but glad they aren’t around any longer. Discuss not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Cryptic and irrelevant. But thanks for posting.

 

[Brad Smith]

What bothers me is the use of double-sided tape and Velcro on the airplane in places that should be using approved sealants and fasteners. Makes one wonder what other cost saving materials/methods they are using in areas that are not easily noticed? Also, in the quest to make it more car-like in the cockpit, they compromise safety (fuse panel location) to produce an environment where the pilot and passengers will feel more "comfortable." It is, after all, an airplane first and safety should not be compromised in the name of comfort.

 

[CC268]

Cryptic and irrelevant. But thanks for posting.

Hahaha I was thinking the same thing...like wth?

 

[Tantalum]

^I scrolled up and down a couple times in case I missed something too lol. I made a mention of a Blanik I flew once as having what I thought was the best control harmony.. so maybe it was my fault?

they came up with the right SIZE.

Yes. It has ramp presence. Even the difference in G2/G3 is noticeable and has a bigger "wow!" factor

I know there is alot of technology in that airplane and I get that, but I think Cirrus may be the first airplane manufacturer that finally came up with the concept of a comfortable GA single engine airplane.

It's just comfortable. You can put a G1000 in just about anything.. but the Cirrus is the first plane I sat where two guys over 6 feet can sit in the front and not rub shoulders or have some weird camaraderie-like (that one time in the trenches) experience.

Cirrus blew that line of thinking out of the water. They started with a comfortable cockpit and then built the airplane around that. What a novel concept.

I wish more (or even just one other) manufacturer did that instead of just putting Garmin's newest and latest toy into a 70 year old design

Maybe it is an Apple Android kind of thing

That would be true if we could say the non-Cirrus fleet is akin to an Android. But it is not. To me it is an Apple vs this


Until someone else builds a fresh design modern (not homebuilt) plane Cirrus will keep moving further and further away from the pack. Mooney cutting a pilot's side door into a tiny plane and putting a less integrated G1000 into it will not make them a game changer, and their disgraceful sales figures are testament to this

 

[Tantalum]

Not unlike Airbus

As a pilot I want to say I'd be Boeing all the way.. but as a passenger I prefer Airbus because I feel safer on it. That's major flame-bait, I know, but how many Airbus accidents have we had vs Boeing. I'm sorry but I think there is definite value in full envelope protection, and the FBW demonstration videos are impressive. How many Boeings and Douglas planes did we lose because of dumb pilot mistakes.. vs how many Airbus? AF447?

Incidentally, I have heard that as a pilot the Airbus are far more comfortable and quiet in the cockpit. If my job has me spending several hours a day sitting I'm sorry but I'd probably opt for the A320 cockpit too over a 737 or Maddog, both of which appear to have puny cockpits and from I read are remarkably loud

NOT saying there is anything wrong with an old-school flying culture. I would love the opportunity to fly a DC-3, get some tail dragger time, etc., but just like the antique car market that type of aviation will be relegated to a smaller and specialty group and the majority of aviation will go to the Cirrus and magenta-line type thinking. GA is not immune to culture shifts, and for it to continue on as a viable entity we need people like Cirrus to keep it alive

 

[Tantalum]

Put it this way... as an interesting thought exercise I bet if every GA airplane, say under 5,000 lbs, was priced exactly the same, then the Cirrus sales figures would be even more outrageous.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I am surprised no other manufacturer has attempted producing a model w/ a stock BRS system.
If that is truly the differentiator (I cant spell that word), it would mean more sales for that brand, possibly some competition driving prices a little lower.