The why did they do that, thread, Cirrus edition

Tantalum said:
^I scrolled up and down a couple of 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?
Click to expand...

Yes it was. I was trying to stay awake long enough to survive all the ****ing on one another's shoes. Then I saw the perfectly irrelevant Blanik sailplane comment and figured I'd join in.

Why does the "Cirrus versus everything else" generally omit references to the Columbia/Cessna/400/TTx? Aren't those comparable?
 
Bill Watson said:
Why does the "Cirrus versus everything else" generally omit references to the Columbia/Cessna/400/TTx? Aren't those comparable?
Click to expand...
They are, but they sell in tiny numbers, at least around here I've never seen on in socal and have only heard one or two checking in on the radio. I think if Cirrus had sales figures like every other GA plane (well, maybe more than 7 like Mooney, but in line with Cessna/Piper) they wouldn't see as much hate. People would think they're a cool different modern plane

But because they're A.) so expensive and B.) sell so much and C.) are relatively radical in their design I think most Cirrus defenders are just defending their product against what they see as the same cliched attacks of:
*it spins if you stall it
*if it spins you are screwed
*it's composite, so even though I've never sat in one I assume the fit and finish is crap
*it has a joystick? what is this, a video game?
*they're not flown by real pilots

^it's the last one that's most annoying as its a direct insult against the people who own and fly them, it becomes not about the product, but about the person, and I think the one that evokes a stronger response from people. 6PC has found humor in all the anti-Cirrus stuff, but it tends to get old frankly.. and honestly, I bet most are just jealous and disguise that jealousy in hatred
 
Diamond had a real competitor in the DA50, the superstar, but seemed to lack the funds or desire to bring it to market. Problem is that the market is pretty small for million dollar planes, and that is how much it costs in the current world to bring a good 4 place aircraft to market it, sell it and support it. Cirrus has a nice product, markets it well, and markets the Cirrus life. Now their best customers are repeat customers. That is how you do it. But I don't see any real competition in that market in the near future.
 
Rockymountain said:
Diamond had a real competitor in the DA50, the superstar, but seemed to lack the funds or desire to bring it to market. Problem is that the market is pretty small for million dollar planes, and that is how much it costs in the current world to bring a good 4 place aircraft to market it, sell it and support it. Cirrus has a nice product, markets it well, and markets the Cirrus life. Now their best customers are repeat customers. That is how you do it. But I don't see any real competition in that market in the near future.
Click to expand...


Is the DA50 dead? Their website still shows it as a 2018 rollout but not much info from other sources that isn't almost a year old. I like it.
 
Tantalum said:
.. and honestly, I bet most are just jealous and disguise that jealousy in hatred
Click to expand...
Truth. I'm jealous and I won't even disguise it. :) But I'm not just jealous of SR-22 guys, I'm also that way with the A36 guys, the Ovation/Acclaim guys and the TTx guys, and many others. I think most of us are glad that Cirrus has been so successful, I know that I am.
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I assume it has to do with certification costs. Useful load, CG and space is such a challenge in GA singles you can't easily add a BRS in most existing designs. They do have a retrofit for the 182, but throwing a 100lb 'chute in most aircraft will either take up all of your baggage compartment or create an aft CG problem if it is installed behind the baggage compartment.

I'm sure Mooney looked at adding a Chute to the Ovation/Acclaim when they recapitalized and modified the airplane. My guess, they could not have added it without doing a major modification that would have required them to re-certify the design, and it was too costly.

I think the Chute is a great thing to have and it really lets you enjoy the low maintenance and fuel burn of singles, while giving the pilot an option if the fan quits over unforgiving terrain, at night, or in low IMC conditions. On most light piston twins, you are vulnerable on takeoff anyway until you get to blue line, and get the airplane cleaned up, which is usually 500 agl or so, and that is about the point that CAPS can be used.
 
Bill Watson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Brings up an interesting thought: of all the airplanes I’ve flown, there really are only two that I genuinely didn’t like.

The first was the Avid Magnum. Not well designed combined with amateur built resulted in some real goofball flight characteristics.

The other is the 172RG. What a POS. Looks like a Skyhawk but handled like a rock with wings. Slow for a retract. Just not a pleasant airplane to fly. Of course the only time you ever see one, it’s a flight school/trainer airplane so a few thousand hours of abuse could have something to do with that....
 
Fearless Tower said:
Brings up an interesting thought: of all the airplanes I’ve flown, there really are only two that I genuinely didn’t like.

The other is the 172RG. What a POS. Looks like a Skyhawk but handled like a rock with wings. Slow for a retract. Just not a pleasant airplane to fly. Of course the only time you ever see one, it’s a flight school/trainer airplane so a few thousand hours of abuse could have something to do with that....
Click to expand...

The 172RG is the training retract for those who think, "I learned in a Cessna, I have to stay in a Cessna. Can't fly something made by anyone else . . . "

I bought my Mooney with 62 Cessna-only hours in my logbook. So much for brand loyalty, or staying with what I learned in. Guess I'm just a marketer's nightmare!
 
Rockymountain said:
I flew the plane like it did not have one, which meant careful training, flight planning, and matching the plane with the mission.
Click to expand...

Your decision made the parachute become extra safety margin in effect making the cirrus a safer airplane than it would be without the chute. One thing that has frustrated me with some cirrus pilots is seeing them operate with less safety margin because of the chute. very frustrating....
 
Is this why I see $100K Range Rovers in the ditch during a snowstorm driving up to Big Bear?
 
dell30rb said:
I'm sure Mooney looked at adding a Chute to the Ovation/Acclaim when they recapitalized and modified the airplane. My guess, they could not have added it without doing a major modification that would have required them to re-certify the design, and it was too costly.
Click to expand...

Another point is the current chutes are generally designed to destroy the gear to absorb some of the force as part of the 'landing' I suspect this would be problematic in a retract. I don't see any retractable aircraft currently certified with a BRS parachute.
 
chartbundle said:
Another point is the current chutes are generally designed to destroy the gear to absorb some of the force as part of the 'landing' I suspect this would be problematic in a retract. I don't see any retractable aircraft currently certified with a BRS parachute.
Click to expand...
That is a good point. The Cirrus BRS is designed to work in conjunction with the gear absorbing some of the impact.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Brings up an interesting thought: of all the airplanes I’ve flown, there really are only two that I genuinely didn’t like.

The first was the Avid Magnum. Not well designed combined with amateur built resulted in some real goofball flight characteristics.

The other is the 172RG. What a POS. Looks like a Skyhawk but handled like a rock with wings. Slow for a retract. Just not a pleasant airplane to fly. Of course the only time you ever see one, it’s a flight school/trainer airplane so a few thousand hours of abuse could have something to do with that....
Click to expand...

I’ve flown many more glider types than planes but the worse by far was the Schweitzer 1-36. They’ve built some tanks but they were honest tanks and definitely stout tanks but the 36 just sucked. A real simple single place glider aimed at replacing the 1-26.... not. Wandered around in pitch and in turbulence (lift) in general.

And the Blanik was actually a nice glider, better than a 2 place Lark.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
chartbundle said:
Another point is the current chutes are generally designed to destroy the gear to absorb some of the force as part of the 'landing' I suspect this would be problematic in a retract. I don't see any retractable aircraft currently certified with a BRS parachute.
Click to expand...

The Cirrus Jet is a retract.
 
dell30rb said:
The Cirrus Jet is a retract.
Click to expand...

Anybody know if the computer/autopilot controlled chute deployment in the Cirrus jet includes automatically extending the gear as part of the sequence? Or, alternatively, does the deployment control system ensure the gear is up?
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
I think it’s called the “Essential Bus”.

And flaps are not essential.

Next...
Click to expand...

Sometimes electrical buses have funny names. In the PC12, landing gear is in non-essential bus. And it is auto-shed if Gen1 fails. So lose a gen, and you get to hand pump the gear down.
 
mtuomi said:
Sometimes electrical buses have funny names. In the PC12, landing gear is in non-essential bus. And it is auto-shed if Gen1 fails. So lose a gen, and you get to hand pump the gear down.
Click to expand...

Yabut, you don't need flaps to land and, it would be a disaster in the PC12, to be in IMC and have your instruments go blank in an approach, close to the ground when you hit that gear switch were you just on battery. These things are inconvenient, but make sense in the big picture.
 
mtuomi said:
In the PC12, landing gear is in non-essential bus. And it is auto-shed if Gen1 fails. So lose a gen, and you get to hand pump the gear down.
Click to expand...
The landing gear is not non-essential, the motors that drive the gear are. Can you get the gear down without electrical power? Yes. QED.

Nauga,
and his FMEA
 
So, I've got a whopping 1.5 hours in a cirrus; here are some of my thoughts. They're worth what you paid for them.

1.) I've flown a few high performance airplanes that have spring centered controls (T-6B Texan II is the most directly comparable to a GA airplane). Never found that the springs affected control feel all that much airborne, just on the ground taxiing. I'd definitely take springs on the controls for built in gust protection while parked on the ramp.

2.) As far as the parachute and it's haters go; until you've flown an airplane that has an escape mechanism, it's hard to realize the comfort and peace of mind that it gives you. After going from my work airplane sitting on a rocket seat, my first purchase for my new RV-8 was a set of parachutes. Not sure how much good they'll do me, but there is a peace of mind associated with knowing that there is an option to ditch the airplane if you get to that point. When I'm instructing annual emergency procedures simulators, I build in a scenario that will require ejection at some point, just to make sure the aircrew will do so when the time comes. Your hide is worth more than the vehicle, and I think that applies to General Aviation as well. Not saying that the chute should be a substitute for good airmanship or headwork, but having an out is a good thing IMHO.

3.) I don't see the CB panel as a big safety issue. You aren't going to be pulling CB's in normal operation. Learn your airplane and it's systems. Count CB's when you pull one and make sure you have the right one. Critical systems should have collars around them. Every military airplane I've flown has required counting circuit breakers and memorization of switch positions that you could feel but not see. Part of being a pilot is systems knowledge, and a blind cockpit check or critical systems is the absolute minimum level of preparation one could do if you plan on flying IMC or night VMC.

4.) Double stick tape holding fairings on, it s a bit alarming for a $800,000 airplane....
 
Ok, about that tape....

I think it's genius. I remember when 3M first started promoting double sided tape as a legitimate alternative to fasteners, I recall it starting in the 90's although it was probably earlier. They were advertising structural tapes and adhesives that would pass mil spec environmental and aging tests. In the proper applications it was actually stronger than old school fasteners, and would out perform standard fasteners in vibration tests. People seem to be forgetting that we are talking about an airplane made out of glue, fancy glue, but none the less, glue or more specifically, epoxy, comingled with other materials.

So here is what I like specifically about the wing root fairing design in the Cirrus. If you think about it, a fairing could have been easily designed to be attached using standard connectors, like bolts. Maybe one bolt or screw every 6 inches or so, or if you design the fairing more robustly you could get away with less fasteners, but you would increase weight. The fairing would have point stresses at the attachment points and would be subject to cracking due to flexing and environmental issues. What Cirrus decided to do was utilize a space aged tape, that effectively supports the fairing over a large percentage of its area, eliminating the stress concentration points and providing much better attachment of the fairing to the wing and fuselage. This in turn eliminates the extra structural heft needed when you use fasteners, allowing a lighter, sleeker, more aerodynamic design. All wins. I think it is a great choice of attachment.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You fly [a Cirrus] 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.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. I am one who feels exactly this way. I recently completed Cirrus' standardized transition training course and now rent and fly an SR20 with a Garmin Perspective. I transitioned from a Sling 2 -- a two-seat Light Sport Aircraft. The Sling is a joy to hand-fly; in fact, the one that I rent doesn't have an autopilot, though it does have a fantastic Garmin G3X Touch. I still fly the Sling. But I also love flying the Cirrus. I even enjoy the button pushing and knob turning. It's an entirely different flying experience, but as you said, it's entirely enjoyable.

Here's what I like about the Cirrus:
- The size (it can carry four people and luggage) and comfort.
- The availability of a parachute. (Some Slings have parachutes, but the one I rent doesn't.)
- The Garmin GFC 700 autopilot. It flies the plane at exactly the altitude and heading I want, while I pay attention to traffic, radio calls, fuel levels, the instruments, and the sights. Heading and altitude are especially important while transitioning over LAX.
- The Garmin standardized training. It's plane-specific and comprehensive, and requires currency (I'm doing a 90-day recurrent lesson this week.)

I'm not a fan of the spring-loaded side-yoke. I find it difficult to trim the plane for straight-and-level flight. But that's one of the things I'm going to ask my instructor about when I do my 90-day recurrent flight. The Garmin autopilot makes up for it, though, and I use the autopilot mostly in Heading (rather than Nav) mode, so I do feel like a real pilot -- and not just a passenger -- when I do.
 
The Texan II does not have spring cartridge centering controls.
 
I’ve been trying to figure out how to use some approved fasteners on a troublesome gear leg fairing on my RV10. I’m going to Velcro. But it’s experimental so there’s that.

I use my aircraft for travel. And though my 10 is a true joy to hand fly, I get no joy from precise straight and level Flight. My very fine TruTrak AP with GPSS handles the boring stuff and I get to focus on smooth takeoffs and landings which are fun.

I worn a chute for thousands of hours of competitive soaring but it was only to mitigate the risk of midairs. I have no desire for a chute in my 10.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Watson said:
I’ve been trying to figure out how to use some approved fasteners on a troublesome gear leg fairing on my RV10. I’m going to Velcro. But it’s experimental so there’s that.

I use my aircraft for travel. And though my 10 is a true joy to hand fly, I get no joy from precise straight and level Flight. My very fine TruTrak AP with GPSS handles the boring stuff and I get to focus on smooth takeoffs and landings which are fun.

I worn a chute for thousands of hours of competitive soaring but it was only to mitigate the risk of midairs. I have no desire for a chute in my 10.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

I would go to the 3M website, and spend some time to find the best Velcro for your application. A little research at the beginning will save aggravation at the end.
 
PaulS said:
I would go to the 3M website, and spend some time to find the best Velcro for your application. A little research at the beginning will save aggravation at the end.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I’ll do that. Some hook and loop research.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
hindsight2020 said:
The Texan II does not have spring cartridge centering controls.
Click to expand...

Maybe not spring cartridges per say, but the elevator was spring loaded to the full down position and the ailerons were spring loaded to neutral. If you let go of the stick the controls returned to centered ailerons and full nose down. F/A-18 has a spring centering stick as well, but of course those controls are not reversible, so it's a kind of apples and oranges comparison.
 
Hank S said:
The 172RG is the training retract for those who think, "I learned in a Cessna, I have to stay in a Cessna. Can't fly something made by anyone else . . . "

I bought my Mooney with 62 Cessna-only hours in my logbook. So much for brand loyalty, or staying with what I learned in. Guess I'm just a marketer's nightmare!
Click to expand...
I learned in a tomahawk, I didn't know any better then.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
So, I've got a whopping 1.5 hours in a cirrus; here are some of my thoughts. They're worth what you paid for them.

1.) I've flown a few high performance airplanes that have spring centered controls (T-6B Texan II is the most directly comparable to a GA airplane). Never found that the springs affected control feel all that much airborne, just on the ground taxiing. I'd definitely take springs on the controls for built in gust protection while parked on the ramp.

2.) As far as the parachute and it's haters go; until you've flown an airplane that has an escape mechanism, it's hard to realize the comfort and peace of mind that it gives you. After going from my work airplane sitting on a rocket seat, my first purchase for my new RV-8 was a set of parachutes. Not sure how much good they'll do me, but there is a peace of mind associated with knowing that there is an option to ditch the airplane if you get to that point. When I'm instructing annual emergency procedures simulators, I build in a scenario that will require ejection at some point, just to make sure the aircrew will do so when the time comes. Your hide is worth more than the vehicle, and I think that applies to General Aviation as well. Not saying that the chute should be a substitute for good airmanship or headwork, but having an out is a good thing IMHO.

3.) I don't see the CB panel as a big safety issue. You aren't going to be pulling CB's in normal operation. Learn your airplane and it's systems. Count CB's when you pull one and make sure you have the right one. Critical systems should have collars around them. Every military airplane I've flown has required counting circuit breakers and memorization of switch positions that you could feel but not see. Part of being a pilot is systems knowledge, and a blind cockpit check or critical systems is the absolute minimum level of preparation one could do if you plan on flying IMC or night VMC.

4.) Double stick tape holding fairings on, it s a bit alarming for a $800,000 airplane....
Click to expand...
A parachute doesn't help where most accidents occur, low altitude on approach or departure. I used to jump and I'm not getting out at 250 feet.
 
Paulie said:
A parachute doesn't help where most accidents occur, low altitude on approach or departure. I used to jump and I'm not getting out at 250 feet.
Click to expand...

That's where a pilot should spend some significant focus on for proficiency, approach and departure, it was eye opening to see that many of the accidents happen during this phase. Letting a Cirrus get too slow on approach or departure is a huge mistake with big consequences if you cross the line.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Brings up an interesting thought: of all the airplanes I’ve flown, there really are only two that I genuinely didn’t like.

The first was the Avid Magnum. Not well designed combined with amateur built resulted in some real goofball flight characteristics.

The other is the 172RG. What a POS. Looks like a Skyhawk but handled like a rock with wings. Slow for a retract. Just not a pleasant airplane to fly. Of course the only time you ever see one, it’s a flight school/trainer airplane so a few thousand hours of abuse could have something to do with that....
Click to expand...


I didn't mind the 172RG.. I have probably 50 hours in 28RJ that plus one has on the line. I liked it better than the arrow anyway.. Now I am flying a debonair, and that's a ton of fun, but has ergonomic challenges with that giant yoke bar
 
^I heard Plus One's was a little nicer than the typical rental flee 172RG beater. They have a Cardinal too now at SEE
 
PaulS said:
That's where a pilot should spend some significant focus on for proficiency, approach and departure, it was eye opening to see that many of the accidents happen during this phase. Letting a Cirrus get too slow on approach or departure is a huge mistake with big consequences if you cross the line.
Click to expand...

One doesn't fly a SR22 to go slow. :p Full rental power! :eek:




I loved 6PC's "slow flight" at 150 knots. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top