Feeling sorry for my Annual from Hell (see prior post) and realizing it was about to unfold into an instrument currency issue, the shop loaned me their ultra-equipped Turbo Cirrus SR 22 and instructor. So I could do my instrument currency and updated my BFR as well.
I am used to the Garmin 750 because I have one in my Turbo Arrow. I had NOT previously flown all glass. The Cirrus SR 22 had two Garmin full glass MFDs; primary directly facing, secondary slightly angled toward pilot, a Garmin 750 and 650, and the audio panel and engine monitors were all integrated. The MFD's could display in full or split screen modes. The Primary set to glass six pack instruments and split with a second view of the 750 was my favorite. The secondary split with engine instruments and a 650 split worked ok. It took me a little air work and three instrument approaches to get used to the glass. The exception to this 'comfortable' is that if I was ever doing set up in my plane, besides the required backup AH, I would install an independent turn and bank indicator as I found it hard to fly standard rates turns with all glass.
Since this is a Piper Forum you will be glad to hear my conclusion overall --- I will take the Turbo Arrow anytime.
Here are my observations. The Cirrus SR 22 with the configuration I was flying pushed well over $800,000. The composite airframe surfaces were very 'slick' and resulted in smooth flight. Either the fact it was pretty new or just well built, it felt strong and had limited interior noise. Very comfortable seats. Very, very uncomfortable to get in and out of with the way the gull-wing doors service access to the front and back seats; you must let the front seat slide all the way back to step from floor to wing because you can NOT step on the honeycomb seat. The honeycomb seats are part of the parachute thing and apparently are aimed to absorb a 700 ft/min impact still left as the ground hit with a chute decent. The instructor said since he can land a plane on normal flight at 700 ft/min or less, he will prefer to fly a problem to the ground than use the chute (could be moxie talking).
The air conditioner was excellent. The seat belts are the four point center style and I didn't like it at all for comfort or accessing my shirt pocket pen/pencil to write notes on ATIS and ATC instructions. In the air, I was amazed at how responsive the Cirrus was with the small size of the ailerons. I am a yoke guy so didn't know how the stick coming out of the panel would be; turned out fine. Because it is basically a rod, it is just an off center mounted yoke equivalent. That is different than my experience with the Diamond I have flown where the stick is more like a computer game joystick. I could probably get use to the Cirrus stick at some level. You have to make sure you ground center ailerons level and have take off flat position centered so you then pull back appropriately. That is accomplished with a four-way button on the stick for electric trim. Compared to my Turbo Arrow, the Cirrus electric trim 'sucks'. The first three approaches I flew by hand and there is no way you are passing an instrument test requiring you to hold altitude range. The next three approaches I did with the autopilot and even the autopilot couldn't really hold the plus or minus 20 ft in relatively smooth air. That is my biggest complaint about the Cirrus SR 22; it just seemed really tough to trim out and hold level and heading. No way you would want to fight that on a long cross country without the autopilot. In contrast, I have had the KC-200 autopilot on my Turbo Arrow bust a switch button and it was so well trimmed that I flew for like 15-20 minutes before I noticed a slight deviation from the magenta line. In the Cirrus SR 22 I would have notice in 15 seconds if not 1.5 seconds.
The usable load and range and burn on the Cirrus SR22 was not what I had thought before giving it a try. Before we went out I spent an hour plus reading the POH and was surprised that with full fuel it had less useful load left than my Turbo Arrow. The Cirrus with the 520/540? engine and slick skin was faster but to get comparable range and burn you had to take it to 55% economy mode settings and then the speed was basically the same. So I could just as easily put all sorts of fancy glass, updated interior, and new paint on a good Turbo Arrow and pocket half a million in savings.
The other thing that really felt odd about the Cirrus SR22 was the throttle quadrant. First, the RPMs and MP are integrated into one lever; felt strange but easy and something one would quickly get comfortable with. What I would NOT get comfortable with is the throttle response characteristics. The Cirrus has plenty of power full forward. But you don't get that until say the last 10% of its throw range. Pulling back power is where you feel it most; especially since it is also 'slick'. You probably have to pull 60% of the range to drop MP from 27 inches to 24 inches. Then 25% more of the range to go 24 inches to 21 inches. In the last 15% of the range you now are tweaking almost imperceptible movements to manage approaches. And my observation is that when ATC asked we slow to 110 knots for traffic flow, I had to back it to like 15 inches in no flaps level flight. Then on final, I could be as low as 13.5 with full flaps (it only has two positions for flaps down) and be descending on GS still mid-90s. On a long runway, not an issue because you also need to land it flat and have it fly and settle the last increment. But I think it would be a hard bird to handle shorter fields.
Plus Side: Comfortable Interior once you are in it. Smooth and responsive flight characteristics.
Minus Side: Too responsive in the sense of being able to effectively trim. Olympic acrobatic skills required to get in and out. Tough or at least very, very different Throttle to engine response characteristics. Weak Price-Value for Load/Range/Burn compared to other alternatives.
Anyone else ever try one and have comments?
I am used to the Garmin 750 because I have one in my Turbo Arrow. I had NOT previously flown all glass. The Cirrus SR 22 had two Garmin full glass MFDs; primary directly facing, secondary slightly angled toward pilot, a Garmin 750 and 650, and the audio panel and engine monitors were all integrated. The MFD's could display in full or split screen modes. The Primary set to glass six pack instruments and split with a second view of the 750 was my favorite. The secondary split with engine instruments and a 650 split worked ok. It took me a little air work and three instrument approaches to get used to the glass. The exception to this 'comfortable' is that if I was ever doing set up in my plane, besides the required backup AH, I would install an independent turn and bank indicator as I found it hard to fly standard rates turns with all glass.
Since this is a Piper Forum you will be glad to hear my conclusion overall --- I will take the Turbo Arrow anytime.
Here are my observations. The Cirrus SR 22 with the configuration I was flying pushed well over $800,000. The composite airframe surfaces were very 'slick' and resulted in smooth flight. Either the fact it was pretty new or just well built, it felt strong and had limited interior noise. Very comfortable seats. Very, very uncomfortable to get in and out of with the way the gull-wing doors service access to the front and back seats; you must let the front seat slide all the way back to step from floor to wing because you can NOT step on the honeycomb seat. The honeycomb seats are part of the parachute thing and apparently are aimed to absorb a 700 ft/min impact still left as the ground hit with a chute decent. The instructor said since he can land a plane on normal flight at 700 ft/min or less, he will prefer to fly a problem to the ground than use the chute (could be moxie talking).
The air conditioner was excellent. The seat belts are the four point center style and I didn't like it at all for comfort or accessing my shirt pocket pen/pencil to write notes on ATIS and ATC instructions. In the air, I was amazed at how responsive the Cirrus was with the small size of the ailerons. I am a yoke guy so didn't know how the stick coming out of the panel would be; turned out fine. Because it is basically a rod, it is just an off center mounted yoke equivalent. That is different than my experience with the Diamond I have flown where the stick is more like a computer game joystick. I could probably get use to the Cirrus stick at some level. You have to make sure you ground center ailerons level and have take off flat position centered so you then pull back appropriately. That is accomplished with a four-way button on the stick for electric trim. Compared to my Turbo Arrow, the Cirrus electric trim 'sucks'. The first three approaches I flew by hand and there is no way you are passing an instrument test requiring you to hold altitude range. The next three approaches I did with the autopilot and even the autopilot couldn't really hold the plus or minus 20 ft in relatively smooth air. That is my biggest complaint about the Cirrus SR 22; it just seemed really tough to trim out and hold level and heading. No way you would want to fight that on a long cross country without the autopilot. In contrast, I have had the KC-200 autopilot on my Turbo Arrow bust a switch button and it was so well trimmed that I flew for like 15-20 minutes before I noticed a slight deviation from the magenta line. In the Cirrus SR 22 I would have notice in 15 seconds if not 1.5 seconds.
The usable load and range and burn on the Cirrus SR22 was not what I had thought before giving it a try. Before we went out I spent an hour plus reading the POH and was surprised that with full fuel it had less useful load left than my Turbo Arrow. The Cirrus with the 520/540? engine and slick skin was faster but to get comparable range and burn you had to take it to 55% economy mode settings and then the speed was basically the same. So I could just as easily put all sorts of fancy glass, updated interior, and new paint on a good Turbo Arrow and pocket half a million in savings.
The other thing that really felt odd about the Cirrus SR22 was the throttle quadrant. First, the RPMs and MP are integrated into one lever; felt strange but easy and something one would quickly get comfortable with. What I would NOT get comfortable with is the throttle response characteristics. The Cirrus has plenty of power full forward. But you don't get that until say the last 10% of its throw range. Pulling back power is where you feel it most; especially since it is also 'slick'. You probably have to pull 60% of the range to drop MP from 27 inches to 24 inches. Then 25% more of the range to go 24 inches to 21 inches. In the last 15% of the range you now are tweaking almost imperceptible movements to manage approaches. And my observation is that when ATC asked we slow to 110 knots for traffic flow, I had to back it to like 15 inches in no flaps level flight. Then on final, I could be as low as 13.5 with full flaps (it only has two positions for flaps down) and be descending on GS still mid-90s. On a long runway, not an issue because you also need to land it flat and have it fly and settle the last increment. But I think it would be a hard bird to handle shorter fields.
Plus Side: Comfortable Interior once you are in it. Smooth and responsive flight characteristics.
Minus Side: Too responsive in the sense of being able to effectively trim. Olympic acrobatic skills required to get in and out. Tough or at least very, very different Throttle to engine response characteristics. Weak Price-Value for Load/Range/Burn compared to other alternatives.
Anyone else ever try one and have comments?
