Cirrus flight impressions

Cirrus airplanes have been around for a few years and there is a lot of publicity about them.
I recently got a couple of flights in my friend's. It is a non turbo SR-22, but with an aftermarket belt driven supercharger. We just did local flights, from Aspen 40 miles to Rifle and back, VFR but with one GPS approach in VMC.
There were some things I liked, some not so good.
It's a little hard to get into, but comfortable once seated. It seems to taxi fine, even though the nose wheel doesn't steer, it just by the brakes.
It is a little noisy inside, not too bad.
It climbs out well, 1000 fpm easy at our 8000 feet.
In cruise I found one really good point, the view out the front and the sides is great, big windows. The roof is pretty low over the pilot, especially if tall.
My real compaint was the side yoke. I didn't expect to like it and I didn't. Not only is it in an awkward position, and only for your outside hand, but it is spring loaded to center, so to make a turn, you first have to overcome the spring, then you get aileron input. Ailerons are about medium feel, not real light, but effective. It seems good in roll, not sluggish.
It is lighter and more sensitive in elevator. It is a little hard to fly level by hand as the electirc trim seems too sensitive.
I am a novice on all the glass panel gizmos, but it did seem that once you learned how to use them they would be good on a long trip. I find the basic attitude indicator more clear to read on the round gage than the computer one.
The pilot defintely had his head down in the cockpit some especially when doing and setting the GPS approach, you'd have to be very careful of this if solo and/or in busy airpspace.
It seems a little faster than my Bonanza, about 5 to 10 knots, not a lot difference. He uses 25/2500, I use 28/2300, he's about 190k true at 10,000 feet.
He flies final at 80k, there's some float on landing,seems ok. It seems a little wiggly on short final and flare, not too bad once down, but not as stable as many planes.
Go around is easy.
In summary, it it too bad it could not have a real stick right in the pilots center. It's too nice and expensive a plane to have that shortcut built in . Also I think the fixed gear costs a little speed, not toomuch. It is strange to land a high performance plane and not have the pilot even check for gear down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

In summary, it it too bad it could not have a real stick right in the pilots center. It's too nice and expensive a plane to have that shortcut built in .

---

I imagine Cirrus' thoughts were that you would go to auto pilot shortly after take off and not be spending much time flying the stick. With the stick on the side it gives you a lot more room in the cockpit. I have flown in a friends Cirrus a couple of times but have only flown one from the right seat. I really enjoyed it. The thing that gave me trouble was trimming. This airplane is so clean it just wants to speed up and keep climbing. I would trim it for what I thought would be level flight only to have the airiplane pickup speed when the nose dropped then start climbing again. I had to trim it about three times before I achieved level flight. I know it was just a function of that clean fibergalss skin. Also the plane didn't want to slow back down for landing like I'm use to. I'm sure with a couple of hours in the plane I would be able to aclimate to the differences with no problem. Overall I loved it and would like to fly it more! I liked having the stick on the side allowing more free space in front of me.

Quote:

---

In summary, it it too bad it could not have a real stick right in the pilots center.

---

Quote:

---

I imagine Cirrus' thoughts were that you would go to auto pilot shortly after take off and not be spending much time flying the stick.

---

Well, that and they were trying to minimize the chances of chest injuries in crashes. I'm honestly not sure how well either tactic that has worked out for them.

I've been debating the benefits (one less thing for your chest to impact in a crash and better access to and visibility of the panel) versus the drawbacks (which Bill so eloquently elaborated upon as well as the technical complexity of such a system) of having sidestick controls in my design. Honestly, the biggest reason to go with a "standard" control column in my book would simply be the ease with which such a system can be installed in a way to give mechanical advantage which is much more difficult to do with a sidestick arrangement.

Quote:

---

but not as stable as many planes.

---

I think that, along with the aggressive marketing to low hour folks who are self-selected for overconfidence in their abilities (docs, lawyers, engineers, etc) largely explains the crash rate for Cirrus that has caused it to be given a bad name. Personally, I was unimpressed by the Cirrus and felt like it was an aircraft that they stopped designing about three-quarters of the way through the process. It's a good start, but it leaves much room for improvement. I would take a Mooney over a Cirrus any day.

I always seemed a little more partial to the Columbia thing that Cessna is building now over the Cirrus (as far as plastic, nose dragging, horizontally opposed engine powered airplanes go...which is to say "not much at all"). I wonder how people would compare the yoke in the Cirrus to the side-stick in the Columbia (or whatever it is called now).