Just went up in an Cirrus SR-22 for the 1st time. A relative is in one of
those fractional/lease deals. It's a very cool airplane in many ways and
easy to fly with the side stick. The all glass cockpit is fantastic but
makes me realize how easy it is to get stuck with your eyes on the inside.
The huge screens are hypnotic in the multitude of information available with
the flick of a button. And it was pretty damn quick for a fixed gear,
non-turbo single. It's also certified for known ice with TKS. Lottsa of
functionality. It wasn't very big though. The baggage compartment is pretty
small.

Mostly, it lack soul. My favorite airplane I've owned was an '82 Mooney 231
(with mostly 252 upgrades). That airplane had soul. The Cirrus is very cool
but sterile. Perhaps, that's what flying has become, sterile.

"traffic, traffic, traffic".

Schmoe,

> It's also certified for known ice with TKS.

I don't think so.

> It wasn't very big though. The baggage compartment is pretty
> small.
>
> Mostly, it lack soul. My favorite airplane I've owned was an '82 Mooney 231
> (with mostly 252 upgrades).

A Mooney? And you're complaining about the smallness of the Cirrus? Hmm.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I kind of agree. I flew an all-glass SR22 once, just to see what it was
like. It was like Flight Simulator, except noisier and a lot more
expensive. As a way to fly yourself from A to B I'm sure it's great, but
it does kind of lack soul imo.

(The TKS is not known-ice btw, though definitely nice to have).

John

Schmoe wrote:
> Just went up in an Cirrus SR-22 for the 1st time. A relative is in one of
> those fractional/lease deals. It's a very cool airplane in many ways and
> easy to fly with the side stick. The all glass cockpit is fantastic but
> makes me realize how easy it is to get stuck with your eyes on the inside.
> The huge screens are hypnotic in the multitude of information available with
> the flick of a button. And it was pretty damn quick for a fixed gear,
> non-turbo single. It's also certified for known ice with TKS. Lottsa of
> functionality. It wasn't very big though. The baggage compartment is pretty
> small.
>
> Mostly, it lack soul. My favorite airplane I've owned was an '82 Mooney 231
> (with mostly 252 upgrades). That airplane had soul. The Cirrus is very cool
> but sterile. Perhaps, that's what flying has become, sterile.
>
> "traffic, traffic, traffic".
>
>

"Schmoe" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Mostly, it lack soul.

Whatever that is. I have not flown the SR22, but I think the SR20 has plenty
of spirit. The increased visibility certainly gives me more of a feeling of
flying than what I get in many other airplanes.

I find that many pilots feel that they lose some kind of personal contact
with flying when they use glass cockpits, but that after flying with them
for awhile they begin to like them even better. You have to stop staring at
the screens.

C,

I agree (How's that?!). The visibility in the Cirrus is so much better
than, for example, in the Mooney the OP mentioned that I feel much more
"connected" to the skies in a Cirrus. Also, I simply can't understand
all the complaints about the PFDs. If you don't want to look inside,
then don't, for Pete's sake. Nothings keeping you.

It's the old dilemma in the ultra-conservative pilot community: First,
everbody is complaining there's no innovation. Once it is there, they
start reminiscing how great the old was. Oh well, human nature...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Schmoe,
>
>> It's also certified for known ice with TKS.
>
> I don't think so.

My error on the cert, then. Still, it works.


>> It wasn't very big though. The baggage compartment is pretty
>> small.
>>
>> Mostly, it lack soul. My favorite airplane I've owned was an '82
>> Mooney 231 (with mostly 252 upgrades).
>
> A Mooney? And you're complaining about the smallness of the Cirrus?
> Hmm.

Nah, you don't get my point because of my omission. My last a/c was a T-210.
It's my immediate comparison. The Cirrus reminded me of the confines of the
Mooney even though I realize it is bigger in cabin space (if not storage).
The Mooney had a personality, a soul. Much like riding a Harley is so
completely different than riding a Honda. Both fine machines but one has
something special.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> C,
>
> I agree (How's that?!). The visibility in the Cirrus is so much better
> than, for example, in the Mooney the OP mentioned that I feel much
> more "connected" to the skies in a Cirrus. Also, I simply can't
> understand all the complaints about the PFDs. If you don't want to
> look inside, then don't, for Pete's sake. Nothings keeping you.
>
> It's the old dilemma in the ultra-conservative pilot community: First,
> everbody is complaining there's no innovation. Once it is there, they
> start reminiscing how great the old was. Oh well, human nature...


I'm the last person to complain about new technology. My "soul" comment
wasn't directed at the glass cockpit so much as the a/c as a whole. I've
flown plenty of new tech over the years and embraced almost every bit of it.

If you don't get the "soul" comment, it's probably an individual thing. For
me, my favorite toys, be they airplanes, motorcycles etc..., have something
spiritual inside the machine that rises them, for me, above others even
through some of their perceived inferiority. In many ways my T-210 was a
better airplane than my 231 but I'd take my 231 back today in a sec. It was
a special machine. Other 231's may not have given me the same pleasure.

Sounds like a personal issue - like you'll never forget your first
love...


"Schmoe" > wrote in
. net:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> C,
>>
>> I agree (How's that?!). The visibility in the Cirrus is so much better
>> than, for example, in the Mooney the OP mentioned that I feel much
>> more "connected" to the skies in a Cirrus. Also, I simply can't
>> understand all the complaints about the PFDs. If you don't want to
>> look inside, then don't, for Pete's sake. Nothings keeping you.
>>
>> It's the old dilemma in the ultra-conservative pilot community: First,
>> everbody is complaining there's no innovation. Once it is there, they
>> start reminiscing how great the old was. Oh well, human nature...
>
>
> I'm the last person to complain about new technology. My "soul" comment
> wasn't directed at the glass cockpit so much as the a/c as a whole.
> I've flown plenty of new tech over the years and embraced almost every
> bit of it.
>
> If you don't get the "soul" comment, it's probably an individual thing.
> For me, my favorite toys, be they airplanes, motorcycles etc..., have
> something spiritual inside the machine that rises them, for me, above
> others even through some of their perceived inferiority. In many ways
> my T-210 was a better airplane than my 231 but I'd take my 231 back
> today in a sec. It was a special machine. Other 231's may not have
> given me the same pleasure.
>
>
>

Schmoe,

> If you don't get the "soul" comment, it's probably an individual thing.
>

It most definitely is. Has to be. And I get it. But to me, the SR20 has
plenty of soul. As you say, it's personal.

OTOH, I think the size of the baggage space and the cabin width can and
should be judged objectively. Both are huge for the class of aircraft.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Haven't been in a SR-22 but I think I get what you are saying. That's why
we've got 3-4 Stearmans on the field and a Waco. They have soul. My Maule
has some of it just by virture of dragging tail. I was thinking of my
glider time and still think fondly of flying a Schwiezer 2-22 ( think
Stinson or something). But I desired and owned high performance glass and
could never go back. But they didn't have soul - at least the newer ones.

What is soul in an aircraft? I think it's the same thing that attracts
people to Harleys and their egg beater engines, cantankerous British sports
cars, VW bugs, and wooden boats. Nostalgia? Not exactly. I think that
older mechanical stuff just requires more input, provides more feedback, and
just bristles with so many endearing flaws that we love them because they
need us. And they let us know they need us.

Harleys, and Triumphs required tool boxes to operate (at least they used
too). Bugs responded well to a well turned wrench too. They have air
leaks, and cranky engines, and need maintenance. The Schwiezer 2-22 has a
lousy glide and lousy dive brakes. Not good enough to soar far and not
enough brake to eliminate side slips. The wind noise under the 'enclosed'
canopy in this glider will wear you out after awhile.

The Maule is quirky with reflex flaps, aileron activated rudder assist, a
unique noise signature (according to my neigbors), doesn't like to be
wheeled on and has every material ever used in aircraft construction with
the possible exception of titanium but I'm still looking. These machines
are like ugly babies.

SR22s and high performance sailplanes can be a bit sterile. It's not the
glass that they share but rather their relative nearness to 'perfection'.
Sleek, fast, effective, and efficient. Few flaws and many assets. Always
being refined. They are like gelded throughbreds, a high performance
sterility. That's not to say that high performance isn't fun - it is!

But we like noise, flaws, feedback, wind in the face, oil down the side and
vibrating steam guage needles. At least as long as there isn't work to do
or somewhere to go. But a PFD, sidestick control, comfortable seats
(there's a concept), uploaded Nexrad and downloaded email will get you there
better. Add a whining turbine and there's not much left to desire.

But love is a bleating 2 cylinder egg beater cruising down the avenue on a
warm summer night. Or a Waco 3 pointing on a warm Sunday evening.

All I have to do is get a ride on either.


"Schmoe" > wrote in message
. net...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > C,
> >
> > I agree (How's that?!). The visibility in the Cirrus is so much better
> > than, for example, in the Mooney the OP mentioned that I feel much
> > more "connected" to the skies in a Cirrus. Also, I simply can't
> > understand all the complaints about the PFDs. If you don't want to
> > look inside, then don't, for Pete's sake. Nothings keeping you.
> >
> > It's the old dilemma in the ultra-conservative pilot community: First,
> > everbody is complaining there's no innovation. Once it is there, they
> > start reminiscing how great the old was. Oh well, human nature...
>
>
> I'm the last person to complain about new technology. My "soul" comment
> wasn't directed at the glass cockpit so much as the a/c as a whole. I've
> flown plenty of new tech over the years and embraced almost every bit of
it.
>
> If you don't get the "soul" comment, it's probably an individual thing.
For
> me, my favorite toys, be they airplanes, motorcycles etc..., have
something
> spiritual inside the machine that rises them, for me, above others even
> through some of their perceived inferiority. In many ways my T-210 was a
> better airplane than my 231 but I'd take my 231 back today in a sec. It
was
> a special machine. Other 231's may not have given me the same pleasure.
>
>

Schmoe wrote:
> Just went up in an Cirrus SR-22 for the 1st time. A relative is in one of
> those fractional/lease deals. It's a very cool airplane in many ways and
> easy to fly with the side stick. The all glass cockpit is fantastic but
> makes me realize how easy it is to get stuck with your eyes on the inside.
> The huge screens are hypnotic in the multitude of information available with
> the flick of a button. And it was pretty damn quick for a fixed gear,
> non-turbo single. It's also certified for known ice with TKS. Lottsa of
> functionality. It wasn't very big though. The baggage compartment is pretty
> small.
>
> Mostly, it lack soul. My favorite airplane I've owned was an '82 Mooney 231
> (with mostly 252 upgrades). That airplane had soul. The Cirrus is very cool
> but sterile. Perhaps, that's what flying has become, sterile.
>
> "traffic, traffic, traffic".
>

It *is* a neat airplane to fly, especially for those who've not flown
behind glass before. There are a lot of good things about the airplane,
such as the cruise speed despite fixed gear (180+ ktas!), the
avionics/autopilot integration (at least in terms of its operation when
nothing is malfunctioning,) and general comfort of the cabin (as long as
you're at a reasonable altitude on a hot day.)

The downside, and I see this every day because I fly the SR-22
regularly, is the maintenance. Cirrus has some major work to do in the
reliability department. I can safely say this because I've flown five
different SR-22s and one SR-20, a LOT, and they've all suffered from
major problems within the first two years of airplane ownership.
Furthermore, our maintenance facility is a certified Cirrus repair shop,
so we typically see three or four Cirri in every week for the same
problems. Fairings crack and fall off. Wheel pants disintegrate.
Valves and lifters need work. The MCU fails - multiple times. The PFD
or MFD has problems such that it needs to be ripped out of the airplane.
Glitchy autopilot operation. Doors that won't close. Interior trim
falling off. These are just a few... the list goes on, and it's quite
lengthy. Our shop has so much paperwork for Cirrus warranty work that
we have a guy on staff who does almost nothing but that, week in and
week out.

I completely understand and agree with your comment about "soul." This
is a very sterile airplane, although I still think it's pretty fun to
hand fly. Very responsive, agile, that sort of thing, although you
really don't use a Cirrus that way - its main job is as an instrument
platform, to transport two or three people plus bags from point A to
point B. It's designed around the autopilot. Most Cirrus pilots engage
the autopilot right away after departure and only turn it off again to land.

I think the best way to describe it is: this airplane just doesn't have
a recognizable personality, other than being an mx pig. My 38 year old
Twin Comanche has a much better dispatch reliability than the SR-22, and
it has double the parts! I'd prefer my old ship to the modern Cirrus
ship because I don't get any increased capability with the Cirrus. The
MFD, PFD, multiple moving maps, etc. don't provide me with a better or
easier way to fly instruments. I can do everything in my TwinCo just as
easily as I can in the SR-22. (Okay, I admit I'd like an HSI in my
airplane, but other than that... ) And, my old bird has a soul, no two
ways about it. I'm sure of it. :)

All in all, not a rant about the Cirrus -- I think there's a solid base
upon which Cirrus can improve, and I like to see innovation in GA -- but
you're definitely looking at a much different flying experience when you
own/fly one of these machines.

-Ryan
Cirrus Standardized Instructor