cirrus aircraft

[Mike]

The Cirrus aircraft line is pretty impressive. One thing that is weird is
the side-yoke. Anybody find any problems with that? It seems that a standard
yoke would allow the pilot to have more control (i.e. control with
two-hands). Feedback would be helpful.

Thx.

[John Godwin]

"Mike" > wrote in
:

> The Cirrus aircraft line is pretty impressive. One thing that is
> weird is the side-yoke. Anybody find any problems with that? It
> seems that a standard yoke would allow the pilot to have more
> control (i.e. control with two-hands).
>
> Thx.

--

Initially, I found it to be overly sensitive and I even had a little
problem flying straight-and-level. After practice, it's quite
comfortable to fly and requires much less motion to maneuver the plane.
I don't use two hands on flights control anyway.

[Sylvain]

Morgans wrote:
> What about flying long flights? It would seem to me that not being able to
> switch hands, would mean a very tired left hand.

what about proper trimming the thing properly?

--Sylvain

[Morgans]

"John Godwin" > wrote

> Initially, I found it to be overly sensitive and I even had a little
> problem flying straight-and-level. After practice, it's quite
> comfortable to fly and requires much less motion to maneuver the plane.
> I don't use two hands on flights control anyway.

What about flying long flights? It would seem to me that not being able to
switch hands, would mean a very tired left hand.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter R.]

Morgans > wrote:

> What about flying long flights? It would seem to me that not being
> able to switch hands, would mean a very tired left hand.

I would speculate that just about every pilot who owns a Cirrus and flies
long flights would let the autopilot handle the brunt of the flying.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Morgans]

"Sylvain" > wrote >
> what about proper trimming the thing properly?

So I assume you have flown one for a couple hours and found it to be no
problem? Having it trimmed still means your hand stays up on the armrest
and at least nearby the stick, right? I simply like to change positions
more often, is all.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"Morgans" wrote:

>
> What about flying long flights? It would seem to me that not being
> able to
> switch hands, would mean a very tired left hand.

That's a good time to use that autopilot thing.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Kyle Boatright]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Godwin" > wrote
>
>> Initially, I found it to be overly sensitive and I even had a little
>> problem flying straight-and-level. After practice, it's quite
>> comfortable to fly and requires much less motion to maneuver the plane.
>> I don't use two hands on flights control anyway.
>
> What about flying long flights? It would seem to me that not being able
> to
> switch hands, would mean a very tired left hand.
> --
> Jim in NC

Naah. I fly 3 and 4 hour legs in the RV without any hand/arm fatigue. Or
maybe I'm so focused on derrierre' and bladder fatigue I don't notice.

KB

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Sylvain > wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
> > What about flying long flights? It would seem to me that not being able to
> > switch hands, would mean a very tired left hand.
>
> what about proper trimming the thing properly?

The Cirrus has an electric trim. I find it's all but impossible to get
fine enough control to really get the thing trimmed up properly at high
speed; it's just too twitchy. But the Cirrus also has an autopilot,
which more than makes up for the twitchy trim. When everything is
working properly, flying the CIrrus cross-country is more like playing a
video game than flying an airplane. (In the best of all worlds I'd like
to have both a manual trim and an autopilot (and a rudder trim while
we're making out wish lists) but if I have to choose just one the AP is
a big win.)

It is actually possible to reach over and control the sidestick with
your other hand. It's a little awkward, but it can be done if your left
hand just needs a little rest.

rg

[john smith]

> > > What about flying long flights? It would seem to me that not being able
> > > to switch hands, would mean a very tired left hand.

Switch seats! :-))

[WRE]

I ferried a Cirrus 20 from Charlotte NC to San Diego and really enjoyed
it....learing to use the side yoke was not as difficult as I had thought.

I will say I used the autopilot almost all the time (except of course for
take-off and landing). If not for the autopilot, I suspect my forearm would
have been killiing me after about 4 hours.

A left handed tennis player with strong forearms would definately have an
advantage here....lol

Bob
Charlotte NC
ATP CFI CFII MEI
HS-125 Typed


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Godwin" > wrote
>
>> Initially, I found it to be overly sensitive and I even had a little
>> problem flying straight-and-level. After practice, it's quite
>> comfortable to fly and requires much less motion to maneuver the plane.
>> I don't use two hands on flights control anyway.
>
> What about flying long flights? It would seem to me that not being able
> to
> switch hands, would mean a very tired left hand.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote
>
>> Naah. I fly 3 and 4 hour legs in the RV without any hand/arm fatigue.
>> Or
>> maybe I'm so focused on derrierre' and bladder fatigue I don't notice.
>
> That is a center stick though, right? You can switch hands, and rest your
> forearm on your leg, right?
> --
> Jim in NC

You're right about the center stick, but I only switch hands to mess with
the radio. One thing may be that the control pressures and throws on the RV
are very small in straight and level flight, so there simply isn't enough
effort involved to cause fatigue.

KB

[Morgans]

"Ron Garret" > wrote
>
> The Cirrus has an electric trim. I find it's all but impossible to get
> fine enough control to really get the thing trimmed up properly at high
> speed; it's just too twitchy. But the Cirrus also has an autopilot,
> which more than makes up for the twitchy trim.

Thanks; a reply that I can use. ;^)

So the auto makes it possible. What if the auto was not working, or you
just needed (or wanted) the stick time? Would it be reasonable to fly 2
hours without your hand getting overly tired?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Dan Luke" > wrote

> That's a good time to use that autopilot thing.

To tell the truth, I forgot that there was an auto pilot thing, in this one.
;^)

What if auto pilot thing was not working?

(sorry for being argumentative, but I am curious by nature)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote

> Naah. I fly 3 and 4 hour legs in the RV without any hand/arm fatigue. Or
> maybe I'm so focused on derrierre' and bladder fatigue I don't notice.

That is a center stick though, right? You can switch hands, and rest your
forearm on your leg, right?
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote
> >
> > The Cirrus has an electric trim. I find it's all but impossible to get
> > fine enough control to really get the thing trimmed up properly at high
> > speed; it's just too twitchy. But the Cirrus also has an autopilot,
> > which more than makes up for the twitchy trim.
>
> Thanks; a reply that I can use. ;^)
>
> So the auto makes it possible. What if the auto was not working, or you
> just needed (or wanted) the stick time? Would it be reasonable to fly 2
> hours without your hand getting overly tired?

Well, I'm just heading out to the airport now. I'll let you know in
about three hours :-)

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > "Ron Garret" > wrote
> > >
> > > The Cirrus has an electric trim. I find it's all but impossible to get
> > > fine enough control to really get the thing trimmed up properly at high
> > > speed; it's just too twitchy. But the Cirrus also has an autopilot,
> > > which more than makes up for the twitchy trim.
> >
> > Thanks; a reply that I can use. ;^)
> >
> > So the auto makes it possible. What if the auto was not working, or you
> > just needed (or wanted) the stick time? Would it be reasonable to fly 2
> > hours without your hand getting overly tired?
>
> Well, I'm just heading out to the airport now. I'll let you know in
> about three hours :-)

Well, I just got back from flying sans autopilot for about an hour. My
conclusions are that 1) it can be done but 2) it's a pain in the ass.
The biggest problem is not your hand getting tired, it's trying to keep
the damn thing in trim. The roll trim is (thankfully) much less of a
problem than the pitch trim. I was able to fly hands-off the roll for
many minutes at a time. But the best I could do in pitch was 20-40 FPM
climb or descent at speed in calm air. When I hit up or down drafts
things got much worse, and at one point I lost 500 feet in (I estimate)
10-15 seconds while I was fiddling with the radios. But YMMV. I tend
to fly with the AP on by default in cruise. If you fly with it off most
of the time you might get better at trimming it than I am.

Slowing down helps a lot. It's vastly easier to keep things under
control at 120 KIAS then at 175 KIAS, but then the downside is obviously
that it takes that much longer to get where you're going. The good news
is that hand-flying approaches is quite doable, since you're not going
to be flying those at 175 KIAS anyway.

Personally, if I ever lose the autopilot in IMC I'm probably diverting
to the nearest airport immediately.

rg

[Morgans]

"Ron Garret" > wrote
>
> Well, I'm just heading out to the airport now. I'll let you know in
> about three hours :-)

No cheating by using the auto-pilot, - right? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"Morgans" wrote:
>
>> That's a good time to use that autopilot thing.
>
> To tell the truth, I forgot that there was an auto pilot thing, in
> this one.
> ;^)
>
> What if auto pilot thing was not working?

Then your left wrist gets a healthful workout on the flight to the
repair station.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

Ron Garret wrote:
>
> Personally, if I ever lose the autopilot in IMC I'm probably diverting
> to the nearest airport immediately.
>

That stikes me as an interesting comment, coming from a 172 owner
unable to afford to have George do the flying. Would people say that's
typical of Mooney 201/Bonanza and other planes of a similar class to
the SR series?

-cwk.

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Would people say that's
> typical of Mooney 201/Bonanza and other planes of a similar class to
> the SR series?

I cannot say what is typical but in my case (a Bonanza V35 owner who flies
a lot of single-pilot IFR), I always hand-fly at least the departure up
through cruise and the initial and final instrument approach of every
flight when in IMC to retain proficiency. Most times I let the AP handle
the straight and level flight, which allows me to prepare for the approach.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Stutzman]

wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > Personally, if I ever lose the autopilot in IMC I'm probably diverting
> > to the nearest airport immediately.

> That stikes me as an interesting comment, coming from a 172 owner
> unable to afford to have George do the flying. Would people say that's
> typical of Mooney 201/Bonanza and other planes of a similar class to
> the SR series?

Well, I don't have an auto-pilot in my ancient Bonanza. I manage to do
IFR without any problems. I must confess I rarely do any exceeding long
legs IFR, though. 2 to 3 hours at the most.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Aluckyguess]

I have been flying a v35 and it trims out fine. Its a lot better than my
Cherokee 180.
"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>> > Personally, if I ever lose the autopilot in IMC I'm probably diverting
>> > to the nearest airport immediately.
>
>> That stikes me as an interesting comment, coming from a 172 owner
>> unable to afford to have George do the flying. Would people say that's
>> typical of Mooney 201/Bonanza and other planes of a similar class to
>> the SR series?
>
> Well, I don't have an auto-pilot in my ancient Bonanza. I manage to do
> IFR without any problems. I must confess I rarely do any exceeding long
> legs IFR, though. 2 to 3 hours at the most.
>
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR
>

[Morgans]

"Dan Luke" > wrote

> Then your left wrist gets a healthful workout on the flight to the
> repair station.

Not that my opinion matters, since I don't plan on buying a Cirrus, but I
think they missed the mark, when they went with the side stick. I know all
of the advantages, but they just don't outweigh the disadvantage of lack of
flexibility, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Ken Reed]

> The Cirrus has an electric trim. I find it's all but impossible to get
> fine enough control to really get the thing trimmed up properly at high
> speed; it's just too twitchy. But the Cirrus also has an autopilot,
> which more than makes up for the twitchy trim. When everything is
> working properly, flying the CIrrus cross-country is more like playing a
> video game than flying an airplane. (In the best of all worlds I'd like
> to have both a manual trim and an autopilot (and a rudder trim while
> we're making out wish lists) but if I have to choose just one the AP is
> a big win.)

My Cirrus does have rudder trim. The 2001 SR-22 has it. Don't know why
they removed it on more recent models.

KR

[cjcampbell]

Mike wrote:
> The Cirrus aircraft line is pretty impressive. One thing that is weird is
> the side-yoke. Anybody find any problems with that? It seems that a standard
> yoke would allow the pilot to have more control (i.e. control with
> two-hands). Feedback would be helpful.

Two hands does not give more control. It gives less control. Many
pilots fly with just the index finger and thumb.

I found the sidestick to be very easy and intuitive. Your mileage may
vary.

[Dan Luke]

"Morgans" wrote:

>> Then your left wrist gets a healthful workout on the flight to the
>> repair station.
>
> Not that my opinion matters, since I don't plan on buying a Cirrus,
> but I
> think they missed the mark, when they went with the side stick. I
> know all
> of the advantages, but they just don't outweigh the disadvantage of
> lack of
> flexibility, IMHO.

Agree. I find side sticks gimicky and awkward. Much rather have a
center stick or yoke, although I will grant that a side stick may have
crash safety advantages.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Marco Leon]

There are many very experienced old-hats that are of the opinion that
autopilots are required equipment for single-pilot IFR. An STEC-30 or 50 is
high on my upgrade list. Until it's in the panel, I will not fly any
appreciable IMC (more than 1 hour) without an instrument rated co-pilot.

Marco Leon

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Ron Garret wrote:
> >
> > Personally, if I ever lose the autopilot in IMC I'm probably diverting
> > to the nearest airport immediately.
> >
>
> That stikes me as an interesting comment, coming from a 172 owner
> unable to afford to have George do the flying. Would people say that's
> typical of Mooney 201/Bonanza and other planes of a similar class to
> the SR series?
>
> -cwk.
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Morgans" wrote:
>
> >> Then your left wrist gets a healthful workout on the flight to the
> >> repair station.
> >
> > Not that my opinion matters, since I don't plan on buying a Cirrus,
> > but I
> > think they missed the mark, when they went with the side stick. I
>
> Agree. I find side sticks gimicky and awkward. Much rather have a
> center stick or yoke, although I will grant that a side stick may have
> crash safety advantages.

I find the fact that you need the autopilot to fly the plane* to be a
lot more disturbing. I'm not sure how I feel about the plane being
designed to be flown the same way as a bizjet.

* Numerous Cirrus owners have commented that trimming the plane to
hands-off is difficult and that they rely on the A/P for enroute
flying. Then again, who would drive a car today without power steering?
Perhaps this is the SATS-type future of GA.

-cwk.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
wrote:
> * Numerous Cirrus owners have commented that trimming the plane to
> hands-off is difficult and that they rely on the A/P for enroute
> flying. Then again, who would drive a car today without power steering?
> Perhaps this is the SATS-type future of GA.


Power steering doesn't drive the car for you. An autopilot flies the
plane for you.

With all due respect to those who have purchased SR20/SR22 aircraft, I
wouldn't buy one if someone handed me the money. In my opinion, the
money is better spent on more proven designs.



JKG

[Matt Whiting]

Marco Leon wrote:

> There are many very experienced old-hats that are of the opinion that
> autopilots are required equipment for single-pilot IFR. An STEC-30 or 50 is
> high on my upgrade list. Until it's in the panel, I will not fly any
> appreciable IMC (more than 1 hour) without an instrument rated co-pilot.

I'm glad I'm not an old hat. I flew single pilot IFR very frequently
for the six years that I owned a Skylane. And this was in the northeast
where we have a fairly wide range of weather during most of the year and
also fairly high traffic density. My airplane didn't have an autopilot
and I found flying IFR to be fairly easy most of the time. Last might
reroutes in turbulence could make reprogramming the GPS a little tricky
while flying, but even that was manageable.


Matt

[[email protected]]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
> > * Numerous Cirrus owners have commented that trimming the plane to
> > hands-off is difficult and that they rely on the A/P for enroute
> > flying. Then again, who would drive a car today without power steering?
> > Perhaps this is the SATS-type future of GA.
>
>
> Power steering doesn't drive the car for you. An autopilot flies the
> plane for you.

No, but if your power steering fails, you probably call the towtruck.
And if you don't, your wife definitely does. That's my point- the
autopilot basically becomes an MEL item in these planes.

> With all due respect to those who have purchased SR20/SR22 aircraft, I
> wouldn't buy one if someone handed me the money. In my opinion, the
> money is better spent on more proven designs.

I'm a little less chary of it, though I prefer the Lancair (from a
distance) because of their attention to the cabin crash dynamics. IIRC
they poached some of the guys who worked on the Diamond planes which
have an absolutely amazing safety record, especially the Katana. This
plus airbags has for me a lot more safety value than CAPS, which
protects you in comparatively few circumstances. However, it seems to
me that in terms of fundamental philosophy, both the Columbia and SR
series planes seem to be designed to be flown like corporate jets-
takeoff, turn on George, disconnect, flare and land. Considering the
comparative safety record thi might be the wiser approach.

-cwk.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> One thing that is weird is
> the side-yoke. Anybody find any problems with that?
>

None. It's more of a stick - vastly preferable to a yoke, IMHO. And in
case of a crash, I'd much prefer to have nothing on front of me, thank
you.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> I know all
> of the advantages, but they just don't outweigh the disadvantage of lack of
> flexibility, IMHO.
>

I'll give up the flexibility for crash-worthiness.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> Would people say that's
> typical of Mooney 201/Bonanza and other planes of a similar class to
> the SR series?
>

One data point: regulation in Germany (and other European countries)
prohibit single-pilot IFR flying without at least a two-axis autopilot
in the aircraft. One of the few German rules that make sense to me...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Morgans]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote
>
> I'll give up the flexibility for crash-worthiness.

I hope you are smart enough, to not buy into that bit.

There are other ways to deal with a stick or column, and being crash-worth.
Telescoping under pressure, break-away, and airbags are all strategies that
work well.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:47:58 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Mike,
>
>> One thing that is weird is
>> the side-yoke. Anybody find any problems with that?
>>
>
>None. It's more of a stick - vastly preferable to a yoke, IMHO. And in
>case of a crash, I'd much prefer to have nothing on front of me, thank

I'll swear it worked like a yoke rather than a stick.
I like a side "joy stick" as in computer, or F-16.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>you.

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> There are other ways to deal with a stick or column, and being crash-worth.
> Telescoping under pressure, break-away, and airbags are all strategies that
> work well.
>

And can be found in which aircraft?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Roger,

> I'll swear it worked like a yoke rather than a stick.
>

You're right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> I'm a little less chary of it, though I prefer the Lancair (from a
> distance) because of their attention to the cabin crash dynamics. IIRC
> they poached some of the guys who worked on the Diamond planes which
> have an absolutely amazing safety record, especially the Katana. This
> plus airbags has for me a lot more safety value than CAPS, which

I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
ownership or reliability history. Kit-built cost of ownership is one
thing, but when it's certificated, and then you have to hunt down an A&P
who has been trained on the airplane, that certainly limits your options
and raises the overall cost.

No doubt that as automation increases, piloting skills required
decrease. That may contribute to greater safety if adequate redundancy
is employed, but it also takes a certain charm out of flying an airplane.



JKG

[George Patterson]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> No doubt that as automation increases, piloting skills required
> decrease. That may contribute to greater safety if adequate redundancy
> is employed, but it also takes a certain charm out of flying an airplane.

Then increased automation should allow pilots to safely fly aircraft which would
otherwise be very challenging; faster, less stable, etc.. That might restore a
certain amount of charm.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <7tV_e.6370$tX3.1051@trndny06>,
George Patterson > wrote:
> > No doubt that as automation increases, piloting skills required
> > decrease. That may contribute to greater safety if adequate redundancy
> > is employed, but it also takes a certain charm out of flying an airplane.
>
> Then increased automation should allow pilots to safely fly aircraft which
> would
> otherwise be very challenging; faster, less stable, etc.. That might restore
> a
> certain amount of charm.


That may be true of larger, faster airplanes, but is not true in the
case of the Cirrus. Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.

I don't know what would be charming or exciting about sitting around
while the AP flies the airplane. I would be happy to have AP assistance
during the mundane parts of cruise and approach, but having to rely on
the AP to keep the airplane in stable flight is something that I can't
honestly say that I would like.

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would buy a Cirrus. I know people
who own them, but don't know why they were chosen over other aircraft
(even when compared with the Columbias).


JKG

[Montblack]

("Jonathan Goodish" wrote)
[snip]
> I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
> better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
> ownership or reliability history.


How many Columbias are up? What's Cirrus on ...2,000.

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
Cirrus

http://www.flycolumbia.com/
Columbia


Montblack

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Jonathan Goodish" wrote)
> [snip]
> > I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
> > better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
> > ownership or reliability history.
>
>
> How many Columbias are up? What's Cirrus on ...2,000.
>
> http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
> Cirrus
>
> http://www.flycolumbia.com/
> Columbia

History teaches that pilots are willing to take chances on airframes,
but not on engines, which is pretty logical. The Grumman fleets are
pretty small and yet there's still enough guys with PMA out there to
make keeping one in the air pretty straightforward. Plus neither Cirrus
nor Lancair have retractable gear, which is probably one of the biggest
bugbears in terms of maintenance.

-cwk.

[gwengler]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Morgans,
>
> > There are other ways to deal with a stick or column, and being crash-worth.
> > Telescoping under pressure, break-away, and airbags are all strategies that
> > work well.
> >
>
> And can be found in which aircraft?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Airbags are optional in all Mooneys and new Cessnas and can be
retrofitted to the new production Cessnas as well.
Gerd

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
wrote:
> History teaches that pilots are willing to take chances on airframes,
> but not on engines, which is pretty logical. The Grumman fleets are

I'm not sure what this means. The airframe represents the majority of
the investment in an airplane, particularly a new single engine
airplane. I'd rather put $400k in a Cessna or Mooney than in a plastic
airplane, but honestly, the cost of new airplanes is so burdened with
liability that it's like throwing money away.



JKG

[Stefan]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> I'd rather put $400k in a Cessna or Mooney than in a plastic airplane,

I guess you're still driving a sixties chevy then.

Stefan

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Montblack wrote:
>
>>("Jonathan Goodish" wrote)
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
>>>better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
>>>ownership or reliability history.
>>
>>
>>How many Columbias are up? What's Cirrus on ...2,000.
>>
>>http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
>>Cirrus
>>
>>http://www.flycolumbia.com/
>>Columbia
>
>
> History teaches that pilots are willing to take chances on airframes,
> but not on engines, which is pretty logical. The Grumman fleets are
> pretty small and yet there's still enough guys with PMA out there to
> make keeping one in the air pretty straightforward. Plus neither Cirrus
> nor Lancair have retractable gear, which is probably one of the biggest
> bugbears in terms of maintenance.

That isn't logical at all to me. An catastrophic engine failure is a
bad deal, but a very survivable deal in most cases. A catastrophic
airframe failure is rarely survivable. What logic are you seeing that
I'm missing?


Matt

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:
> > I'd rather put $400k in a Cessna or Mooney than in a plastic airplane,
>
> I guess you're still driving a sixties chevy then.


No, but my car is largely still made from the same type of materials. I
don't need a computer to drive it straight. And just about any mechanic
and body shop can fix it.

Composites may indeed be superior in some ways, but long-term cost of
ownership for composites used in certificated GA aircraft is a huge
unknown at this point.


JKG

[Stefan]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> No, but my car is largely still made from the same type of materials. I
> don't need a computer to drive it straight. And just about any mechanic
> and body shop can fix it.

If you can't hand fly the cirrus straight and level, then you should
urgently contact a good FI. (Have you ever flown one at all?) BTW: You'd
be surprized by the amount of electronics in a modern car.

> Composites may indeed be superior in some ways, but long-term cost of
> ownership for composites used in certificated GA aircraft is a huge
> unknown at this point.

Composite aircraft have existed since how long? Since thirty years
maybe? With an allowed airframe life of 12000 hours or some such? You
have no clue what you're talking about. But then, luckily for Cessna and
Piper, many other pilots don't either, obviously.

Stefan

[Aluckyguess]

I think the Cirrus is the best plane in its class at this time. If I had the
need for that type a plane it would be tops on the list.
I find it hard to believe it wont fly level without the autopilot.

[Morgans]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans,
>
> > There are other ways to deal with a stick or column, and being
crash-worth.
> > Telescoping under pressure, break-away, and airbags are all strategies
that
> > work well.
> >
>
> And can be found in which aircraft?

None that I know of, but that was kinda' my point. Instead of going to a
side stick, or center stick, the manufacturers that are designing new
product, could just as easily gone with one of the crashworthy strategies I
mentioned.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> Airbags are optional in all Mooneys and new Cessnas and can be
> retrofitted to the new production Cessnas as well.
>

They are standard in new Cirrii and Lancairs, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> However, neither one has a long-term cost of
> ownership or reliability history.
>

That's because they are, well, NEW!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
> aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.
>

more stable? How and where did you get the idea that the SR22is not?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> No, but my car is largely still made from the same type of materials. I
> don't need a computer to drive it straight. And just about any mechanic
> and body shop can fix it.
>

If your engine is still the same and any mechanic can still fix it without
special, "modern" tools and electronics, then you ARE driving a 60s Chevy.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Aluckyguess,

> I find it hard to believe it wont fly level without the autopilot.
>

And it will.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Montblack wrote:
>>
>>>("Jonathan Goodish" wrote)
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
>>>>better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
>>>>ownership or reliability history.
>>>
>>>
>>>How many Columbias are up? What's Cirrus on ...2,000.
>>>
>>>http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
>>>Cirrus
>>>
>>>http://www.flycolumbia.com/
>>>Columbia
>>
>>
>> History teaches that pilots are willing to take chances on airframes,
>> but not on engines, which is pretty logical. The Grumman fleets are
>> pretty small and yet there's still enough guys with PMA out there to
>> make keeping one in the air pretty straightforward. Plus neither Cirrus
>> nor Lancair have retractable gear, which is probably one of the biggest
>> bugbears in terms of maintenance.
>
> That isn't logical at all to me. An catastrophic engine failure is a bad
> deal, but a very survivable deal in most cases. A catastrophic airframe
> failure is rarely survivable. What logic are you seeing that I'm missing?
>

Well it may not be logical but even the FAA does it. If I build my airplane
and put in a non-certified engine I have a 40 hour phase 1 test period. If I
use a certified one on the exact same airframe, installed by the same me I
have a 25 hour phase 1 test period.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Aluckyguess" > wrote:

> I think the Cirrus is the best plane in its class at this time. If I had the
> need for that type a plane it would be tops on the list.
> I find it hard to believe it wont fly level without the autopilot.

I should clarify: it *will* fly level without the AP (and I said so in
my original post). What I find challenging is trimming out the pitch in
high speed cruise. It won't roll on you, but it sure will climb (or
descend) if you don't watch it like a hawk.

FWIW, I really love my Cirrus (well, it isn't really mine, but I love it
anyway :-) All the grousing about it from people who don't have one
sounds like sour grapes to me.

rg

[Morgans]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan,
>
> > Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
> > aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.
> >
>
> more stable? How and where did you get the idea that the SR22is not?

Back two or three days ago, in this thread. The observation came from one
or two Cirrus drivers.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess,
>
> > I find it hard to believe it wont fly level without the autopilot.
> >
>
> And it will.

Not hands off, according to some Cirrus drivers.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Aluckyguess,
> >
> > > I find it hard to believe it wont fly level without the autopilot.
> > >
> >
> > And it will.
>
> Not hands off, according to some Cirrus drivers.

It will fly level hands-off in roll (which is the axis that really
matters if you have to choose) but not in pitch at high speed -- at
least I have the very devil of a time trimming out the pitch. But YMMV.

rg

[Roger]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:54:31 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
wrote:

>I think the Cirrus is the best plane in its class at this time. If I had the
>need for that type a plane it would be tops on the list.
>I find it hard to believe it wont fly level without the autopilot.
>
If I had the money and were in the market I'd take the Columbia 400
first, 350 second and Bonanza third.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ken Reed]

>>>Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
>>>aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.


>>more stable? How and where did you get the idea that the SR22is not?

> Back two or three days ago, in this thread. The observation came from one
> or two Cirrus drivers.

Wasn't me. Mine's quite stable.

KR

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ken Reed > wrote:

> >>>Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
> >>>aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.
>
>
> >>more stable? How and where did you get the idea that the SR22is not?
>
> > Back two or three days ago, in this thread. The observation came from one
> > or two Cirrus drivers.
>
> Wasn't me. Mine's quite stable.

I think it was me, and I never said it wasn't stable, just that it's
hard to adjust the pitch trim for level flight at high speed because
it's electric. That's very different from "unstable".

rg

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-01, Ron Garret > wrote:
> I think it was me, and I never said it wasn't stable, just that it's
> hard to adjust the pitch trim for level flight at high speed because
> it's electric. That's very different from "unstable".

Seems to be true with all electric trimmers. I usually find myself
giving up and using the manual trim wheel (if available). It's not
particlarly bothersome in most electric-trim-only planes though.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-29, Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> Composites may indeed be superior in some ways, but long-term cost of
> ownership for composites used in certificated GA aircraft is a huge
> unknown at this point.

Not really - just look at certificated composite gliders. There's plenty
of old plastic gliders around now. Plenty of people who know how to do
repairs on them, too. Not to mention in the powered world, the Diamond
light planes have been around for quite a while now.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-30, Ron Garret > wrote:
>> Not hands off, according to some Cirrus drivers.
>
> It will fly level hands-off in roll (which is the axis that really
> matters if you have to choose) but not in pitch at high speed -- at
> least I have the very devil of a time trimming out the pitch. But YMMV.

Then again, a Piper Arrow generally won't do so either (all the Arrows I
find have had a fairly pronounced and slow phugoid oscillation. In fact,
I find the Beech Bonanza a lot less work to fly IFR than an Arrow
because the Bonana flies better hands-off).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> On 2005-10-01, Ron Garret > wrote:
> > I think it was me, and I never said it wasn't stable, just that it's
> > hard to adjust the pitch trim for level flight at high speed because
> > it's electric. That's very different from "unstable".
>
> Seems to be true with all electric trimmers.

Yes, this problem is not unique to the Cirrus.

> I usually find myself
> giving up and using the manual trim wheel (if available). It's not
> particlarly bothersome in most electric-trim-only planes though.

It's not particularly bothersome in the Cirrus either because the
autopilot is standard equipment :-)

rg

[john smith]

> Then again, a Piper Arrow generally won't do so either (all the Arrows I
> find have had a fairly pronounced and slow phugoid oscillation. In fact,
> I find the Beech Bonanza a lot less work to fly IFR than an Arrow
> because the Bonana flies better hands-off).

Then again, the Bonanza has a side-side tail wiggle that other airplanes
do not. And nothing short of a yaw damper will stop it.

[Roger]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 04:25:12 GMT, Ken Reed > wrote:

>>>>Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
>>>>aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.
>
>
>>>more stable? How and where did you get the idea that the SR22is not?
>
>> Back two or three days ago, in this thread. The observation came from one
>> or two Cirrus drivers.
>
>Wasn't me. Mine's quite stable.
>

Stable is a relative term. It depends on what you have been flying.
Typically, Fast and stable used to describe the same airplane is an
oxymoron. Even with that big wing and light wing loading the Bo is
near neutral in stability. (Mine has a slightly lighter loading than a
Cherokee, but that hummer is slippery)

Put a 172 or Cherokee pilot into a Cirrus or Bonanza and see how well
they do at holding altitude. Take all three and trim them for level
flight. Push the yoke down and then let go. How long does it take to
stabilize? The Cherokee and 172 will bob the nose up and down a few
times and in short order will be flying as if nothing happened. The
Bo will do a slow oscillation and take its time about coming back "if
it does". We have a husband and wife flying an SR-22 who say the
same about theirs. They purchased a new one just over a year ago, put
700 hours on that thing and have already traded it in for a new one.
I'd say they are "experienced" pilots.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>KR
Roger

[Roger]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:55:40 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2005-10-01, Ron Garret > wrote:
>> I think it was me, and I never said it wasn't stable, just that it's
>> hard to adjust the pitch trim for level flight at high speed because
>> it's electric. That's very different from "unstable".
>
>Seems to be true with all electric trimmers. I usually find myself

You should fly one of the early Debonairs. A quarter inch of trim
wheel movement will either push you down into the seat or lift you
right out of it. the fixed that after about 60 or so planes were
built, but that mechanical trim is very coarse.

>giving up and using the manual trim wheel (if available). It's not
>particlarly bothersome in most electric-trim-only planes though.

On our old Cherokee it was far easier to adjust and hold trim with the
button than the wheel.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:00:22 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2005-09-30, Ron Garret > wrote:
>>> Not hands off, according to some Cirrus drivers.
>>
>> It will fly level hands-off in roll (which is the axis that really
>> matters if you have to choose) but not in pitch at high speed -- at
>> least I have the very devil of a time trimming out the pitch. But YMMV.
>
>Then again, a Piper Arrow generally won't do so either (all the Arrows I
>find have had a fairly pronounced and slow phugoid oscillation. In fact,
>I find the Beech Bonanza a lot less work to fly IFR than an Arrow
>because the Bonana flies better hands-off).

The bo has much lighter controls too.
OTOH you see very few Bos flying IFR without autopilots. The Arrow is
just a big Cherokee with out the landing gear drag. They are still
very docile airplanes.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:11:20 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>> Then again, a Piper Arrow generally won't do so either (all the Arrows I
>> find have had a fairly pronounced and slow phugoid oscillation. In fact,
>> I find the Beech Bonanza a lot less work to fly IFR than an Arrow
>> because the Bonana flies better hands-off).
>
>Then again, the Bonanza has a side-side tail wiggle that other airplanes
>do not. And nothing short of a yaw damper will stop it.

Yah, but if the pilot doesn't sit in the back seat he'll never no it's
there. I've never noticed it on calm days either.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-10-01, Ron Garret > wrote:

>> I usually find myself giving up and using the manual trim wheel (if
>> available). It's not particlarly bothersome in most
>> electric-trim-only planes though.

Electric trim on the 182RG works, if anything, a little slowly. Quite
precise; never need the manual wheel.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-01, john smith > wrote:
>> Then again, a Piper Arrow generally won't do so either (all the Arrows I
>> find have had a fairly pronounced and slow phugoid oscillation. In fact,
>> I find the Beech Bonanza a lot less work to fly IFR than an Arrow
>> because the Bonana flies better hands-off).
>
> Then again, the Bonanza has a side-side tail wiggle that other airplanes
> do not. And nothing short of a yaw damper will stop it.

I've not found the Bonanza waggle to be something that makes it not fly
hands-off: it's short period, doesn't result in a net course change and
not particularly severe (well, unless you're in the back seat).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Roger]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:24:41 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2005-10-01, john smith > wrote:
>>> Then again, a Piper Arrow generally won't do so either (all the Arrows I
>>> find have had a fairly pronounced and slow phugoid oscillation. In fact,
>>> I find the Beech Bonanza a lot less work to fly IFR than an Arrow
>>> because the Bonana flies better hands-off).
>>
>> Then again, the Bonanza has a side-side tail wiggle that other airplanes
>> do not. And nothing short of a yaw damper will stop it.
>
>I've not found the Bonanza waggle to be something that makes it not fly
>hands-off: it's short period, doesn't result in a net course change and
>not particularly severe (well, unless you're in the back seat).

It does tend to raise the "barf factor" a tad, but it does that in the
straight tails too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com