I am new to flying. I have passed my written for private. I have not flown except as a passenger. I plan on accelerated training for private and then right into instrument rating.
I am interested in purchasing an SR22. I have been told because I have no experience in any aircraft, it may be an advantage to learn in a cirrus from the beginning. What do you think?? Should I pursue this dream, or start in a different manner?

Congrats on your dream to fly.
My recommendation as a CFI is to find a good CFI. I think that is more important than the aircraft you are using. There’s so much more to learning to fly than just moving a yoke or side stick around. Ask around and see who is “the” recommended instructor.

A Cirrus SR20 is not a bad training aircraft (certainly for instrument training). I don’t know how many flight schools are using it as a trainer. Cirrus is now selling an SRV (which is an SR20 certified for VFR only). I suspect there will be a few more showing up in flight schools over the next couple of years. But don’t get hung up in the aircraft type. It’s good to fly several kinds of aircraft during your training.

If you are in southern Ca., there is an Sr20 for rent at Channel Island aviation in Camarillo . Congrats for passing your written. As they say, aviation is a continuing learning process.

This question has been debated several times before. There are two schools of thought. One group says learning in a simpler, slower aircraft allows you to gain experience in the air with less effort and stress and that makes you better prepared when you move up to bigger and faster aircraft. I personally think that if you know it’s Cirrus that you intend to fly there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t use it for training. It is easier to learn from scratch rather than having to unlearn things you learned in another airplane (for example, the landing attitude is very different in a Cirrus compared to a Cessna and therefore lots of Cessna pilots tend to flare too high and have to in essence relearn the process of landing).
Because the Cirrus is faster and more complicated it will probably take longer to get your certificate but with a good instructor (and I completely agree with Scott that a good instructor is of the utmost importance) you can do it.
The other issue - and I think it’s a major problem will be insurance. You probably won’t be able to get insurance in a 22. Since you will need insurance to solo, and since solo flights are required for a private certificate that could be an insurmountable issue.
Anyway, good luck.

If you can’t find a Cirrus to rent for training or can’t surmount the insurance issue to purchase one now, I recommend training in a Grumman Tiger. Its flight and ground handling characteristics are pretty similar to an SR20 (although it’s 20 kt slower in cruise). It is not uncommon to find one to rent; if you purchase a used one in good condition it likely won’t depreciate much or at all by the time you’re ready to buy your Cirrus.

I completely agree with Jerry and Scott. There is nothing about a Cirrus that precludes learning from scratch in the plane. You will pay a penalty in time and money to train in that plane only because horly operating costs and insurance will be higher than a traditional trainer. But, if you know that is the plane you want, why not learn in it from the beginning, develop the right habits, but have the right teacher who knows the plane and can walk you through the pitfalls of the plane. The SR22 would be no different to train in because you can use low power settings to go slow for all the training lessons. The only other difference is the extra power on takeoff compared to an SR20. As long as you do not have a weak right foot that should be no problem, either if taught correctly.

Joe: Congrats on realizing your dream to fly and welcome to our community.
This subject has been discussed several times and resulted in some very interesting and divergent opinions. I would suggest that you use the search function of this web site’s forums and look for the discussions. This is a link to the most recent such discussion.
In a nutshell, there is nothing wrong with learning in a Cirrus, but it will take very dedicated, disciplined, and cautious student and CFI team.
The argument against is that these planes can be a handful for the novices. They are much faster than the average “trainer” and you will soon learn that speed is time. The faster things in the plane are happening the less time you have to think and react. In essence the quicker the plane, the slower you are.
Another argument against is that these are more complex planes than the average trainer. For many people, this makes learning tougher than a step by step learning process. Lastly, your insurance will be very high, and rightly so due to the perceived elevated risk. Conventional wisdoms believes that pilots with low Total Time and low Time-in-Type are at much greater risks of accidents.
The arguments in favor are: This military starts in very high performance aircraft and their pilots end up being considered some of the best trained pilots inthe world. Secondly, if you learn in the Cirrus, there will be no transition issues and why not build your time-in-type (TIT) as you learn to fly. Many of our members have done this and become excellent pilots.
Unless you are the very cautious and disciplined type, I personally would not recommend it.
Good luck.
(edited to add link)

I do not think you need insurance to fly solo in many states. Given the price of hull insurnace - self insuring might be a better way to go - if you can afford it.

Of course if you can afford it - then liability insurance is a big problem.

In reply to:

I do not think you need insurance to fly solo in many states. Given the price of hull insurnace - self insuring might be a better way to go - if you can afford it.

If I understand you correctly, you mean “solo” as a fully licensed pilot flying with no passengers?. I think “Solo” refers to a student pilot flying without his CFI onboard.

I am not aware the any state requires insurance for any non-commercial aircraft, whether solo or not, but I have experience in only a few states. I know that lenders almost always require it to protect the collateral of their loan. JT, any thoughts?

I have heard that there are pilots who go “uncovered.” At least one pilot has reported on the Lancair Owner and Pilots Web site that he does not insure his 300. I suppose it depends upon the individuals risk tolerance and how much you have to protect and the cost of insurance.

have heard that there are pilots who go “uncovered.” At least one pilot has reported on the Lancair Owner and Pilots Web site that he does not insure his 300.

Also, the x-plane creator did not insure his centennial

Probably not an issue for Cirrus owners, but if you decide not to insure because “my airplane is cheap”, think about what happens when you hand-prop it and it slices up the side of a King Air.

A line guy (presumably no longer employed) at an FBO I frequent clipped the wingtip of a Challenger with a tug. It cost about $250K to fix.

I agree, its better to be over insured (if there is such a thing).