I’m new to aviation and looking to get my PPL. I recently came across a flight school that offers training on Cirrus aircraft at a price that’s about half of what most other schools charge. Since Cirrus planes are generally more expensive, I found this surprising and wanted to get some insights.
Most other schools I’ve looked into use the Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28, but this one exclusively trains on Cirrus. While I don’t plan to fly a Cirrus as my main aircraft right after getting my license (I’m considering something like a PA-28 Turbo initially), I do see myself flying Cirrus in the future.
I’m trying to understand why the cost is so low. The school has a solid reputation, and I’ve spoken to people who had a positive experience training there. Right now, they’re running a promotion that significantly lowers the price.
That said, I want to make sure I’m making the right decision. I’m not here to promote the school (I’ll keep its name private), but I’d love to hear from those with experience flying Cirrus:
• Pros of learning on a Cirrus?
• Cons compared to training in a C172/PA-28?
• Will it make my transition to other aircraft harder or easier?
•Why might a Cirrus-based school be so much cheaper? (Seems counterintuitive given the aircraft’s cost.)
First a recommendation, join COPA as a member once you decide to fly Cirrus, there is a wealth of information here and the member forums get more attention.
I have no idea why training in a Cirrus should be cheaper than in a C172. Maybe if the C172 is rather new and the Cirrus is a beaten up G1 or G2 with 10.000s of landings. I did my PPL (A) on a Cirrus, because I wanted to fly them later and it saved me the transition training. As a helicopter pilot, I only needed 35 hours, so the incremental cost seemed acceptable to me. From scratch I would have chosen a cheaper 2 seater with full glass for training.
So that’s the Pro learning in a Cirrus, no transition later to a Cirrus and easier to other complex aircraft. It has the additional safety of a ballistic recovery system (CAPS), almost a USP in the 4 seater SEP certified market.
Con might be that, because it’s a faster low wing, you might need more hours to learn to especially land it.
Transition to other low wing higher performance aircraft with full glass will be easier coming from the Cirrus, to slow high wings or six pack avionics harder.
Good luck with the training, whatever the choice is.
I will jump in on the price. What are they quoting you and on what parameters? Are the hourly rates less for plane/instructor, is the plane dry or wet, etc? If you provide some details on the costing it would be easier to provide insight.
I recently completed PPL training on a Cirrus G6, and then bought one. My main reason for wanting to spend the extra time and money to train on the Cirrus was because I thought it would best prepare me for the aircraft I intended to thereafter use as my primary driver.
There are a lot of threads and comments on this topic in the forums. The guest forum will only show a tiny sliver of what’s available in the member forum. It’s worth subscribing for all of the valuable and varied opinions you’ll find to your questions (and many more).
As for the cost difference, it’s hard to answer unless you list the actual prices. It is possible that the Cirrus rental rate is dry, and you’ll have to add >$100/hr for fuel/oil/consumables. Cirrus instructors, especially if they are CSIPs or certified by Cirrus, will be significantly more expensive. It’s best to consider the actual total hourly all-in cost between options when comparing prices.
As others have mentioned, I would need more information on exactly what, or how, the school was trying to sell the solution to you.
Overall, based on rental rates, I would be hard-pressed to find a situation where a Cirrus is cheaper than other alternatives for training. Granted, rates for planes are going but, but our local 172’s are only $220/hour wet and the average SR22 rental price is typically close to at least double that. @Robert_Zippel maybe on to something with regards to the older Cirrus vs New 172.
As for trying to give you a pro/con between flights there are a lot to consider that might change things. Typically folks look to train in what they want to fly, that has been the primary reason I’ve seen folks flock to PPL in the Cirrus as they want to fly Cirrus later.
FWIW I got my PPL and instrument rating on a C172 before I bought my Cirrus SR22. The C172 is a very forgiving, higher drag, easy to handle airplane to learn flying on. I greatly appreciated the higher performance and slippery Cirrus when I transitioned.
I did my ppl in a cirrus g6. But only because I wanted to keep flying it later. I wouldn’t do it in a cirrus unless you intend to own or rent regularly later. Great for travel/Time Machine. Not great for building multi frame piloting skills. I think if I tried to fly a 1976 Cessna 172 I would be an unsafe pilot after almost 500 hrs in a cirrus sr22.
Maybe consider a couple discovery flights. You may love it. And the parachute is a safety feature that trumps all other pistons for me.
Not all other pistons, again Bristell has the same with full glass, and there is a retrofit BRS for the C172. Actually, one for sale like this right now:
If we wouldn’t have the Cirrus, I would find this well equipped plane tempting. But I flew a C172 and like the Cirrus muvh better. Although the C172 is ridiculously more easy to land.
I am curious if a G6 SR20 has the auto on/off yaw damper of the SR22. If yes, that alone would keep me away from the SR20 for training. That is a not a good thing to have when you are learning. Nice to have when you are a minted PPL.
I also went from a c172XP to a sr22 turbo. The 172 gives you plenty of time to think - the 22 not so much. The big transition (and my amazing DPE told me) is slowing down. The 172 just stops when you chop the throttle. The 22 nope.
I did my PPL in a Cirrus because that’s what I planned to fly. I think if you plan to fly a PA-28 after PPL, it’s best to do your primary training in that airplane.