With the Avidyne threads dying down, and topics like refridgerators being hot (pun intended) ;-] , I thought I would tap the expertise of the membership and ask the burning question:
What kind of landing experiences can I expect transitioning from a 182 to a SR22? What I am looking for here are anecdotal replies of the sort that would compare and contrast. (And that might even help me land my 182 better!)
Paul (SR22 #250)
Paul,
Funny you should ask. On the 260SE/STOL owners’ web site, a poster discusses certain landing characteristics as between the SR20 (comparable to the SR22) and the 260SE. The 260SE characteristics are fundamentally Cessna 182 in nature, although the refurbishment and conversion to the 260SE does allow for a much slower touchdown speed.
He makes a very interesting point re the view at the flare and its effects upon flaring too high or too low. Interesting.
Check it out at:
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/petersonsamazing260sestol
Pete
I fly both an SR20 and a modified 182 (Peterson 260SE/STOL) regularly. While the Cirrus is a really nice plane to land, the “sight picture” it presents to the pilot is quite different from a 182. Cessna drivers transitioning into the Cirrus will at first flare too much and too high, potentially resulting in a drop-in arrival. On the other hand when you’re used to the Cirrus you will flare your 182 too low and “not enough,” likely resulting in a somewhat premature, flat touchdown.
If you’re used to the 182, my advice (worked well for me) is to flare the Cirrus gradually and transition your focus to the far end of the runway as you level out. Use this view of the far end of the runway to judge your float, sink, or–hopefully not–balloon. You will feel convinced that you are too nose-low but don’t believe it. The stall horn should be followed shortly by a cushy soft touchdown of the mains with the nosewheel 6"-10" off the pavement. If you minded your approach speed well–75 kt over the fence–you can cut throttle to idle as you enter the flare or even slightly before.
My own experience so far is that it’s more difficult to land the 182 well after a number of hours in the Cirrus, than vice-versa. If you want a near-Cirrus flight/landing experience before taking delivery, try renting a Grumman Tiger with a CFI who knows it well. The Tiger-to-Cirrus transition should be nearly seamless.
Paul, I don’t have any direct experience for you (22 vs 182), but I owned a C172 for four years and just received an SR20. Reading all of the posts about the “sight picture” being different I learned from others mistakes and found the following:
Because everyone who flew a Cessna prior said the Cirrus landed “flat” when looking out the window, on my very first landing in the Cirrus I remembered this and brought the plane in so it “looked” like I was landing “flat” from my 172 experience. The result was a squeaker landing.
The Cirrus is much easier to land than my 172 and I have consistently had great landings.
The plane flies much nicer on approach and is more stable due to the higher wing loading.
It handles the crosswinds easier.
It does not like to be dead sticked in unlike the 172. I almost always pulled power to idle at the numbers on downwind with the 172 and had good landings, but this does not work in the SR20. It needs power to land well. Do not let the airspeed decay on final. Our instructor told us this and after getting comfortable with the plane I played with airspeed a bit and he definitely wasn’t kidding. If has a steep glide at 75 KIAS, but can be flared no problem at the speed. 70 KIAS on final and it drops like a rock even lightly loaded even though 1.3 VS0 I believe is 73 KIAS at gross.
Hope this helps.
Derek
Paul, Nice can of worms! I can speak of my 1,000 hours in a 172 and 150 in my SR22. Here are my observations:
While the ‘sight picture’ is different (flatter) in the SR22, this is somewhat deceiving as the cowling affords a much better view of the runway ahead. To the external witness on the ground, the mains still land first and you can still land with the stall horn blaring.
Before you take off, sit on the end of the runway and look at the sight picture. This is just about what you will see when you land.
Contrary to most who have chimed in, I keep power on (maybe that gives me a slightly flatter approach) until assured the runway. I maintain 80 KTAS until the numbers. A couple of knots slow seems OK, but faster yields a ton of surplus energy which has to be dissapated.
The flare definitely seems to start (and end) lower than the 172.
I’ve found that once in the flare, if you add even a little power to arrest the descent slightly and try to salvage a squeaker, you will float about 1,000’ feet. Maybe I am just ham fisted.
It handles crosswinds very easily.
It actually is very easy to land. Knock wood, but with the exception of the one time I had to hold an open door while landing, I have never bounced significantly or even done anything that was remotely close to hitting the nose gear (or prop).
the SR22 has so much power, that going around is very easy. The descent is reversed and a climb starts almost instantly with the application of power.
Hope this helps.
Marty
Paul,
The post I referred to a moment ago was made on 11/27 by n8367e. Good luck.
- The Cirrus is much easier to land than my 172 and I have consistently had great landings.
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Derek. In my (not-so-humble) opinion, though, any plane is easier to land than a 172. The “land-o-matic” propaganda put out by Cessna’s marketing people was remarkably successful. I suppose I just broke the code.
I nearly always pull power to idle abeam the numbers in both the SR20 and the SR22, and there’s plenty of energy to spare at the flare if you fly the numbers (75 in the SR20, 80 in the SR22) and don’t try to round out early. I don’t recommend doing this with non-pilot passengers, as the view of the runway is quite spectacular on the way down.
You can fly surprisingly tight patterns this way, and it may come in handy in a spot (like the VOR-A approach into SMO at minimums, cough cough.)
I concur with Dave. For engine out practice I pull the power in my SR22 abeam the numbers at 1000’ AGL and start turning for the runway. Add flaps as needed and slow to 80 KIAS. Hold this speed until over the fence (it may get pretty steep on the way down) and there is ample energy for the roundout and a nice “chirpy” touchdown. Start the turn for the runway pretty darn quick as the plane certainly will head down more steeply than most Cessnas. The SR22 slips real well and so too high is usually not a problem.
George
This is exactly my point. You must turn toward the runway immediately, it is a very steep angle and you must keep the speed up above 1.3 VS0. I didn’t say it couldn’t be done, but rather it doesn’t land well if you let the speed decay and the fact that you must turn toward the runway immediately pointing the nose to the ground.
Poster: gsavage
For engine out practice I pull the power in my SR22 abeam the numbers at 1000’ AGL and start turning for the runway. Add flaps as needed and slow to 80 KIAS. Hold this speed until over the fence (it may get pretty steep on the way down) and there is ample energy for the roundout and a nice “chirpy” touchdown. Start the turn for the runway pretty darn quick as the plane certainly will head down more steeply than most Cessnas. The SR22 slips real well and so too high is usually not a problem.
Marty, I used to always keep a little power on in the flare, but with more practice (mainly, I think, in respect of judging flare height) I now typically have the power right back on landing. As others have said, you can pull the power right back on downwind, but not if flying a typical pattern at a busy airport.
I’ve landed at quite a few short grass strips, often with trees or powerlines on the approach, and the steep approach you can achieve with power right back, full flaps and full sideslip makes this very easy and comfortable (for the pilot, anyway!)
The keys to landing the SR2x really are, as most agree, getting the speed right and judging the flare height right. Until you learn to judge the height, keeping a trickle of power on (as in just a couple of mm movement of the throttle) in the flare will allow you to “feel” for the runway while maintaining the correct landing attitude and a controlled sink rate.
I reckon my “greaser rate” is about 98% - way better than I (and maybe anyone) could do in a 172!
Clyde, I agree with all, but I’ve found that even that 2mm of power in the flare with the SR22 = 1,000’ of float. I prefer keeping that little bit of power around the pattern, using it to keep the descent rate right. (Yes, UI subscribe to power=altitude & Pitch = airspeed, but understand that it is really a combination of both, but those are the initial inputs. Also, Yes, with the A/P flying the glideslope power = airspeed.) then once assuer the field, pull all the power back.
As with all things there is probably no ‘right’ way just what works for each of us and myabe a few are safer than others.