Why is the main gear track narrower on the SR22 when the wings are longer? Is it to maintain prop clearance and/or maintain useful load?
sps
Why is the main gear track narrower on the SR22 when the wings are longer? Is it to maintain prop clearance and/or maintain useful load?
sps
I asked Cirrus this question when I visited last them last month. The SR22 main gear track is, indeed, narrower than the SR20 and is necessary for (78") prop clearance. The tail of the '22 also sits higher as a result, so the plane has a more tail-high-nose-low (aggressive) look on the ground. The penalty is a higher step up to the wing.
Dan
SR22 #43
Why is the main gear track narrower on the SR22 when the wings are longer? Is it to maintain prop clearance and/or maintain useful load?
sps
I asked Cirrus this question when I visited last them last month. The SR22 main gear track is, indeed, narrower than the SR20 and is necessary for (78") prop clearance. The tail of the '22 also sits higher as a result, so the plane has a more tail-high-nose-low (aggressive) look on the ground. The penalty is a higher step up to the wing.
Dan
SR22 #43
Dan:
Thanks for the information. From what I have been reading, some pilots transitioning to the SR20 have reported a tendendcy to overrotate on landing resulting in a tail strike. Apparantly, the SR20 and presumably the SR22 have a relatively “flat” landing attitude and a very gradual and small rotation is all that is needed on landing.
With the tail relatively higher on the SR22, perhaps this hazard would be less. Any ideas?
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Shirley
SR22 #144
Why is the main gear track narrower on the SR22 when the wings are longer? Is it to maintain prop clearance and/or maintain useful load?
sps
I asked Cirrus this question when I visited last them last month. The SR22 main gear track is, indeed, narrower than the SR20 and is necessary for (78") prop clearance. The tail of the '22 also sits higher as a result, so the plane has a more tail-high-nose-low (aggressive) look on the ground. The penalty is a higher step up to the wing.
Dan
SR22 #43
Thank you for the information. How does pointing the nose down provide more ground clearance?
sps
I checked with Cirrus and they told me that the tail height on the SR22 is 9’ 2" which is the same as the SR20 and is what the spec sheet said. I was concerned because I just built a hanger with a 10’ high door.
I asked Cirrus this question when I visited last them last month. The SR22 main gear track is, indeed, narrower than the SR20 and is necessary for (78") prop clearance. The tail of the '22 also sits higher as a result, so the plane has a more tail-high-nose-low (aggressive) look on the ground. The penalty is a higher step up to the wing.
Dan
SR22 #43
Thanks for the information. From what I have been reading, some pilots transitioning to the SR20 have reported a tendendcy to overrotate on landing resulting in a tail strike. Apparantly, the SR20 and presumably the SR22 have a relatively “flat” landing attitude and a very gradual and small rotation is all that is needed on landing.
With the tail relatively higher on the SR22, perhaps this hazard would be less. Any ideas?
I think these kinds of concerns are overblown. Like any aircraft, some training is required to transition into an SR20, but there is nothing inherently difficult about it. If all you’ve ever flown is a 172, there will be a little bit more work involved in the transition, but this is true of any faster, heavier plane.
Tail strikes are more likely with no-flaps takeoffs and landings, but even then you have to try pretty hard.
For what it’s worth, on my first-ever landing (in N204CD back in '98) Scott Anderson told me, “you’ll overflare and drop it in.” Bang. I was trying to make the runway disappear, which is what tells you that your flare attitude is right in a 172. Problem was, I had the yoke to the stop and the damned runway was still there!
It took me about five landings to get comfortable with the sight picture (pretty flat, low, and the asymmetric glare shield made me feel like I was yawed to the right) and then it was pretty much a matter of flying the speeds (get slow and it glides like a manhole cover.)
For me it feels somewhere in between a 172 and a Baron (the latter glides more like a boulder than a manhole cover when slow) but really is quite forgiving and gives you a lot more latitude than many other airplanes.
The Wings Aloft people will recommend approaches at 80KIAS, which gives lots and lots of room for sloppiness but eats a ton of runway. I prefer between 70 and 75 (at 70 you don’t have much energy left for the flare, so use it wisely.)
I think these kinds of concerns are overblown.
Dave,
Your post neatly summarizes virtually everything I’ve read about landing the SR20. Thanks!
- Mike.
This exactly resembles my own landing experience too. The first six or eight times I tried it, I had the overflare-and-drop-it-in problem. My previous experience was nearly all in a 172. In particular I had trouble when trying one no-flap landing(with a CFI).
Once I figured out the flat sight picture you describe, it was basically effortless and a no-brainer to bring the thing in for smooth landings.
I was just pointing out how the SR22 “appeared” from a distance, compared to the SR20 (viewing the two side by side makes the SR22 look tail-high-nose-low). Sorry for the confusion…
Why is the main gear track narrower on the SR22 when the wings are longer? Is it to maintain prop clearance and/or maintain useful load?
sps
I asked Cirrus this question when I visited last them last month. The SR22 main gear track is, indeed, narrower than the SR20 and is necessary for (78") prop clearance. The tail of the '22 also sits higher as a result, so the plane has a more tail-high-nose-low (aggressive) look on the ground. The penalty is a higher step up to the wing.
Dan
SR22 #43
Thank you for the information. How does pointing the nose down provide more ground clearance?
sps