CD have updated the SR20 POH to increase the maximum demonstrated crosswind for landing to 21 knots - but still “not considered limiting”.
How did you hear this? Did you get a new POH? Weight increase?
Cirrus is competing for the Air Force Introductory Flight Training contract, which requires a minimum demonstarted crosswind of 20 knots.
CD have updated the SR20 POH to increase the maximum demonstrated crosswind for landing to 21 knots - but still “not considered limiting”.
CD have updated the SR20 POH to increase the maximum demonstrated crosswind for landing to 21 knots - but still “not considered limiting”.
Are there any aircraft that list a “limiting” cross wind capability in their POH? I believe I once read somewhere that the manufacturers will always only list a “demonstrated” cross wind capability, as they are normally designed to handle much more (as I would hope. The last thing I would want to do is approach an actual limit of an aircraft).
Took my plane (two words I have trouble getting used to) to Top Gun Aviation in Stockton today, to have new N-numbers put on. Was unhappily surprised by ATIS info for Stockton from 20 miles out. After weeks of “calm” or “variable” winds in this area, and forecasts of medium-strength wind today, ATIS was “25 knots gusting 35.” Winds were from 340, for runway 29.
Didn’t have my handy x-wind calculator around, but at 50 degrees to the runway it was less than the demonstrated crosswind component. I also had seen worse than this in various Cirrus training runs. (The very first flight lesson I had, in a 172 from GAI outside Washington, was on a day when the winds were 28 gusting 35. Instructor believed in getting used to wind early.) So I went in with quite a dramatic crab angle, switching to cross-controls at the end – and it was a fairly non-traumatic event. I contend that the Cirrus is somewhat difficult to get used to landing, especially for those of us who had only done Skyhawks/Skylanes, but after that is easier to land than many planes. jf
How did you hear this? Did you get a new POH?
Yes, amendment to the POH. That was the only change.
Cirrus is competing for the Air Force Introductory Flight Training contract, which requires a minimum demonstarted crosswind of 20 knots.
Ah, that explains it. I was a bit puzzled as to why they would amend the POH just for that (since 19 knots is a pretty damn strong x-wind anyway!)
CD have updated the SR20 POH to increase the maximum demonstrated crosswind for landing to 21 knots - but still “not considered limiting”.
Are there any aircraft that list a “limiting” cross wind capability in their POH? I believe I once read somewhere that the manufacturers will always only list a “demonstrated” cross wind capability, as they are normally designed to handle much more (as I would hope. The last thing I would want to do is approach an actual limit of an aircraft).
The limiting factor is the pilot. What you can do at 20 Kt crosswind may not be the same as someone else flying. Yes, the airplane has it’s limits, but it is much safer for the factory to use a lower figure than what the airplane can. If you ding the wing because you could not hold to the 27 kt crosswind component you can go to the company and ask for a replacement because this one with the wing dinged up does not hold the 27 crosswind component. Think back on the days that your instructor only allowed you to have a 5 kt crosswind. Have a great Cirrus day.
Woor
Just like the EPA on gas mileage, I get 25 mpg on my Lexus and still get speeding tickets, some people only get 20 mpg.
I’ve landed in what was by far the biggest crosswind I’ve ever dealt with (probably up at the then-demonstrated crosswind component) and was prepared to use the “own risk” closed runway at SAF because it was the only one facing the wind. Turned out to be a non-event, I had no trouble lining it up and keeping it planted. The SR20 definitely is easier to deal with in crosswinds than the 172 I was flying before.
I’m curious as to what sort of landing difficulty you’re having–my theory is that the folks transitioning from the 172 will tend to round out high, get slow, and over flare. Does this fit your experience?
my theory is that the folks transitioning from the 172 will tend to round out high, get slow, and over flare. Does this fit your experience?
Yes – with the addendum that once you get used to “driving” the plane in toward a landing, with what feels like very little flare compared to a 172, it really is easy to land.
my theory is that the folks transitioning from the 172 will tend to round out high, get slow, and over flare. Does this fit your experience?
Yes – with the addendum that once you get used to “driving” the plane in toward a landing, with what feels like very little flare compared to a 172, it really is easy to land.
The flare is much more pronounced with the power off, and makes for good practice in playing “chicken” with the pavement. I do all of my landings with the power off when possible.
If you fly the approach at 75, with the power off, and resist the urge to start pulling the nose up early, you’ll have plenty of energy to flare when you get reasonably close to the runway, and there will be a definite pitch change (though you’ll still have the whole runway in plain view.)
For real fun, fly the approach at 70 with the power off, wait til the last second, and yank like hell. Then remember that kinetic energy goes as the square of velocity and then you’ll fly all the approaches at 75 forever after. 
The other thing to remember is the mantra drilled into my head by my instructors when I was learning to land heavier airplanes (Baron, King Air.) Every last one of them kept shouting “Keep the nose coming down! Keep the nose coming down!” Now I hear it play in my head on every landing. This mantra was used by my SR20 instructor as well, though the SR20 is a little more forgiving in the size of the runway crater you create with the gear if you forget the mantra.
Every last one of them kept shouting “Keep the nose coming down! Keep the nose coming down!”
Dave, thanks a lot for these tips, which ring true. But here’s a little clarification question:
I’m flying final approaches at the textbook 80kts. You are explaining the merits of doing it at 75k. You’re also explaining the trick of keeping the nose coming down – which i also heard a zillion times from instructors in the 182, which is so much heavier than the 172, and the SR20, which lands like a heavy plane.
But… if I’m flying at 80 rather than 75, I’m already “keeping the nose down,” right?
So i think what you’re referring to is that the round-out and flare happen later, and closer to the ground, in the SR20 than in the trusty 172. Right? The time for “keeping the nose coming down” is in the last stage of the approach – resisting the urge to begin the flare high – rather than throughout the final approach. Do I have this right? Asking for the benefit of all onlookers. jf
So i think what you’re referring to is that the round-out and flare happen later, and closer to the ground, in the SR20 than in the trusty 172. Right? The time for “keeping the nose coming down” is in the last stage of the approach – resisting the urge to begin the flare high – rather than throughout the final approach. Do I have this right? Asking for the benefit of all onlookers. jf
Yes, exactly. What the mantra really should say is “Don’t pull the nose up yet! Don’t pull the nose up yet!” But that’s such a mouthful.
80 knots rather than 75 will give you yet another extra 14% kinetic energy (if calculations serve) so you can get away with an earlier roundout, which is of course making you slow down, but I think that 80 is really too fast in terms of the float that you will get (lots). I think the POH says 75 and Wings Aloft settled on 80 to keep the new owners from getting prop strikes.
So I guess my free advice (worth twice the price) would be to get comfortable landing at 80, while practicing delaying your roundout. You will then have so much extra energy (having waited) that you’ll float ridiculously, so then cut your approach speed back to 75 and then delay your roundout, and you’ll have plenty of energy for the flare but won’t use up so much runway.
For really short field landings you can slow it down even more but you’ll require enormous amounts of power to arrest the vigorous sink rate. Take out extra hull insurance before trying this.
I’m fond of the high, steep approach, so I tend to have the power all the way off before turning final. Once you pull that last bit of throttle back, you’ll find out what the nose really coming down looks like. (One of the SAF tower controllers was pointing me out to some other traffic–“two mile final, too high.” Hrmph. I’ve learned that the SR20 does slip reasonably well though!)
I’m most comfortable in the 70-75 range these days. I bet if I ever bring my plane back down from SAF (field elevation 6348) the slow ground speeds will probably scare the heck out of me.
… (so to speak), but
With a no-power final approach, at 75kts, what kind of sink rate do you have going? The Wings Aloft Way, as you know, is 80kts and 15" of power, which ends up around -500fpm. It also uses a lot of runway, as you say (and makes for gentle touchdowns). How fast are you losing altitude, before you start the roundout?
… (so to speak), but
With a no-power final approach, at 75kts, what kind of sink rate do you have going? The Wings Aloft Way, as you know, is 80kts and 15" of power, which ends up around -500fpm. It also uses a lot of runway, as you say (and makes for gentle touchdowns). How fast are you losing altitude, before you start the roundout?
A idea just occurred to me that if Wings Aloft uses 80 knots on approach to avoid prop strikes, then a 3 bladed vs 2 bladed prop gets another
“star” due to its smaller diameter!
… (so to speak), but
With a no-power final approach, at 75kts, what kind of sink rate do you have going? The Wings Aloft Way, as you know, is 80kts and 15" of power, which ends up around -500fpm. It also uses a lot of runway, as you say (and makes for gentle touchdowns). How fast are you losing altitude, before you start the roundout?
I actually have no idea, I bet it’s a pretty big number. I’m awfully busy looking out the front at that point, but I’ll go give it a try when I get back out to NM. (Or go give it a shot at altitude and see what you see. Go up to about 7000’ and you’ll be simulating my approaches!)
It’s definitely a lot steeper than the VASI (I know I’m on glideslope if I turn final and can’t see the VASI because I’m so far above it… )
but the descent rate is less of an issue than the available energy to arrest the descent.
This is all part of exploring the envelope of the airplane–get comfortable landing it in all kinds of configurations and speeds and power settings and you’ve got a good arsenal of options to use.
Disclaimer–I’m still low time (500 hours, 100 in type) and may not know what I’m talking about. I just get excited when people say that they think the SR20 is hard to land, because I think it’s a bum rap.
A idea just occurred to me that if Wings Aloft uses 80 knots on approach to avoid prop strikes, then a 3 bladed vs 2 bladed prop gets another
“star” due to its smaller diameter!
If you manage to porpoise hard enough to bend the nose gear and strike the prop, the extra couple of inches probably aren’t going to help much…
A idea just occurred to me that if Wings Aloft uses 80 knots on approach to avoid prop strikes, then a 3 bladed vs 2 bladed prop gets another
“star” due to its smaller diameter!
If you manage to porpoise hard enough to bend the nose gear and strike the prop, the extra couple of inches probably aren’t going to help much…
There is a 2" difference in diameter between the the two and three-blade prop. Therefore, the 2-blade prop is only 1" closer to the ground than the 3-blade prop. One would have to be way off the proper landing attitude to get a prop strike with either prop. In 163CD I have not noticed any difference in vibration. Although I am sure there is a noise difference, I can’t detect the difference. Of course, with the Lightspeeds on it is quiet for those inside the cabin. It is quiet enough to enjoy classical music in flight. Of couse,theoretically, the 2-blade should be faster. For me speed is a big deal.