MY FIRST CIRRUS DEMO FLIGHT

Guest Discussion
1

Just got back from my Cirrus demo flight. What a plane! Simply wonderful.

Watched it land and taxi up to the GA ramp at Martin State Airport in Baltimore at 9 AM sharp on a beautiful VFR day.

The airplane looks great on the ramp and appears much bigger in person than it does in photos.

Got a walk around brief from Bruce Gunter, the (salesman/demo pilot) pointing out all the unique features, but my principal impression was of the great fit and finish. Everything’s perfect. This was aircraft #20 and was a full production model. It had the baseline avionics (A Series) with only altitude hold and a leather interior added.

The interior is just as it appears in the pictures – no disappointment there at all. The Arnav display is much better than I expected after reading some criticism of it on the SR20.org website. Looks good and has lots of useful info. The Bruce seemed to use it much more than he did the GPS’s display. One negative here though: Bruce said that it only gets it’s position from the GNS-430, so if that fails you loose all position info on the ARNAV. It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple matter to allow the backup GPS to feed it if necessary. Otherwise you will lose your two best situational displays at once if the 430 fails.

Start, taxi, runup and takeoff were straightforward. The engine is not as smooth as the old Franklin in my Siai-Marchetti (but it did start right up!). The noise level was better, though. The sideyoke became natural at once. The plane handles very nicely. VERY responsive, especially in roll. I was amazed that even a slight twitch of the wrist was translated immediately to the airframe. Gotta be smooth there. But it’s also very stable. Let go of the controls in a 30 degree angle of bank turn and it just stays there – no tendency to either roll out or increase the bank.

The visibility is great, as you’d expect. The seating position for me seemed a little awkward. I’m about 5’ 7" tall so I needed the seat pretty far forward to reach the rudder pedals. I settled on a compromise between stretching a bit for the brakes and having the sideyoke fall nicely to hand, but the power lever seemed a bit too far aft to my liking. I know I’ll get used to it, especially since I tend to sit further forward when I’m new to an airplane than I do later on. As to the single lever control, Bruce warned me that it took a bit of getting used to – it’s quite notchy. You can really feel it in the lever when the prop portion comes into play – the resistance increases quite a bit when it does. Also, the power changes at different rates as the level moves through the various prop controlling ranges. I was able to do pretty well with it, but I’ll reserve judgment as to whether a separate prop level might be a better solution, all things considered.

The electric trim works great, though Bruce said that some people have a little trouble getting used to it. (It seemed very easy and natural to me because I’ve flow military planes with the same sort of coolie-hat setup before.) One criticism, though, is that I think rudder trim would be very nice to have.

Slow flight and stalls were straightforward and the roll authority, even in a full stall, was amazing.

I shot two landings. The first I was high and fast and I had a little trouble getting it down. (Bruce said it was best to carry some power around but I guess I overdid it. Landed about 3000 feet down a 6000 foot runway, but at least it was smooth (thanks in large part to Bruce’s coaching). The next one was much better after I concentrated on not getting fast, but I a tended to flare a little high (again Bruce talked me down nicely). I can see where with a bit of practice the landings will be a snap.

During the postflight walkaround Bruce mentioned that the landing light is going to be moved from its current position in the left cowl intake to a dual light setup behind a new plexiglass window in the lower front of the cowl. He said this was being done to isolate the light(s) better from the engine vibration and to reduce prop reflection glare. He said Cirrus would eventually like to move them to the wings, but that’s well down the road (if at all).

My last item was to check out the back seat room. Very nice and comfortable back there. Feet are a little cramped behind the cross-wing spar but better than most GA aircraft.

All in all a very delightful morning.

Joe

2

Also, the power changes at different rates as the level moves through the various prop controlling ranges. I was able to do pretty well with it, but I’ll reserve judgment as to whether a separate prop leveR might be a better solution, all things considered.

3

Great to hear Joe, the people on the west coast want to know what it takes to get a demo ride?

My partner and I (Dave the big guy) are still waiting, I know they are busy but position #63 is still waiting. Signed The West Coast!

Just got back from my Cirrus demo flight. What a plane! Simply wonderful.

Watched it land and taxi up to the GA ramp at Martin State Airport in Baltimore at 9 AM sharp on a beautiful VFR day.

The airplane looks great on the ramp and appears much bigger in person than it does in photos.

Got a walk around brief from Bruce Gunter, the (salesman/demo pilot) pointing out all the unique features, but my principal impression was of the great fit and finish. Everything’s perfect. This was aircraft #20 and was a full production model. It had the baseline avionics (A Series) with only altitude hold and a leather interior added.

The interior is just as it appears in the pictures – no disappointment there at all. The Arnav display is much better than I expected after reading some criticism of it on the SR20.org website. Looks good and has lots of useful info. The Bruce seemed to use it much more than he did the GPS’s display. One negative here though: Bruce said that it only gets it’s position from the GNS-430, so if that fails you loose all position info on the ARNAV. It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple matter to allow the backup GPS to feed it if necessary. Otherwise you will lose your two best situational displays at once if the 430 fails.

Start, taxi, runup and takeoff were straightforward. The engine is not as smooth as the old Franklin in my Siai-Marchetti (but it did start right up!). The noise level was better, though. The sideyoke became natural at once. The plane handles very nicely. VERY responsive, especially in roll. I was amazed that even a slight twitch of the wrist was translated immediately to the airframe. Gotta be smooth there. But it’s also very stable. Let go of the controls in a 30 degree angle of bank turn and it just stays there – no tendency to either roll out or increase the bank.

The visibility is great, as you’d expect. The seating position for me seemed a little awkward. I’m about 5’ 7" tall so I needed the seat pretty far forward to reach the rudder pedals. I settled on a compromise between stretching a bit for the brakes and having the sideyoke fall nicely to hand, but the power lever seemed a bit too far aft to my liking. I know I’ll get used to it, especially since I tend to sit further forward when I’m new to an airplane than I do later on. As to the single lever control, Bruce warned me that it took a bit of getting used to – it’s quite notchy. You can really feel it in the lever when the prop portion comes into play – the resistance increases quite a bit when it does. Also, the power changes at different rates as the level moves through the various prop controlling ranges. I was able to do pretty well with it, but I’ll reserve judgment as to whether a separate prop level might be a better solution, all things considered.

The electric trim works great, though Bruce said that some people have a little trouble getting used to it. (It seemed very easy and natural to me because I’ve flow military planes with the same sort of coolie-hat setup before.) One criticism, though, is that I think rudder trim would be very nice to have.

Slow flight and stalls were straightforward and the roll authority, even in a full stall, was amazing.

I shot two landings. The first I was high and fast and I had a little trouble getting it down. (Bruce said it was best to carry some power around but I guess I overdid it. Landed about 3000 feet down a 6000 foot runway, but at least it was smooth (thanks in large part to Bruce’s coaching). The next one was much better after I concentrated on not getting fast, but I a tended to flare a little high (again Bruce talked me down nicely). I can see where with a bit of practice the landings will be a snap.

During the postflight walkaround Bruce mentioned that the landing light is going to be moved from its current position in the left cowl intake to a dual light setup behind a new plexiglass window in the lower front of the cowl. He said this was being done to isolate the light(s) better from the engine vibration and to reduce prop reflection glare. He said Cirrus would eventually like to move them to the wings, but that’s well down the road (if at all).

My last item was to check out the back seat room. Very nice and comfortable back there. Feet are a little cramped behind the cross-wing spar but better than most GA aircraft.

All in all a very delightful morning.

Joe

4

Also, the power changes at different rates as the level moves through the various prop controlling ranges. I was able to do pretty well with it, but I’ll reserve judgment as to whether a separate prop leveR might be a better solution, all things considered.

Sounds like you are an experienced pilot Joe, but after flying a few flights in constant speed prop planes I am glad that the prop lever and throttle are one. At my level of experience, instrument rated/300 hours total, like things simple. However, have not flown in the Cirrus yet, so don’t fully appreciate your comments.

5

Also, the power changes at different rates as the level moves through the various prop controlling ranges. I was able to do pretty well with it, but I’ll reserve judgment as to whether a separate prop leveR might be a better solution, all things considered.

Sounds like you are an experienced pilot Joe, but after flying a few flights in constant speed prop planes I am glad that the prop lever and throttle are one. At my level of experience, instrument rated/300 hours total, like things simple. However, have not flown in the Cirrus yet, so don’t fully appreciate your comments.

Having one control that adjusts the prop “automatically” can be very convenient, but there are times when separate controls are much better. One is when you want to lower the RPMs for a given power setting (MP or manifold pressure). This can be important because engine wear and tear comes primarily from RPMs, not from power settings or even hours run. I fly an A36 Bonanza and at a seminar I attended on flying Bonanzas they highly recommended flying at 2200 RPM and 21 in. MP. It greatly reduces wear and tear on the engine, reduces fuel consumption by almost 1/3 because at 65% power Continental allows leaning on the lean side of peak, and only reduces airspeed by 10 knots. The other situation where separate controls can be very important is where the engine fails and you have to make an emergency landing. If you can pull the prop the airplane will glide MUCH farther. This can definitely be a life saver. If you don;t believe it try simulating an emergency landing without pulling the prop and then about half way through the descent pull the prop. It feels like someone is pushing the plane forward. It is a very dramatic difference. There are other advantages, but these two are enough to make be strongly prefer having separate controls.

6

I agree with Dave’s point of view. See Feb 25 article.

I do think it would be an easy engineering using still only one lever. Example. You lose the engine for what ever the reason… Now you are gliding, bring the power lever all the way back to idle and move to the left side, this 1/2 an inch movement would totally disconnect the prop and would bring it towards a feather position giving you the most glide. I do like the way both (MP & RPM) are controlled by one lever, Cirrus did a nice job, now they just need to fine tune just a little more and get the prop to give us a better glide. What do you guys think of this idea? Have a great Cirrus day?

Also, the power changes at different rates as the level moves through the various prop controlling ranges. I was able to do pretty well with it, but I’ll reserve judgment as to whether a separate prop leveR might be a better solution, all things considered.

Sounds like you are an experienced pilot Joe, but after flying a few flights in constant speed prop planes I am glad that the prop lever and throttle are one. At my level of experience, instrument rated/300 hours total, like things simple. However, have not flown in the Cirrus yet, so don’t fully appreciate your comments.

Having one control that adjusts the prop “automatically” can be very convenient, but there are times when separate controls are much better. One is when you want to lower the RPMs for a given power setting (MP or manifold pressure). This can be important because engine wear and tear comes primarily from RPMs, not from power settings or even hours run. I fly an A36 Bonanza and at a seminar I attended on flying Bonanzas they highly recommended flying at 2200 RPM and 21 in. MP. It greatly reduces wear and tear on the engine, reduces fuel consumption by almost 1/3 because at 65% power Continental allows leaning on the lean side of peak, and only reduces airspeed by 10 knots. The other situation where separate controls can be very important is where the engine fails and you have to make an emergency landing. If you can pull the prop the airplane will glide MUCH farther. This can definitely be a life saver. If you don;t believe it try simulating an emergency landing without pulling the prop and then about half way through the descent pull the prop. It feels like someone is pushing the plane forward. It is a very dramatic difference. There are other advantages, but these two are enough to make be strongly prefer having separate controls.

7

I agree with Dave’s point of view. See Feb 25 article.

I do think it would be an easy engineering using still only one lever. Example. You lose the engine for what ever the reason… Now you are gliding, bring the power lever all the way back to idle and move to the left side, this 1/2 an inch movement would totally disconnect the prop and would bring it towards a feather position giving you the most glide. I do like the way both (MP & RPM) are controlled by one lever, Cirrus did a nice job, now they just need to fine tune just a little more and get the prop to give us a better glide. What do you guys think of this idea? Have a great Cirrus day?
I flew 500 hours in my PA-24 and got very comfortable with the dual power and prop, so I don’t feel I need or even desire combined controls. My wife, however, is a 75 hour pilot and wants nothing to do with additional cockpit responsibilities. We early purchasers are an enthusistic bunch to say the lease, and probably don’t represent the eventual SR20 market. I think Cirrus did the right thing by keeping the gear down and the single lever power control on the SR20. If it appeared on the -22, I’d say they may have underestimated the sophistication of their market. Regarding the “release” of the power leve for prolonging engine-out glides–heck yeah… it’s a lot cheaper than pulling a parachute, and consistent with the stated goals of safety that the K-bros cling to. aa

Also, the power changes at different rates as the level moves through the various prop controlling ranges. I was able to do pretty well with it, but I’ll reserve judgment as to whether a separate prop leveR might be a better solution, all things considered.

Sounds like you are an experienced pilot Joe, but after flying a few flights in constant speed prop planes I am glad that the prop lever and throttle are one. At my level of experience, instrument rated/300 hours total, like things simple. However, have not flown in the Cirrus yet, so don’t fully appreciate your comments.

Having one control that adjusts the prop “automatically” can be very convenient, but there are times when separate controls are much better. One is when you want to lower the RPMs for a given power setting (MP or manifold pressure). This can be important because engine wear and tear comes primarily from RPMs, not from power settings or even hours run. I fly an A36 Bonanza and at a seminar I attended on flying Bonanzas they highly recommended flying at 2200 RPM and 21 in. MP. It greatly reduces wear and tear on the engine, reduces fuel consumption by almost 1/3 because at 65% power Continental allows leaning on the lean side of peak, and only reduces airspeed by 10 knots. The other situation where separate controls can be very important is where the engine fails and you have to make an emergency landing. If you can pull the prop the airplane will glide MUCH farther. This can definitely be a life saver. If you don;t believe it try simulating an emergency landing without pulling the prop and then about half way through the descent pull the prop. It feels like someone is pushing the plane forward. It is a very dramatic difference. There are other advantages, but these two are enough to make be strongly prefer having separate controls.

8

Having one control that adjusts the prop “automatically” can be very convenient, but there are times when separate controls are much better. One is when you want to lower the RPMs for a given power setting (MP or manifold pressure). This can be important because engine wear and tear comes primarily from RPMs, not from power settings or even hours run. I fly an A36 Bonanza and at a seminar I attended on flying Bonanzas they highly recommended flying at 2200 RPM and 21 in. MP. It greatly reduces wear and tear on the engine, reduces fuel consumption by almost 1/3 because at 65% power Continental allows leaning on the lean side of peak, and only reduces airspeed by 10 knots. The other situation where separate controls can be very important is where the engine fails and you have to make an emergency landing. If you can pull the prop the airplane will glide MUCH farther. This can definitely be a life saver. If you don;t believe it try simulating an emergency landing without pulling the prop and then about half way through the descent pull the prop. It feels like someone is pushing the plane forward. It is a very dramatic difference. There are other advantages, but these two are enough to make be strongly prefer having separate controls.

To me (have not flown combined levers extensively, but seen the SR20 lever inside set-up) it is a combination of prop and throttle, and some mechanical ‘guide’ keeps the two in sync.

So: Once you lose the engine part (throttle) you still can manipulate the lever and operate the prop part to get best glide. Best here is what the Cirrus engineers designed into the lever hardware though…

Han Klinkspoor

9

Actually, I didn’t do anything to get the ride. On Wednesday I got a call out of the blue from Bruce saying that he was in the area, and the next morning we were in the air.

I could be the very last position holder (#570 something I think) so maybe they’re starting at the end to fortify us high-number-holders for the long wait until 2002. Just a guess.

Joe

Great to hear Joe, the people on the west coast want to know what it takes to get a demo ride?

10

I’ll get in line right behind Ed and Dave too. There must be a couple of dozen contract holders in CA alone to make it easy to justify bringing a demo plane out here soon!

Great to hear Joe, the people on the west coast want to know what it takes to get a demo ride?

My partner and I (Dave the big guy) are still waiting, I know they are busy but position #63 is still waiting. Signed The West Coast!

Just got back from my Cirrus demo flight. What a plane! Simply wonderful.

Watched it land and taxi up to the GA ramp at Martin State Airport in Baltimore at 9 AM sharp on a beautiful VFR day.

The airplane looks great on the ramp and appears much bigger in person than it does in photos.

Got a walk around brief from Bruce Gunter, the (salesman/demo pilot) pointing out all the unique features, but my principal impression was of the great fit and finish. Everything’s perfect. This was aircraft #20 and was a full production model. It had the baseline avionics (A Series) with only altitude hold and a leather interior added.

The interior is just as it appears in the pictures – no disappointment there at all. The Arnav display is much better than I expected after reading some criticism of it on the SR20.org website. Looks good and has lots of useful info. The Bruce seemed to use it much more than he did the GPS’s display. One negative here though: Bruce said that it only gets it’s position from the GNS-430, so if that fails you loose all position info on the ARNAV. It seems to me that it would be a relatively simple matter to allow the backup GPS to feed it if necessary. Otherwise you will lose your two best situational displays at once if the 430 fails.

Start, taxi, runup and takeoff were straightforward. The engine is not as smooth as the old Franklin in my Siai-Marchetti (but it did start right up!). The noise level was better, though. The sideyoke became natural at once. The plane handles very nicely. VERY responsive, especially in roll. I was amazed that even a slight twitch of the wrist was translated immediately to the airframe. Gotta be smooth there. But it’s also very stable. Let go of the controls in a 30 degree angle of bank turn and it just stays there – no tendency to either roll out or increase the bank.

The visibility is great, as you’d expect. The seating position for me seemed a little awkward. I’m about 5’ 7" tall so I needed the seat pretty far forward to reach the rudder pedals. I settled on a compromise between stretching a bit for the brakes and having the sideyoke fall nicely to hand, but the power lever seemed a bit too far aft to my liking. I know I’ll get used to it, especially since I tend to sit further forward when I’m new to an airplane than I do later on. As to the single lever control, Bruce warned me that it took a bit of getting used to – it’s quite notchy. You can really feel it in the lever when the prop portion comes into play – the resistance increases quite a bit when it does. Also, the power changes at different rates as the level moves through the various prop controlling ranges. I was able to do pretty well with it, but I’ll reserve judgment as to whether a separate prop level might be a better solution, all things considered.

The electric trim works great, though Bruce said that some people have a little trouble getting used to it. (It seemed very easy and natural to me because I’ve flow military planes with the same sort of coolie-hat setup before.) One criticism, though, is that I think rudder trim would be very nice to have.

Slow flight and stalls were straightforward and the roll authority, even in a full stall, was amazing.

I shot two landings. The first I was high and fast and I had a little trouble getting it down. (Bruce said it was best to carry some power around but I guess I overdid it. Landed about 3000 feet down a 6000 foot runway, but at least it was smooth (thanks in large part to Bruce’s coaching). The next one was much better after I concentrated on not getting fast, but I a tended to flare a little high (again Bruce talked me down nicely). I can see where with a bit of practice the landings will be a snap.

During the postflight walkaround Bruce mentioned that the landing light is going to be moved from its current position in the left cowl intake to a dual light setup behind a new plexiglass window in the lower front of the cowl. He said this was being done to isolate the light(s) better from the engine vibration and to reduce prop reflection glare. He said Cirrus would eventually like to move them to the wings, but that’s well down the road (if at all).

My last item was to check out the back seat room. Very nice and comfortable back there. Feet are a little cramped behind the cross-wing spar but better than most GA aircraft.

All in all a very delightful morning.

Joe

11

Actually, I didn’t do anything to get the ride. On Wednesday I got a call out of the blue from Bruce saying that he was in the area, and the next morning we were in the air.

I could be the very last position holder (#570 something I think) so maybe they’re starting at the end to fortify us high-number-holders for the long wait until 2002. Just a guess.

Joe

Great to hear Joe, the people on the west coast want to know what it takes to get a demo ride?

Joe,

Don’t worry, you’re not the very last position holder with #57o something. I have #591 and wouldn’t be surprised if the latest numbers are in the 630’s. Remember, they sell an average of 1 airplane per day.

For general info, without any details on the SR22 they already sold between 45 and 50 contract options. These numbers do not include potential SR20 holders stepping up.

IMHO, this company will make drammatic inroads into the GA market.

Placido

12

I have yet to get a demo ride also. I have asked many times with no avail yet. Maybe I will get number 66 before a demo ride.