Thanks, Mike. This was very helpful.
Monte
Monte,
Sorry, just saw the post. From memory: at 12,000 ft 172 knots true. at 17,500 ft 167 knots true, but maybe 217 kts ground speed. Final descent 90kts, short final 80 kts, over numbers 77 minus 1 kt every 100 lbs under gross. Flare, look down runway & don't let it land... I like to hear stall horn on/before touch down. They are sweet flying planes.If you are 167 TAS at 17,500 and you don’t have any wind (to help or hurt) you should have a ground speed of 167. Groundspeed is true airspeed corrected for wind Where does the 217 kts ground speed come from in your statement?
Hey. My G1 did 250 kts ground speed and that’s LOP (but that was in a hurricane evacuation flight.
Boy, was that fun.
I plan at 170 Kts, crosswinds in the Cirrus seem quite a bit better than the Cessna 172 and 182’s. The Cirrus is a nice GA plane, in comparison there are only a few different planes in the same category that are certified. I do not know your budget but a G2 with TKS is about as depreciated as they get and you should be able to get a nice one in the low $200’s. Just a suggestion and there will be 9 million different opinions on this. Buy one with about 1000 hours or so that has been maintained well, then get your inst rating upgrade to WAAS and then by then call Ross at Midwest and upgrade to some new interior and paint and maybe a 4 blade and a prop… Anyway welcome to becoming a pilot and best of luck.
The TKS is a great out if you pick up ice and the SR22 is a great traveling machine…
After flying I got about a week a month back of my life. It is also an awesome tool for personal travel.
Monte,
I am going to go out on a limb here and take what might be a contrarian position…depending on your love of flying.
If your plane is simply going to be a business tool, like a car, and you will use it 4 or 5 hours a month, you do not stay proficient and you do not train and enjoy training, a 182 may be a better plane. It is slower, more forgiving, and statistically safer (fewer fatalities per 100,000 hours of flight time).
My guess is that every one of those who have responded to your post love to fly. they love to see a beautiful coupled approach, and they take pride in being the best pilot they can be. I have flown almost 200 hours in the last year, and wish I could fly more. I love everything about flying my 22TN, and I learn from these forums daily.
If you fall into the latter category, buy the 22 and enjoy one of the best planes built today. There are many that learn to fly in a Cirrus. Sign up and use these forums as a fountain of knowledge for your training.
Fly safe…
T
Randy,
That's the reason for being at 17,500' w/ O2, to pick up the 50 kt tail wind.
Monte- I bought a cirrus G-2 2years ago and never flew a plane before In my life. Thanks to Greg Krantz up at TCA in MPLS- KANE I now am instrument rated and have flown over 500 hours with family. This is by far the safest and fastest way to fly. The other planes are light years behind!! Enjoy
Mark Master N17KE
There is no way I’d spend another hour in a 182 if I had already decided to get a Cirrus. Why not spend that time and money learning to fly the plane you want to end up with? I just transitioned from Cessnas and Pipers and, once you learn to land the Cirrus and learn the avionics, it’s way easier to fly than the stuff I used to fly. When you add in the additional safety of the 'chute and the LVL button on the AP, spending more time in a 'chuteless 182 is a nonstarter for me.
Hi Monte, our two sons made the jump from a 172 two our first SR22 but I had a requirement that they have their IFR ticket before I would allow them to take the Cirrus as PIC. They took me up on that and both had over 100 hours by the time they got their IFR. Landing characteristics are different so just get very proficient on the Cirrus before trying any tight runways.
Hi, Monte!
I don’t know if you’re still monitoring this thread, but I thought that I’d offer a quick (and somewhat delayed!) response. I’m an instructor who does most of his teaching in nonCirrus aircraft. However, I’ve put ~2300 hrs. on my SR-22 so I’m pretty familiar with how she handles. [;)] Here are some comments in no particular order:
- The training route that you are taking (i.e., training in a relatively simple, relatively forgiving aircraft) happens to be my preference. Other folks (here on COPA) have immediately jumped into an SR-2X and done their PPL training in model they intend to own. That’s another way to approach it, and it generally takes them longer before they earn their certificate. IMO that’s due in large part to the complexity of the avionics. As a VFR pilot trainee, you need to spend most of your time “looking out the window”. And, anything inside the cockpit that’s more complex than absolutely necessary simply slows things down from training and performance perspectives. That’s not necessarily “bad” - simply a result to be considered.
- An SR-22 is a high-performance (310 HP), streamlined (i.e., low drag) aircraft. It goes fast and won’t slow down as rapidly as a Cessna C-172/182 that has struts (there’s that drag again!) hanging out in the breeze. On the other hand, that’s what “transition training” is all about - moving a pilot from a familiar aircraft into a new one. The fundamental assumption is that the transitioning pilot is already well-grounded in the basics (e.g., stick-and-rudder skills, radio comms, general landing technique, navigation, etc.) and simply needs to expand that knowledge and skill to encompass the characteristics and performance of the new plane. As you might expect, the length of the transition process depends greatly upon the pilot’s previous experience as well as the new aircraft, itself. In the case of an SR-22, it is a wonderfully stable, easy to handle, high-performance plane that’s extremely well-equipped compared to the GA fleet as a whole. Because of those differences between a typical trainer equipped with dual flip-flop radios and maybe a VFR GPS and what’s truly a state-of-the-art aircraft, you’ll be learning along different dimensions during your transition. Actually flying the airplane is only one of them.
- A possible downside to training in a traditional aircraft is simply that it IS forgiving! You can get away with “stuff” and wind up creating some poor habits that won’t work well in a high-performance, slippery plane like a Cirrus. Worse yet, your instructor may let you do that…and now you have something to “unlearn” later. And, changing old habits is simple to say but difficult to do! So, if you learn in a low-performance trainer (high-wing, low-wing - makes no difference), there will be a few habits that you might have to change depending upon the quality of your primary instruction. That speaks to the possibility of transitioning relatively soon after your PPL, weeks or months rather than years…
- I like horsepower for lots of reasons. And, by my measure, the SR-22 has plenty. Although most of the pilots that post on this website seem to favor the 22 over the 20, the 200 HP SR-20 might be suitable depending upon your mission. It’s reasonably fast and is economical to operate. However, IMO the SR-20 needs a few more horses, is a little light on payload, and tends to have cooling issues during climbs in the summer. But, for the right mission, it’s a great plane. If you are planning to use the plane on business, how many people will be in the cockpit? How much luggage will you need to carry? Will you leave the flatlands of TX and venture into mountainous terrain? If the answer to those questions tends to be “three or more” and “yes”, I’d recommend an SR-22.
- To truly use the capabilities of an SR-22, I suggest that you immediately pursue an instrument rating. That will extend the aircraft utility … and lower your insurance by a bunch!
If you have questions and think that I might be able to assist, feel free to contact me. (I’m not talking about flight training. I live in AZ.) If you’d like to speak with an experienced Cirrus-specific instructor that’s in TX, you might contact Carol Jensen. You can find her contact information on the COPA website.
Have fun during your training!
Blue skies,
Craig
I’ll echo the advice of others here: transition to the SR22 with a good instructor and you won’t have to worry about it being too much airplane.
I’ve flown a lot of 182 (Peterson Katmai conversion) and a fair amount of SR20/SR22 time. The main differences for me about flying the SR22 were (a) adjusting to the faster cruise speed and less draggy airframe, (b) the 10-15 kt faster speeds on landing vs. the stock 182 (25-30 kt faster vs. the Katmai), (c) the different sight picture in the flare and at touchdown and (d) the avionics.
Despite the faster landing speed I found it much easier to get butterfly-with-sore-feet greaser landings–full aft yoke and stall horn chirping–in the Cirrus. Very satisfying and especially pleasing to passengers. [:)]
For the trip distance you mentioned (300-400 nm) the faster cruise speed won’t make as much difference as you might think: having flown many of the same trips several times in both my Peterson 182 and various rented SR22, it worked out that the Katmai would cover the same distance in 70-72 minutes as the SR22 does in one hour. This is significant on a long trip, but for a 1-2 hr flight, not that much.
The SR22 should be a fine aircraft for you; if it’s the plane you will ultimately own I would get started on it now rather than wait.
That speed difference is about 25 minutes each way on a 350nm trip. I rather like that almost extra hour in my day.
I agree. 700 nm qualifies as “significant” for me too, especially if it’s a business-related flight. I’ve had several 1200+ nm flights in the Katmai, some against impressive headwinds, during which I more than once wished for 170 KTAS vs. 145-150. [:)] The SR22 would make that a reasonable one day flight while in the Katmai it taxed my endurance for one day but was easy for two.
For a pleasure flight, I don’t mind so much the extra time flying and enjoying the scenery–although I fly in CA and the Southwest, not the drab, endless plains of TX! Many years ago I traded good-natured barbs with a Columbia 400 pilot. “If we both left Phoenix at the same time for San Diego,” he opined, “I’d be at Anthony’s with two scotches in me by the time you landed.” “Yes,” I replied, “at my 150 vs. your 220 KTAS you would indeed arrive about an hour sooner. But in the last analysis, what can I say about a pilot who would rather drink for an hour than fly?” [;)]