I have about 20 hours in an SR20 - a late model one with the "glass"
Entegra instruments. The vast majority of the rest of my 225-ish hours
in fixed-wingers is in 172s. I must say that - once a person understands
the avionics and systems - which are to be sure *different* than those
of non-"New Tech" airplanes but no more difficult to understand once
familiarity is gained - the SR20 is a fairly easy airplane to fly. The
workload can even be less than in (say) a 172 assuming good familiarity
with the systems. (regarding lower workload - the SR has no precessing
gyro, no prop control, no cowl flaps, tight integration of the autopilot
with the Entegra and GPSs, automatic StandbyALT switching of the
transponder based on groundspeed, a Lean Assist program for leaning the
engine (if the aircraft has the optional engine monitoring instrument
package), etc..)

I must admit that at first the combination of the Entegra displays, 2
GNS430s, and the STec autopilot were a bit overwhelming - there is so
much information at your disposal that it takes some time to filter it
down to what you really need at any given moment of the flight. But in
about 10 hours I was pretty comfortable in the airplane. I don't find it
to be particularly slippery, and to my surprise (as I am prone to be
high and fast when nearing an airport due to poor planning 8^) ) it's
not that hard to get it slowed down and configured for landing.

So in sum, as a fairly low time pilot with little complex time and no
hi-perf endorsement (yet), I believe the SR20 is a safe, relatively
easy-to-fly airplane. I think that Allan K and his bro (forget his name)
have accomplished what they set out to do.

Now, if only they'd hit the $140K price mark that they estimated in a
1995 Flying magazine that I saw recently, I'd be in hog heaven. I'd own
an SR20, too 8^) .

Dave Blevins

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:05:34 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

There's been some discussion here about Cirrus' less-than-stellar safety
record. Someone mentioned that perhaps the Cirrus line, with all of its
whiz-bang electronics and slippery airframe, is attracting the "wrong" kind
of pilots -- meaning, perhaps, too much cash and not enough sense?

I've always heard this same thing said about the Bonanza (the "Fork-tailed
doctor killer") -- but recent accident stats for the Bo don't appear to bear
this out.

Two data points that don't mean much: The only two guys I have personally
known to have bought a Cirrus PRECISELY fit this description. Both guys
have tons of money, not enough free time to stay current, and fly
complicated, long-distance flights on the rare occasions they fly at all.

What's the group-think on this one? Is Cirrus just good at attracting
crappy pilots? Or is there something else at work here?