Neat experience today.

I decided to stop by my local airport today (N38) as I hadn't been by in
a while. While I was there, a Cirrus SR20 pulled up to the pumps.
Never having seen one in person, I walked over and asked the pilot if he
minded me walking around and taking a closer look. He said, "how about
going for a ride?" I said sure.

He asked if I was a pilot, and I told him I was. After we buckled in
and he briefed me on the chute system (how much to slow down before
deployment, etc.), he asked me if I wanted to taxi out and perform the
takeoff. I said sure again.

The Cirrus was tricky to taxi for someone used to Cessnas and Pipers. I
don't know much about this airplane, but I'm guessing it has a castering
nosewheel and pusing the rudder pedals had basically no affect
directionally. You had to keep tapping the brakes to change course left
or right. It was pretty tricky at first, but I finally got the weaving
down to the "slightly less than embarrasing" level.

The rudder came alive pretty quickly on the takeoff roll, but
acceleration was sluggish compared to a 182, but probably similar to the
club Arrow I know fly, which I also consider sluggish. I don't know the
typical weight of the SR20, but it probably is nearly as heavy as the
182 with 30 less HP. The rotation speed is similar to the Arrow (65
knots was what the owner recommended) and a fair bit higher than the
182. Climb was sluggish, again much like the Arrow and at a similar
speed (90K). Once at 3500' I leveled off and the speed built up nicely.

The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
Arrow.

The airplane has the Avidyne EFIS and dual 430s. I could get to like
this setup very quickly. After tooling around for 10 minutes or so, the
pilot set up the GPS 28 approach into N38 and engaged the autopilot and
let it fly the approach. The moving map was amazing from a situational
awareness perspective. The advantage over the KLN89B in the club Arrow
was tremendous. It was obvious this setup would take some study and
familiarization, but its usefulness in the soup was eminently obvious.

The thing that struck me most about the airplane was its quietness, both
from engine noise and air noise. It was equipped with Bose ANR headsets
for all occupants so I don't know how much was due to the headsets and
how much was due to the airframe. I'd planned to remove the headsets
once at cruise to have a listen, but got so engrossed in the EFIS that I
completely forgot about doing that. The seats were also much more
comfortably than anything I've sat in in an airplane, other than those
in the corporate jets my employer operates. This is an airplane that
one could easily fly all day with little fatigue.

I'm still not sure I'd choose a Cirrus over a new Skylane with similar
avionics, but it certainly was a neat opportunity to get to fly one.
Unfortunately, the owner didn't have any business cards with him and I
can't now remember his name. I'm terrible with names and didn't write
it down before I left the airport. He said he'd call me when it was in
the area again (he's from Wellsboro and his mother still lives there) if
I wanted to take a more extensive ride, and he has my business card so
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main thing
with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered, just like the Arrow. After
flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance,
particularly on takeoff.


Matt

The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
Arrow.

That's the first time I've ever heard that before, Matt. I've not flown a
Cirrus, but in the magazines SR-20 handling is usually described as "crisp"
and "responsive".

If the controls are more sluggish than your 182 -- one of the most stable
aircraft every built -- I don't think I'd like a Cirrus much.

Thanks for the PIREP.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
Arrow.


That's the first time I've ever heard that before, Matt. I've not flown a
Cirrus, but in the magazines SR-20 handling is usually described as "crisp"
and "responsive".

I haven't read many magazine tests on the SR20, but that is how it felt
to me. Part of it may be that I was flying from the right seat using my
right hand, whereas I'm used to flying with my left hand normally. It
just didn't feel like I had the leverage I do with standard controls,
especially in roll. Rotating the wrist isn't one of the strongest
actions a human can do. I have much more strength with the rotation is
combined with an up or down action so that your biceps and triceps can
get into the action along with the rotation from your forearm.


If the controls are more sluggish than your 182 -- one of the most stable
aircraft every built -- I don't think I'd like a Cirrus much.

Actually, I don't see this as being a bad thing at all. And don't
confuse sluggish controls with stability. The good thing is that it as
less sluggish than anything Piper has built, other than the Tomahawk.
It seemed to have a fair bit of stiction in the column like most Pipers
have unless you have just lubed the control column. It certainly wasn't
like the RV-6 I flew many moons ago. But then I'd not want to fly that
in IMC. Whereas the Cirrus felt like it would be a good IMC platform.

Thanks for the PIREP.

It was really a hoot to get to fly one. Never thought it would happen
this quickly. Some times you are just in the right place at the right time!

It will be hard to be happy with steam gauges again, that is for sure...


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main thing
with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered, just like the Arrow. After
flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance, particularly
on takeoff.

The SR-22 I flew surprised me with its relatively sluggish takeoff
performance. It did not seem notably quicker than my 180-horse Cutlass on
initial power application, even with all that hp out front. I can well
imagine that the SR-20 is no rocket ship--same airframe; much less
horsepower. Definitely not short field airplanes.

(I still liked the SR-22 a lot, though.)

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

stiction

The what???

Dan Luke wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote:


I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main thing
with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered, just like the Arrow. After
flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance, particularly
on takeoff.


The SR-22 I flew surprised me with its relatively sluggish takeoff
performance. It did not seem notably quicker than my 180-horse Cutlass on
initial power application, even with all that hp out front. I can well
imagine that the SR-20 is no rocket ship--same airframe; much less
horsepower. Definitely not short field airplanes.

Yes, I didn't try to gauge the ground roll precisely, but we used at
last half of Wellsboro's runway. It was a warm day yesterday (upper
80s) and we had three people onboard and I don't know how much fuel.
Even so, it was pretty sluggish on takeoff, but probably not much worse
than the Arrow I fly. Both have three blade props which doesn't help
take-off performance.


Matt

B A R R Y wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:40:45 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
Arrow.

That's the first time I've ever heard that before, Matt. I've not flown a
Cirrus, but in the magazines SR-20 handling is usually described as "crisp"
and "responsive".


I read a pirep by a Beech Aero Club member that described it as
"truck-like" handling with a heavy feel. BE23-24's aren't exactly
sprightly, but they have a light but positive control feel. I haven't
flown a 182, so I can't compare a BE23-24 to it. I'd like to try a
Cirrus myself at one of the traveling demos.

I've never had the opportunity to fly a Beech of any type so I can't
make a comparison there. Yes, definitely try a Cirrus if you get a
chance. Heck, I'll try ANY airplane given the chance!! :-)

Matt

john smith wrote:

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:


stiction


The what???

Commonly used term for static friction. Static friction is generally
higher than dynamic friction. It is what makes moving mechanisms take
more force to get moving than to keep moving. Makes for jerky controls
and makes very find control adjustments difficults. Cessnas rarely have
this problem, but the Pipers I've flown with those fat control columns
seem very prone to stiction. It makes it hard to do a smooth flare for
instance. You apply back pressure ... and nothing happens. A little
more pressure ... still nothing. A little more pressure ... and the
controls "break free" and you get a 1/2" of control motion.

Often when flying Pipers I know slowly "pump" the controls during the
flare. One of the aviation columnists recently wrote about using this
technique and the advantages of it. I never needed it much in my 182 as
I could gradually pull back the wheel in it. The Arrow isn't nearly as
smooth and a low amplitude, high frequency "pumping" of the wheel tends
to allow smoother arrivals at closer to stall speed.


Matt

Longer (relative term) ground runs are the result of the Cirrus wing
design. It is optimized for cruise, not climb.

john smith wrote:

Longer (relative term) ground runs are the result of the Cirrus wing
design. It is optimized for cruise, not climb.

I'm sure that is true as well, but the acceleration was sluggish and
that has nothing to do with the wing ... well, other than the weight of
the wing! :-)


Matt