Thoughts on my New Cirrus SR22

Author: Jerrold Seckler

In February, 1999 my 1969 Beech Duke (a 6775 lb. MTOW pressurized twin with a total of 760 HP) that I had flown for the last 12 years was in need of major work. It needed paint ($15,000) an upgrade of the avionics (it was equipped with original remote mounted radios from 1969 that were becoming impossible to repair), a new interior and a variety of updates that promised to cost plenty of money. Both of my partners in the airplane were moving out of it and wanted to sell their shares but, as you can imagine, there weren't lots of pilots around who wanted to buy in.

At that same time Cirrus was making a sales trip to the Chicago area and I took a demo flight in a SR20 with Gary Black. It was impressive enough that I rethought my flying needs, decided that my reasons for flying a twin were no longer valid and that a modern, well-equipped single could serve my needs well. Furthermore, I always wanted a new airplane and this was my chance.

Two days after the test flight I signed on the dotted line and got in the queue for a Cirrus. After one and a half years of waiting the SR22 became available and I upgraded. Finally, on July 23, 2001 I became the proud owner of N1970 (msn #063). Now that I'm checked out and fairly comfortable in the airplane I'd like to share my thoughts on the Cirrus and compare it both to the twins I've been flying for the last 22 years and the 1998 Saratoga I rented after selling the Duke.

I arrived at the Cirrus factory on July 23rd and met a number of the people I knew only as telephone voices. I must say that I was surprised (even after reading this over and over on the web site) how friendly and helpful everybody was. Cirrus really is a "family" and it is obvious that they take real pride in their product. The customer is made to feel right at home and, in fact, is considered as a new member of the family. Nothing on the Web site really prepares you for this, and it makes you feel like the Company will go out of its way to be sure that your experience with their product will be completely positive.

After meeting my contract administrator, Sherri Reynolds, I was introduced to Ron Sheibe my Wings Aloft instructor. Initially we did all the ground school as my plane was not going to receive its airworthiness certificate until that afternoon. Ron's knowledge of the aircraft was obvious as he explained the systems and workings of my new baby.

After lunch I had an acceptance flight with Gary Black. Everything worked although there were a few minor paint blemishes that were easily corrected. The paperwork was done, the money changed hands and presto, I was the proud papa of a baby Cirrus. It was great.

Flight training began the next morning. It was through and professionally accomplished. Ron clearly knew both how to fly and how to teach as well. I really enjoyed the experience. For Tuesday and Wednesday we bored holes in the atmosphere around Duluth. An IFR trip to FCM with several practice approaches and holds at airports along the route were accomplished and I was "signed off". For me the most difficult things in training were getting used to trimming and the sight view for landing. I usually trimmed my old airplanes manually and I found the Coolie Switch on the Cirrus to be very sensitive. Consequently I consistently put in too much correction every time I hit the button. After 2-3 days this became much easier. The rudder trim on the other hand is incredibly slow and therefore easy to set as long as you have a spare 5 minutes!

During the training we picked up a few more squawks - the right Nav light went out and the right rear passenger light fell out of position (I didn't think the landing Ron was demonstrating was THAT hard). Both these were promptly repaired.

Thursday morning I left DLH and flew with Ron to Oshkosh (we actually landed at ATW) to visit Air Venture. Three Cirri left DLH over about a 15-minute period and all met up in ATW. We were driven to OSH in a van with several of the Cirrus People. Ron and I bid each other farewell (he would return to DLH in a Cirrus airplane and I planned to fly home after the day at Oshkosh).

After a full day at the convention I returned to ATW and preflighted my bird. The FBO had fueled it and as the day got warmer the fuel expanded and some came out the vent thereby staining the left wheel pant a beautiful shade of robin's egg blue. I was a little miffed but with a lot of elbow grease and some advice from the irrepressible Mike Busch at Cirrus managed to get the color out.

Then came my first solo. I departed Appleton and flew N1970 to Chicago DuPage (DPA) in 51 minutes. I must have mastered the GNS 430 since I found DPA on the first try. A greaser on 1L capped a wonderful day.

The next week was spent doing multiple take offs and landings. They are certainly different from what I was used to but following Ron's instructions I managed to get to where I could consistently land where I wanted and touch down gracefully. For me the key is to trim for 80 kts and hold a minimum amount of power all the way down. A few feet above the runway I raise the nose to just above level and gradually pull off the remaining power until the aircraft settles gently on. What's really important is not to begin raising the nose too soon.

My first real trip involved a flight from DPA to AGC (Pittsburgh) to PDK (Atlanta) and back to DPA. This is a trip I've made on multiple occasions as my daughter is in Pittsburgh and my son is in Atlanta and I thought it would be interesting to compare how the Duke, the Saratoga and the Cirrus differed over this route.

The day we planned to leave began most inauspiciously with severe thunderstorms in the Chicago area. Rainfall was such that several highways were closed due to flooding and delays at ORD and MDW were averaging 3-4 hours. As is usually the case the weather was moving to the east, in this case along the leading edge of an east-west cold front that was very slow moving. By the time of my planned departure Chicago was in reasonable shape but there was convective activity to the south and east. According to radar reports and forecasts however the trip seemed doable although it would probably require deviations around scattered storms in Indiana and Ohio. It also seemed that the nearest activity was about 200 miles east of departure and at that point the air to the south was pretty stable so I had a good escape route if needed. My wife and I started up and then I had my first real appreciation of how nice the ARNAV was. Once I loaded my flight plan I could view the weather on the Stormscope while taxing to the active. It showed cells 100 miles to the south of Chicago but the first 150-200 miles along my route was completely lightning free. Being able to see the weather in relation to my route and aviation landmarks (VORs and/or airports) was incredibly helpful. The radar on my Duke couldn't do that at all. I took off with confidence and worked my way eastward. As we neared Toledo a number of deviations were needed to stay clear of the convective activity. These were all easily accomplished and while I flew through a moderate amount of rain the ride was smooth. A few more deviations in the Akron area and we were "home free". Pitt Approach couldn't believe we were a fixed gear airplane and asked us to slow as we were "rapidly" overtaking the Mooney ahead of us. After an ILS to RW28 (2.5 miles viz in haze) touched down just after dark. The flight took 2 hours 31 minutes including the weather deviations, slowing about 20 miles farther out than I would have liked and the vectors for the approach. Power was 80% for the cruise portion of the trip, TAS was 183 kts and we put 43 gallons into the aircraft in Pittsburgh for an overall fuel consumption of 17.2 gph. By comparison my average trip time in the Duke was 2+10 and I would routinely need 110-120 gallons to top off. The Saratoga routinely made the trip in 2+40 (with no deviations) and would use slightly more fuel than the Cirrus. The only snag in this trip was that while the altitude preselect worked fine during the climb, on the descent it would command the requested VS but wouldn't level the airplane properly. I had to manually reengage the autopilot at the assigned altitude. Also, on the ILS the automatic capture of the glideslope did not occur. I ended up hand flying the approach. This would get to be more of an issue later in the trip.

When the time came to leave Pittsburgh the vertical visibility was zero and the visibility 1/16 of a mile in fog. We arrived at the airport and waited for 2.5 hours until my personal takeoff minimums of 500/1 were met. Then it was off to Atlanta. A rapid climb to 10,000 feet took just over 7 minutes and we leveled off for a comfortable cruise. (AGC is 1250 feet msl so the 7-minute climb to 10,000 isn't quite as good as it may seem - it works out to an average of 1250 fpm). Power was set at 2600 RPM and 20" MP for a true airspeed of 179 kts. Fuel consumption on the fuel flow meter was 13 GPH at 50 LOP. (Incidentally, the engine ran very smoothly in the LOP range). Again, the stormscope and the ARNAV proved valuable in deviating around storms in Tennessee. The weather in Atlanta was hazy and the flight ended with a VOR (GPS) 27 approach to PDK with a circle to land on 2R. Total time was 2+45 and we used 39 gallons of 100LL for an actual fuel consumption of 14.2 GPH overall. Again the autopilot altitude preselect was intermittent.

The trip back home was the first with good VFR. It's a good thing too since it was marked by some aircraft difficulties. Shortly after leveling at 8,000 feet the ALT 2 light went on and all attempts to troubleshoot were fruitless. Of greater concern was the continuing failure of the altitude preselect to correctly capture the requested altitude. Manually engaging the altitude hold, which worked perfectly before, now resulted in a sharp pitch up movement and an aircraft climb. I disengaged the autopilot and essentially hand flew the trip back. I can attest to the fact that while the workload is certainly higher with hand flying, the airplane handles very nicely and, at least in good weather, is a delight to manually control.

The trip to DPA was 3+01 at 8000 feet, 2500 RPM and 22" MP. TAS was 177 kts and the fuel used was 46 gallons.

The entire trip took 8+17 and used 128 gallons. This works out to 15.5 GPH and an average groundspeed of about 168 kts. I should note that winds aloft were light (<5 knots) for most of the trip. I started the trip with 7.5 qts of oil and ended it with 7.0.

By comparison I've made that trip many times in the Duke with an average total flying time of 7+45 and average fuel consumption of just under 400 gallons. In the Saratoga the usual flying time was about 9 hours and I'm not sure of the fuel consumption although the digital fuel flow gauge would read about 16.8-17.5 GPH in cruise. While direct comparisons are not entirely accurate - The winds aloft can change things dramatically and I flew the Duke ROP and the Cirrus LOP - I think the numbers do give some indication of what a capable and efficient machine my new "toy" really is.

The next morning I took the plane to my local Cirrus Service Center (JA) and they determined that the alternator problem was nothing more than a cable that had come loose. The autopilot problem was more serious. It seems, according to the company's autopilot guru, that "De Autopilot's brains wuz fried". How they got fried is not yet known. In any event the autopilot was returned to S-Tec and I'm anxiously awaiting the replacement.

How do I like the plane? Are there any things I would change? How about the ARNAV? First a disclaimer. What any given pilot likes and dislikes is a personal thing and is influenced in large part by how he uses the airplane. I use my plane for transportation and fly it almost exclusively under IFR. About 90% of my flying is east of the Mississippi and 98% is east of the Rockies. This will clearly color how I feel about features like terrain avoidance, ability to show sectionals, weather avoidance gear etc.

While I understand that humans always try to make a $300,000 purchase they've made seem like a great idea, I truly believe that the SR22 is worth every penny. The plane is fast, comfortable, easy to fly, economical, and has a drop dead fantastic panel. The panel would be even better if the autopilot worked!! A new Bonanza costs $200,000 more, a new Saratoga $150-175,000 more and a low end Mooney at least $50,000 more. That's a lot more money for the same (or less) performance and capability. (Incidentally, the Saratoga I rented had a useful load of 570 lbs with full fuel (102 gallons). This is in a 6 passenger aircraft! Flying the Cirrus really drives home the point that a new aircraft from a competitor like Raytheon/Cessna/Mooney/Piper/Scotia/Aero Commander is really a 30-50 year old "improved" aircraft with an upgraded panel. The Cirrus, Diamonds and Lancair really are NEW products.

What don't I like? First, I really miss A/C. While it is quite tolerable with the door open during Taxi, and moderately tolerable when you're low and slow in the summer heat, it's not nearly as comfortable as air conditioning. I think A/C is like sex. Once you've experienced it it's hard to give it up. I do understand the downsides of A/C in a light single. Weight, and the need for an intake that contributes to drag are real concerns. (The Saratoga looses 10-15 kts when the air conditioner is turned on due to a "barn door" intake that emerges from the belly). I will probably look into the PortaChill unit as a possible compromise.

My second issue is the position of the circuit breakers and fire extinguisher. They are difficult to see and reach with the pilot's seat in any position other than full back. In fairness to Cirrus, I don't know where else they could go, but I still don't like the current locations.

The other think I'm not crazy about are the doors. I have finally learned how to close mine without too much trouble but my 5'2" wife really has a problem pulling hers shut. I think that a pull device on the door (other than the handle) might make it easier - especially if the seat is not in the full back position.

I think that full engine monitoring and fuel flow should be standard on an aircraft of this type. I plan to add both (I probably will go with the ARNAV unit) in the near future.

Finally I'm one of those having trouble getting an adequate music/audio output from a portable CD plugged into the audio input. I'm aware of the Garmin SB and will try that.

What do I really like? For me and my type of flying the Sandel is the "killer ap". Having course data, waypoints and stormscope information smack dab in my usual scan is Nirvana. I'm still playing around with how I want to finally configure the unit, but I think it is fantastic.

Finally, the ARNAV. I must admit that I was fully prepared to dislike it. Having used it I don't dislike it at all. In fact I think it's great. It gives the big picture of where you are in relation to navigational fixes and superimposes Strormscope data on that. For a pilot in the Midwest it's terrific. It could however be even better (and that's where I think the negative comments on the web site come from). If possible ARNAV should make a number of options available. Some pilots want sectional charts displayed and the course superimposed on that. Others (like me) would like the ability to show approach plates. Nexrad data is supposedly coming and I hope it can easily be displayed in conjunction with data from the Stormscope. My point is that what the ARNAV set out to do (provide situational awareness) it does very well. After 35 years of flying where situational awareness was worked out in my head the MFD is a revelation. You can always be sure of where you are and where you're going in relation to any fix. What ARNAV needs to do is to continue to develop new options so the screen can be customized for the needs and desires of the specific pilot using the display. Whether this is financially feasible for ARNAV given the limited market for the display I simply don't know. I find it interesting that I spend very little time looking at the GNS 430 displays. Compared to the ARNAV they're tiny and of limited use.

Overall, the Cirrus was well worth waiting for. It has performance that is most impressive for a fixed gear aircraft for a price that is quite reasonable by today's standards. Cirrus has pulled off a near miracle with a clean sheet design general aviation aircraft that has state of the art avionics capability, is fast, comfortable and economical to operate, and is very competitively priced. They are to be commended. Let's hope that they continue to improve their products and truly usher in the next generation of general aviation aircraft.