Why has the SR22 been such a success?

CAPS Works

Pull Early, Pull Often!!

Caps…Live with it!

(Love those sayings (;

Flyer59 wrote:

a failure of the structure inside a thunderstorm

I don’t know if I would fancy hanging from a parachute inside a thunderstorm. Just be glad you have high enough wing loading to not be sucked up and get out. If you open it inside and it survives, you might not like where it spits you out (if you are still conscious at that point).

This is from an NTSB report about the accident of a Cirrus that flew right into a thunderstorm in 2004:

During climbing flight at 16,000 feet, the single engine airplane encountered the outer boundaries of severe convective weather; the airplane departed controlled flight, the pilot deployed the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS), and the airplane was substantially damaged during the parachute landing in a walnut grove. The pilot did receive a standard weather briefing, checked radar, and satellite imagery prior to departing on the 600-mile cross-country flight.

Throughout the flight the pilot recognized cloud build-ups and steered west to avoid the weather. About an hour into the flight he climbed from 13,500 to 16,000 in an attempt to stay clear of clouds; the autopilot was in heading mode and the vertical speed knob was set to maintain 100 knot climb. About this time radar depicted the airplane descending 1,100 feet in 23 seconds then climbing 1,300 feet in 14 seconds. The pilot heard a “whirring” noise in his headset, prompting him to disconnect the autopilot. The nose pitched up and the left wing dropped. It was at this time that the pilot transmitted that he was out of control and he deployed the CAPS.

The airplane then descended by parachute to a landing in a walnut orchard. The radar track of the airplane combined with the weather surveillance radar imagery depicted the airplane encountering a level 5 (intense) area of convective activity moments prior to the final descent (CAPS deployment). Radar derived cloud tops indicated that the tops of the thunderstorms in the accident area were between 15,000 and 20,000 feet. Convective SIGMETs 44W and 47W, had been issued during the hour before departure, and warned of thunderstorms in the vicinity of the pilots’ planned route of flight.

SIGMET 49W, which covered the area in which the airplane was flying, was issued approximately 10 minutes prior to the airplane departing controlled flight. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of a preimpact malfunction or failure of the control system, autopilot, or power plant

Maybe, I just copied and pasted it from the NTSB summary. In any case, looks like he guy really flew right into the TS. I can imagine that if you have such a picth up in IMC together with a sharp wing drop many pilots would go for the red handle ;-)

I forgot to copy the end:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot’s decision to continue flight into adverse weather and the subsequent encounter with the outer boundaries of a level 5 thunderstorm, which resulted in his loss of control of the airplane

I know it is a bit late, but here are some real-world observations of flying a variety of SEPs IFR.

This if from an “IFR, going-places-and-sod-the-weather” point of view, in aircraft that I have actually flown more than a couple of hours.

The “baseline” : Piper Arrow. Let’s assume everyone knows them and has flown them. The Volkswagen Jetta. Every driving school has one. Enough said.

Mooney M20J – The Porsche. Exciting but uncomfortable. (~100 hrs)

• Fantastic efficiency & speed, bought by a small cabin – it is not so much very narrow, but has a low profile. It feels like you are siting on the cabin floor… because you are. Nearly.
• Wonderfully crisp handling – very responsive in roll without being took skittish, good in pitch
• Does not carry ice well. Get the TKS version or do more than usual to avoid ANY icing.
• Bitch to land short – sorts the men from the boys regarding speed control. But if you nail the approach speed, can land on surprisingly short fields.
• Rubber-disk “suspension” – horribly uncomfortable taxiing on anything that has not been starched and ironed, and really soft landings are an art not compatible with short landing rolls except for the skygods. And if you operate from grass, get a good cushion and a three-blade prop, otherwise you will ruin your back and the prop.

Piper Turbo Saratoga – The Volkswagen Estate, a boring load-hauler. (~100 hrs)

• Reasonable performance bought with lots of power.
• Flies like a wet sponge
• Fat wing & turbo & hot prop make for reasonable ice penetration, but no FIKI option I know of – a bit limiting
• Can haul a real load – especially earlier models – 3 hours endurance with 6 people is fine. Or fly 5-6 hours and bust your bladder with four up.
• Reasonably easy to land well and land short, but performance take-offs are for the brave…

Columbia 400 – The Maserati. Sporty and trying to be practical, not always succeeding (60 hours)

• Great performance, bought with lots of power, efficient wing / fowler flap system, and a less-than-generous cabin
• Fantastic handling – the sidestick is wonderful. Hands down the nicest handling aircraft I have flown.
• FIKI option (when I flew it, it was not yet certified, it now is) & works well.
• Not a load hauler, cabin actually not that small, but really short in the back. Don’t put anyone tall in the back if they like their kneecaps.
• Door seals in theory make the cabin surprisingly quiet, but tend to have a puncture in one particular place where during maintenance, some idiot rips into it with which must be most industrial-strength door latch this side of Fort Knox.
• Really flimsy landing gear. Max landing weight means you can’t fill up & fly circuits…
• Runway hog. Forget about the 500m strips. Part of the price to pay for the high cruise speed. Easily the aircraft I took longest to get the hang of landing short.

Cirrus SR22TN – The BMW. A high-end allrounder, does not excel in anything (except CAPS), but good overall package (30 hours)

• Pretty good performance, bought with lots of power.
• Unexciting handling. Roll breakout forces in the side yoke and the ridiculously sensitive trim take some getting used to, but then are fine.
• FIKI option & works well
• Generous cabin. Last G3 GTS models are effectively two-seaters, but G5 with the increased MTOW has restored normal fuel / range trade off
• Noisy cabin. OMG. ANR mandatory. Get f@##$$N door seals, Cirrus!
• Good short-field performance
• Parachute.

Cessna Crusader (C303T) – The vintage Audi Estate (Vorsprung durch Technik, 30 years ago)

• The easiest to fly twin Cessna ever built. Basically, they put everything they learnt about light twins and put it into the last twin they designed and put into production
• Heavy but harmonic control feel – not as wet a sponge as the Saratoga.
• FIKI boots & hot props. Not as good as TKS (kiss 20kts goodbye in any icing encounter)
• Good cabin size, but awkward access from rear door – keep your butt thin! Emergency exit door over wing on co-pilot side
• Reasonable single engine performance (i.e., it actually climbs) and docile handling (Vmca close to stall speed)
• Good short-field performance. With a trailing-link undercarriage I have yet to make an uncomfortable landing. Flimsy brakes though… go through pads like nothing.

So there is my subjective ranking

Handling and flying – Columbia 400, followed by the Mooney. The rest are meh.
Speed – Columbia400, followed by the SR22. The rest are 40kt slower (unless you go for a recent turbo-Mooney, which is in the same league)
Short field performance – SR22, followed by PA32 and, with reservations, Mooney.
Comfort in front row: Columbia 400 and SR22 (not much between them), followed by Crusader and then PA32.
Comfort for 2 passengers in back: Crusader, followed by SR22 and PA32. The rest are just cramped / awkward to get in to / etc.
Safety over land / warm sea: SR22, followed by Crusader. Then nothing
Safety over cold sea: Crusader, followed by SR22. Then nothing.
The non-flying wife’s view: Crusader (“don’t have to climb over the wing to get in”), followed by SR22 and Columbia (liked both).

So strictly from my point of view, I think the SR22 wins because of TWO reasons

• it has the parachute.
• and it is at least second-best, and definitely “good enough” in everything else.

It does not have to be the fastest, largest, highest payload, most economical, most …. Aircraft. It is easily runner-up in ALL of these categories, and comfortably wins in the safety stakes, and maybe cabin comfort.

Hard to justify to compromise on safety because “it is nicer to fly” or “it is 15kt faster”. And I say so as somebody who is confident in his ability to get an aircraft into a field when the engine fails. Been there, done that.

It might be subjective but it has substance. I was a little bit astonished that you like the handling of the Mooney so much. I think it’s a great IFR platform but pretty heavy in the roll axis, if I remember correctly (…10 years ago) more so than the SR22.

Then you’d have to further differentiate and compare the Columbia 400 with the SR22 T, the Columbia 300 with SR22NA and so on …

Flyer59 wrote:

I was a little bit astonished that you like the handling of the Mooney so much.

Yes. What might be added is that sometime in the 60s Mooney made efforts to lighten roll control by modifying the ailerons. Also, for historical purposes, the original wood wing Mooney did not have the same roll control forces, so it was something that occurred by evolution, not in the original design.

Thanks Cobalt, nice analysis.

Cobalt wrote:

It feels like you are siting on the cabin floor… because you are. Nearly.

He he, yes. It really took getting used to, coming from a Cessna and the Seneca. But I’d say the front seats are quite comfy in comparison to others in the age group, I have no problems with my height (6’2) and weight (I take the 5th on that subject ) . In the back, if you did (understandably) not like the rear I’d recommend you never to try the rear of a short body (C or E).

Cobalt wrote:

sorts the men from the boys regarding speed control. But if you nail the approach speed, can land on surprisingly short fields.

I regularly take my C model into LSPV, a 500 m runway on the lake of ZRH. It does it with lots of space to spare. Also in ZRH we try to land on 28 in order to get out at TWY K, not to upset the heavies holding at J to cross 28. If you are not spoilt by long runways and negligent to practice, the M20 can land pretty much on the dot.

Where it shines, at least in my opinion, is take off. I know of several Mooneys based at LSPV, and they pretty much can all take off there at MTOW if temps are not too extreme. And I do remember the place where the original Mooney dealership was located… LSZE, Bad Ragaz. Now if there is one short and narrow runway, it is it.

Cobalt wrote:

And if you operate from grass, get a good cushion and a three-blade prop, otherwise you will ruin your back and the prop.

One of my biggest fears. Yet, I have to operate several times a year into LSZK, which has the about worst runway I’ve come across, possibly with one in the Netherlands, where I once went into with a loca (Midden Zealand?) which had the grass up to over the main wheel hight… it works, but you have to know what you are doing.

The rubber disks, fully agree with you there, on the other hand, you really know when you have done a nice landing

One I might want to add: I really like the cross wind handling of the M20. As opposed to the Seneca II I used to fly, landing even at crosswinds way over the demonstrated 18 kts is a piece of cake. I was very surprised when I first had to try it.

Cobalt wrote:

The rest are 40kt slower (unless you go for a recent turbo-Mooney, which is in the same league)

I think most of the Turbo Mooneys are in that league, with the 231 doing about 180 kts and the later models more. Actually, the Acclaim still is the fastest certified production airplane to this day.

Flyer59 wrote:

I was a little bit astonished that you like the handling of the Mooney so much. I think it’s a great IFR platform but pretty heavy in the roll axis,

Preference I suppose. I also was surprised by the roll handling initially but it makes for a VERY stable platform. Before I had the autopilot, I really appreciated the off hands characteristics of the Mooney, about as stable in roll as I ever saw. And coming from the Antonov 2, the roll forces are quite easy to manage.

One thing I noted about the Mooneys is that their ramp presence in comparison to a Beech or Cirrus is how low they sit on the tarmac. Passengers like their airplanes big, the bigger the better, and the Cirrus or also a Bonanza (let alone the Twin Bonanza) have quite an advantage over it. But then again, a SUV is a different road presence to a Morgan or Porsche.

I only have done one flight in the Cirrus. I found it a very nice handling airplane, lovely cabin.

Cobalt wrote:

So strictly from my point of view, I think the SR22 wins because of TWO reasons

• it has the parachute.
• and it is at least second-best, and definitely “good enough” in everything else.

Add to that an appealing modern design with one of the first airplanes to be equipped with a full EFIS cockpit as standard.