In 1.5 years and 150 hours I have regularly seen: 12.5-13.2 GPS at FL110 and 170-170 KTAS. LOP of course, but that’s really the “giold standard” when flying the SR22.
How much of a competition the TTx is for the Cirrus you can see on the sales figures. The TTx has about 5% of the SR22 sales.
The cabin is much smaller, visibilty is bad and that it has no CAPS system is a negative point for all but the most eccentric buyers. I don’t really see how it can be a negative point having saved 100 lives to date. And really nobody will force you to USE it.
Hi Mooney Driver,
with a little bit of training I had no problems to land in Helgoland (though little crosswind) to full stop in 200 meters and take off in 350. Poland, Hungary and Croatia (Medellin) hat some rough gras/clay runways. Was never a problem with the Beech.
Hi Jason,
my wife has PPL and AZF, so whenever I need a hand in rough weather I let her fly the plane, calmed her down the whole day after…
regards
Detlev
My minimum at the moment is 600 meters now, but I know that Bosco flew into many shorter fields. Speed control is everything in the SR22 and since it’s so slick it really takes some practice to slow it down without speed brakes.
Early next year I’ll get a new 4-blade prop and from all i have heard the wide four blades a have a significant braking effect when reducing power.
Take a Beech G36 and an SR22 (300 vs. 310 hp, close enough) and fly them at say 10.000 feet and 13 GPH. An NA Cirrus will end up somewhere between 170 and 173 knots usually. From what I know, 36 will end up a few knots shy of that. Again, this depends on a lot of factors.
That is not a fair comparison. The G36 is going to be much heavier and does not have the same power. If both aircraft are operated at identical weights and conditions at the same LOP fuel flow, the most efficient aircraft aerodynamically will be faster. The stock G36 will weigh 250 to 300 pounds more than the stock SR22. The Bonanza has a slightly better glide ratio which means a better L/D.
One of the interesting bits about the SR22 is that it is one of very few aircraft where, on paved runways, landing distance is more critical than takeoff distance. That is due to a combination of a) very good power-to-weight ratio and b) totally inadequate brakes (this was fixed on the G5 model, which have proper Beringer brakes bow).
So in a case like Helgoland, it is no problem taking off at full gross weight (did it dozens of times), but on landing, you have to be sure to cross the threshold at minimal height and just the right speed (in other words: just the right amount of kinetic energy).
On grass, it is the other way round, since grass tends to lengthen the takeoff roll and shorten the landing roll (unless wet obviously).
My experience too. Take-off is really never a factor, you can get out of any field. But 3 knots too fast on landung makes a big difference. I use the 77 KIAS figure minus 1 kt for each 100 lb under gross.
And what is the problem about that?
Terrain and ATC.
If one wants to go to a busier IFR airfield, one should be able to fly a standard 3° glideslope with 150kts, down to say 3 or 4 NM to the threshold. Does that work in an SR22? How does one get below flaps speed without leaving the glideslope?
That’s the situation where I find an airbrake^Wretractable gear most handy.
Tom,
I was referring to the enroute descent only. On the ILS, it is no problem either, even with a non-G5. If ATC wants to, I can (if I want to, but can decline just as well) fly it at 150 knots (about 16 inches MP) and reduce power at three miles. That will bring the aircraft to below 120knots (flap speed) about a minute (two miles later), i.e. on one mile final and then I deploy flaps and land on the numbers if I want to. Works beautifully, just requires a bit of training.
On the G5, it is even easier.
I’m sure I read that in the SR22, first stage of flaps limiting speed was 116 Kts, is that correct? what’s your method for slowing down from 165 kts to 116 Kts without letting the CHT fall too quickly.
