The point was made on the twin thread how many of these views are from pilots who have flown a Cirrus?
Almost nobody I have every discussed this topic on the internet with has ever actually flown in a Cirrus, nevermind flown it him/herself.
You must not confuse yourself with the average pilot. The fact that we are discussing aircraft designs on EuroGA says more about us, than about the plane. So of course, my posts aren’t unemotional, but a plane is for me much more than just means of transportation or a tool for a job. So it is for Boscomantico and Alexis and Peter. A Plane is reason in itself in our eyes. So among us, our preferred aircraft becomes a matter of pure taste, when they are equal in fulfilling the job.
But that is not the reason, why the SR22 is so successful. The design is pleasing for whatever you want to see in that plane. It does not stand for a single trait and it does not emphasise a single trait, like the M20 emphasises speed and efficiency or the Beech 35 emphasises stability or the 182 and the M-7 emphasise utility. It is designed to be aviations iphone: inconspicious and able to carry what lifestyle feeling the marketing wants to sell. It does the job without bragging about it. it has become the perfect machine, not reason and sense in itself, but tool for the pilot and just designed to serve. And that is honoured by those people with the money to buy.
In my experience, the Cirrus, the King Air, the Jetprop goes almost unnoticed by pilots on the ramp. If you pull up with a Cessna 195, Beech 18 or Twin Bonanza you will experience ramp appeal. If you want to see glazing eyes of aviation enthusiasts, pull up in a beautiful restored J3, Luscombe, Auster or Ambassadeur. Any kind of plane that demands dedication to the machine, rather than an aircraft fit for the job. There are no sparking eyes for the SR22, when you talk to aviators. If you want that, you need a plane that stands for individualism. (No, neither a M20, nor a Beech 35 would do that job, either :-))
If I want attention I get it with my car ;-)
Almost nobody I have every discussed this topic on the internet with has ever actually flown in a Cirrus, nevermind flown it him/herself.
FWIW, I have flown in an SR20 and SR22 and have briefly flown the SR22 myself. And the DA42 and the C400.
All these are competent planes. Not exceptional in any way. Any PPL who can get it into his/her head that one has to fly “by numbers”, and who get learn the avionics etc, can fly one of these.
A plane certified under part 23 isn’t going to something too exciting.
The difference is mainly Marketing, facilitated by being in the right place (in the economic cycle especially) at the right time. Smaller factors are peripheral e.g. the Diamond diesels had their progress shafted by Mr Thielert who set back that whole scene 10 years. Socata pulled the plug on the TBs when Cirrus pretty well ate their lunch in the USA (but they were inept in the USA anyway).
But, as I said before, people are still entitled to express their views even if they don’t fly the type.
But, as I said before, people are still entitled to express their views even if they don’t fly the type.
Yes, you said so. But I don’t agree. To understand the quality of any airplane you have to fly it.
Then you have flown all production piston singles in order to be able to sort out the SR22 as “the best”?
Flyer59 wrote:
Yes, you said so. But I don’t agree. To understand the quality of any airplane you have to fly it.
I would agree with that. There is so much BS bandied about on the internet by people who have no clue what they are talking about. Cannot comment on the Cirrus (never been in one), but take the OWT of the Mooney being too cramped for anything but a dwarf. First time I got into one I (188cm/6ft2") was surprised how easily I fit into it. Some things you really have to experience yourself to be able to comment on.
No, only about 100 of them, all SEPs in production, most twins, all the SE turboprops in production … sorry, but that was really fishing for it ;-) Ok, I have only flown most for 1-3 hours, but I do have a feeling for what they are.
Touring piston SEP for IFR in production? Yes, the SR22-G5 is clearly the best as a complete package, I would not hesitate to say that.
All these are competent planes. Not exceptional in any way.
I dont think so.
Firstly to have been so successful they are exceptional. Any aircraft in recent times that sells in this volume is surely exceptional.
In terms of the Cirrus, I am not aware of any other SEP which offers the performance, the avionics, a chute, side sticks, air bags, single lever control, FIKI etc period. Surely that makes it exceptional. Not for one part of the package, but the package as a whole. In itself the number of SEPs that are FIKI are almost none. You might not want FIKI but I still think it makes the aircraft exceptional.
In terms of the DA42 there are no other twins that burn diesel.
So for these reasons I think both aircraft are different, unusual and exceptional in the combination of their characteristics.
I suspect you mean that from the point of view of a typical cross country from A to B you wouldnt notice the Cirrus as being much different from your Trinidad or a DA42 being much different from a number of other twins. With that I would agree. The avionics you dont need, the chute hopefully you never need, the same as regards the air bags or single lever control and with planning FIKI may make no difference to your mission profile. However should you need any of them for any reason they elivate the aircraft into a different class, and, for that reason they are exceptional because there are a lot of aircraft that can do the same job of getting you from A to B in the same way, but only a few that offer this combination.
Despite the fact that most pilots dont need this combination, or if they do, find some way around it, I suspect it is part of the appeal and the reason why they have sold so many.
In terms of, “you need to fly one to understand” I dont think that can be in doubt. Moreover a few hours only gives you a small insight into an aircraft. It is interesting how many people who have flown a Cirrus for a few hours will tell you the sidestick is a disaster, the aircraft is designed to be flown on the autopilot. Well I think it is a delight to hand fly and so do most Cirrus pilots – but I wouldnt have necessarily said that after a few hours.
I think that doesnt make everyone’s opinion just as valid, and just as interesting. After all the manufacturer must convince first and fore most those who havent got hours on a Cirrus, not those they have already converted to the brand.
I can honestly say if I had to decide between a Cirrus and a good twin – it would be the twin. With expereince of both I feel I am able to factor in the cost of operating both, given that good twins can be purchased very cheaply, and therefore having taken cost out of the equation, I feel a good twin is even more capable than a Cirrus in terms of every day point to point flying. Thats a view, but one reached from lots of hours on both. I still think the Cirrus is a very good aircraft and I still think I can understand why it has so much appeal. Had I not enjoyed the hours on both I suspect I would never have reached that conclusion.
Actually, the only real competitor I see is the PA-46. I really like that plane! Fast, good looks, great cabin, newer ones with great avionics…. and pressurization and 6 seats.
