If I reduce power to 17" and maintain attitude, the speed will eventually bleed off to around 120 KIAS. If I then start a descent, speed will increase. How much will depend on the vertical speed. Down low I can easily do 140-150 KIAS with 17" and -700fpm. If push comes to shove, I have speedbrakes which allows me to adjust the vertical path.
Valentin wrote:
Hmm… Doesn’t reducing the power while holding the altitude before descending make the thing?
Yes, but you’ll need more of that (and/or more of whichever energy management strategies you use) than you would in a basic training aeroplane.
Let’s say you’re cruising at 160kts and you want 100kts in the circuit or down the ILS.
Do you want to reduce power and slow all the way to 100kts at cruise altitude, then lower the nose and descend all the way at 100kts? Probably not because it makes the journey longer than it needs to be and you won’t be able to get much of a rate of descent while keeping to 100kts, not unless you pull the power all the way back and then you have to be careful not to shock-cool the engine.
More likely what you do is pull the power back a little way and push the nose down slightly to keep your 160kts, or maybe a bit less, as you begin a gentle descent. As you descend towards your platform/circuit altitude you then gradually reduce power (and so speed) more and more, eventually levelling off at say 120kts so that the action of levelling off with no increase in power (for the moment) bleeds off those last 20kts quite quickly and there you are level at your desired 100kts, re-applying power as necessary to maintain it.
This isn’t Cirrus-specific, just faster aeroplane-specific. Every aeroplane goes faster when you push the nose down, but slippery ones like the Cirrus do it more readily. One does something like this in a PA28/C172, but the speeds and the relatively draggy airframe make it trivial – you don’t have to do any maths, you just pull the power a bit and push the nose down when you get near the field. In a higher perfomance aeroplane it isn’t trivial and you’ll need to think about it and plan your descent.
In airliners you hear a considerable reduction in power as the descent from cruise altitude begins (for best fuel economy they typically like to pull the power back to flight idle and descend at as rapid a rate as is conducive to comfort and keeping within speed limitations) but turbine engines do not have the same shock cooling problems associated with rapid power reductions.
Graham wrote:
More likely what you do is pull the power back a little way and push the nose down slightly to keep your 160kts, or maybe a bit less, as you begin a gentle descent. As you descend towards your platform/circuit altitude you then gradually reduce power (and so speed) more and more, eventually levelling off at say 120kts so that the action of levelling off with no increase in power (for the moment) bleeds off those last 20kts quite quickly and there you are level at your desired 100kts, re-applying power as necessary to maintain it.
Doesn’t seem to be very difficult but it’s better to try myself, of course.
For Greece you want a DA42 
Avgas is a problem.
I don’t know how practical it is to make 4+ hour trips in a small aircraft with no toilet.
Depends on who you are flying with. You must have a toilet provision – relying on your bladder capacity will work until it doesn’t… See e.g. here.
Valentin wrote:
Doesn’t seem to be very difficult but it’s better to try myself, of course.
Valentin,
here in ZRH I could give you a contact where you can rent and test fly a SR22 with an FI and even do the type training later on, if you are interested PM me. There are countless schools which rent those so it should not be difficult to find one to suit you.
And no, it is not difficult and if you are aspiring to airplanes like a TBM then it may be a good idea to challenge yourself a bit. I fly a Mooney without speed brakes and it took me a couple of flights to really appreciate the speed management (as I had flown draggy planes like Cessnas and Pipers (never mind the AN2) before) but once you get the hang out of it it’s fun. I’ve only flown the SR22 on a very short intro flight but I did not feel it was critical at all in normal operation. You will need a proper introduction, which means in your case a couple of hours of training with an FI to get comfortable, then all you need to do is go flying. I don’t think you will need considerably more time with the SR22 than you would need with any other SEP with fixed gear. Remember, in the SR22 you don’t even need to worry about the constant speed prop as it does not have a prop control.
And the G1000 is the same in most G1000 planes but the very latest Perspective cockpits so it really does not make a difference.
And what has been said before is very true: With the overwater legs you will have I would very strongly recommend a low wing retracable or a Cirrus. In case of ditching, high wing fixed gear planes are about the worst scenario you can get. With a Cirrus, you do a splash down Apollo style (or check on youtube, there is plenty of videos) and then get into your raft. That shute has not made them the market leader for nothing!
One of the things, that bothers me about high performance planes like SR22, is insurance. Would any insurance company insure me on an SR22? Am I required to have an insurance?
Valentin wrote:
One of the things, that bothers me about high performance planes like SR22, is insurance. Would any insurance company insure me on an SR22? Am I required to have an insurance?
In Europe yes to both. You are required to have insurance and you will find an insurer who will insure you. If you want figures, I can connect you to my broker who can give you a quote, so you get the idea. For a plane like this, you will need third party insurance and you will want hull and passenger insurance. For a EASA registered plane this should not be a problem. Your premium will be slightly higher for your few hours but they will take you on.
In the US it would be a problem, either they refuse you or demand you spend xx hours with an instructor or ask astronomic prices.
Not suggesting any of it is difficult of course, just different and requires a bit more thinking than with PA28/C172s.
Valentin,
just wondering, what plane are you doing your PPL training on?
In my time I did my whole PPL on a C150. The next plane I got rated on was a Piper Seneca. A little bit of a bigger jump as onto a SR22 but they didn’t have those at the time…
