Which Plane to buy?

Back in 1937, an aircraft engineer, Fred Wick, proposed a light aircraft, advertised to make aviation safe. It had such unusual features as a nosewheel and it was said it couldn’t even be spun. He designed a twin rudder interlinked with the ailerons, so the aircraft could be “driven” like a car. Yet, it’s accident statistics was worse than those of comparative two seat aircraft in the era, even in stall / spin accidents.

When it became obvious that the second engine stopped a good chunk of forced landings, it didn’t clear up the accident statistics. The Cessna 337 was designed to eliminate many problems with asymetric thrust on engine out operations in light twins. Yet, the safety record showed that this wasn’t the solution to accident rates.

Fast forward to 1998. The Klapmeyer brothers installed the BRS system, already known on the microlight market and as Cessna 150 retrofits in their SR20 design. Again, the company’s sales point is safety, and again, the accident rates did not keep the promises made. Fatality rates did go down, however, once the manufacturer did analyse the accidents and spotted pilot training as a main source for new types of accidents.

Bottom line: As long as we have this kind of pilot flying around, we will see considerable amounts of fatal accidents in either aircraft. No safety feature whatsoever has improved accident rates without putting much effort into proper flight training with proper trained instructors. Cirrus knows this and the development cost of an extended flight training program was part of the reason they did not proceed with the Cirrus SR Sport program (FK14).

FWIW: I consider myself to be a good instructor, yet I could not explain the KLN94. But since I know that, I won’t try and just hand over the aspirant to someone who actually can.

I can only reiterate that the Cirrus is nothing special. It really is no different from any other high performance single. The handling characteristics are pleasant and predictable. It drives very nicely on the side stick. Anyone accustom to a TB20, or Mooney et al will transition very easily and quickly. Too much is made about the aircraft being “difficult”.

If there is anything unusual it is a little more slippery than most so you do have to keep and eye on approaches – at first its easier to get high and hot, and of course if you are not accustom to a glass cockpit this will take a while – but buy the sim which will save you fortunes in wasted flying time.

After that everything is straight forward. Glass cockpit aside I reckon a Mooney pilot would be comfortable in the Cirrus in a few hours. Most pilots accustom to slower aircraft will need a good ten hours – some may “get it” in a bit less, but not very many and some may need twenty hours.

I am not totally sure how comfortable it is on grass – I know some people have expressed concern that the front strut doesnt take kindly to too much abuse and I personally had a few occasions in strong cross winds wishing the rudder had a bit more authority – but it is totally fine up to the demostrated cross wind limit.

It is a very comfortable ride and overall is probably the best TOURING single I have flown.

Rob2701

Thirty years back the doctor killer was the V tail Beech twenty years back it was the PA46 and now those with too much money, too much arrogance and too little skill who kill themselfs with the Cirrus.

These are the type of people who could make any aircraft a death trap and the personality traits that the airlines have spent millions of £ and years of effort to train out of the industry.

The Cirrus is a safe aircraft, some on these pages would say safer than most but put the wrong personality in the left seat and like any other aircraft will prove the old addage “aircraft bite fools”.

Anyone who aproaches the operating the aircraft with the attitude that they are going to get training before flying it solo is already halfway towards being a safe pilot of the type.

The combined lesson from Fred Weick’s Ercoupe, the Skymaster and the Cirrus is a good one. I think the link between them is an image of benign behavior and the complacency that creates. Flying lots of different kinds of planes (as mh has) teaches you that all planes are different, some very different, and that prejudging some plane as not requiring preparation can be a route to an accident. Maybe selling the Ercoupe at department stores wasn’t the best idea Buy Your Plane at JC Penny I found the Ercoupe spectacularly easy to fly (and a lot of fun too) but its particular issue is a high power off sink rate compared with other very light planes of the same era, and shortage of climb rate. Both issues were side effects of weight and drag added by making the plane easy to handle.

Weick later co-designed the Piper Cherokee, another easy to fly plane that over time proved to have an excellent stall/spin record – the stability and control part of the Cherokee and its offspring was his work. When I get old I’ll fly a Cherokee, then when I get really old I’ll fly an Ercoupe

I have about 100 hours in a SR22TN and was a CSIP. I did not renew after a year. The TN is very unforgiving of poor airspeed control and loses energy rapidly. They have a history of hard landings and are nose heavy. Although they are more than capable of hauling more weight than is legal, the TN could not carry three adults without exceeding gross weight limitations. The landing and flare had to be judged very precisely to not end up with bad results. There was a high visibility accident involving a 2009 SR22TN at our airport. He apparently lost control turning to final and hit a ditch embankment leading to the taxiway at the runway end. There was nothing recognizable as a part of an airplane. Coming from a Bonanza, I think the SR22 systems and redundancy along with the chute are the best the industry offers, but not so much with the handling qualities.

My SR22 N/A is just under max gross weight with four people, 100 lbs of baggage and fuelled to the tabs (47 USG). With three on board you can add another 25-30 gallons to that.

I’ve not flown a TN but would agree that you need to get speeds right. That said, I can’t say I find that difficult to do. I also think that the landing technique really is no big deal provided you don’t try to land too fast.

All high performance singles need conversion training. PA46, cirrus etc. Work out how many seats you plan to fill regularly. If 2 then a cirrus works. If 4 then I think a PA46 is a far better choice than a Bonanza or Saratoga. And for the money go pressurised. You won’t regret it. Cannulas are the single worst things to give a passenger.

The school I work with owns a SR22 with the Avidyne Cockpit. They will transition anyone coming ab initio via either the Mooney or another in-between airplane before they let them fly the Cirrus. They did have a landing accident with the Cirrus early on which almost was a write off when the nosegear collapsed during a night landing. The plane was out for almost 6 months.

I think most of the higher performance planes need a very careful transition training, be it a Cirrus, Columbia or even Mooneys. In average, people use about 6-8 hours before they are released on my airplane if they come from airplanes like the Cessna 172 or PA28. They count about twice that for the Cirrus from what I understood.

It also makes sense to familiarize oneself with such a plane, otherwise they can not really use it. Be it the G1000 or the Avidyne/GNS430 combo takes quite some getting used to. Add the GFC700, DFC90 or STEC55x as an AP and you need training and experience to operate these things and to profit from what they offer. I have not much time for folks who fly such planes which are CAT I fully coupled ILS capable but don’t know how to use the equipment on board. All my pilots will undergo a hefty transition training after we install the Aspen and S-Tec 55x now and they are all quite eager to do that. There is not much point buying a well equipped airplane and then get into the cockpit with their own GPS system and not even switch on the on board equipment or operate it like they would with a Piper L4 panel.

I don’t feel comfortable to fly any airplane unless I know what all the switches and boxes do and how to use them.

All good advice above, but for the OP’s mission of “European touring”, we should consider take-off and landing performance as well as cruising ground speed. At the limit, a slow aeroplane which does not need a runway as such can offer door to door journey times which are shorter than a faster one which does. Furthermore, if limited to long-ish (say >450 m) grass or hard runways, that’s all you’re going to see without faffing about with hire cars and taxis.