Glass cockpit vs steam gauges for low time PPL (and getting into a fast aircraft early on)

The situation you are describing, Valentin, is one I have seen many “motivated and not money-limited” people go through when they are learning to fly. The PPL training scene is structured to deliver a lowest possible cost product (most PPL students are struggling to pay for the next lesson) and those who feel they could progress faster find the whole thing very frustrating. One thread is here.

I really didn’t enjoy my PPL training, with the disorganised schools, often hopeless instructors (mostly hour builders with no interest in teaching), so many lessons cancelled due to broken (“gone tech” is the standard euphemism you use in front of the customer queue) planes, and I wanted to get out of it as quickly as I could, which I did manage to do a year later. I wrote up the decision chain in that link I posted early on above.

And you have the extra complication of being based where there are few options.

There are no easy answers.

You should probably buy an SR22. In the same way as mums tell their daughters to “marry up” you should “buy up”. You will soon get used to the extra performance. If you are a good driver, good skier, etc, and mentally/technically agile, you will have no issue with it. If – like some I have known – you cannot drive a car with a manual box, and struggle with technical issues, that would be very different and you should buy something simple and slow.

Valentin wrote:

That is, you think SR22 is not less safe to operate by a novice than C182, right?

I do think so yes. It is a SEP nothing more and nothing less. Coming from the Piper you will need training on any plane you get onto next. As you have said that you want a glass cockpit plane you will need to train for that this way or the other. If the aircraft you train on will be a Cirrus or Cessna will be a very minor difference. The Cirrus does not have controls for the prop as it’s integrated in the throttle, so that is one less thing to get used to than to a normal variable pitch plane.

As for safety of the type, first and foremost the Cirrus has the full airframe parashute which means it is an additonal option for stuff like night flying, IMC flying, forced landing in hostile terrain or in case of airframe damage. Not least to mention situations you may find yourself in due to inexperience. Secondly, the was built with the intention of it being used as a basic trainer (SR20) with the SR22 being the logical step up followed by the Vision Jet. After a proper differential training of (my guess) 8-10 hours you should be able to fly the Cirrus VFR. And with the huge runways you operate from, the slightly larger speeds will not make a difference at all.

Valentin wrote:

Do you have IR? If you do, what kind of plane did you use for training for it?

I did my IR on a twin engine Seneca II. I should add that the only plane I flew before was my Cessna 150. As it’s been expired for some time I will have to retrain now on the Mooney I own. (I had a hiatus from flying for 10 years which made my IR lapse)

Yes that was quite a jump but it was feasible. I started training on the Seneca with about 70 hours TT, flew it parallel to the C150 until I had the 150 hours for the IR which were required then (pre EASA)

Valentin wrote:

I see much more problems if I buy a plane which is too complicated for my level of experience and I feel that I struggle hard to not be behind it.

Well I think with the types we are talking about you are overestimating that problem. The key to it is a good transition training and then to gain experience. No FI will release you on a type you are not safe with. Given your situation, the airfields around you and distances involved, I don’t see any major issues on neither airplane from a training point of view. Both are fixed gear, both are G1000 and the SR22 has no prop lever to worry about. Coming from a Cherokee 140, I would expect the transition training required to be in a similar bandwith, maybe one extra session on the SR22 but that is hard to judge without knowing how you fly. I would neither over- nor underestimate either of those planes.

I also estimate that you do not want to buy a plane for 30 hours and then go buy another one, even if you can. Todays airplane market is not such that planes sell in a few days, so changing planes may consume time that I don’t think you want to spend. With “normal” buyers we encourage them to buy their “last” plane first, as that does not apply to you I would still think it is better to buy as close to your target plane as you can. This will later be very beneficial for the transition to the TBM if that is what you are getting.

As for flying the Alps, it is often easier in winter than summer, it’s easier on the airplane’s performance and weather is often better within the Alps than outside of them. there is no reason to change planes for that, both a 182 and a SR22 are capable to navigate the Alps in VMC. The SR22 most of the times will also allow you to do so once you have your IR as it’s service ceiling is higher. A lot of SR22s carry anti/de ice equipment which will also be very beneficial to your IR ambitions.

I don’t think the transition to a SR 22 after getting your PPL is such a big deal and you can learn to fly it safely. I started my PPL training in a 360HP Yak52.

However, you can forget short grass fields located in many places you might want to go if you buy a Cirrus. In a Cirrus, you’ll get to decent sized airports quickly. How long will it take you to get to your final destination from there? Often I’m able to find a short grass field nearby.

This is what you’ll be missing (Hvar in September).

There are places like this all over Europe. It’s one reason I’ll never buy a Cirrus. In a 182, no problem. Just be aware what you’ll be giving up if you go the Cirrus route.

One thing that is sometimes mentioned as a “missing safety barrier” in the Cirrii, is that the sidestick “resistance” force (tendency to self-center) is from a spring, and not from the actual control surface. Meaning, at high AoA (approaching a stall), you don’t feel the commands getting “mushy”.

I feel it is less of a problem if you fly “by the numbers” (let’s say “like an airliner”), rather than by “seat of the pants”. Which, for me, depends on your mission. If you fly purely from A to B, you’ll usually fly by the numbers, with a constant instrument scan, and often higher altitude. Peter-style “let’s explore the absolute ceiling” aside. If you do sightseeing bumbling, well, that IMHO lends itself to lower altitude seat of the pants flying: you are looking outside at the pretty sights. Cirrii probably are more used for A-to-B flying than sightseeing bumbling.

Wondering about LIPV Lido Venice. Would a Cirrus land there? 800 meters of grass.

Valentin, I continue to think you had the right idea before asking the question

(If it were me, I might broaden my search to consider a somewhat older C182 too, because older ones don’t offer much less than newer ones. My ideal C182 would be immaculately clean, very simply equipped and approximately 60 years old But I don’t have spare money to buy a new one and also have very limited attraction to the G1000)

WhiskeyPapa wrote:

Wondering about LIPV Lido Venice. Would a Cirrus land there? 800 meters of grass.

To answer your question:

LIPV is one of my absolute favorite airfields. Works in a DA42 as well.
Just a word of caution: If it is a quiet day without traffic, large flocks of birds tend to settle on the grass, frightening during a take off run (I will post a video of it sometime).

Valentin, get a DA42…the Cirrus is a nice plane, but it is not worth it the premium compared to other SEPs (noise, vibration, Avgas, handling not as much fun…).

Congratulations!!!!