BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2015, 23:19

Someone mentioned comfortable seats. Well, maybe if you have a - ahem - large posterior.
I'll let you tell her.
Robin

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2015, 23:47

Username Protected wrote:

With respect to the trim I agree that it requires precision to operate it correctly. However, I have found that once you know how to use it, like any other tool, it does the job very well. It is nice to have aileron trim as well, which as you probably know many small aircraft do not have.

Ingress/Egress is much easier in a Cirrus than a short body Bonanza for both the pilots and passengers in my opinion. However, passengers have a much easier time getting in and out of an A36, in my experience, than a Cirrus. I still find getting in and out of the two front seats in my Cirrus easier than either of my Bonanza's. The doors? There is simply no comparison for ease of use. Cirrus hands down.

I have flown side sticks, sticks, yokes and wheels. I prefer a stick. But they all work. The side stick, or even Cessna's side yoke offers two advantages: safety and room. What's the big deal? The criticism I have, after a few hundred hours, is no Control Wheel Steering. Now that would be a big improvement in the Cirrus.

Someone mentioned comfortable seats. Well, maybe if you have a - ahem - large posterior. But I find that they are a little hard after a couple of hours. But again, its a safety thing, I can't do anything about it, so I live with it.

I think this speed thing is funny. When I was flying my Bonanza's I regularly got to watch Cirri climbing away from me. Pissed me off then. Now, I read a different version of reality. :scratch:

I will say that my numbers which I posted earlier are accurate. I think they speak for themselves but as I said earlier who cares? The differences for 95% of the flying anyone is talking about here is basically meaningless.

When landing the Cirrus you will have a different sight picture in the flare than you do in a Bonanza. Or a C172 for that matter. It is a more difficult airplane to land WELL, if you are a sloppy pilot. The laminar flow wing requires more precision but a squeaker in a Cirrus is sweet because you know you did something. Screw up your speed control, or allow yourself to run out of energy too soon in a Bonanza and your passengers will hardly notice. Do that in a Cirrus and, well, you suck as a pilot in their opinion. :oops:

As to Matt's comment - I agree. If you can't land the plane on autopilot you have no business flying it. :lol:

Well said Tony. You do not realize how lazy of a pilot you are until you fly a plane with a wing that you have to fly to the ground. Once you get used to flying a real wing you will throw stones at fat/slow response airfoils.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2015, 12:18

Is that Caitlyn with the cigar?

Just what I want in my plane with good leather seats, a cigar.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2015, 12:37

As for the side stick in a Cirrus being safer, I doubt if that was the main reason for using it. I'd guess it was the cheaper way and also they wanted more room in front of the pilot for avionics and gauges and switches, part of the marketing flavor of the plane..

I have not seen a stick in front of the pilot as a focus of accident injuries much. A T-6, etc has a lot of cockpit strength and with good harnesses the normal stick may not be much of a problem if you have a lot impact crash.. And at impact the stick if going to be thrown to its forward limit of travel just as anything else is thrown forward, and may be out of the way. It is not like a steering wheel in a car, which is higher and rigid.

Over the years, Cirrus has had a number of severe and fatal accidents, in fact there fatal rate was no better than average for similar airplanes, though proponents now claim it is much improved.
My point is that there is a history of major accidents and impacts in Cirrus, so what is the evidence that the side stick adds to impact safety? I haven't read many/and NTSB type reports that address that.

I'd guess that most severe injuries come from head contact with the panel or vertical force too great to survive.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2015, 13:14

Bill,
Why are you so invested in a discussion of the Cirrus side stick?
It's such a non-issue... :scratch:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2015, 13:29

Username Protected wrote:

Bill,
Why are you so invested in a discussion of the Cirrus side stick?
It's such a non-issue... :scratch:

Five pages come on. Shouldn't this discussion be on Cirrus Talk?

Thanks for noticing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2015, 18:37

Arlen, are you converting your RV to a side stick?
It might be unique then.

And why does me writing about that or any other topic concern you so much?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2015, 18:41

Username Protected wrote:

Arlene, are you converting your RV to a side stick?
It might be unique then.

And why does me writing about that or any other topic concern you so much?

I don't think it's the writing about. I think it's the tenacity on the subject(s).

But I probably shouldn't answer for Arlene.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2015, 21:31

Who's Arlene?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jun 2015, 14:41

Tony,

I too find the Cirrus seats hard. CWS would be nice. Personally I would love a Cessna style trim wheel to tweak things in.

As for a side stick, I find the spring tension on older models make things a bit numb. However, the resulting low glare shield is awesome with the Cirrus having great visibility out.

Flew My 1st Cirrus Today