Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
11 min read

A note on the title: Last time I wrote about a particular airplane (the Cessna 210), I titled it “Why I love it, why I hate it.” In spite of my generally positive comments about the big Cessna single, some readers were outraged by the word hate. So, in an effort to be more precise (and avoid conflict in the comments), this edition focuses on pros and cons. Regardless of personal feelings, every airplane—no matter how much you love it or hate it—is a compromise. That’s what we are exploring here.

Cirrus had a controversial reputation early on, and to this day it’s the butt of some jokes. But it’s also the best selling piston airplane in the world for 20 years straight, a lone bright spot among small airplane companies who otherwise seem to be surviving on a few big flight school orders. And as I’ve repeatedly observed, the most vocal Cirrus critics are usually the ones who have never flown one.

So let’s look at the facts regarding the SR22, of which nearly 8,000 examples are now flying. Richard Collins memorably wrote about Cirrus pilots in previous articles—both what they do wrong and what they do right—but here I’ll focus on the airplane. What’s good about it and what’s innovative? What’s disappointing about it and what tradeoffs had to be made? Note that I’ll focus on what is unique to the SR22. Hot starts are a pain for all fuel injected engines and all airplanes are expensive, so I’ll spare you those rants.

I am hardly a Cirrus expert, but after flying one for the last seven years I do have some opinions. As they say, your mileage may vary.

Pros

Cirrus interior

If the interior of a Cirrus feels like a luxury car, that’s no accident.

I’ll lay my cards on the table right at the start: this airplane has a lot more to love than hate. I learned to fly in Cessna 172s and logged my first 1000 hours almost exclusively in 172s, 182s, and 210s, so I might have wrinkled my nose at the newfangled Cirrus airplanes when they first came out. Once I sat in an SR22, though, I realized it wasn’t all marketing hype. Once I flew one on a real trip, I understood why they sold so well. It is the airplane most airplane manufacturers are chasing in 2025.

It’s capable. Any discussion of the SR22 has to start with its overall performance. It doesn’t set any records here, but it’s an excellent all-around performer, especially for trips between 200 and 500 miles. Even the normally aspirated version (which is less popular than the turbo) climbs to 11,000 feet pretty easily, where it will cruise at over 160 knots on less than 15 gallons per hour. Turbocharged models can comfortably top 180 knots or even 200 knots if you climb into the flight levels, and with its ubiquitous TKS deice systems, climbing to those altitudes is possible year round. That makes the SR22 probably the premier traveling machine in GA right now, doing many of the trips that Cessna 310s and Bonanzas did 30 or 40 years ago. Just open up FlightAware and see how many Cirrus are flying, all over the country in all kinds of weather.

Passengers love it. This one is blindingly obvious, but perhaps for that reason some macho pilots pretend this is a weakness, as if “real pilots” prefer to endure pain when they fly. I think that’s ridiculous, and Cirrus should be celebrated for delivering a four-seat cabin that set a new standard in GA. It just feels right, with comfortable seats and plenty of creature comforts (yes, it even has cup holders!). The back seat in particular is surprisingly roomy, but even the front right seat is a great place for a passenger to sit for three hours because of the side yoke and the lowered panel on that side. Then of course there’s the air conditioning, which is not standard but is found on the majority of SR22s. Sure, you don’t need that in a piston airplane, but I’ve never had a passenger complain about it—and when’s the last time you bought a new car without AC?

It’s surprisingly simple. For all its high performance, the SR22 is actually quite easy to fly. Compared to the Cessna 210, there is no gear lever, no cowl flaps, and no propeller control. The after takeoff checklist has basically one item: retract flaps. Compared to a piston twin like a Piper Aztec or Cessna 310, there is only one engine and no complicated fuel system to manage. And compared to the faster Columbia/Corvalis, the Cirrus is much easier to slow down and land. SR22 pilots certainly can (and do!) get behind the airplane, but I can’t think of an airplane of this size and speed that is simpler. Before you ask, the side yoke is a non-factor for me. After one flight I completely forgot it was different, probably because it’s really half a traditional yoke, not a stick.

The parachute. Yes, it matters and yes, it’s a good thing. The accident record now proves that, when trained and used properly, the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) is a net positive for safety. I have never used it and I hope I never do, but I could say the same for the fire extinguisher in the Cessna 182 I fly or the Smart Glide feature in the Pilatus PC-12 I fly. It’s another tool in the toolbox, and if it gives passengers an extra feeling of security, then who am I to argue—we want our family and friends to enjoy flying, don’t we? The only warning is to never let the parachute influence your decision making process. If you ever find yourself saying, “this flight is 50/50, but I’ve got the parachute in case something goes wrong,” then you’re doing it wrong. Now you’ve moved from smart preparation to moral hazard.

Cirrus G7 panel

When it comes to avionics, integrated is often better.

The avionics are great. Cirrus has long been a leader in this category, essentially making glass cockpits the default in piston airplanes over 20 years ago, but they continued to add useful updates like terrain warning systems, digital engine monitors, and advanced autopilots through the years. What they do better than most is integrating the avionics, with features like a dedicated keypad and automatic flight data recording. This has led to some of those tired jokes (“what does a Cirrus pilot do when the autopilot quits? Pull the chute!”), but once again this sounds like envy. I love to fly a Citabria at 500 feet with the window open as much as any pilot, but in a high performance IFR airplane does anyone seriously want to fly without moving maps, datalink weather, and a good autopilot? There’s no Purple Heart for shooting an instrument approach to minimums without looking at an MFD. The market has proven this to be true, as Garmin continues to ship huge quantities of retrofit avionics that make a Cherokee look like a Cirrus, and even new LSAs sport integrated glass cockpits.

Cons

No airplane is perfect, as any owner or aeronautical engineer can tell you, and the SR22 is no exception. Many of its most innovative features require some tradeoffs, as you’ll see in the list below. To be clear, I don’t consider any of these cons to be deal breakers, but an honest assessment of the airplane must consider a few drawbacks.

No nose wheel steering. This is a minor issue, and the SR22 is hardly the only airplane without a steerable nose wheel, but for an airplane that can easily cost $1 million new it seems silly. Why should a 60-year old Cessna 172 have such a basic feature but not the top of the line 2025 airplane? The answer is undoubtedly weight, complexity, and cost—in order to create a fixed gear airplane (simple) that is still fast (performance), something had to be sacrificed and that was a steerable nose wheel. Taxiing the SR22 is certainly not hard after a few flights, but without practice it can lead to problems. See the next con.

The brakes aren’t great. Inattentive Cirrus pilots tend to ride the brakes while taxiing, which can lead to a jerky ride at best and occasional brake fires at worst (although this is a mostly problem on earlier SR22s that have not been retrofitted with better brakes). More significantly, runway performance on landing isn’t great. In fact, landing distance can sometimes be longer than takeoff distance, unusual for an airplane of this class. Landing a Cirrus on a 3000-foot runway is perfectly doable, but not if you land fast and long because the brakes will not save you from a bad approach. Once again, this is a classic engineering tradeoff: smaller wheels make it easier to cruise fast without having to retract the wheels, but it does reduce the braking performance.

Cirrus in flight

Fixed gear and no cowl flaps are nice and simple, but there are tradeoffs.

No rudder trim. Like the lack of nose wheel steering, the lack of rudder trim has always bothered me. There’s a big, 300 horsepower Continental engine up front and it creates plenty of torque that needs to be offset in climb (which can take 25 minutes if you’re going high). Sure, there’s a yaw damper on most SR22s and that can mostly do the job, and sure, lack of rudder trim keeps the airplane simpler, but there is a hidden cost here. Specifically, many Cirrus pilots‘ constant use of the yaw damper makes them complacent on the rudder pedals, which can prove fatal during a go-around when a rapid increase in power causes some serious left-turning tendencies. The accident record shows more than a few of these scenarios, and while these are hardly the aircraft designer’s fault, it is part of the conversation.

The engine runs hot. Yet another compromise: the combination of a tightly cowled engine (less drag) and no cowl flaps (simplicity) means the cylinder head temperatures can quickly rise during climb. This is rarely an issue in cruise, but if you’re trying to climb to get on top of bumpy cumulus clouds in the summer, it’s very likely you cannot do that anywhere near Vy. More than once I have had to spiral up through a hole in order to keep the airspeed above 120 knots and CHTs below 420 degrees. Perhaps related, I see a lot of SR22s that do not make it to their 2000-hour TBO without some type of cylinder work or a top overhaul.

It’s noisy. All piston airplanes are noisy, but the Cirrus is noisier than most. Without the prop lever, the engine runs at around 2500 rpm in cruise (prop pitch is tied to the throttle but you have no direct control over it). That’s a good 200 rpm higher than an A36 Bonanza or Cessna 210, and the difference is noticeable. This is a very minor con because we should all be wearing ANR headsets in a high performance piston, but if you like to occasionally take your headset off to let your ears breathe, you won’t last long in an SR22.

Final score

Before summing up our results, we should remember an old aviation adage: there is no perfect airplane, only the right airplane for the mission. That means classic barstool debates about whether an airplane is “good or bad” are a waste of time. If your mission is to land on every grass strip in Idaho, the Cirrus SR22 is a terrible airplane. On the other hand, if your mission is to move 1-3 people from Chicago to Nashville in winter, the Cirrus SR22 is a wonderful airplane.

Having said that, do the pros outweigh the cons? In my opinion and for about half of my typical missions, they certainly do. The airplane is an excellent combination of performance, reliability, and fun. I enjoy flying it solo to find a $100 hamburger, where it is simple enough to relax and have fun. I also enjoy flying it with my family on long trips, where I can easily beat the airlines or the highways if I plan well. And in spite of its high price tag, the market seems to agree with my analysis, where both new and used models remain in high demand year after year.

So when people ask me what I think of the Cirrus SR22, my five-word answer is: it’s popular for a reason!

John Zimmerman
48 replies
  1. Mark Sletten
    Mark Sletten says:

    I find a free-castering nose gear much more maneuverable than the steerable type. Tight turns are much easier, and require far less power. It takes a bit more skill to steer a free-castering nose gear smoothly, but that comes with practice. A free-castering nose gear also requires more attention while moving because wind will affect your ground track, but I view this as a bonus; it forces me to keep my eyes outside during taxi where they should be.

    Reply
    • Alexander Sack
      Alexander Sack says:

      Absolutely on the free-castering nose gear! I flew a DA-40 for a while before she was sold and really appreciated its ability to make tight turns with those glider wings! It’s not that hard and you pick it up pretty quickly. But like John said, it’s not really that in itself but coupled with its braking power, I see where he is coming from.

      Reply
  2. Alexander Sack
    Alexander Sack says:

    John, I want to throw out two pro and a con not mentioned in your great article:

    I’ve flown an SR22 and they are indeed a great plane (very easy to fly too). One pro is they hold their value exceptionally well (even before COVID). Despite the jokes, I think all pilots know the SR22 is a great bird and it shows on the used market. Even TBO’ed out G2s fetch a premium. Really crazy. Also, there are tons of repair stations and most A&Ps know how to work with them (it’s not a Rockwell, it’s a Cirrus, etc.).

    On the flip side, one legit con though is the cost of ownership: There is just a lot more to maintain (including the CAPS, an IO-550. multiple batteries, etc. etc.) and the cost per hour to fly is a lot compared to other birds in the GA fleet. But I do agree you get what you pay for an SR22 is the ultimate single-engine piston – no question in my mind even if it’s not my favorite.

    Reply
    • John Zimmerman
      John Zimmerman says:

      The cost of ownership comment is for real. No airplane is cheap, but for a single engine piston the SR22 can get expensive. On the G2 I fly most often, we recently had a simple strobe light switch issue that became a moderately big deal that required removing the whole switch panel and soldering things.

      I will say, though, compared to even the cheapest turbine airplane (like a Meridian or JetProp) the Cirrus is pretty cheap to maintain!

      Reply
  3. KP
    KP says:

    The lack of nosewheel steering is also a problem on icy surfaces and on big sweeping turns – both of which have caused me grief when operating an SR22. Also, the lack of a manual pitch trim wheel is bad – I don’t like it for redundancy reasons but also a manual trim wheel would make commercial pilot 60 degree banked turns a lot easier. Doing a finger dance on the trim switch and A/P disconnect buttons while adjusting power is really annoying on a 135 ride.

    Reply
  4. Tim Decker
    Tim Decker says:

    I have to partially disagree with the statement “The only warning is to never let the parachute influence your decision making process”. I will fly my Cirrus with CAPS in lower weather conditions, mountainous terrain, and at night but will not fly a piston single engine aircraft without a parachute in those higher risk conditions because of the risk of engine failure and only one engine. I always have Min Safe Altitude displayed on my GPS and will use the CAPS for an engine failure if at or below MSA and unable to see the ground or in unsuitable terrain for an off field landing. But yes, by all means don’t use having CAPS influence decisions like thunderstorms, severe icing, turbulence, winds out of limits, etc…

    Reply
    • Shalom Wertsberger
      Shalom Wertsberger says:

      I agree 100%.
      I got my 20 because my mission was often Maine to DC, often flying at night. translation: flying over a lot of granite when I cannot see it. The parachute allowed me to do so with a single with much much less trepidation.

      I had one failure where I almost used it, but decided against as I was certain I could make it to the airport. Knowing it is there is a super great comfort, and allowed me to keep my cool (welllllllll, more or less. Only by luck I landed by the seat of my pants and not with soiled underpants, but…).

      The parachute eats up useful weight and is truly expensive, but it is a great addition to safety. DO consider it, but remember the cost, and the fact that Cirrus squeeze their customers by constantly raising the cost for no benefit whatsoever.

      Reply
  5. Ofer
    Ofer says:

    I fly a 2009 G3 SR22 (non turbo) and every word in this article is as accurate as it gets. Took me awhile to get used to the steering, but once you do, the free castering is easier to maneuver in tight corners. Once my instructor told me to “think you are navigating a shopping cart” all my steering issues went away.

    Cost of ownership is so high it is giving me second thoughts on some days. Related, I am running into many small quality issues with the plane features, and mediocre quality x many small items certainly contribute to higher up keep cost.

    Yes, the parachute should never cross your mind in flight planning.

    Reply
  6. RR
    RR says:

    I bought a G3 turbonormalized version in 2022 without ever having flown a Cirrus based on its updated engineering, performance specs, reputation, and popularity. All of those pilots gushing praise on it can’t be wrong. I now think I would have been happier with a Bonanza, like the F-33A I used to own, even with its lesser speed.
    Why? Several reasons. Yes, the cruise performance is great for a piston single, especially one with fixed gear and I love (strongly like?) that. But I am not fond of its handling characteristics, particularly the difficulty slowing it down. The flap extension speeds are way too low for such a slick plane. And, I find that, like a Mooney, you really need to nail the airspeed on final. For me, a Bonanza is much easier to land and handles better, but that’s just my preference.
    The cost of maintenance has been ridiculously high, and perhaps this is just the new normal for all high performance singles. This airplane has had a parade of maintenance problems requiring expensive attention.
    I hate (strongly dislike?) the free castering nose gear. Trying to hold it straight on the taxiway in a crosswind without riding the brakes is impossible and annoying. I wind up taxiing way too fast so I can have some rudder authority. But, yes, it does turn on a dime.
    Things I really like: the AC! In Texas! It’s awesome and actually works. The well laid out cockpit with the side stick is also really nice. I would prefer to have manual control over the prop, I think. And, of course, the speed is great for cross country.

    Reply
    • John Zimmerman
      John Zimmerman says:

      The Mooney comparison is a good one – in both airplanes you simply must be on speed on short final or it’s not going to work out. The accident record shows this, with plenty of overruns.

      However, I’ve found this to be a solvable problem. With good training and good SOPs, it’s easy to slow down and land short. Yes, you have to start pulling the power back long before you hit left downwind, but once you know that it’s just a matter of planning ahead.

      Reply
    • Barton Robinett
      Barton Robinett says:

      The Cirrus is too expensive to buy and to maintain, period. You pay the price for the CAPS and if it’s worth it to you fine, but don’t try to justify the price of the airplane on the basis of performance or capability. A garden variety G2-3-4 costs 4 to 6 times what my 1965 V35 is worth yet my airplane is as fast, or faster since 170k all day long is easily achieved. It can have an equally capable avionics system and it’s much more utilitarian. Lets don’t even think about a Cirrus newer than a G5 as they’re stupid expensive. I fly my Bonanza off a 3000 foot E/W oriented grass strip in East Texas all year long with plenty of margins whereas most Cirrus pilots wouldn’t even consider landing there especially with a crosswind of more than 5-7 knots. If you have plenty of money and or a tax write off option the Cirrus is a good airplane but dollar for dollar and pound for pound you can’t do better than a 1962 or newer Bonanza for the same mission.

      Reply
        • Larry Smith
          Larry Smith says:

          You’re comparing a 2009 G36 Bonanza to a Cirrus… NO comparison. The Bonanza wins in all categories, handling, costs, ease of flying, 6 seats, etc. Both good planes, but the Bo is in a different class.

          Reply
      • Larry Smith
        Larry Smith says:

        I totally agree with your comments about the Bonanza, having owned a few.
        I considered the SR22 very seriously as a replacement for my Baron. After a careful comparison, including cost of ownership over time. (Yes, I was comparing older with newer, but the older Baron can be retrofit with all of the conveniences of the SR22 excepting the chute, which wouldn’t be needed.) The Baron had a much better balanced filed profile for both TO or landing, much better engine cooling options (never got over 400d) with the similar 550 engines), significantly better handling, ground and air. Plus, my Baron could load 6 pax and baggage and fly for 500 mn or 3 or 4 pax and bags and go over 1000 nm. Yes maintenance was higher, but not that much, and much more predictable. (had very few “no go” mechanicals).
        Now, with my Bonanzas, even better! Less money to own and operate at 160kts at 12.5 gph, and most of the Baron features, handling, short field, excepting range and load capability. Could add the deice if needed, and electronics, AC, but no chute. Without the chute, planning became more of an issue at times, granted.
        Now, the Cirrus IS a very nice plane, but not a comparison to the Beechcraft. The only reason they sell more is their much better marketing and the fact that Beech jacked is price up to ridiculous.
        For my experience, I’ll stay with the Beech.

        Reply
  7. William Kearns
    William Kearns says:

    Sometimes adding a little power for prop wash helps the turn easier with the help of the rudder.
    My plane is a SR22-G2. I replaced one of the Garmin 430s with a Garmin GTN 750Xi. This touchscreen is so much easier then all the buttons that are in later models before the G7.

    Reply
  8. Benjamin Rosenberg
    Benjamin Rosenberg says:

    I tend to agree with your Pro and Cons. As a 32 year Mooney pilot (MSE and then Ovation), I just took possession of an SR22 G7. I do have some comments. First, I love the ground handling of the Cirrus. I can make tight turns that I’d never even consider in a Mooney. Any Mooney pilot will tell you that Mooneys aren’t great on the ground and the 13deg nose wheel max required me to always talk to an FBO prior to any tug handling. You’re right about Yaw handling on takeoff and climb until the Yaw Damper takes effect so your right foot will get a workout. I think your Con on the brakes is a bit overstated. Once I owned airplanes, unless it’s a short fired, I let the plane run out and stay off the brakes. Better to use aerodynamic braking. The only big Con I’ve run into is the gear fairings when you want to check tire pressures. You’re forced into marking the tires so when you open the small gear doors the tire pressure valve can be easily accessed. You also need to use low profile chocks to avoid damaging the fairings. That said, I love the plane.

    Reply
    • John Zimmerman
      John Zimmerman says:

      Checking tire pressure is indeed a pain. We went so far as to measure the height from the hangar floor to the bottom of the wheel pant when tire pressure is perfect – then we can at least do a quick eyeball test to see if pressure is low. Obviously not a substitute for actually checking, but sometimes you don’t have 30 minutes to do it the right way.

      Reply
    • Shalom Wertsberger
      Shalom Wertsberger says:

      Someone in Pennsylvania makes a better door for air fill.
      Also, get a white marker (Milwaukee tools at home depot) and mark the wheel where the valve is. Makes it much easier to find the place where you should fill. The height above ground is a good way to measure pressure.

      Reply
  9. Shalom Wertsberger
    Shalom Wertsberger says:

    Jon, I am surprised about the temp issues, at least in my 2004 G2. I hardly ever get near 420 CHT. If I gets to 400 i try to figure out what is wrong and consider landing. Even at high altitudes and on hot days (granted I only had one case, from Santa Fe, where I really need to go high on a hot day) I did not see 400 CHT. This was a regular problem on the 20, but not on the 22. I must say that I regularly cruise climb at 110 or better.

    As for cost of ownership – yes, it is atrocious. The parachute is perhaps the worst. The maintenance cost of the parachute at the time I got my 20 was promised to be about 5-7K – less than a third of what Cirrus forces on their captive audience. This is one thing that I am warning any prospective Cirrus owner about – Cirrus knows that they hold you near the short hairs and they regularly raise the price beyond any reason. Yes they come out with “improved” parts with different numbers, but those almost entirely improve only their bottom line. If at least they had provided longer time…
    A second issue is the equipment: Upgrading is PAINFUL. The close design makes both repairs and upgrade super expensive.
    I found ground handling to be easy, including on ice, if your nose wheel bearing is properly adjusted, except in really high cross wind. Then, yes, I need to heat the prop and ride the brakes. As for getting used to the side stick, it took me almost 30 seconds.
    While the 20 was superbly balanced (I claim that an average chimpanzee should be trainable to fly it), the 22 is a little nose heavy, which makes it a little heavy on certain maneuvers (e.g. the 60 degree bank) but not a big deal.
    Trim is poor. I designed and even got got engineering approval for a speed adjustment on the trim, but while the parts cost was about $20, PMA raised to to over $1700 and I gave it up…

    On the PRO side: the cabin allows me to fly over 1200 NM/day and finish without bad back, and this comfort and speed are worth a lot. I find the aircraft SUPER EASY to fly, I love that I will never forget to lower the gear, I landed it with reasonable ease at >30 kts cross winds, and in general I love the way it flies.

    Reply
  10. Misael Garcia
    Misael Garcia says:

    While I’m not an expert, I recently earned my Private Pilot Certificate in the summer of 2024 and have logged a total of 120 hours of flight time, making me a relatively new pilot. Most of my flying experience has been in a C172SP equipped with a G1000 glass panel. I recently completed a check ride in an SR20/G3, annd I have over 20 flight time hours in the SR20 and now I find it hard to consider going back to the C172.

    Reply
  11. James Austin
    James Austin says:

    “ If you ever find yourself saying, “this flight is 50/50, but I’ve got the parachute in case something goes wrong,” then you’re doing it wrong. ”

    I know what you’re saying here; but (like Tim and Shalom) I’d have to disagree. As a relatively low-hour pilot, any single-engine flight at night or in IMC would be 50/50 without the parachute; and, while I was trained to flight-plan a route that ‘hops’ from glidable strip to strip (or at least over open terrain), I feel quite comfortable planning direct routes over less hospitable terrain knowing that if the engine quits, I have the option of CAPS.

    Reply
    • John Zimmerman
      John Zimmerman says:

      Maybe I said that too definitively, but I do think it’s a slippery slope if you start regularly falling back on the parachute during preflight planning. In your example, I really don’t think a night flight in a single is a 50/50 proposition – statistically it’s about a 98/2 decision, but obviously personal comfort matters a lot here and I respect the decision to be conservative in that situation.

      But to be specific, there’s nothing about night that adds to the risk of engine failure, it’s just that your options are really bad if it happens. That’s a subtle but important difference from a scenario like serious in-flight icing or low IFR weather with poor instrument skills. In those cases, the parachute isn’t there as a worst case option in case something unlucky happens, it’s being used to actively mitigate risks that it cannot actually affect.

      To put in car terms, I always wear my seat belt. Why? Because I might make a mistake or another driver might hit me; but I do not use the seat belt to justify driving 100 on the highway or after I’ve had four drinks. To me, the first two examples are like flying at night in a piston single; the latter two are like flying in unsafe weather just because of CAPS. I love seat belts and the parachute, but they have to be used for the right reasons.

      Reply
  12. BP Miller
    BP Miller says:

    I’m surprised that no one has commented on the lack of ability to stall a Cirrus. While the FAA emphasizes stall avoidance instead of recovery, I find it uncomfortable that stalls are typically not recoverable.

    Reply
    • Josh Pavlovich
      Josh Pavlovich says:

      BP, there is no problem with stalls in the plane. I’m not sure what this “Lack of ability” is that you speak of. I see people stall Cirrus on a regular basis, like almost daily, and recover, per the documented normal procedures. And, in G6 and newer aircraft (maybe even G5 but I don’t fly those that often to know for sure) the is Electronic Stability Protection the further helps in stall and similar situation avoidance and recovery. The new G7 planes even have a basic stick shaker like the SF50 does. But again, all models recover fine from a stall. They are just very hard to stall because of superior wings design.

      Reply
    • Josh Pavlovich
      Josh Pavlovich says:

      “Aircraft stall characteristics are conventional. Power-off stalls may be accompanied by a slight nose bobbing if full aft stick is held. Power-on stalls are marked by a high sink rate at full aft stick. Power-off stall speeds at maximum weight for both forward and aft CG positions are presented in Section 5 – Stall Speeds.
      When practicing stalls at altitude, as the airspeed is slowly reduced, you will notice a slight airframe buffet, hear the stall speed warning horn sound between 5 and 10 knots before the stall, and see the Crew Alerting System display a STALL Warning annunciation. Normally, the stall is marked by a gentle nose drop and the wings can easily be held level or in the bank with coordinated use of the ailerons and rudder. Upon stall warning in flight, recovery is accomplished by immediately reducing back pressure to reduce the angle of attack and to maintain safe airspeed, adding power if necessary and rolling wings level with coordinated use of the controls.”

      Reply
    • Robert Alexander
      Robert Alexander says:

      I have not flown a Cirrus SR-22, but one of the flight schools on my field has a few, and I was told quite the opposite. You can easily stall the aircraft if you are not on the numbers, and one of the reasons for the parachute was its difficulty in recovering from a stall.

      Again, I have not flown one personally, but that is what I heard from CFIs who fly them every day.

      Reply
      • CVC
        CVC says:

        “but one of the flight schools on my field has a few, and I was told quite the opposite. You can easily stall the aircraft if you are not on the numbers, and one of the reasons for the parachute was its difficulty in recovering from a stall.”

        This so wrong I don’t even know where to begin.

        John great article. Spot on.

        I wasn’t going to post on this but after watching a FAA sponsored webinar on the SR 22 that had so many incorrect facts and reading some of these posts (only some) I decided to help set the record straight. At least try.

        First, there are now over 10,000 SR delivered and over 600 SF50s.

        Second, CAPS was not added because the airplane won’t recover from stalls or spins with normal control inputs. It was certified in the USA with ELOS (Equivalent Level Of Safety) In Europe under EASA Regs it was certified including spin recovery. We won’t get into the probability of actually recovering from a spin where they most commonly cause fatal accidentrs.

        It was added because regardless of why, one more level of safety never hurts. 25 years later it has proven its worth. I might add that it has been shown that the average pilot would likely fail miserably attempting such recoveries.

        Third, the catering nose wheel is really a non issue just like the side stick.

        Fourth, brakes will not save you on a short runway if the approach is flown fast.

        Josh P. knows of what he speaks.

        BP Miller does not.

        There is no Auto Land in the SR22. But the SF50 has had two successful CAPS pulls. No injuries. No one has activated Safe Return at this writing.

        “As a relatively low-hour pilot, any single-engine flight at night or in IMC would be 50/50 without the parachute; and, while I was trained to flight-plan a route that ‘hops’ from glidable strip to strip (or at least over open terrain), I feel quite comfortable planning direct routes over less hospitable terrain knowing that if the engine quits, I have the option of CAPS.”

        My only comment is simply this; In a single engine piston REGARDLESS OF HOURS mitigate risk this way: Night, IMC, Mountains; PICK ONE

        Reply
        • Robert McHale
          Robert McHale says:

          Thank you, CVC. Truth.
          John had a good article, but some of these comments are so wrong. I hope that flight school is not so wrong on other training issues.

          Reply
  13. Sal M
    Sal M says:

    Great article and you nailed it! I however, never thought the free castering nose wheel was an issue. Never had an issue with them or brakes. Maybe because I had great Cirrus transition training and knew to nail my speeds. Or because I owned a Mooney before my first Cirrus and had to be disciplined about it as well.

    To me for comfort, economy, technology and safety, there is no better cross country SE piston then a Cirrus SR22 NA or T.

    Reply
  14. Dan E
    Dan E says:

    So, basically a slower cruise, slower climb, louder, hotter-running, and more expensive Mooney Acclaim, though it does carry more. Oh, and the manufacturer is still making planes, so there’s that. But hope springs eternal for Mooney to rise from the ashes for the N-th time!

    Reply
  15. Sebastian V Massimini
    Sebastian V Massimini says:

    Hi: Great article. I live on a 2000 ft grass strip, so this is not the airplane for me–I have a Maule and a Champ. But I think the Cirrus is a great machine. My only big issue, as noted in other comments, is the speed on final and how critical that is– and much of that is from the restricted backstick available. The backstick restriction is for spin prevention, as I understand it. As long as you are careful on landing and don’t need to do shorter strips–go for it. Thanks for the article. Vince

    Reply
  16. Robert Alexander
    Robert Alexander says:

    John, good article. I saw nothing in your analysis on evaluating how it hand flies (no automation) vs. other GA aircraft. Curious about your perspective on that. Most airplanes fly great when on automation, but the moment something fails, it increases workload and from my experience, some aircraft are just easier to hand fly than others.

    Reply
    • John Zimmerman
      John Zimmerman says:

      I think it’s a nice hand flying airplane. Maybe not the graceful balance of a Bonanza, but certainly more fun than a 210. The controls are a little stiff, given the centering spring mechanism in the stick, but once you move them it’s very responsive.

      I’ve heard varying opinions over the years, but I really like hand flying the SR22. You can just put it where you want it and it stays there. Crosswind landings are pretty easy too.

      Reply
  17. Stu Sibitzky
    Stu Sibitzky says:

    My wife and I are both pilots. She flew the Cirrus several months before I did when their traveling road show came to town. We toured the factory the next summer (in a borrowed 182) and got another pair of flights (one for me) with Gary Black. We were all the way to a pre-buy inspection on a Cirrus when a lot of discussion around gravel operation began to take center-stage. Most of our flying was centered around gravel and dirt strips (interior Alaska) and we eventually backed off on the deal. That being said however, we really liked the airplane. It was easy to fly and the nose wheel steering was not an issue for us. It really would have been nice to have for our long summer trips (as in Fairbanks, Miami, OSH and home). Comfortable, fast and capable.

    Reply
    • John Zimmerman
      John Zimmerman says:

      I agree with your choice. The Cirrus is a great airplane, but soft fields and gravel make me nervous. There are better airplanes if that’s your regular mission.

      Reply
  18. Vic Myev
    Vic Myev says:

    Thanks John, good article. I have been flying Cirruses for over 10 years and have over 3000 hours in all the models. I am a CFII for an Arizona rental/training operation (Ad Astra, Scottsdale AZ). We provide rental and training in 8 SR22Ts (4 G5s, 4 G6s, 1 G7). I agree with the pros, and the cons such as free-castering steering and landing technique, can be addressed through proper and recurrent training. I would add just a couple of cons that I hope Cirrus will address one day:
    Main tire inspection
    There is no practical way to inspect the condition of the main tires. I’ve had two blowouts on landing because someone landed with their feet on the brakes and erased the rubber down to the tread. Perhaps a hatch which could open on top of the wheel pant could allow an easy visual inspection. Meanwhile, I’ve added a line to the FAA’s Stable Approach Checklist; “Feet down, off the brakes!”
    Where do i put my headset?
    The newer Cirruses have a strap for your headset on the side of the seatback. Very inconvenient, in my opinion. I fashioned a small hook out of coathanger wire and hang my headset on the hand hold. No, don’t put your headset on top of the glareshield!
    Addiction
    The biggest con, that i explain to all my students, is the dopamine rush from flying a Cirrus. you’ll never be able to fly anything else!
    Enjoy!

    Reply
  19. wade russell
    wade russell says:

    Being a 4000hr+ almost 40yrs GA pilot, and owned 18 diff. high perf. singles[including 3 M20R`s & 3PA46`s] I like the SR22 overall. Yes- too expensive to maintain for what it represents, BUT my single biggest complaint is the lack of a Prop control ! This leads to way more useless noise and fuel burn for what ?!? So a dumb bunny can fly it without learning “detailed engine management skills”?!? Nuff said!

    Reply
  20. Ellis Nelson
    Ellis Nelson says:

    A good recap John and I would agree with most of your comments.
    I have about 950 hours in various Cirrus models and I found it to be a joy to fly. Most of my flights were under Part 135 around the Eastern U.S. and all in seasons. The air conditioning was a must in the Southeast in the summer.
    Flying IFR was easy and I found the autopilot to do a nice job in Cat I approaches. I’d leave it coupled until DH and it was spot on 99%of the time.

    Reply
  21. Robert Sneed
    Robert Sneed says:

    John,
    Do you think the Cirrus avionics would be better with Smart Glide capability? Like you say, Cirrus has always been forward with it’s avionics systems, I am wondering why it doesn’t have Smart Glide. I’m unfamiliar with Cirrus, but I saw that the Perspective does not have it.
    I like the perspective (no pun) of your article and thoughts.

    Reply
    • John Zimmerman
      John Zimmerman says:

      Well the model I fly has Smart Glide, because it has been updated with a GTN 750Xi in the panel. It seems to work great, although I’ve never used it for real. And remember the Vision Jet has the full Safe Return feature.

      Reply
  22. Justin Case
    Justin Case says:

    Well, there’s one thing I can agree with you on, that is that most of the people who hate the SR22 have never flown one. I hate them and I’ve never flown one. LOVE my Ovation though….

    Reply
  23. Dave
    Dave says:

    The Cirrus is a great airplane and it is new and has great Cirrus support. It flies at speed and is comfortable for long distance flights. The number made and sold tell it all.
    Like all airplanes it has its quirks. The wheels are inside spats that make checking the tires and getting to the air valve hard. Take off the spats and you risk stones doing damage to the underside of the wing. The spats are what gives a Cirrus its speed without the issues of a retract gear airplane. And I will bet that Cirrus have looked at a retract!
    It has a small oil tank, certainly compared to other brands. The Conty will usually only get two thirds through the TBO before needing top end work. Maybe the Chinese who own Continental will sometime sort that issue out. A Lycoming usually will go all the way to TBO with no major work.
    The small wheels and the spats tell you that this is not an aircraft for grass strips or soft surface. Sink into a soft surface and with luck and power you might be able to ‘ski’ your way to black top. Operate on black top only.
    The SR22 is noisy. When one flies past my home at say 2000′ I do have to look up to know it is a 22 from the noise.
    W&B. Get a 22 with Oxygen, De-Icing weeping wing, Turbo and Air Con and full fuel and you have maybe a one and a half seater. The five seat version is great but for short trips. For pilots who do not fly a Cirrus on a regular basis the panel could be a case of ‘Use it or lose it’. I have seen pilots on the hard stand going through the Cirrus check list when the C172 parked next to them has already departed.
    The Cirrus is new and exciting. The parachute gets wives to tell husband to buy the machine ‘cos that means he can always get home, one way or another. That parachute sells the type.
    As I recall the airframe has a limited life. Guys what is it? John?
    You need a workshop that can handle servicing a Cirrus and has that knowledge. Is there one in your area. Nothing worse than having a maintenance issue and finding that the nearest A&P is out of his depth with a 20 or 22.
    Yes, I have time on the SR20 and the SR22.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *