Cirrus Perspective
04-12-2009, 06:07 AM
#1
Self Employed.
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Cirrus Perspective
One of my flight students just bought a brand new Turbo Cirrus SR22 GTS Perspective. He wants to get an instrument rating so last week I went up with him for the first time in his new plane. Though I have plenty of background with modern automated aircraft systems I don't have any experience with the new generation of flat screen plastic general aviation planes.
I was expecting to be impressed but got totally blown away instead. The Cirrus perspective is better equipped than any airliner I know of. Along with all the usual flat screen magic like synthetic vision and highway in the sky stuff it even has an infrared camera so that in low light, fog or whatever you can still see the runway.
The seats were comfortable. The cabin was quiet. All the automation felt natural. The entire package comes together into a form that must be close to what divine inspiration intended for us when the concept of aviation was born. It is like a magic carpet ride. So far, the only thing that I can say for certain that it can not do is to leave the atmosphere and enter low earth orbit.
I want one !!
Jim
I was expecting to be impressed but got totally blown away instead. The Cirrus perspective is better equipped than any airliner I know of. Along with all the usual flat screen magic like synthetic vision and highway in the sky stuff it even has an infrared camera so that in low light, fog or whatever you can still see the runway.
The seats were comfortable. The cabin was quiet. All the automation felt natural. The entire package comes together into a form that must be close to what divine inspiration intended for us when the concept of aviation was born. It is like a magic carpet ride. So far, the only thing that I can say for certain that it can not do is to leave the atmosphere and enter low earth orbit.
I want one !!
Jim
04-12-2009, 01:08 PM
#3
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
I have been flying G1000 glass cockpits the last few years. They are wonderful for how they integrate cruise control, present and organize satellite download data, increase accuracy, cohere presented data, and permit better use of the panel space than in former systems.
One problem I see with them though is the high density of displayed information tends to confuse the primary students. They see all this stuff on there which means nothing to them and they spend a lot of mental energy trying to sort it out. The learning curve is quick and the first few hours is more difficult. There seems to be a higher investment factor in terms of initial study for the average student.
Some other minor problems- glass panel systems increase the complexity of wiring schematics, and for instructors to fail instruments is more difficult because of computer reboot times. They are also kind of expensive compared to analog equipment, but considering the many benefits the additional cost seems justified for most airplanes.
When you know how to use them properly glass systems increase the safety margin and a buyer is led into investing in more into safety features than in the past. For example, traffic information systems for aircraft without onboard radar were rarely purchased in 4 seat aircraft before the advent glass cockpit systems, now you get it as standard equipment in almost every trainer. The ones I fly have satellite download capability and vertical navigation autopilots, among other things. This was unheard of ten years ago.
One problem I see with them though is the high density of displayed information tends to confuse the primary students. They see all this stuff on there which means nothing to them and they spend a lot of mental energy trying to sort it out. The learning curve is quick and the first few hours is more difficult. There seems to be a higher investment factor in terms of initial study for the average student.
Some other minor problems- glass panel systems increase the complexity of wiring schematics, and for instructors to fail instruments is more difficult because of computer reboot times. They are also kind of expensive compared to analog equipment, but considering the many benefits the additional cost seems justified for most airplanes.
When you know how to use them properly glass systems increase the safety margin and a buyer is led into investing in more into safety features than in the past. For example, traffic information systems for aircraft without onboard radar were rarely purchased in 4 seat aircraft before the advent glass cockpit systems, now you get it as standard equipment in almost every trainer. The ones I fly have satellite download capability and vertical navigation autopilots, among other things. This was unheard of ten years ago.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 04-12-2009 at 03:04 PM.
04-12-2009, 01:18 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by SkyHigh
One of my flight students just bought a brand new Turbo Cirrus SR22 GTS Perspective. He wants to get an instrument rating so last week I went up with him for the first time in his new plane. Though I have plenty of background with modern automated aircraft systems I don't have any experience with the new generation of flat screen plastic general aviation planes.
I was expecting to be impressed but got totally blown away instead. The Cirrus perspective is better equipped than any airliner I know of. Along with all the usual flat screen magic like synthetic vision and highway in the sky stuff it even has an infrared camera so that in low light, fog or whatever you can still see the runway.
The seats were comfortable. The cabin was quiet. All the automation felt natural. The entire package comes together into a form that must be close to what divine inspiration intended for us when the concept of aviation was born. It is like a magic carpet ride. So far, the only thing that I can say for certain that it can not do is to leave the atmosphere and enter low earth orbit.
I want one !!
Jim
I was expecting to be impressed but got totally blown away instead. The Cirrus perspective is better equipped than any airliner I know of. Along with all the usual flat screen magic like synthetic vision and highway in the sky stuff it even has an infrared camera so that in low light, fog or whatever you can still see the runway.
The seats were comfortable. The cabin was quiet. All the automation felt natural. The entire package comes together into a form that must be close to what divine inspiration intended for us when the concept of aviation was born. It is like a magic carpet ride. So far, the only thing that I can say for certain that it can not do is to leave the atmosphere and enter low earth orbit.
I want one !!
Jim
I totally agree. I had been carrying around a picture of the Cirrus cockpit for many years now and they are only getting better. Recently I had a chance to see a little bit of an Avidyne system in a Piper Matrix. I believe that is the same system that is found in the Cirrus. I only saw some features demo'ed on the ground but I can't wait to actually fly an airplane with this type of avionics suite. The Hornet cockpit used to be called a "Star Wars" cockpit because it was so advanced - well....it is more than amazing what is available in general aviation (at a price!)
USMCFLYR
04-12-2009, 07:38 PM
#5
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Skyhigh,
Please do tell how well the infrared system works. I've been researching some of the websites on the net trying to size up their effectiveness. I realize the infrared won't see through a solid cloud deck, but I wonder how much sooner a person can acquire a runway while shooting an approach in the clag with it. Seems to be a boon for night ops, especially in and out of unfamiliar airports with terrain/obstructions.
Finally, is it the known ice Cirrus? I'm curious to know how effective the weeping system works...
Please do tell how well the infrared system works. I've been researching some of the websites on the net trying to size up their effectiveness. I realize the infrared won't see through a solid cloud deck, but I wonder how much sooner a person can acquire a runway while shooting an approach in the clag with it. Seems to be a boon for night ops, especially in and out of unfamiliar airports with terrain/obstructions.
Finally, is it the known ice Cirrus? I'm curious to know how effective the weeping system works...
04-12-2009, 08:00 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by block30
Skyhigh,
Please do tell how well the infrared system works. I've been researching some of the websites on the net trying to size up their effectiveness. I realize the infrared won't see through a solid cloud deck, but I wonder how much sooner a person can acquire a runway while shooting an approach in the clag with it. Seems to be a boon for night ops, especially in and out of unfamiliar airports with terrain/obstructions.
Finally, is it the known ice Cirrus? I'm curious to know how effective the weeping system works...
Please do tell how well the infrared system works. I've been researching some of the websites on the net trying to size up their effectiveness. I realize the infrared won't see through a solid cloud deck, but I wonder how much sooner a person can acquire a runway while shooting an approach in the clag with it. Seems to be a boon for night ops, especially in and out of unfamiliar airports with terrain/obstructions.
Finally, is it the known ice Cirrus? I'm curious to know how effective the weeping system works...
The April 2009 issue of 'FLYING' magazine had an excellent article on the Cirrus that would answer many of your questions I'm sure.
USMCFLYR
04-13-2009, 05:09 AM
#7
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,945
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Skyhigh -
I totally agree. I had been carrying around a picture of the Cirrus cockpit for many years now and they are only getting better. Recently I had a chance to see a little bit of an Avidyne system in a Piper Matrix. I believe that is the same system that is found in the Cirrus. I only saw some features demo'ed on the ground but I can't wait to actually fly an airplane with this type of avionics suite. The Hornet cockpit used to be called a "Star Wars" cockpit because it was so advanced - well....it is more than amazing what is available in general aviation (at a price!)
USMCFLYR
I totally agree. I had been carrying around a picture of the Cirrus cockpit for many years now and they are only getting better. Recently I had a chance to see a little bit of an Avidyne system in a Piper Matrix. I believe that is the same system that is found in the Cirrus. I only saw some features demo'ed on the ground but I can't wait to actually fly an airplane with this type of avionics suite. The Hornet cockpit used to be called a "Star Wars" cockpit because it was so advanced - well....it is more than amazing what is available in general aviation (at a price!)
USMCFLYR
The avidyne system is actually their old system which I believe still may be an option. The perspective is the latest generation of the G1000 which belongs to garmin. The garmin perspective system is a far superior product.
One argument FOR the avidyne system is that it is driven off of garmin 430s so if a screen dies you still have GPS and COMMS but the G1000 has so many redundant systems that a complete failure would be a very rare event.
04-13-2009, 06:05 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by usmc-sgt
The avidyne system is actually their old system which I believe still may be an option. The perspective is the latest generation of the G1000 which belongs to garmin. The garmin perspective system is a far superior product.
One argument FOR the avidyne system is that it is driven off of garmin 430s so if a screen dies you still have GPS and COMMS but the G1000 has so many redundant systems that a complete failure would be a very rare event.
One argument FOR the avidyne system is that it is driven off of garmin 430s so if a screen dies you still have GPS and COMMS but the G1000 has so many redundant systems that a complete failure would be a very rare event.
USMCFLYR
04-13-2009, 06:16 AM
#9
Self Employed.
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Upside down
The cirrus perspective overturns many of aviation's long held beliefs, practices and traditions. As Cubdriver mentioned it is very difficult to simulate system failures. There seems to be a back up for everything. There is no ADF. During unusual attitudes there is a button that automatically levels the plane. The synthetic vision makes attitude instrument flying a snap.
Things like whiskey compass turns and 500 FPM climbs seem ridiculous in the cirrus. I suppose that you just have to give in to the automation. Someone at the airport criticized the Cirrus as an IFR platform since it is a single engine however with the ballistic chute and airbags it changes the game. I think that I would feel safer in the Cirrus than in a Barron when flying over the cascades at night.
The automation is over powering but when properly harnessed the plane is capable of almost anything. As far as I can determine the autopilot can be on throughout the entire instrument check ride except for one non-precision approach that must be hand flown. However you can still use the flight director.
A half a million bucks is a lot of cash to blow on a plane however when a new Barron is 1.2 million it seems like a great deal. I told my student that once he gets his rating if he were to try and fly his fathers Cherokee under IFR he would probably kill himself.
Like modern airline wonder kids it will be very difficult to impossible for my student to be able to develop real old fashioned steam gauge attitude instrument skills. However when the future belongs to planes like the perspective who cares?
Skyhigh
Things like whiskey compass turns and 500 FPM climbs seem ridiculous in the cirrus. I suppose that you just have to give in to the automation. Someone at the airport criticized the Cirrus as an IFR platform since it is a single engine however with the ballistic chute and airbags it changes the game. I think that I would feel safer in the Cirrus than in a Barron when flying over the cascades at night.
The automation is over powering but when properly harnessed the plane is capable of almost anything. As far as I can determine the autopilot can be on throughout the entire instrument check ride except for one non-precision approach that must be hand flown. However you can still use the flight director.
A half a million bucks is a lot of cash to blow on a plane however when a new Barron is 1.2 million it seems like a great deal. I told my student that once he gets his rating if he were to try and fly his fathers Cherokee under IFR he would probably kill himself.
Like modern airline wonder kids it will be very difficult to impossible for my student to be able to develop real old fashioned steam gauge attitude instrument skills. However when the future belongs to planes like the perspective who cares?
Skyhigh
04-13-2009, 07:03 AM
#10
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
The advances in the G1000 are just outright awesome. The Perspective is just a move catered version of this unit. I fly TBM850's with the Gigantic middle screen and keypad(just like in the Citation Mustang), and it's the perfect compliment to this aircraft. I also fly the Avidyne systems in all the Piper products, and love them too as a pilot. Functionality between units does take a little while to get used to, but once you're comfortable, things are natural as with the old systems.
I have huge mixed emotions about the parachute. There is already an accident where a gentleman(300hr pilot) in his brand new Perspective equipped plane, had to pull the chute because he upset himself over trying to manage closing the door and/or returning to the airport in a Marginal VMC or IMC situation. He also tried hitting the "Magic blue button" and it didn't have enough time to level the aircraft, so he had to pull the chute.
My problem is people use the chute, and the magic blue button as a huge crutch, instead of learning the necessary skills. They are so amazed about the technology that is infront of them, how could they possibly mess up right???
I know you specifically will ensure that they will learn the proper techniques and have proficiency to fly the plane, but there are many programs out there (like the PIC IFR training course) that power you out in 10-30 days, and I just haven't seen the safe results from it. I also don't believe in the FITS style of training either, but that's another day.
Hope you enjoy the flights in that bad-boy, because it is a very fast and efficient bird! Good luck with the training.
I have huge mixed emotions about the parachute. There is already an accident where a gentleman(300hr pilot) in his brand new Perspective equipped plane, had to pull the chute because he upset himself over trying to manage closing the door and/or returning to the airport in a Marginal VMC or IMC situation. He also tried hitting the "Magic blue button" and it didn't have enough time to level the aircraft, so he had to pull the chute.
My problem is people use the chute, and the magic blue button as a huge crutch, instead of learning the necessary skills. They are so amazed about the technology that is infront of them, how could they possibly mess up right???
I know you specifically will ensure that they will learn the proper techniques and have proficiency to fly the plane, but there are many programs out there (like the PIC IFR training course) that power you out in 10-30 days, and I just haven't seen the safe results from it. I also don't believe in the FITS style of training either, but that's another day.
Hope you enjoy the flights in that bad-boy, because it is a very fast and efficient bird! Good luck with the training.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
