Your opinion on adding weight to improve landings

[coppercity]

Although the SR22T typically uses a 20-30% power on approach it can be landed just fine power off.  The Cirrus transition course has the student perform multiple power off landings from the abeam touchdown downwind position as part of the training syllabus.  With a more forward CG in the SR22T landings are easier with a little power, with a person and some baggage in the back power off touchdowns from a normal approach are easy and you can hold the nose off for quite awhile!

[Scott Lee]

I'm excited to try the tape. I had a landing where my instructor kept saying right rudder and the correction made me feel like I was going to go off the right side of the runway, it was unnerving. I have some speed tape I'll cut and align on the mushroom. In thinking about Eric's remarks and my reluctance to use more right rudder and I think I understand where I am going wrong.

 

I wanted to go today but we had very strong gusty winds.

[gbigs]

Although the SR22T typically uses a 20-30% power on approach it can be landed just fine power off.  The Cirrus transition course has the student perform multiple power off landings from the abeam touchdown downwind position as part of the training syllabus.  With a more forward CG in the SR22T landings are easier with a little power, with a person and some baggage in the back power off touchdowns from a normal approach are easy and you can hold the nose off for quite awhile!

 

None of the factory CSIPs suggest a no power landing can be done in a standard base to approach circuit from pattern altitude.  Every one of them instructs to use at least 20% on approach and slowly pull back power after leveling off.  

 

I have landed both demo and my own plane enough times now to verify that there is no way the plane will make the threshold or maintain 80kts over the numbers landing without power in a standard approach.    The only way it could be done is by turning just after abeam the numbers and diving at the runway....not something I will do in my own plane.

 

We have always had at least three adults in the plane and several times with four. 

 

This is from the POH:

Normal Landing

1. Flaps......................................................................................100%

2. Airspeed........................................................................80-85 KIAS

3. Power Lever...........................................................AS REQUIRED

 

[coppercity]

None of the factory CSIPs suggest a no power landing can be done in a standard base to approach circuit from pattern altitude.  Every one of them instructs to use at least 20% on approach and slowly pull back power after leveling off.  

 

I have landed both demo and my own plane enough times now to verify that there is no way the plane will make the threshold or maintain 80kts over the numbers landing without power in a standard approach.    The only way it could be done is by turning just after abeam the numbers and diving at the runway....not something I will do in my own plane.

 

We have always had at least three adults in the plane and several times with four. 

 

This is from the POH:

Normal Landing

1. Flaps......................................................................................100%

2. Airspeed........................................................................80-85 KIAS

3. Power Lever...........................................................AS REQUIRED

 

 

I'm surprised your CSIPs didn't have you do a few power off approach's.  When my wife and I picked up the 2013 SR22T G5 we fly and renewed our CSIPs at the factory we had to demonstrate teaching power off approach's starting from the abeam point in the downwind.  You do have to turn almost immediately for the runway or you could end up short, but pitching for the target airspeed and maintaining a glideslope to the touchdown zone yields a successful power off landing.

 

I would agree that with the wide blades of the 22T propeller wind milling at idle there is a good bit of drag so not feasible for a normal glideslope approach to be power off until  at or after touchdown.

 

Sounds like your enjoying your new plane!  The SR22T is an amazing machine and we are lucky to get to fly one as well!

[gbigs]

I'm surprised your CSIPs didn't have you do a few power off approach's.  When my wife and I picked up the 2013 SR22T G5 we fly and renewed our CSIPs at the factory we had to demonstrate teaching power off approach's starting from the abeam point in the downwind.  You do have to turn almost immediately for the runway or you could end up short, but pitching for the target airspeed and maintaining a glideslope to the touchdown zone yields a successful power off landing.

 

I would agree that with the wide blades of the 22T propeller wind milling at idle there is a good bit of drag so not feasible for a normal glideslope approach to be power off until  at or after touchdown.

 

Sounds like your enjoying your new plane!  The SR22T is an amazing machine and we are lucky to get to fly one as well!

 

Yea, my original point with Ed is not a power-off maneuver in the pattern...but with a 'normal' pattern flight to base and approach.   I realize the older Cirrus may fly the approach with power at idle, but this plane does have a big wide prop and it really does drop speed quickly if you don't keep in at least 20% power. 

 

It was a new dynamic for me to learn - managing power in the pattern and landing.  I had always been able to easily control the CT by flying fairly slowly in the pattern and cutting power to idle mid base and make the runway with just pitching the nose down.  This plane needs both power and pitch down to keep the speed at 80kts over the numbers.  I also had to unlearn pitching the nose up too much in the flare.  The Cirrus is 3x the weight and has a much longer nose and big prop.   It seems to land best with a slight pitch up, really more a level to slight pull back on the stick and keep the stick back.   The first few landings were done well enough but i allowed the nose to drop too quickly and the castoring nose wheel shuddered.  The CT of course has the steerable nose wheel attached to the rudder peddals.

 

I also had to learn how to use toe brakes.  The first factory guy had me using the brakes on takeoff (right brake then drop to use right rudder).  I could never quite get that down well.  The last guy I went up with said to advance the throttle more quickly and get rudder authority from the prop wash and just use rudder only.  That was quick for me to learn and use.    The plane also doesn't do a pitch moment when changing flap settings, at least not perceptible to me compared to the CT.  So I have managed to leave the 50% flap on in climb-out too long because when changing the flaps to 0% I never get that pitch down moment like in the CT  so it escapes my mind to do it when getting to 90kts which happens far more quickly than in the CT.  And having to refer to checklists in every phase of flight is also a big change for me.

 

But I did get a Perspective simulator which apparently a lot of customers don't like or use because its Windows based and most of them show up to the factory cold.   We poured over the material, the portal and the simulator for two months before showing up so we were pretty well prepared to fly.  The G1000 and GFC700 autopilot is similar to the Dynons but of course you can do much more in regard to VNAV and climbing with IAS and descending with VS.   And the Cirrus is equipped to fly IMC and the CT has no navcom capability. 

 

Altitude was never much of an issue in the CT since we never fly higher than around 9k.  The Cirrus of course gets to 9k on takeoff from a 5k field elevation...we have already been flying at 15k and found at that height one needs to plan a descent or you end up circling to land especially when flying into California where almost every airport is near sea level.

 

The speed, the panel (2 com radios, 2 nav radios) and the altitudes require a fire-hose more pilot load at this point, but that's what we bought...and that's what we will chew on for the next 1000 hours of flying.

[FlyingMonkey]

The only difference between a power on and power off approach is the size of the pattern you have to fly.  Fly a tight in base and I'm pretty sure you can land ANY light single without power.  Fly a bomber pattern and yes, you need power to make the runway.  

 

A lot of pilots, me included, think the tight pattern is safer.  If you normally fly power off and lose the engine, you just make your normal landing.  If you fly a longer final requiring power, and the power is not there, you are going to be on the ground somewhere that is not the runway.

[Scott Lee]

FYI putting the tape on the dash and practicing low approaches worked like a charm!