cirrus sr22

[aerorrancio]

I like it plane but have read about that is a unsafe plane some owner can explain how is it ?

[Pace]

Hi not an owner but have flown the aircraft, it is a high performance aircraft, fairly slippery with a lively roll rate. Timed a firefly aerobatic machine against the cirrus 22 and not much between them in roll.

The newer machines have increased dihedral and are more stable.

I dont think the aircraft are especially dangerous probably more to do with low time inexperienced pilots out of their depth in high performance aircraft?

there are some here who will be better placed to advise

Pace

[fernytickles]

Timed a firefly aerobatic machine against the cirrus 22 and not much between them in roll


So are you saying you did an aerobatic maneouvre in a Cirrus, Pace? I didn't know they were approved for aerobatics?

[aerorrancio]

One more thing
Is sure flying under icing condittións if you plane has tks anti-ice and de-ice?

[soay]

So are you saying you did an aerobatic maneouvre in a Cirrus, Pace? I didn't know they were approved for aerobatics?
I didn't realise that timing roll rate constituted an aerobatic manoeuvre.

[Pace]

fernytickles

So are you saying you did an aerobatic maneouvre in a Cirrus, Pace? I didn't know they were approved for aerobatics?

I didnt know timing steep turn angles left to right was an aerobatic manouvre?
Have to tell the flying clubs to stop teaching steep turns in anything but aircraft approved for aerobatics :ugh:

Pace

[IO540]

I fly a TB20 (7 years) and have briefly flown in an SR22.

The SR22 is nothing special flying-wise; 150kt looks just like 100kt once reasonably well off the ground. It flies OK. I much prefer the yoke over the spring loaded sidestick but others will disagree.

I don't think it is unsafe. It is reported to not carry ice as well as other planes with thicker wings, but you can get TKS for it.

The real issue, compared to the traditional spamcan scene, is that you have to learn some new tricks

- Think ahead; if you zoom in to the destination overhead at 150kt and 5000ft, you are going to look like a right d*ck doing 10 orbits trying to get down in front of the whole restaurant and all the spotters (whereas in a 100kt spamcan you just fly in at 100kt and join the circuit, slowing down a bit). So one has to think ahead, and start planning the descent say 30nm out

- Engine management. Can't just shut the throttle. One has to reduce power gradually, over a minute or two. PFLs are just not done (unless it is rented and the owner is the instructor making you do the PFL....). Circuits are not a great idea either. So, more thinking ahead.

- Complex avionics. There is a lot to learn, and nobody should fly a plane unless they understand the systems to the full extent applicable to the operating scenario (e.g. no need to understand how to set up a GPS approach if you aren't flying any, but even for plain VFR you need to fully understand the flight plan loading etc i.e. about 95% of the avionics functionality).

- If flying abroad, stuff like high altitude flight (oxygen, etc).

- Forget the map and stopwatch nonsense :)

[execExpress]

Aerorranchio

If you are serious about learning about the Cirrus try

Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.cirruspilots.org)

You can ask questions there and probably be in touch with owner(s) of Spanish-based Cirrus quickly too

[Fuji Abound]

I agree on the whole with IO540s comments.

The sidestick is different. Like anything different I suspect you need a few more hours to be comfortable with it. Having flown aeros with a stick and a yoke I prefer a stick. Having flown tourers with a stick, a yoke and a side stick in terms of the actual flying I dont think there is much between them, but in terms of freeing up lap space and generally tidying up the cockpit the side stick has a great deal going for it - which is of course one of the reasons Airbus adopted the side stick.

In terms of safety there was some concern in America that the accident rate amoung Cirrus was higher than for the rest of the GA fleet in the early days. As with so many things you need to look beyond the statistics rather than jump to the rather irrational conclusion that the aircraft is inherently unsafe or requires the skills of an exceptional pilot.

The Cirrus is a 50% step up in speed for most GA pilots. It is slipery and therefore requires more careful speed control during the approach and more fore thought. Perhaps most importantly it is tempting to think it is more capable than most other light aircraft - after all it is quick so you can potentially climb through the weather, it has a high service ceiling, so you can remain on top, it may be FIKI approved or at least have the ability to deal with temporary exposure to ice, the avionics are sophisticated, and the autopilot is very good. The fact is in competant hands it is more capable than most light singles but in reality not by that much and then the hands need to be good.

Of course in the States the insurers quickly realised what was causing the distortion in the stats and required pilots to demonstrate they had the required skill set - in short you could no longer go buy a Cirrus with 100 hours P1 and no additional training.

The stats now show the Cirrus to be no more dangerous than the majority of light singles, which, if you think about it probably means they are less dangerous because the missions people fly in Cirrus are inherently more risky than the missions undertaken in most like singles.

In my estimation put the same 500 hour pilot in a Cirrus or a 30 year old Warrior with sufficient time on both types in all weathers and I reckon the Cirrus would by a small margin be the safer aircraft.

[1800ed]

It's not the aircraft that's the problem, it's the thing holding onto the stick in the left seat that's the problem.

[Fuji Abound]

True - the problem is it is usually reported that Cirrus pilots spend all their time pushing the auto pilot buttons rather than holding onto anything. It just goes pear shaped when either they forget which buttons to push or for whatever reason the autopilot cant fly the aircraft any more :).

It reminds me of the very old one about why the pilot keeps his dog, cat, parrot and ostrich in the cockpit with him. :) :)

[Pace]

Fuji

I was hoping you would jump in here as you have a good knowledge of the type.
i sometimes wonder why the accident stats were high. It crossed my mind that having the ballistic shute may encourage pilots to fly more at night or in bad weather, taking on trips they would normally be concerned about with the thought that if all goes pear shaped they have the shute?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of those stats? are they low time pilots? what was the nature of the accidents.

The very few times I have flown a Cirrus I also did not see anything nasty.
The earlier one we tested the roll rate on indicated that it may need more attention in IMC especially as it was also slippery.

I know the new ones had some wing modifications which have made them more stable in cloud.

Comparable performance is the mooney which is a doddle in cloud being rock solid. The Cirrus felt like without autopilot it would be hard work handflying over time in IMC ?

Pace

[fernytickles]

Pace - 'twas just a simple question. I thought you meant by "roll" that you you had rolled the aircraft, ie -an aileron roll, not that you had timed the roll rate in a turn. Hence the puzzlement.

[Pace]

Fernitickles

Thats OK ;) reading over my post especially comparing it against a Firefly aerobatic machine I can see how you linked "roll" to an aerobatic manouvre.

Yes I did mean the roll rate in seconds showing how twitchy it may be in cloud flying. The mooney has a slow roll rate and is a doddle for prolonged hand flying in cloud. I got the impression on earlier Cirrus that they maybe hardwork and certainly harder work than a Mooney or Piper Archer. The mooney is slippery too, the Archer draggy. But fast roll rate and slippy is dodgy for low time pilots?

Pace

[IO540]

IMHO, a Cirrus will be flown mostly on autopilot, because the sidestick does not lend itself to precise hand control.

On the Airbus, this was fine, because big jets are on the AP 99.9% of the time anyway.

The accident rate of Cirruses has been done to death all over the internet :) but IMHO it isn't significant to the type. Firstly, Cirrus have been marketing to the only market segment of GA which has any potential for buying anything even remotely modern (young wealthy men who have not spent the last 100 years of their life flying wreckage and thus accept that wreckage=ok). Secondly, they sold an awful lot of them very fast (and, since they are worth some money, most of them are still flying, not rotting somewhere like a 30 year old plane might be) so this will reflect in the crash rate. Third, they have a decent mission capability so will be used for more demanding flights than a C172 for example (and high altitude flight means more exposure to high altitude weather such as icing - remember in the USA you can fly "VFR" up to 17999ft, and IFR is far simpler than in Europe). Forthly, "everybody" thinks they are unsafe and stall/spin at the drop of a hat (hence Cirrus "had" to include the chute) (which is bollox) so the press looks out for any Cirrus accidents, while a Cessna/Piper crash doesn't make the news.

Among the chute pull accidents, there have been some spectacularly stupid ones, but nothing I recall seeing that one could not achieve in a normal IFR tourer.

I reckon it might be possible that a Cirrus can get into an unrecoverable (flat?) spin if you probe the operating ceiling and stall it and then lose control of it, perhaps with a load of ice collected, and one of the chute pull cases suggested this happened although the pilot seemed to be have suffered a spectacular "memory loss" about what led up to it, possibly to avoid certificate action for FIKI. But, hey, that is what the chute is for :)

[englishal]

I think one needs a general level of skill before stepping up to the cirrus's of this world. But they are very attractive and someone who has a few quid in the bank might just want one of these funky toys.

One of our group did his PPL with a chap who bought a Cirrus straight after. He was killed in one of the UK cirrus accidents. I'm not 100% convinced that someone of his experience would be able to handle a Cirrus just yet on his own- sure he could fly the thing, but probably not on a long bad weather cross country.

Relying on AP is ok, but, the chap in the next hangar to ours (who got his PPL, has some cash, bought a Cirrus), went flying and thankfully took one of the other airfield pilots with him. The AP had this wierd positive feedback apparently whereby it would deviate from altitude, and over correct, with each over correction getting worse and worse until it was deviating 1000' in each direction and getting worse. Some minor misadjustment like this could kill someone who needed to rely on it.

I reckon 150hrs and an IR and the factory training course and one should be pretty safe.

[IO540]

I reckon 150hrs and an IR and the factory training course and one should be pretty safeOne could make the argument that instrument capability should be integral in the PPL :)

I can't understand spending $400k or so and scud running everywhere. It just doesn't add up.

Getting out of here very fast now........

Anyway, this is tantamount to requiring a proper Type Rating for anything capable, and we don't want more regulation! But it is true that the rating system was designed decades ago, and contains a load of silly stuff e.g. need a complex signoff for simple stuff like retractable gear (trivial) or a VP prop (a bit less trivial but still trivial). An SR22 is hugely far from trivial - unless the pilot pretends it is a C172 and sticks a huge post-it pad over the screens :)

[GearDownFlaps]

I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I am routinely converting current ppl, teaching new ppls and taking people for trial flights , in a 20 not a 22 but the layout is the same and the performance is not significantly lower .
For group purposes all current members need a minimum of 6 hours conversion to type some take longer some dont .
I generally find that those who fly regularly and challenge themselves in their flying , rather than just local area once a month take to it a lot quicker , those that dont , struggle . Specifically with the increase in speed in all aspects of flight , but more so in the circuit .
The avionics I find most people get to grips with quite quickly as the avidyne system is relative childs play when compared to say a G1000, it certainly isnt possible to get lost as it is in the Garmin. There are afew gotchas within the aircraft but it certainly isnt beyind the bounds of most competent ppls to fly become reasonably accomplished .
The biggest issue I have found as i said is the speed and we limit ours to 120kts to maintain the cheap hourly rate .
It takes most of them a good while to get ahead of the aircraft some are just happy with their local trips , and in some cases thank the lord .
But in over four hundred hours since new , including a first solo of a newbie ppl we have yet to have any incident with the aircraft ,touch wood .
The Ap can be a bit unusual at times especially in a prolonged climb but monitor monitor monitor is battered into them when converting , if it misbehaves disconnect reset and continue to monitor and you should be fine .
But as stated earlier it is designed as a touring aircraft to be flown automatically , and it certainly isnt the easiest aircarft to fly hands on , but everyhting comes with practice.
Nice craft to be a teacher in I must say

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

I was hoping you would jump in here as you have a good knowledge of the type.

Thank you.

The earlier one we tested the roll rate on indicated that it may need more attention in IMC especially as it was also slippery.

That’s fair.

IO540

IMHO, a Cirrus will be flown mostly on autopilot, because the sidestick does not lend itself to precise hand control.

I cant agree with you. The sidestick enables very precise control. Precision requires a little time with the side stick but it comes. I actually rather enjoy not using the autopilot and have flown two hour sectors entirely manually and without fatigue. That said a well known examiner expressed precisely this view to me. I think you need 20 or 30 hours on type before making a judgement.

Generally, I am not convinced a Cirrus requires an Instrument Rating or super human pilot skills. A Cirrus does however require sound skills, good currency (particularly if you lack experience on which to fall back) and a pilot with a mature outlook on their flying.

Pull the power back and the Cirrus will cruise very happily at much slower speeds, the handling is benign and it will behave and perform much like any other spamcam. Wind it up and things happen that much more quickly and it can become more of a struggle to stay ahead of the aircraft whether that be hot and high on the approach or losing control transitioning from VMC to IMC.

In terms of handling I would admit I find it quite difficult to land well. For some reason I think it is relatively easy to allow the landing to become flat. I dont mean the approach, but the actual moment of arrival and and the first few seconds after. This annoys me but it may be a reflection of a problem I have rather than the aircraft. There is absolutely no doubt it is very easy to end up hot and high with very little you can do to solve the problem. It takes a good level of skill indeed to fly tight fast circuits with sufficient control of speed and height to turn very short final configured correctly for a slick arrival. In an equivalent twin, TB20 or Beech shove the undercarriage down, pull the power back a touch and you can turn the approach into a perfect arrival, that you cant do so readily in a 22. Alan Sugar an experienced pilot with an IR managed to run his off the end of the runway and whilst the one he chose was a little short and a tad wet I am not at all surprised that it is easy to leave yourself with absolutely no margin for error.


Some say there is evidence that the tanks are poorly designed increasing the risk of a fire should the worst happen – this may be so, I don’t know enough to reach an informed judgement.

[A and C]

I have only flown one sidestick aircraft and on the training course the advice was to handle the side sitick "like you would handle another man's **ck".

That seemed that autoflight was the way that most guys used the aircraft, a combination of sidestick and advanced avionics encouraging people to not handfly the aircraft. This practice (or lack of?) may be at the root of the myth that the Cirrus is hard to fly.

To the suprize of some I would fly a visual approach with both the autopilot and autothrottle disconected and found that there was an aircraft hiding under the triplcated layer of autoflight systems.

PS One of the top management at Airbus recently said that he was concerned about the reduction in manual flying skills.

PPS one large UK airline had banned the practice of flying the aircraft with the autothrottle disengaged.

[scooter boy]

"Comparable performance is the Mooney"

Nah, Pace, even a 20 year old Mooney would perform far better than a new Cirrus with a similar engine! :E

Any day of the year a Mooney will take you faster and further (than anything in the same category, but especially the Cirrus) with far less fuel consumption.

The only things the Cirrus will do better than a Mooney is depreciate and decelerate (actually come to think of it the Mooney even beats it at deceleration with its precise flight speedbrakes fitted as standard)!

Safety-wise with Cirrus there have been numerous accidents, mostly due to the person behind the controls making a poor decision.

A common theme is newbie pilot and newbie pilot's wife like the look and price of the Cirrus (as it looks more like an SUV than a plane) and is spacious inside. Newbie pilot has a parachute as a get-out-of-jail-free card and flies into conditions which exceed their abilities. Sometimes the chute saves them.

Cirrus = a triumph of clever marketing over real substance.

SB

[Fuji Abound]

Cirrus = a triumph of clever marketing over real substance.

In many other arenas I might agree with you. I might even agree with you in this arena it is a factor.

However I think you devalue the intelligence of most pilots and particularly those with half million dollars to spend who, in the majority, are unlikely to be entirely stupid.

The facts speak for themselves Cirrus are still rolling aircraft off the production line and selling them, whilst Mooney have closed the production line.

I have flown three variants of the Mooney. It is a fine aircraft but cramped and claustrophobic. More imortantly too many man hours go into making a dated airframe that eschews mass production techniques. As the boat industry realised many moons ago you cant compete with something that falls out of a mould and that is why almost nobody makes wood boats these days.

[flybymike]

Mooneys are quick but ludicrously cramped, and if you put four people in one you have just about enough fuel for a circuit...

[BabyBear]

Arrived back rather pleased with a superb days flying only to park up next to an SR22 Turbo. Oooohh, it's the first one I have seen in the flesh (never mind fly) and am now off to have wet dreams about!

Nite nite all :)

[IO540]

Your dreams would be even wetter if you knew the flow rate (I mean the fuel flow rate) at the speeds quoted in the advertising material :)

And the oxygen flow rate, too, at the altitudes at which those figures are obtained...

Physics is physics and always will be. Mooneys are more efficient due to the smaller cross-sectional area of the cockpit. At comparable fractions of the respective engine max rated powers, a TB20 (a 1970s metal design) does exactly the same MPG as an SR22 or a Cessna/Columbia 400; the latter two seemingly being slippery airframes which chuck away the entire advantage (over a 1970s hull covered in rivets) by having fixed gear (but the salesmen won't ever admit that, claiming their fixed gear costs only 1 or 2 kt).

Today, the logical choice for a new buy would be an SR22. There isn't much else out there. The Cessna 400 is another one. But, with the one-piece avionics which cannot be touched by anybody except an authorised dealer, be prepared for regular trips to the same place.

[Fuji Abound]

Exactly - physics is physics.

It would be interesting to see a genuine comparison of see a TB20 against a 22.

On the one hand the u/c adds a fair amount of drag even closely cowled, but on the other, the airframe of a 22 is a good deal more efficient.

As to fuel I would be surprised if there is a great deal in it - perhaps a few extra gallons an hour, but I am not sure that is a factor for the private owner spending the best part of half a million dollars or more.

I am still not sure about the avionics concerns. In the Avidyne configuration in the 22 I fly there has only been one issue to date, the 42 had more with the G1000 but since these were sorted they have not resurfaced. Without doubt both Avidyne, Garmin, and Diamond seem to have resolved issues that occurred either with early units or aircraft.

[IO540]

I know for a fact that the Cessna 400 does 138kt IAS (at say 5000ft) at 11.0 USG/hr, and the TB20 does exactly the same. I don't recall doing this comparison in the SR22 though.

Of course the C400 is faster than the TB20 but it has a bigger motor, and due to being turbocharged can go to FL250 where you get great TAS numbers.

[tdbristol]

Link to the Diamond website where they publish NTSB [US] accident stats for SR20/22, DA40/20 and Cessna 172/182.

Diamond Aircraft (http://www.diamondaircraft.com/why/?id=4)

Not sure what conclusions (if any) might be drawn from the figures, even normalised by hours flown/fleet size.
Clearly the SR20/22 are faster than DA40 (typically 133kts at 8.5gals/hr - AVGAS), both of which are faster than a 172.
I would imagine that there are not many SR20/22 used for training; clearly 172s and DA40s used a lot for this (so maybe lots of hours flown with an instructor on-board in reasonable weather -> accidents less likely).
No BRS in the DA40; option to fit in the 172. However, according to this article
Rediscovering The Diamond DA40 - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/diamond/rediscovering-the-diamond-da40.html)
the full-stall descent rate in a DA40 is actually lower than the descent rate in a SR20/22 with the BRS deployed.
I have been told that there has never been a post-crash fire in a DA40 (aluminium tanks between the spars) whereas the SR20/22 is a wet wing.
Never flown an SR20/22 but the DA40 is very docile (in my experience more than a 172 in a stall).
26G crash cell in the SR20/22 and DA40 but not in the 172.

Clearly the SR20/22 offeres a lot more than DA40 and 172 in interior space and other things [and can of course cost a lot more], but that is a different question....

[soay]

the full-stall descent rate in a DA40 is actually lower than the descent rate in a SR20/22 with the BRS deployed
True enough, but I wouldn't like to stall a DA40 into the ground. Firstly, there's no give in their seats, whereas the SR20/22 have aluminium honeycombs under theirs, to absorb the energy from a vertical impact. Secondly, the DA40 would still be moving forward at a fair lick, so that energy would have to be dissipated as well. This assumes that you could still control the aircraft, which is not a requirement when deploying the parachute.

[tdbristol]

Wasn't suggesting stalling a DA40 into the ground was good idea; it was just that this was an interesting statement from the article. As you say, clearly the BRS has advantages, for example when you don't have control / pilot incapacitation.
The DA40 does actually have deformable elements under the seats. (Presumably all aircraft that now meet the 26G crash cell requirement must have energy appropriate absorption mechanisms, different by aircraft type.)

[scooter boy]

Fuji, I agree with you that most new Cirrus owners are "unlikely to be entirely stupid", however stupidity and experience are different things.

Seeing through thick creamy marketing hype is priceless.

IO540 has it right.
Draggy gear and fat waistline = slow inefficient aircraft irrespective of the powerplant.

Personally when I am bumping through an active cold front I would far rather be in a handcrafted metal airframe than a rattly plastic jellymould - even if it does have a parachute.

By the way I am 6ft 1" and not terribly slim - even with 3 or 4 aboard the Mooney was always fine.

[englishal]

I'd prefer the Cirrus FIKI myself.

[bubo]

Philip Greenspun´s review:
Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20)
I like this statement there:
"Safety conclusion: The basic Cirrus is very safe if flown like a jet, with one eye on the airspeed indicator at all times. Piling on hundred of thousands of dollars in extra avionics won't make it substantially safer."

[IO540]

The basic Cirrus is very safe if flown like a jet, with one eye on the airspeed indicator at all times. Piling on hundred of thousands of dollars in extra avionics won't make it substantially safer."

That reminds me of signs I see near a river embankment (only in the UK are "safety" officials sufficiently anally retarded to actually put up signs like this)

CAUTION: VERTICAL DROP

:)

Every plane needs to be flown with one eye on the speedo, at all times.

[englishal]

...or the radiators at Aberdeen airport - "CAUTION HOT"....

Hmm....

[bubo]

to IO540 - yes, of course, generally speaking you are right, but in Cirrus you do not have the proper feeling when the airspeed is going down. The sidestick is not becaming so as soft as you would expect on an airplane. The spring has more power than Bernoulli......

[Pace]

10540

Every plane needs to be flown with one eye on the speedo, at all times.

But some more than others ;) Twins like the aerostar are less forgiving than a Seneca. Some aircraft will protect pilots from innacurate handling and speed control others will punish them for that.

I am sure many of us have flown with pilots where we cast our eyes up to the sky with despair as their speed goes up and down like a yo yo.

The pilots who drop flaps or gear above their limiting speeds, who forget to put the gear away then grab the gear handle when they realise their mistake not realising that gear retraction and extension speeds are different.

The list goes on, and these are often pilots who have been flying for years!

Put pilots like that in the wrong aircraft and they will get punished.

I have spent quite a bit of time in mooneys. Off autopilot the aircraft trimmed out feels as if its on autopilot. The wings remain solidly level and take more than a inadvertant twitch on the yoke to displace them.

The aircraft can be flown like that hands off with just rudder pressure to hold a heading.

Try that in the Cirrus! The Cirrus is a good aircraft but in the right hands and I am afraid there are a lot of wrong hands out there.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Steady on chaps the Cirrus really is no rocket ship nor twitchy aerobat.

It really is easy to fly.

Yeah there are a few, very few pilots who might never get it, but then we have all heard the stories of those that take 100 hours to get their PPL.

Any pilot with perhaps 200 hours P1 who is reasonably sound will be flying the Cirrus in 5 to 10 hours.

It is not as "hard" as a twin rating but the step "up" to a twin is reasonably small - if that makes sense.

[007helicopter]

If you want the facts:

Past 36 months: 1.54

As of October 21, 2008, the fatal accident rate for Cirrus airplanes was 1.54 per 100,000 flying hours over the past 36 months due to 13 fatal accidents in an estimated 738,000 flight hours.
We use a 3-year average because, with a modest fleet size of about 4,000 airplanes flying about 500,000 hours per year, the accident rate varies substantially with only a few accidents.
Past 12 months: 1.76

In the past 12 months, there were 28 accidents in an estimated 1.8 million flight hours for a rate of 1.76 per 100,000 hours.
Lifetime of the fleet: 1.53

In the life of the SR2X fleet since mid-1999, there have been 41 accidents in 2.69 million hours for a rate of 1.53 per 100,000 hours.
GA fleet: 1.19 (single-engine fixed: 1.86)

This compares to the overall general aviation rate of 1.19 for 2007 (ref Nall report), which represents a tough comparison because it includes corporate jets and turboprops that have a significantly better accident rate than single engine piston airplanes. When twin-engine and turbine aircraft are excluded, the single-engine piston rate is 1.86 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown

[execExpress]

Thanks for the stats 007

Cirrus Past 36 months: 1.54
Cirrus Past 12 months: 1.76
Cirrus Lifetime of the fleet: 1.53
GA fleet single-engine fixed: 1.86
GA fleet all : 1.19

Considering
1) a lot of Cirrus spend a lot of time on missions which are undertaken by relatively few of the other single-engine piston types (e.g. most recent Cirrus fatal hypoxia at FL250),
2) and massively successful new GA types (e.g. R22) have a safety stat 'bulge' thought to be due to the high numbers of pilots with low time on type/mission. (approaching Cirrus #5000),
I'd have to say I wonder what (overall) the Cirrus pilots might be doing right?

Perhaps it is, with COPA encourgement, partly to do with emulating the best practices of corporate and twin pilots that bring the overall GA stats down from 1.86 to 1.19, e.g. recurrent and simulator training, plus terrain warning and in-cockpit-weather? These things are what has made airline flying so much safer.

Short of 'two crew' these practices (not an aircraft "type") show the way to an improved GA safety record of the future. Cirrus would appear to be leading single-engine piston fleet into that territory.

If either of this weeks fatal accidents in France (SportCruiser) and Netherlands (PC12) had been a Cirrus we know what sort of long threads and Cirrus / BRS bashing would have been going on.

Perhaps perversely that is because safety expectations have been set so high of the type. Those might be met when matched by knowledge, skill and judgement of the weakest link, regardless of type - "the nut behind the wheel".

[Pace]

When twin-engine and turbine aircraft are excluded, the single-engine piston rate is 1.86 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown

007helicopter

I do not know if these stats are correct or not? are you saying that Multi engine stats are better than single in piston aircraft? In all the single V twin arguements the media always claim that there is no safety arguement between piston singles and twins.

I would be interested to see the disection between aircraft which increases the rate to 1.86?

I also ask why the media always appear to quote the high rate of Cirrus accidents if they are wrong.

Infact Cirrus should be quoting these better than average figures to get reduced insurance on Cirrus over other singles not increased.

I am not damning Cirrus as I personally would love to own one of the new generation Cirrus with the wing changes.

That begs a question why make 50 plus mods on the new gen aircraft with extensive wing mods including dihedral and wing tip changes if the pre 2009 aircraft were so good?

Pace

[execExpress]

"That begs a question why make 50 plus mods on the new gen aircraft with extensive wing mods including dihedral and wing tip changes if the pre 2009 aircraft were so good?"

Significant reduction in manufacturing cost and a healthy weight reduction (needed to be able to add future options).

P.S.When I fly the G3 wing I don't notice any significantly different handling over the 'old' wing.

[soay]

Didn't the dihedral allow them to eliminate the aileron/rudder cross-connect bungees that have caused control jams?

[execExpress]

I did read somewhere (magazine) that the added dihedral "enabled" the removal of the interconnnect but I guess they could have added dihedral with or without that change. The official reports I've read about the interconnect were about snagging/jamming due to mis-rigging found during 'full and free'checks. The reasons for the new wing were the manufacturing cost and weight reduction - recall the 'old' wing was for the SR20, and when the SR22 came along span was 'bolted' onto each tip. The new one-piece wing is fitted to both SR20 and SR22.

[007helicopter]

Couple of points about the factual figures quoted, they are from October 21st 2008 and I know there have been several unfortunate incidents since then. 2008 was statistically a good year for the fleet and I fear the 2009 figures when all done will be worse.

I am doing nothing other than being the messenger of these numbers which are put together by Rick Beech who is a copa member who has made it a personal voluntary mission to study every Cirrus accident in detail with a view to learning and advising other members as to the reasons of the accidnet for others to hopefully learn from and hopefully improve what was very bad stats for the early Cirrus fleet, and he is making a tangible difference.

I think the reason it makes the news is a combination of factors and it is true several high profile incidents, Cory Liddle, NYC being probably the most high profile add to the perception of it being people with perhaps more money than hours flying the Cirrus. Saying that the most recent fatality was a hugely experienced and respected instructor with 1000's of hours so it can go wrong for anyone. It is also fairly well documented that the vast majority of accidents are pilot error just the same as in many other types.

[007helicopter]

Scooter Boy you seem to have a very negative view of the Cirrus, is this based on any hours on type, would be interested to know?

[scooter boy]

007, my dim view is based on experience of flying and being a passenger in a number of cirri over the years. I know you own/fly a Cirrus as do many on this forum and that criticism of your aircraft is often taken more personally than criticism of your wife!

Before I bought my Mooney I had a test flight in the cirrus and did a comparison.
The cirrus made no sense at all, it was slower, thirstier, has a smaller range, was not available with approved deicing back then (I still have my doubts about effectiveness of deicing in an aircraft with fixed gear) and had less integrated avionics. There is no way I could have completed many of the flights I have been able to over the last few years in a Cirrus without lots of extra fuel stops. Could you make Greece in 6h @12gph LOP from the UK in a Cirrus? I don't think so!

Worse than that it was being pushed so hard in all the aviation mags as the holy grail for general aviation.

Nothing makes me recoil as much as when a poor second rate product is being over marketed as a first rate product.

Look at Loop's "race" to Cannes for example. They had a DA42, a cirrus and something else.
Q. Where was the Mooney?
A. not invited as it would have shown a clean pair of heels to everything else by an embarrasingly long margin, not to mention the fact that it would have used half the fuel.

My opinion is based on my own experience and is here simply to provide balance here to the frothy effervescent unbalanced reviews of the jellymould I frequently read.
Cirri are fat thirsty slow birds by comparison with any comparable Mooney - and don't get me started on the DA-42!

Don't believe what you read in the aviation press.

[ILOC]

Personally when I am bumping through an active cold front I would far rather be in a handcrafted metal airframe than a rattly plastic jellymould - even if it does have a parachute.

By the way I am 6ft 1" and not terribly slim - even with 3 or 4 aboard the Mooney was always fine.

scooterboy I think your spectacles are so rose-tinted as to be virtually opaque! There's not much arguing with the stats as to the Mooney's speed, legs or thirstiness compared to the Cirrus, but there's a reason for that - cabin size and fixed gear.

I just don't believe you when you say that with 4 aboard someone of your size was fine. I'm 6 ft and reasonably broad shouldered and found that when sat in the Mooney I was rubbing shoulders with the other person in the front. With the front seat in the right position for me there was no way I could sit in the back seat without putting my legs across it. It felt small and claustrophobic.

As far as 'rattly plastic jellymould', my god, get into the 21st century! Composites are unarguably the way forward.

The Cirrus (and the DA42) are great planes for what they are designed for, you're just not really comparing like for like.

[Fuji Abound]

Could you make Greece in 6h @12gph LOP from the UK in a Cirrus? I don't think so!



I ask myself why you would want to do that to yourself? Next time do stop for a good lunch half way old chap :)

There is no such thing as a perfect light aircraft - and if nothing else this thread proves it. There are things a Cirrus does well and there are things a 42 does better (like having an extra engine, if I had been in a Mooney last year instead of a 42 I would have been in a muddy field I suspect).

[Pace]

I just don't believe you when you say that with 4 aboard someone of your size was fine. I'm 6 ft and reasonably broad shouldered and found that when sat in the Mooney I was rubbing shoulders with the other person in the front. With the front seat in the right position for me there was no way I could sit in the back seat without putting my legs across it. It felt small and claustrophobic.

ILOC

I have to defend Scooter boy a little here := I have flown 2 mooneys for about a total of 300 hrs. I am 5 ft 11 ins. Side to side I agree they are friendly. They are a pain to get in and out of but once in they are quite comfortable.

The back seats are infact the best area, very comfortable with good views and reasonable leg room 4 up.

They are very strong aircraft. The old saying that you will never break the wings off a mooney. They are fast for their engine size and have good range and fuel economy.

They do look dated in comparison to the Cirrus and in no way approach the size or comfort of the Cirrus.

Off autopilot the Cirrus is much twitchier and I could see it could easely be hard work for a low time IR pilot flying SP.

Having flown both I would go for the new Cirrus with the updated deicing.
I heard that Mooney were looking at a baby turbine shame Cirrus dont do the same! Lastly I like the idea of the shute! comfort zone maybe? but at least it adds another option should all go wrong and must be a big comfort to the SP flying his family if he/she trains them up in its use should the unmentionable happen.

Pace

[007helicopter]

There is no way I could have completed many of the flights I have been able to over the last few years in a Cirrus without lots of extra fuel stops. Could you make Greece in 6h @12gph LOP from the UK in a Cirrus? I don't think so!


Scooter boy I have never heard the Cirrus being quoted as slow, fat or especially thirsty or not suitable for long missions. Now my wife that is another story.

This year we did Elba (Italy) in around 5 hours with a leisurely stop for lunch en route, we ran at about 13 gph us LOP, 65% power @ 155 knots, no complaints from me. Other Cirrus did it non stop which is more than my Girlfriend's bladder takes - Feel free to crtiicise my wife or my Cirrus as much as you wish though.

My longest trip this year was Miami to Duluth Minnesota (on the canadian border) in one day and 2 en route fuel stops, This was 10 hours flying and as I recall about 1800 miles. The only point being that I think that is plenty of distance and utility and the main factor I was not totally exhausted and felt absolutely fine, that many hours in my car would cripple me. Also I am 6' 4" and it has oodles of leg and width room

I am not trying to say my dads car is better than yours etc, and I have never flown a Mooney of any sort but understand they are perfectly good aircraft, my only point is that from what I have seen in my limited experience the Cirrus is a phenominal aircraft with superior performance, avionics, reliability and comfort than any other compareable GA 4 seater SEP in a similar category that I am aware of.

In terms of the original posters question about safety I think because of the missions the Cirrus tends to fly it is often exposed to higher risk situations like night, IFR, icing risk, over water and mountains compared to perhaps your average cessna which might typically be used for training and spends half its life in the circuit (no offense to cessna) This combined with the early years bad accident record does give an impression of a safety issue compounded by a lot of myth and BS. Also pilots not informed or knowledgeable about the BRS parrachute tend to take the piss or mock it as a gimmick with a macho I would allways rather control it into a forced landing and put it where I choose attitude. Again there is many situations BRS would be preferable to a forced landing.

It is a powerful and fast aircraft that needs appropriate training to operate safely but is certainly not beyond the scope of any reasonable average pilot to operate with a few hours extra training.

Scooter Boy, You are welcome to come to lunch at Rochester for a flight at my expense, bring your passport and the R44

Duncan

[Pace]

Other Cirrus did it non stop which is more than my Girlfriend's bladder takes - Feel free to crtiicise my wife or my Cirrus as much as you wish though.

I am getting confused :ugh: who was on the aircraft the Girlfriend the wife or both? who pulled the BRS shute? ;)

slow, fat or especially thirsty or not suitable for long missions. Now my wife that is another story.

Reading this bit the wife obviously had to go

Pace

[ILOC]

ILOC
I have to defend Scooter boy a little here

OK, but the difference is I wasn't trying to bash the Mooney (OK maybe very slightly to make a point). But pointing out that scooterboy is not only being very biased but isn't comparing like for like.

I like the Mooney but I did find it pretty cramped (particularly compared to an SR22), but then I acknowledge that it's the price you pay for that sort of performance and it's not really aimed at taking 4 people around in comfort.

Equally well I think the DA42 is a revolutionary light twin and the surely the Cirrus's success speaks for itself. However they are all filling different niches and to bash the Cirrus for being 'fat and slow' when it is so much more comfortable and spacious isn't being fair.

[GearDownFlaps]

Oh the plural of cirrus is cirrus :ok:

[Pace]

Oh the plural of cirrus is cirrus

No its Cirrae or Cirruses :D

Pace

[GearDownFlaps]

So when we look into the sky we dont see filaments of cirrus ???
sorry subtle change of" In the red corner Mooney Blue corner Cirrus" type argument

[execExpress]

Well the thread didn't start out red on blue.

But after six-something hours airborne I guess I'd feel confident starting a pissing contest too! :)

[1800ed]

rattly plastic jellymouldComposite construction is the future of manufacturing a lot of things, aircraft included. It really is a great technique for manufacturing things where you want a good strength to weight ratio and to be able to have a great deal of control over the structure.

[scooter boy]

GDF, where did you school dear boy?;)

-us becomes -i most of the time (if the cirrus is to be considered a masculine object) in the plural

Composites are the future though - I have nothing against composites and have about 600h in a composite airframe.

I don't think fixed gear is the future though, if the cirrus looked more like a Lancair legacy I would be in love with it. In the meantime I remain the exception to the rule by disliking its shape and recoiling at the marketing used to push the product.

When flying the Mooney (not just sitting in it). The person flying will have their seat 6" or so forward of the front seat P2. This staggers your shoulders nicely so there is no shoulder rubbing.

Pace is right - the backseat is very spacious.

Complaining about cabin width in a Mooney is like complaining about visibility out of a lamborghini. You don't buy a Lambo for its parallel parking qualities just as you only buy a Mooney to go farther and faster using less fuel than anything else. I am sorry but I think they are pretty vital usps.

Also if you look at your flying, how much of it is done with 2 or 3 others in the aircraft.
In my case I have had 4 on board a few times, 3 on board frequently, 2 on board often, but most of my flying was solo.

....and another thing, don't give me that "I like to break the journey up and stop for lunch in Cannes" nonsense, Fuji. The only reason you do is because you have no other choice! I'd rather be eating a packed lunch up in the flight levels in a Mooney than waste time on the ground being tortured by the French/Italian aurthorities and paying through the nose for fuel :ok:.

For long trips I fill up with Jersy/Guernsey fuel, I have a Lord John (with Lady Jane adapter!) which drains the channel islands fluids mid flight, it beats having to land and clear customs, file another flight plan, refuel etc... I am infinitely happier staying in the airway sipping fuel LOP and getting better mpg in a straight line than many cars (with no euronav charges).

Nothing beats getting there in 1 hop. Less cost, less time, less risk.

Buy a Mooney and cross an entire continent in one hop - it has a greater range than many bizjets.

...and by the way, I'm sure your WAGs are all beautiful!

SB

[Fuji Abound]

....and another thing, don't give me that "I like to break the journey up and stop for lunch in Cannes" nonsense, Fuji.


I can guarantee you that is what I do and it has nothing to do with the aircraft. The 42 I fly has the supplementary tanks and I can also guarantee you if it is a p***ing contest I can go a lot further than you, but I dont.

As always horses for ..

For me I just get a bit bored with anything over three hours and I really enjoy stopping off somewhere - perhaps that is why my belly is too big and yours is small. :)

With regards the u/c I think it has been well published that Cirrus went this route to contain the insurance cost in the US. Whether we agree or not the insurance market is driven by risk and clearly the risk to the insurers of a retractable is higher because you can guarantee at some point it will get stuck or the pilot will forget to check for three greens. You only need to make that mistake once or for it to stick once and you have negated the fuel you may have saved a few hundred times over. Moreover some see the ballistic chute as an important advance in safety but the chute will not work well without the u/c absorbing some of the load. Sure you could run the u/c before or after pulling the chute but that introduces another element of risk.

Once again its a compromise. Mooney and Mooney pilots see it differently and good for them but like it or note to survive in this business you have to sell aircaft. That means you have to do a good job advertising your product, but you also have to make a product that has market appeal.

All the time Cirrus are still rolling aircraft off the production line and selling them and Mooney have stopped rolling anything off the production line I have to say in the real world Cirrus have it about right and Mooney have it horribly wrong - because as good as the aircraft might be if you are not building them, no one is going to know.

[englishal]

Each to their own. Personally I wouldn't do legs in excess of 3 hours by choice, as it is nice to stop for a pee and a stretch of the legs. But i fly for fun and not for business meetings etc.. If I did, I'd probably take BA. The longest leg I've done was about 5 hrs and that was in a King Air, the total day was 8am until 23:30 and after that I was hacked off with being in an aeroplane and just wanted a glass of wine and a sleep ;)

Cirrus have done a lot of things right - they make an attractive spacious aeroplane, it is reasonably fast, but also would appeal to non-aviation-women because there is no clambering over seats or joysticks ;). It has advanced avionics, and the parachute, it is roomy and spacious.

The Mooney appeals more due it's speed and from a pilot perspective this is very attractive to us.

Still, my favorite aeroplane that I have flown is still the DA42. No propellor in the field of vision, and despite being slower that the others, looks best ;)

[scooter boy]

"All the time Cirrus are still rolling aircraft off the production line and selling them and Mooney have stopped rolling anything off the production line I have to say in the real world Cirrus have it about right and Mooney have it horribly wrong - because as good as the aircraft might be if you are not building them, no one is going to know."

Amen to that - this is testament to the immense power of marketing.

[IO540]

In addition to Cirrus's marketing, I think that the "smart conservative pilot" population, which has been the Mooney mainstay for decades, is shrinking due to attrition due to old age...

I read some article in a US mag saying the Oshkosh visitor age profile is getting 1 year older every year, which bodes poorly for all the traditional 1950s riveted-metal merchandise. When you look at a Saratoga, covered in zillions of protruding rivets, makes you wonder whether anybody remotely style-conscious would ever buy such a thing. Evidently, not many do...

Composite construction is the future of manufacturing a lot of things, aircraft included.

Very true, but it is a real shame that "US Marketing" has decided to con everybody with a fixed gear plane (when a retractable version would have gone 10-20kt faster; equivalent to a LOT of horsepower at the relevant speed) on the promise of cheaper insurance (false) and "much" lower maintenance costs (false, especially against the extra fuel burnt).

If Cirrus made a retractable, it would have been pretty amazing.

[Fuji Abound]

on the promise of cheaper insurance (false)


IO540

Are you sure this is just one of those myths?

I dont know a deal about the US insurance market and I agree here it would make any difference.

However Flying (a reputable mag. in my view) reported that it was difficult if not impossible for low hour pilots to get insurance on retractables in the US or at any rate only with a hefty policy loading. The wisdom of attracting high wealth low hour pilots into a Cirrus is perhaps questionable; that is one of the more dubious sides of marketing perhaps Scooter was referring to, but as they might say on the otherside of the Pond, hey if it sells aircraft.

After all as I indicated earlier it only takes one pilot to land gear up for whatever reason and that is probably a 50K payout at the bottom end and maybe a lot more - that takes some recovery in the premiums charged.

[IO540]

$50k, sure.

I recall reading a premium survey at the Socata user group site, and IIRC the TB owners were paying much lower premiums than Cirrus owners.

This could be due to the different pilot experience profile (only slightly odd characters buy TBs :) ) but the difference was pretty substantial.

OTOH I know someone with a DA42 whose premium is massive. Can't recall the figure but it was about $10k plus. I pay £2500 (CPL/IR 1000+hrs, sole pilot).

However it's not that hard to make sure a gear up landing is really unlikely. On the TB, the landing flap is interlocked to the gear status and the only way to fool it is to land without the landing flap (which some pilots do, thinking they are smart and the runway is long...). But you also need to defeat the throttle lever position v. gear status interlock, which is possible but only if landing into a fairly strong headwind. If one fitted a radar altimeter, the system would be "totally" foolproof but one wonders about the wisdom of providing the stereotype Cirrus customer with a radalt :) OTOH the Garmin 496-style GPS "500ft" audio warning would be 99% as good.

I am not saying I will never land gear up but if I do I need my head examined because I will have made 4 mistakes one after the other:

- forgot to drop the gear
- forgot the landing flap
- probably doing a very flat approach i.e. high power (which I never do)
- ignored the 500ft warning from the G496

[soay]

some see the ballistic chute as an important advance in safety, but the chute will not work well without the u/c absorbing some of the load.
and without the 'chute, the equivalent level of safety "get out", for the lack of spin certification, would not be valid. The fixed undercarriage is integral to the design for more reasons than just cheaper insurance and running costs.

[Pace]

Picasa Web Albums - pace (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Wt7GJCidLlaUHxR9N9X6uw?feat=directlink)

Just for Englishall I flight tested the New Diamond twin which was a lovely aircraft. Hope the engine holds up this time.

My film :D

Pace

[scooter boy]

Nice one Pace.
3 questions:

Was the engine shutdown intentional? :E

The engine looked a tad reluctant to restart, no?

How fast does it go in cruise with the bigger engine?

SB

[Pace]

Was the engine shutdown intentional?

Would I do that? pure accident :eek:

The engine looked a tad reluctant to restart, no?

Was a worry for a second or two but could have landed back on one :E

I was impressed with the aircraft. The earlier one was much to slow and underpowered while this version has been transformed. Its still not mega quick but was indicating 140kts plus so should TAS out at 180 KTS high up.
Takeoff was much sharper too.

The main concern is how good is the new engine compared to all the problems with the old. If its stands a test of time and is reliable then it will be a really good twin.

Pace

[IO540]

The old DA42 did 140kt IAS at 11GPH total flow rate - same as the TB20 but on cheaper fuel. I know; I was in it.

I would expect the new one to have a higher max speed but the same fuel flow at around 140kt.

Sadly the new engine will not have a known history for a few years. Anybody buying one now has to be feeling very lucky, but Diamond need a whole lot of people to be feeling very lucky otherwise they may go bust. No wonder they certified the DA42 with avgas engines, for the US market.

For a few years I have been hoping for a SE turboprop, unpressurised and not much bigger than a TB20. The nearest that ever appeared was the Grob 140 but that must now be dead, and it was way overpriced at (according to Grob) 1.4M euros. They were pitching it at the military training market. The huge cost of the engines and their poor SFC must mean that nobody will use them unless they can the FL250+ TAS gain, which in turn means pressurisation, and you end up with a big plane, and need a bigger engine to pull it along :)

[Pace]

10540

Maybe you had the thing flat out to get 140 :( but at a fast cruise the aircraft is about 10kts faster IAS than its predessor

I too wish a small low cost turbine had been built rather than going the Diesel route.
I believe one was being developed for Mooney?

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

There you are a photo from a trip a little while back. 132KT indicated GS but note the head wind at 75% power.

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz66/fujiflyer/IMG_0041.jpg

[Pace]

Fuji

You had about 150 kts TAS with the headwind. Need to know your altitude with that TAS?

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

It just so happens I have the PDF taken at the same time.

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz66/fujiflyer/IMG_0042.jpg

[Pace]

That works out about right with the new aircraft 150 TAS at 6000 feet with prob around 160 TAS in the new version.

The Seneca V would be faster than both at around 170 at those levels.
Diamond never seem to make quick planes

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, indeed.

The Cirrus is of course appreciably quicker but no where near as smooth.

I would be very interested to try the Lycoming version of the 42.

[Fuji Abound]

My ideal aircraft (for touring at any rate)

A DA42 with the cabin of a Cirrus, the speed of a Mooney and the engine out performance of an Aztruk. (and a bit of TB20 thrown in for good measure)

Diesel engines would be great because of the widespread availability of Avtur but Lycomings will do. For a modern twin I would want a honest cruise of 180 KT, and I think the 42 needs a little better single engine performance (its fine in the cruise but underpowered on the climb out).

I reckon the Lycoming powered version from what I have heard comes very close. Whilst I liked the laid back seating in the 42 initially I am now not so sure. The Cirrus cabin is better as is the TB20.

[cessnapete]

I have been flying a O&N Aircraft conversion of the Cessna P210 for a couple of years in UK. They call it a Silver Eagle(On FAA register to enable owners to use FAA IR)
Continental 315hp piston engine replaced with RR/Allison 250-B17 of 450hp. Complete refurbish includes Chelton Synthetic Vision EFIS with TCAS, EGPWS, S-Tec 55 A/P and radar pod on wing. Full de-ice.(Latest conversions now Garmin 900 avionics fit)
200kts TAS at FL190, 24 gph,cabin at 8000ft.
A great all round aircraft which can use 600 mt grass strip with ease at mauw.
As usual with these SE turbo prop aircraft , only 2/3 pax with full fuel but 3 1/2 hours with 4 people.
Only problem you need $750/850 thou to buy a new conversion!
O&N have a Cessna 340 turbo prop conversion with same engine in Certification at the moment.

[englishal]

Thanks pace, I can't watch it here though due to "websense" ! I'll watch it when I get home.

My experience of the DA42 is TAS of 150-155kts at 78-80% at 5000 feet.

For a few years I have been hoping for a SE turboprop, unpressurised and not much bigger than a TB20

As you are on the N reg, when your engine is up for overhaul, why not pop into Texas Turbines and get one bunged in the TB20 ;)

[IO540]

There is no known TB turbine conversion - or indeed any other engine option.

However, if one did just that, the range would shrink to about 2/3 which would mean I would suddenly be doing a whole load of fuel stops, which I hate. The other day I flew to Valencia and back, landing with 39USG and 31USG respectively (full tank = 86.2). With a turbine knocking a 1/3 off, such a trip would be marginal, to say the least.

And the oxygen usage is huge at the high levels - a cannula simply won't work.

We really need a turbine which is a lot more efficient that the present ex-helicopter-market 450HP turbines. There is nothing even remotely on the horizon, AFAIK.

Turbine conversions are not the perfect cure. FAA certification requirements normally force Vne to be artificially low; generally AIUI at the bottom of the yellow arc. The Jetprop has a Vne of (IIRC) 160kt which is even lower than my TB20 (189kt) and it makes sense only at FL270 when you get ~ 260kt TAS. I know a US dealer selling this stuff and he tells stories of "lots of working rivets" and "Vmo warning CBs pulled" on most of the planes he works on, suggesting perhaps that a lot of people do make rather more use of the power than the airframe was built for. If I was buying a Jetprop I would do some due diligence on the airframe year (specific reinforcements in the tail area).

I think the issue is that Vne is related primarily to control surface flutter, which is related directly to TAS (the actual airflow velocity) whereas Vne is actually marked on the ASI in terms of IAS. If one takes the airframe to a much higher altitude than it was originally tested for, the Vne figure (expressed as IAS) has to be reduced, but nobody will have done the complete re-certification to determine the safe upper limit.

[cessnapete]

IO540

I have no experience of the Piper Jetprop but because of the reasons you give the P210N conversion is still certificated at the same weights and speeds as the origonal piston type.
The VNE is now the top of the yellow arc at 167 as opposed to the pistons 208. This is not a problem as the a/c is rarely flown at low level due fuel flows, and at the normal high teens flown, TAS is 205 ish.
The conversion includes some beefing up of known wear pionts at the the rear end. Some heavier ribs, skins, and a dual elevator trim actuator are included in the work.
This conversion appears to be operated at quite conservative limits. As for range (147 USG)we have flown Faro to our strip in Berkshire non- stop with two occupants.
Practical but expensive.

[scooter boy]

IO540, does the Meridian have the tail reinforcements as standard?
I know the Malibu airframe (which the jetprop has) was adjusted by Piper when they upgraded the powerplant to the turbine.

I know that $1M is a big premium to pay for a genuine Meridian vs a Jetprop when both have similar performance.

Would be a shame to lose the tail at high speed though.

SB

[IO540]

I don't know but believe the Meridian differs structurally.

The big thing however is route charges: the Jetprop is 1999kg while the Meridian is about 2300kg - this translates to a big operating cost difference; of the order of £100-200 just to e.g. fly across France. That's not a whole lot different to the entire cost of the fuel burnt on the flight.

[scooter boy]

Interestingly I was discussing the weighty issue of MTOW for the Meridian and euronav charges with the German Piper distributor a couple of weekends ago.

He assured me it is possible to certify your Meridian at 1999kg and thus avoid charges.

A peperwork exercise basically by the sound of things and a legitimate way to save money.

The euronav charges are almost as expensive as the French autoroutes.

[IO540]

He assured me it is possible to certify your Meridian at 1999kg

That is pretty amazing...

[frontlefthamster]

More than one in one hundred Cirrus aircraft to leave the factory have been lost in a FATAL accident.

There are very complex factors behind that, but the truth is undeniable.

Me? I'd buy an old Golden Eagle - but then, I know I'm good!

[englishal]

Gee wizz....

I wonder how many PA28's HAVE BEEN LOST TO FATAL ACCIDENTS?

Or C172's,C152's,404's, 310's, blah blah

[frontlefthamster]

Al, after so few years in production, rest assured the rate was MUCH LOWER.

[IO540]

Very different clientele though.

The spamcan market, as in going from A to B, has been dead on its feet for years. It's been kept standing up by U.S. consumer inertia, patriotism (not saying that's a bad thing), and ultra conservative attitudes in the GA market, especially in the USA where you could stick a pair of wings onto a Zanussi washing machine and quite a lot of GA pilots would think it looks really good. In fact it is quite possible that "Flying" Magazine would do a perfectly straight faced review of it, so long as it flew well.

Cessna have been kept in business by there being little else for the circuit bashing market, and by numerous short field / utility applications.

Piper are dead. They are kept going by spares production for the huge PA28 fleet.

[007helicopter]

More than one in one hundred Cirrus aircraft to leave the factory have been lost in a FATAL accident.

There are very complex factors behind that, but the truth is undeniable.


There have been a total of 55 Cirrus Fatal accidents since production started of the SR, Fatal No 55 was an Accident that occurred Friday, September 11, 2009 in Rock Hill, SC, USA

Pilot appeared to lose control or turn back on take off and impact the runway at a very high speed resulting in a fire and death of Pilot Skipper Beck.

Preliminary NTSB report ERA09FA515 (http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20090911X81041&key=1)


The original poster asked about the safety of this type of aircraft and I hope he has gained some facts to make a rational decision, there is so much misinformation.

[bjornhall]

The spamcan market, as in going from A to B, has been dead on its feet for years. It's been kept standing up by U.S. consumer inertia, patriotism (not saying that's a bad thing), and ultra conservative attitudes in the GA market, especially in the USA

So what you're saying is it's not dead on its feet; people still buy their airplanes.

What we are seeing is mirrored by what happened in commercial aviation. A brand new airliner looks about the same and has about the same performance (except fuel burn) as a 50 year old one. It's on the inside it looks totally different.

In my view, you don't tell a modern aircraft from an obsolete one by looking at how far its rivets protrude. You look at what's on its panel. And there, interestingly, I think the US is way ahead of everyone else when it comes to embracing and levaraging new technology. Think about GPS approaches, think about weather and traffic data links.

Furthermore, if you buy a Cessna today, you can even choose: Brand new airframe design and brand new cockpit, or well tried airframe design and brand new cockpit. C182T or 350; they are both availale.:)

[englishal]

I am surprised Cessna's fly at all. To me they are like sitting in a goldfish bowl. If it was a case of flying Cessna's or not at all, I'd opt for not at all.

[ftimesf]

I am surprised Cessna's fly at all. To me they are like sitting in a goldfish bowl. If it was a case of flying Cessna's or not at all, I'd opt for not at all.


I cut my teeth in Cessna aircraft and did aerobatics in a 150 aerobat.
I now fly an SR22 which I obviously love to bits but I can't knock the Cessna.
A class training aircraft.

[Fuji Abound]

I started out flying aeros in just that - a very good aircraft indeed particularly as it taught you so well the importance of conserving energy and of flying accurately. If you didnt there were very few reserves of horses or handling to make it look pretty. :) and shirley that is no bad thing for a trainer.

[sternone]

I have to jump in here. It's way too much fun.

Has anybody read the Cirrus POH ? That's not how I deal with problems.

They work with you not to pull the chute and to use your checklist. But every checklist ends with "pull the chute".

That summarizes the whole plane, the Cirrus plane is designed around marketing.

The only thing that I find good about the whole Cirrus ordeal is that it gave a lot of money to TAT so they could prove to the GA industry that WOTLOP is the way to run your engine.

--
Aviation Consumer :

"The cirrus accident record can be summed in a single word: disapointing"

The fleetwide fatal rate for Cirrus is 2.2/100.000 compared to a GA fatal rate of 1.2/100.000 according tot he NTSB

[007helicopter]

Leaving EGTO Rochester in Kent tomorrow as P2 on a ferry flight to Saudi Arabia in a brand new SR22 G3 Turbo, Chris Baker has flown it from the factory in Duluth on the 4th of November, check the pictures on his facebook if interested Login | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=169704106358&ref=nf)

So tomorrow pm Naples, the following day fuel in Crete and then DCT Jordan where I will have to get out due to no Saudi visa.

Still a great trip which demonstrates the utility of this aircraft.

[Fuji Abound]

The only thing that I find good about the whole Cirrus ordeal


Here is a strange thing - they keep on rolling off the production line even in these challenging times .. .. ..

.. .. .. what was that, Mooney have stopped production.

Thing is either the marketing is very very good, their are a lot of very disappointed owners, or the product is not that bad - of course they could have bought a Mooney, but then again they didnt.

:) only kidding.

As I have already said the Mooney is very good, I think the Cirrus has the edge but as always it doesnt suite everyone.

[paulp]

Wow, I just saw this thread. So much info and some of it is almost correct!

Anyone who wants to stall an airplane and take it down be my guest but I'm not going along for the ride. When done within the POH limitations the chute has a great record. It is all about total kinetic energy and you have to include the forward velocity of the plane in the stall. As for why it is there, you have to have a one-on-one conversation with Alan Klapmeier and hear about his argument with his brother Dale to understand why it is standard. Oh, along the way you will hear about the mid-air he survived. I gather it made an impression on him. What I like about the chute is know it is there at night and when flying over low IFR.

I love the look of the Columbia. The Mooney is very efficient. The Cirrus is more comfortable inside with more room. Physics is physics and the Cirrus loses a little due to that and its fixed gear. That doesn't make any of them bad. I like the Mooney for efficiency. I think the Columbia is one of the prettiest planes out there. As far as the view out of the plane the Cirrus is better than either the Mooney or Columbia but not as good as the Diamond.

Handling is generally great. Roll is quick which is great for VFR flight but touchier in IFR. Trim is a pain and I would love a wheel like a 172. With a lot of practice you get it down but it is the LAST thing that gets easy and hand flying IFR is more of a pain than necessary due to it. I find the Columbia better as a stable IFR platform.

You need to know the systems. What else is new? I never found the Garmin 430W intuitive. My wife hates Perspective (G1000) but loves R9. Whichever system it is, any modern plane involves systems management.

Cirrus aircraft are FLOWN. Just look on Flightaware to get an idea of the planes in the system. Flightaware doesn't show VFR flights so it is more a measure of which planes are being used for long trips and poor weather flying. When you compare fatal accidents between types it is interesting to look at how many of each are in the system on a given day.

As for efficiency my trip this past weekend was at 14K' at 11.5 GPH with a TAS of about 160 kts. I am sure a Mooney can do a lot better but then again that's not bad for the wheels sticking down.

A common fallacy about accidents during the early years of the Cirrus was that they were from low time pilots. Actually many were high time. There was a time in type correlation (by definition since the plane was new) but not one to overall experience. The early accident rate was high but statistically meaningless. The current rate tends to match other high performance aircraft like Mooney, Bonanza etc. I think the 210 may be a little higher. All of this is hard to assess since no one knows exact flight hours for the different aircraft types.

The wing doesn't like ice. That is true of any high speed laminar flow wing. TKS on the non-FIKI planes is a get out of jail free card at best.

The side yoke is just a center yoke, remove one handle, center the other, move it all to the side. Everyone thinks it will take a long time but it doesn't. Control is precise if a bit numb due to the spring centering removing some of the feel generated by air pressure against the control surfaces.

Autopilot concerns are no different than any other plane with a rate based autopilot if flying a Cirrus with the Stec 55X. If flying one with the GFC700 then you have an awesome autopilot and the ability to do indicated airspeed climbs which removes autopilot stall concerns. The upcoming Avidyne DFC100 will add envelope protection i.e. it will drop the nose of the plane to prevent a stall or shallow descent to prevent exceeding Vne.

The key to slowing a Cirrus down is getting flaps in even if you have to climb to do it. The turbos are easier due to the big fat composite prop which acts like a speed brake. That said, I flew a Columbia with speed brakes and I loved them.

My favorite Cirrus feature? It got my wife interested in flying. It is the plane she wanted. Now she flies as much or more than I do. She insisted we get our own plane. When offered a new car/truck or an R9 avionics upgrade she picked R9. For that I am eternally grateful to Cirrus.

Paul

[sternone]

That doesn't take the fact away that Cirrus planes are

* badly build, have a low finishing quality
* Insurance is higher on Cirrus than on other GA planes (why would that be hu?)
* many high time pilots crashed their cirrus while low and slow
* have high post-crash fires
* are difficult to land in a crosswind
* count too much on the parachute (example, according to the Poh: engine failure ? Pull the chute !! I don't call that dealing with emergencies, for cirrus it is)
Spin: Pull the Chute
Ice: Pull the chute
Engine Failure: Pull the Chute
Disorientation: Pull the Chute

* Cirrus airframe life limit is 15.000hours

A cirrus that has 400 hours for example looks beat up, inside and outside.

And the most important thing, which many seems to forget :

ALL CIRRUS AIRPLANES HAVE A LIFETIME LIMIT ON THE BRS PARACHUTE OF 10 YEARS
Even worse, the price to replace the BRS and the problems of the top of the fuselage that needs to be re-done is NOT KNOWN YET.

I bet the marketing guys at Cirrus put that really into a small font.

And I don't hear the Cirrus lovers talk about that.

I have to give them kudos to selling these birds in huge numbers. Aldo 2009 wasn't that good.

2009 deliveries cirrus including third quarter 09 : 189
2008 deliveries cirrus : 549
2007 deliveries cirrus : 710
2006 deliveries cirrus : 721
2005 deliveries cirrus : 600

But again, numbers Mooney will never get anymore. Never ever. And kudos to the cirrus marketing machine. My meaning is just that if all the facts would have been known to potential buyers they would have bought a real plane, like a Mooney or like a Bonanza.

[IO540]

The Cirrus is the logical choice for somebody buying new - not a lot of options in the piston market!

As for efficiency my trip this past weekend was at 14K' at 11.5 GPH with a TAS of about 160 kts. I am sure a Mooney can do a lot better but then again that's not bad for the wheels sticking down.

If that is LOP, you must have a turbo engine to do that at 14k. If I (TB20) was able to to 11.5GPH at 14k I would be doing (ISA assumed) 172kt TAS. Your lower figure is presumably a combination of fixed gear and the turbo engine being a bit less efficient (I don't know what IAS a TB21 does at 11.5GPH but I know it is less than the TB20).

[Justiciar]

Can anyone comment on why at any particular time there appear to be quite a number of second hand Cirrus for sale. I am referring here to the European, including UK market. This may just be a false impression, but could it be that even the quite wealthy owners balk at the high cost of running the aircraft coupled with utilisation far lower than they perhaps imagined before they bought. There appear to be a hard core of owners who retain their chosen mount, whether it be Mooney, TB20, Bonanza or Commanche for decades. Are there similar Cirrus owners who will stick with their aircraft for years?

[IO540]

Can anyone comment on why at any particular time there appear to be quite a number of second hand Cirrus for sale.IMHO, it is because they have sold so many, so fast, and to a pilot profile which highlights younger (but well funded) pilots, that relatively more are bound to appear on the used market.

I had some figures from European COPA but can't find them now, but I think Cirrus have sold far more new planes in Europe in the last few years than Cessna and (especially) Piper combined. That kind of feed rate is bound to eventually show up on the used market - this is why their used prices are a bit depressed also.

I don't think the operating cost of an SR22 is significantly more than that of say a TB20. But the operating cost of anything fully owned is going to be silly if one doesn't fly very much, and a plane like an SR22 really needs an IR, but the European IR population has been pretty static for many years, and most of them are owners even before they get their IR, so my guess is that more Cirruses than other IFR types are going into the hands of non-IR pilots. Who in turn will get fed up sooner because they aren't getting the utility.

[paulp]

There are so many for sale because so many have been sold. Secondly, up until recently, the SR22 was improved about twice a year. There are a surprising number of people who have to have the latest and greatest. I know several people on their 5th Cirrus. Since the SR20 was first sold in 1999 that is an amazing number. It also says they must have been happy overall with the product.

[paulp]

* badly build, have a low finishing quality

I like Mooney and Bonanza build quality. However, Cirrus build quality improved with each generation. The G2 significantly improved the fuselage. The G3 improved the wing and main struts. The Perspective did a further improvement on the interior.

* Insurance is higher on Cirrus than on other GA planes (why would that be hu?)

Maybe because it isn't true. Insurance is driven first and foremost by hull value. A $600k Cirrus has higher insurance than a used $50k Mooney. Ok, what's your point?

* many high time pilots crashed their cirrus while low and slow

And their Mooney and their Bonanza..... Again, what's the point? I don't care if you prefer another plane. The Bonanza and Mooney products are both nice. However, there is no real data here. Please define your use of the term "many". I know of a base to final stall spin accident. EMAX data was pulled and the pilot let airspeed drop below stall in an uncoordinated turn. Are you saying this doesn't happen in a Mooney?!

* have high post-crash fires

This is the one where there may be something. I don't know. Certainly all planes can suffer post crash fires. We just had a 310 crash here that left nothing of the plane or a house. Coming down under canopy there has never been a post crash fire. But there have been in other accident profiles.

* are difficult to land in a crosswind

Ok, clearly you have never really flown the plane. Crosswind landings are one of my favorite things about the SR22. Another is the ride in turbulent conditions.

* count too much on the parachute (example, according to the Poh: engine failure ? Pull the chute !! I don't call that dealing with emergencies, for cirrus it is)

Again, get the facts straight. The chute is there as a last ditch option so it is listed as such for many emergencies.

Spin: Pull the Chute

In this case it is listed there for legal reasons. Initial spin recovery, if there is altitude available, is by conventional means. I haven't done it but know people who have.

Ice: Pull the chute

What do you propose if all else fails? Perhaps in its place in the Mooney POH it should have "Say a prayer."

Engine Failure: Pull the Chute[quote]

Having had a friend get killed because he did the macho thing and wanted to make the airport I think the answer here is that too few pilots pull the chute. Had he pulled he would be alive and his wife and young daughter would have a husband & father respectively. If you have an engine failure over 100' ceilings what do you do? What about over hostile terrain?

[quote]Disorientation: Pull the Chute

Mooney macho alternative is to crash and die. There is an ATC transcript of a Cirrus pilot clearly disoriented trying to get things back under control. Maybe a better pilot would have succeeded. However, this guy played macho and died.

* Cirrus airframe life limit is 15.000hours

All really new airframes have a life limit. Mooneys aren't certified under the new rules or they would too. As experience has been gained this lifetime limit has been extended.

A cirrus that has 400 hours for example looks beat up, inside and outside.

Here we can agree. This is more appropriate to early Cirrus aircraft than the G3 model. You can look at the model changes to see how fit and finish issues like the side of the center column are being changed to correct problems of fit and finish.

ALL CIRRUS AIRPLANES HAVE A LIFETIME LIMIT ON THE BRS PARACHUTE OF 10 YEARS
Even worse, the price to replace the BRS and the problems of the top of the fuselage that needs to be re-done is NOT KNOWN YET.

The alternative is to not have the chute. Again there is an expectation that with field experience this will be extended but it is a real limit right now. The expense is just being quantified and is around $10k + labor. G2 models and beyond offer easier access for the replacement. For G1 the plastic panel covering the chute has to be removed.

I can understand liking the efficiencies of the Mooney or the club seating and nice fit and finish of a Bonanza. I have trouble understanding your clear hatred of the Cirrus.

[IO540]

$10k every 10 years is quite significant. I haven't seen this mentioned before.

[Fuji Abound]

Ok, clearly you have never really flown the plane. Crosswind landings are one of my favorite things about the SR22. Another is the ride in turbulent conditions.



FWIW, I agree. I think the crosswind performance is as goo as any single I have flown and comes close to a Twinstar. It really is not an issue.

I also agree with your other comments.

I dont see the point of bashing Mooney against Cirrus, both are in my opinion great aircraft. Of course there are differences between the types and each performs better in certain respects.

It is interesting how much criticism Cirrus seem to attract - I wonder why, given that so much of it seems unfounded. When I started flying the 22 I asked several people their views. A very experienced instructor told me he hated the side stick and explained that was why Cirrus owners always flew the aircraft on autopilot. That seemed a fair comment. However after many hours in my 22 it simply is not true. I have flown lengthy sectors entirely by hand because it is in my opinion a delight to fly and the side stick works very well. I asked the same instructor how many hours he had in the Cirrus subsequently - uhhm, beneath a cough, 3. Is that part of the problem - many of the myths are based on rumour or pilots who have a few hours in the aircraft. I reckon it takes rather more than that to get to know any aircraft well.

I have a little over 50 hours in Mooneys and like them very much. They are a very good aircraft and that is why they have survived for so long.

I think the single most significant advantage Cirrus have is cost. The world has moved on and I dont think there is the same market that existed for the high costs associated with a low volume producer working with high labour construction techniques. Plastic fantastic may have advantages and disadvantages but cost will all remain one hell of an advantage.

[paulp]

It is interesting how much criticism Cirrus seem to attract

A lot of this is success envy. There is a prominent website used by lawyers to justify saying the SR22 is unsafe. Of course that website presents very skewed data and is run by a Cessna dealer. One year at AOPA I had the Columbia salesman explain to me why stalling the Columbia and bringing it to the ground would be safer than coming down in a Cirrus under canopy. My son was with me so I behaved myself. I have a masters in physics and was very tempted to launch into an explanation of total kinetic energy, energy absorption in a crash etc. Never mind actually looking at the data of what has happened after chute deployments. The Cirrus system works very well. Last year at AOPA it was the Cessna sales team spewing misinformation. I have to give high marks to Diamond. They sold their aircraft based on its features and strong points. They were very classy.

There also seems to be a dislike of Cirrus marketing. Alan Klapmeier feels strongly that we need more people in aviation or we will lose more airports and GA will go away. So... while he was CEO Cirrus marketed to non-pilots. Alan loves old planes, especially the Spitfire, but feels the health of GA is in making planes easier to fly. This is not new. Back when GA had much more vitality Cessna marketed the 182 as almost as easy as driving a car. I can see both sides of the argument but I doubt new Cirrus pilots have any higher accident rate than new pilots who get a Mooney or Bonanza. Note that I am not comparing them to new pilots who get a 172. In any case this is speculation on my part and not backed up by data.

I like the performance and fit and finish of the Mooney. My wife hates all planes that only have one door. Being able to step right into the seating area is a big deal to her. I tried to get her interest in a Mooney but when she climbed over one seat to get into the pilot's seat she was a lost cause. She also disliked the high glare shield. I did get her to admit that the fit and finish was great and that speed brakes are a great feature.

[IO540]

I think firstly any product marketed to bypass the "old anorak" portion of the GA customer base is going to draw criticism from the traditional people.

Some of it justified... morally, IMHO, you should not market a plane like you market a car, because they are worlds apart in actually deliverable A-B-transport utility value with a bare PPL, and only just about on the same planet with an IR. And that is in the USA - the earth's GA heaven.

There is also a gulf between the legal level of pilot training, and what I think is required to operate the fairly advanced avionics systems in modern planes. This will result in many people flying these things with a deficiency in systems knowledge which is likely to become significant as soon as the s*** hits the fan. But that applies to anything modern, not just a Cirrus, because you can't give away a plane unless it comes with a G1000 (or similar).

The provision of the chute also draws criticism because many people seem to believe (I don't actually think they do but it seems like it) that a pilot who makes a major error should die. And he should die while saluting to The Queen whose picture is pinned to the visor.

And not just the Queen; I know of an American GA pilot (ex military, fairly predictably, and massively proud of it) who hates Cirruses so much he joined up their US user forum and slagged them all off, before having to get out of there. I once googled on his name and found so much stuff... :)

I would have the chute if I could get it, because it provides a backstop for an engine failure over a forest or mountains, or some slightly bizzare emergencies. But I would never pull it above flat country.

Alan Klapmeier feels strongly that we need more people in aviation or we will lose more airports and GA will go awayHe is absolutely right. Even in the USA, it is widely reported that the Oshkosh visitor demographic gets a year older every year.

My wife hates all planes that only have one door. Being able to step right into the seating area is a big deal to herand likewise for a lot of people - once they have tasted the "2 door lifestyle" :) I would never go back to a single door.

[Fuji Abound]

But I would never pull it above flat country.



That is an interesting question; one I have thought about a fair bit.

I like opinions based on facts but I dont know the facts. I wonder how many forced landings on flat terrain are successful. By successful I dont simply mean the pilot and crew survived but survived and escaped with few if any injury.

I suspect we all would like to think we would make a good job of a forced landing in a reasonable field. In reality I wonder how many do? In high performance aircraft I have heard of a good few people who have suffered some pretty bad injuries and obvioulsy many stories of those who have suffered none.

In contrast so far as chute pulls go the success rate has been astonishingly good. I know there will be those quick to point out the spinal compression suffered by one pilot amoung the cases that could be cited but equally there are others who will mention that the POH was incorrectly followed.

Statistically therefore I wonder whether the outcome is likely to be better if you come down under chute rather than attempt a forced landing.

I am mindful that the problem with forced landings is that however good we think we are there is always the risk we collide with something we couldnt see until committed or, particularly at this time of year, the nose digs in, the aircraft flips, followed by a fire. At least with the chute the configuration in which the aircraft lands and the energy it will be carrying is pretty much pre-determined.

[IO540]

That's a fair point with a fixed wing aircraft.

With a retractable, one would always retract if ditching, or "landing" on snow or some mucky surface.

However, engine failure do not AFAIK feature in Cirrus chute pull stats.

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

Even gear up you cant guarantee what you might find very late on the approach or lurking in the field.

Seems to me you have more control over what you hit (or dont) making the landing without the chute but if you get it wrong you might have been better off with the chute.

Talk to Cirrus pilots and there seem to be those that say I would always pull the chute and those that say I would take a look first and then decide. I am not planning to find out the correct answer. :)

[sternone]

In a Mooney 1 cm of ice drops the speed from 150 kts to 142 kts.
In a Cirrus 1 cm ice drops the speed from 155 kts to 118 kts.

Both have laminar wings.

Also, these answers to my remarks aren't really answers, they are opinions of Cirrus lovers. I bet it's gonna be more than 25.000$ to fix the 10 year mandatory BRS replacement. How many people know this ? Why is Cirrus hiding this ?


--
PS: There is nothing more fun than a SE-ME discussion and why is a Cirrus a bad plane discussion.

[paulp]

Also, these answers to my remarks aren't really answers, they are opinions of Cirrus lovers. I bet it's gonna be more than 25.000$ to fix the 10 year mandatory BRS replacement. How many people know this ? Why is Cirrus hiding this ?

That first statement is pretty all inclusive. It's also more than a bit insulting. As an example, the fact that all newly certified aircraft have airframe life limits is a fact. It is not opinion. Cessna 182's, Ovations, the G36 etc. are grandfathered in.

As for the chute repack your estimate COULD be correct. The latest feedback from Cirrus is: expect parts to be $9385. Expect labor to be 30 - 40 hours. Whether that is accurate only time will tell. It is the best we have to go on right now. The labor is for a G1 airframe.

[sternone]

I have seen the Beechcraft that Lufthansa used for training with over 15.000hours flight.

It looked like a 500+ hour Cirrus.

I cannot imagine what a Cirrus would look like after 15.000 hours of flight. Everybody knows it's not the same build quality. That's a fact. That's one of the reasons why I don't like Cirrus. And I'm not the only one.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If the parachute system is more than 10 yrs old is the aircraft grounded ?

[paulp]

If the parachute system is more than 10 yrs old is the aircraft grounded ?

Since it was part of the ELOS (equivalent level of safety) during the certification process I strongly suspect the answer is that it is required and not doing the repack would ground the plane. A more interesting question would be what happens on a C182 that has had the system added? I don't know the answer to that one.

[sternone]

You just have to label the BRS parachute handle as INOP in a cessna.

In the cirrus it's needed to meet the requirements of flight. So the cirrus will be grounded, the Cessna not.

[glazer]

I have been reading this ping pong session about Cirrus versus everyone else's favourite aircaft with a mixture of amusement and I have to say sadness. There is so much misinformation about the Cirrus that is being peddled. Look, these are all aircraft, each with its own idiosyncracies, plus points and negative points. Arguing about which is better is fairly senseless. Some people prefer the Mooney: and yes it is cramped, no doubt about it. No-one has mentioned its problems with the undercarriage on grass fields by the way. Retractable undercarriage: fine but not everyone wants to spend a flight worrying if at the end of the flight they are going to have trouble with lowering it. I can easily go on criticising what is in fact a very good aircraft.

As one of the first Cirrus owners in Europe (second in the UK) I have now built up a lot of experience with this aircraft, both SR20 and SR22 and I think I know most of its plusses and minusses (not sure if that is the correct spelling). I bought my first one all those years ago because it was the first aircraft to be designed on new principles as opposed to all the old-fashioned aircraft I had previously flown (very good aircraft nonetheless, such as the AA5A I had earlier). What Klapmeier did was to bring light aircraft design into the late 20th century, even into the 21st century after I dont know how many years of old fashioned and conservative technology.

Someone said it was difficult to land in a cross-wind: utter nonsense - it has a max demo of 21 kts, but I have easily landed it in 35 kts 90 degrees across the runway. No problem. Someone also wrote something about not pulling the throttle back fast : why not? I have never had any problem with this. Then also I read that we do not do PFL's. True in my case, but that is sheer laziness on my part (I admit it) and I really ought to make a New year's resolution to do that more -- but there is no problem about doiing PFL's.
Build finish? Sometime a little poor sometimes fine. I am not impressed with the finish quality of most light aircraft that I have seen, especially when compared with cars. Take a look sometimes in a paint shop when they have stripped off the paint from an all metal aircraft and see how much corrosion there is.

If you really, really want to criticise a Cirrus I will give you one idea. It is a s-d to get to the tire valves to fill up with air.

Oh, and as for running costs, let me give you my experience of fuel usage. On the SR20 I used to use flying LOP at a TAS of 145kts 9.2 gals per hour. On my SR22 I get a LOP TAS of about 168kts at a flow rate of 15 gals per hour. These figures do depend on altitude but they are what I have used in flight planning perfectly satisfactorily are typical of altitudes up to say 6000 feet. If you fly at 10000 feet then the fuel consumption in my SR22 typically goes down to 13.5 gph for the same TAS.

Finally the side stick. Great. Put the aircraft on autopilot (by the way the aircraft is superbly stable when not on the AP - it doesnt drop a wing on you) and you have plenty of space in front of you to read a newspaper, play cards or work away on your laptop, or join the mile high club. I suppose you do have to look outside from time to time though just to be safe!

[sternone]

A plane is always a compromise. True.

We are all aviators, and we talk about planes. That's what we do.

I hope Cirrus can stay in Business, when some Arab oil man wakes up and say's he had enough of it, it's over at Cirrus. I hope that Cirrus stays in business and listen to the remarks the market is making (and I have posted some of them here) and make a better plane. So far for me they haven't succeed in seducing me, there are just other better planes out there, for the same or less money.

I don't believe their Cirrus jet is going to succeed, that project is almost near dead. Klapmeier tried to buy it from Cirrus with a ridiculous STUPID OFFER, only to be able to say to the customers he knows personally : Hey don't blame me, I tried to save it but they didn't accept my offer.

The Cirrus jet is the next big aviation lie.

[paulp]

Klapmeier tried to buy it from Cirrus with a ridiculous STUPID OFFER
This is what frustrates me in your posts. How do you know that is true? I suspect I know more about it than you do and I wouldn't make that statement. Have you read the term sheet? Have you done a financial assessment of the Cirrus jet project and thereby know the offer was, as you said, stupid? Somehow I doubt it. I don't know enough to say either way. I doubt you do either.

I happen to like Mooney aircraft and I hope the company survives. However, it is funny to see a Mooney fan criticizing the lower production numbers of Cirrus. Year to date Cirrus has sold 189 planes and Mooney 14. Ok, I guess I now see the superiority of Mooney marketing.

As to Cirrus tire valves, access is a real pain and why access doors couldn't be put in the wheel pants I don't know.

[soay]

As to Cirrus tire valves, access is a real pain and why access doors couldn't be put in the wheel pants I don't know.
LoPresti make these replacement parts for Cirrus wheels:

http://www.speedmods.com/newsletter/08/iceskate-nose.jpg

Don't know if they are any good.

[execExpress]

"when some Arab oil man wakes up and say's he had enough of it, it's over at Cirrus"

The Mooney Airplane Company (MAC) is a U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) manufacturer of single-engined general aviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_aviation) aircraft. Mooney has been a leader in civil aviation even though the company has gone bankrupt and changed ownership several times.

So, even if worst comes to the worst and Cirrus pays the ultimate price for not delivering the product that the mooniac values above all others, I doubt its "all over" - not with a delivered fleet of 5000 aircraft in the last ten years.

-------
2008 Production Halt

On Monday 16 June 2008 Mooney announced that it would lay off 60 employees and cut production from eight aircraft per month to five. Mooney CEO Dennis Ferguson said:[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_Airplane_Company#cite_note-Avweb19Jun08-1)
“ These decisions will not have an adverse effect on the quality or safety of our products, nor will they delay scheduled aircraft deliveries. They were made to create corporate resiliency in the present economic conditions. Our plans include positioning Mooney as a strong contender in the international market...We are strengthening our business in Europe, South America and Australia, where Mooney's high performance, efficiency and pricing are especially appealing. Our focus is to ensure the long-term viability of the company through prudent management and expansion of our market reach.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_Airplane_Company#cite_note-Avweb19Jun08-1) ” The reasons for the cutbacks and layoffs cited by the company include the weak US economy and the high price of fuel inhibiting sales.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_Airplane_Company#cite_note-Avweb19Jun08-1)
On 5 November 2008 the company announced that it was halting all production and had laid off 229 of its 320 employees, due to an excess unsold inventory of aircraft as a result of the economic crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_crisis_of_2008). Virtually all the laid-off employees were on the production line. The company said all other operations would continue and that all customer support and existing customer orders would be filled.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_Airplane_Company#cite_note-Avweb05Nov08-2)
In carrying out the lay-offs the company did not comply with the notification requirements of Texas law. In a statement Mooney said:
“ These unexpected and unforeseeable conditions are beyond Mooney Airplane Company's control. It was impossible for Mooney Airplane Company to predict this sudden collapse in demand at the time when notice would have been required. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_Airplane_Company#cite_note-Avweb05Nov08-2) ” In a third round of lay-offs in December 2008 the company let go an additional 40 workers leaving only about 50 employees at work. The company had 25 unsold aircraft at its factory in December 2008.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_Airplane_Company#cite_note-AvWeb26Dec08-3)



Yep, if I loved all things Mooney I would be real sore.

And we hear you loud and clear; you don't like Cirrus build quality, and and and, and now Alan K, and now Cirrus Jet, and ...

Why not give yourself a break? Time to moo-ve on. Enjoy your choice, let other people enjoys theirs - they are all flyers and flying ,sharing the sky, be happy for them whatever they are flying.

If seeing a Cirrus on the ramp spoils your day, well sorry about that. Let go of the banana, or maybe just sit back and wait for your 'told you so' opportunities.

[execExpress]

[duplicate post]

[paulp]

I'll let you know about the IceSkates if I ever receive the set I have had on order for two years. Not one set has been delivered. Worse they were developed using a plane I once owned one quarter of. The access door is being relocated and they will now include the "mushroom" piece at the top of the strut fairing. This is one area where the G3 has much better fit and finish and I hope the IceSkates will clean things up a bit along with making valve stem access easier. I still think an access door should be made standard by Cirrus.

[sternone]

Well, if the discussions with Cirrus lovers have to end with :"please give it a rest and shut up" ... then it's a sad world for aviation internet forums !!! And freedom of speech.

Funny thing is, everytime I type something in here I find something new that I don't like on the Cirrus !!

The facts remain. There is a huge list of problems and complains about the cirrus planes.

There is not a huge list of complains and problems with for example Mooneys or Bonanzas.

Strange, because they build bonanzas for over 60 years and have more then 15000 of them in the fleet, some of those first ones still flying and looking VERY GOOD!!

That will not happen with the Cirrus, believe me. The depreciation on a new Cirrus is just stunning. How much value does a Cirrus hold after 10 years ? It's a complete disaster. Not a word from the cirrus lovers on this part (again) I have posted some real issue's, some of them cirrus lovers replied to (not really good) but most of them ignoring a descent reply.

That, my dear, is to agree with it, in silence.

[Fuji Abound]

The company had 25 unsold aircraft at its factory in December 2008.


Sternone - you should put in an offer for one of these, assuming they have not been broken for spares.

I suppose there is a shortage of Mooney tanks. These pictures look dreadful.

http://www.willmarairservice.com/tank.php

[sternone]

Hey if it's one thing I don't really like on the Mooney it's the wet tank. WTF ??

That is just asking for problems. It's an expensive and nasty work, re-sealing those mooney tanks !!

About the numbers Mooney sold.. what can I say. They deserve much better ofcorse, they are much better planes than Cirrus. Cirrus ends up at the lowest bottom of my score on all points. People who know aviation tend not to be the big buyers out there. It's the people with the big (credit) wallet and almost no aviation expierence who are buying planes, and Cirrus eye catching hiding the facts marketing is working on them.

[paulp]

Sternone - Actually you haven't responded when it has been pointed out that many of your comments are flat out wrong. You have claimed items of fact are mere opinion and not responded when it has been made clear that an item is indeed fact. You talk about what you don't know and then when you are called out on it you shift to something else without a response.

In all of your anti-Cirrus tirades you did bring up one interesting point:

The depreciation on a new Cirrus is just stunning. How much value does a Cirrus hold after 10 years ? It's a complete disaster. Not a word from the cirrus lovers on this part (again) I have posted some real issue's, some of them cirrus lovers replied to (not really good) but most of them ignoring a descent reply.


Perhaps I missed an earlier question about depreciation since I have not, as you pointed out commented on it. I didn't know it was a topic you wanted a comment on. The high depreciation is indeed a fact. It is one of the few you have given. It is due to many reasons. Even prior to the recent economic crash Cirrus aricraft had high depreciation. They also had lots of repeat buyers due to the constant improvements being made. I know several people on their 5th Cirrus. If they had had all of the problems you state I doubt they would be repeat customers. Unlike a lot of other makes there was a real difference year to year so older planes depreciated. Furthermore, buyers wanting the new stuff were putting their older Cirrus aircraft on the market. That put pressure on pricing and resulted in depreciation. The recession hit hard including some of the core constituency of Cirrus. The SR22 is a great plane for developers to use to travel to different projects. A lot of Florida developers had Cirrus aircraft and these went on the market when the downturn hit. The final one is an item of supply. The SR22 has been the number one selling aircraft in the world for about 8 years running. With few buyers for aircraft of any kind in the recent downturn this has meant strong downward pressure as owners have had to get rid of their aircraft.

There you have it. I doubt facts and logic will count for much with you but perhaps they will matter to others who read this thread.

[TWR]

Paulp,

thank you for your informative posts.

...and your patience. ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone


There was a predictable rise in oil consumption and dropping compression readings during as little as 300 hours of operation. Fortunately, these excessive wear indicators did not lead to any catastrophic failures. But many owners discovered that a quarter of the way to overhaul, top-end engine work was necessary.

Is this still an issue with the M20M? 300 hundred hours and major work being required is not good on a turbo Mooney. My mate has had no such problems with his turbo Cirrus.

[IO540]

I think very few turbo engines make TBO.

Presumably this is not because of the turbo but because the engine can pull 75% all the way to high altitude.

It's no good telling the pilots because those who buy turbo planes buy them so they can do precisely that :)

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

That may well be true but my post was motivated by slightly different mischief making.

The point being as much as Sternone sings the praises of Mooney's (and they are a good aircraft) and derides Cirrus (and they have their problems) it is not too difficult to find issues with most aircraft. Mooney have their own unique and not so "unique" issues some of which I have highlighted. There are more.

Some one who purchased a new Ovation two years ago I suspect might be facing more depreciation that a Cirrus owner of the same vintage.

So in a sense I am simply pointing out that the passion with which Sternone derides Cirrus is misplaced. We each will speak well of the aircraft we fly because often we fly that particular type because we have satisfied ourselves it is the best aircraft for us.

I hope having been fortunate enough to have flown a fair few types I can be a little more dispassionate. For that reason I still believe all other issues aside the Cirrus is a very good aircraft - it has it faults, and it is not cheap to own and operate but perhaps not that much different from any new high performance aircraft. The Mooney is also a very good aircraft.

I have nothing against a thread that explores the problems of any given type but I think the way Sternone is intent on comparing a Cirrus with a Mooney diverts our attention from an otherwise interesting thread particularly when you might conclude the Mooney doesnt suffer from any "problems". It does - some the same, some different.

If you are in the market for either it is a matter of assessing which of the problem sets you are more comfortable with! :}

[sternone]

Let me summarize the items so far on the Cirrus that are really worrisome :

* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?
* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.
* Insurance rates are higher on a Cirrus than on a Bonanza, Mooney or Cessna Corvallis
* Have high post crash fires
* Sidestick always needs trimming
* Lack of a prop rpm lever (10% waste of fuel)
* Noisy cockpit
* Cirrus airframe limit is 15.000 hours ( I rather have a plane with a non-life limit)
* A cirrus wing with ice up drops the speed much more than the same type of laminar wing than on a mooney
* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside
* Aviation consumer : "The cirrus accident record can be summed in a single word: disapointing" The fleetwide fatal rate for Cirrus is 2.2/100.000 compared to a GA fatal rate of 1.2/100.000 according tot he NTSB
* Financial status of Cirrus, it depends on 1 oil sheik. I give another example here :

At AOPA convention a week ago Cirrus was selling "takeover" positions from prior depositors on the cirrus jet. Basically, you could buy a prior depositor out for their deposit, get the benefit of "5,000 a year in upgrades" and take over the original depositor's delivery position for the price of the original deposit plus a $15k transfer fee. On a question to Cirrus why are they doing this since these deposits were supposed to be fully refundable they answered: "because we are refunding them from cash flow and there isn't much of that right now."

I want potential Cirrus buyers to look out for other things and think twice before they go with the marketing lie. Ofcorse Mooney and Beechcraft planes have their problems. Just not as much as Cirrus.

[IO540]

One thing I don't like about the Cirrus is its lack of engine RPM control, which IME results in about a 5-10% fuel wastage due to running at max RPM, compared with say 2200.

Together with the fixed gear, they are probably chucking away 10-15% of the fuel.

I see this as a very successful but unfortunate dumbing down of the market, in the name of marketing.

Ably assisted by Socata's fantastic marketing skills, which after 20-30 years of "selling" planes in the USA still leaves a situation where many American pilots have never heard of the company.

And, in an acknowledgement of its great marketing, Socata then stopped the production of piston planes in 2001 :ugh:

[paulp]

Sternone - Have you not read anything in this thread? Have you not done any research? Why is it that the current theme on the internet is that people just repeat things again and again that aren't true with the idea that they will somehow become fact? Some of what you say is correct. A lot is completely wrong. One more time, here are facts:

* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?

True for the reasons stated in an earlier post. Unfortunately, it may not be true in the future due to present management not pushing development as fast as Alan K. did. Time will tell. What it does mean is that used SR22's are screaming good buys. The SR20 has been made in smaller numbers. Since some of the depreciation is due to the fact of large yearly production runs, the SR20 has suffered less, but still significant depreciation. Also, the depreciation curve as a plane goes form being 1 year old to two years old is different form one going from being 20 years old to being 21 years old.

* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.

True except for the price. However, it won't be cheap. Factor this into hourly operating cost. This cost is here because the plane has a parachute. Decide for yourself whether it is worth the cost.

* Insurance rates are higher on a Cirrus than on a Bonanza, Mooney or Cessna Corvallis

Based on personal experience not true at least in the US. The main determiner is hull value. Since Cirrus aircraft have higher hull values than, for example, a 20 year old Mooney, then the insurance is higher.

* Have high post crash fires

Unknown at this point. No post crash fires when coming down under canopy. However, there have been fires in other accident scenarios including some landing accidents. This is one where the Cirrus COULD be worse than other aircraft.

* Sidestick always needs trimming

Another misstatement by sterone. The trim switch is sensitive. It is electric and trims fast. That makes it touchy. Once set it holds trim so it does not always need trimming. It is more of a pain to get the trim set than on a C172 with its manual trim wheel.

* Lack of a prop rpm lever (10% waste of fuel)

Not true for the most point. This one is like manual vs. automatic transmission on a car. It can be a personal preference items. I have no issue with people preferring a separate prop control. I used to. However, I now prefer the way Cirrus has done it. You do need to understand how it works. As you push the throttle forward you initially get an increase in manifold pressure and an increase in RPM up to 2500 RPM. At that point RPM flattens out. Further movement of the throttle causes manifold pressure to increase. Finally you reach a point where the throttle is wide open. At that point moving the throttle further forward results in a prop pitch change smoothly until 2700 RPM (on my plane actually about 2680) is reached. This is not as flexible as having a separate prop control. In typical cruise flight there is no decrease in fuel economy relative to having a separate prop control. All you have to do is look at efficiency. With fixed gear my SR22 has about the same fuel efficiency as my friend's V35B Bonanza. Considering that I have a roomier cabin and gear hanging down that is pretty good. If you operate in other power regimes then there is probably some inefficiency. It is more of a theoretical issue than a practical one for most use profiles. I happen to like the increase in simplicity and the resulting reduction in pilot workload.

* Noisy cockpit

Agreed. Turbos are quieter than NA aircraft so the turbo Cirrus is quieter than the normally aspirated one. A turbo Saratoga is noticeably quieter than an NA (non-turbo) Cirrus. A V35B Bonanza is quieter but the difference isn't as dramatic. The bottom line is that the CIrrus is noisy. Fly it and judge for yourself how much it matters to you.

* Cirrus airframe limit is 15.000 hours ( I rather have a plane with a non-life limit)

This is a great example of sternone ignoring or not comprehending my earlier post. I agree that it would be great if there was no airframe life limit. However, EVERY newly FAA certified aircraft has an airframe life limit. You can avoid this by getting a plane certified to older, less strict, standards. However, it is doubtful that those airframe could pass present certification standards as is. That doesn't mean they are bad airplanes. I think the long history shows they are solid. But... the FAA has become much stricter. I watched them require a backlight color change from orange because the FAA thought it might distract from noticing warning messages. For those reading these posts, a lot of the FAA certification standards are public if you care to dig through them.

* A cirrus wing with ice up drops the speed much more than the same type of laminar wing than on a mooney

With different wording I might give sternone a pass on this one but, as usual, he takes facts and misstates them. Both the Mooney and the Cirrus have laminar wings. However, they aren't the same wing. Just take a look at them. The Cirrus wing is not a very ice friendly wing. That is especially true of it compared to a C182. Also, sitting on a ramp a Cirrus will accumulate frost before the metal planes do. There are plenty of advantages to the wing design including strength, ride and efficiency. Read Fuji Abound's last post and take it to heart. One of the wonderful things about GA is that there are a lot of nice planes out there. The designers have made different tradeoffs knowing that people are different with a different balance of priorities. Choose what suites you.

* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside

G1 planes have a somewhat fragile interior. G3's are much better with G2's close to G3's. Look at it and decide for yourself. Certainly Mooney and Beech do nice interiors. The Cirrus interior is much more modern. Especially on G1's I think the Cirrus doesn't like a life in the sun. Use shades or hangar. Well taken care of the interior will stay nice but, if you don't use seat covers, the seats will eventually need to be redone like any other plane.

* Aviation consumer : "The cirrus accident record can be summed in a single word: disapointing" The fleetwide fatal rate for Cirrus is 2.2/100.000 compared to a GA fatal rate of 1.2/100.000 according tot he NTSB

I agree with the disappointing statement. Considering all of the safety features the rate is about the same as other high performance singles including Mooney. In other words, the record is dominated by the mission of the plane. Read the accident reports and decide for yourself if the plane was the issue.

* Financial status of Cirrus, it depends on 1 oil sheik.

This is a valid concern. However, there is more than a little humor seeing it come from a Mooney owner. If you are worried about this then stay away from Mooney. They have totally shut down production trying to stay alive and have been bankrupt several times. Piper isn't strong nor is Beech. Get a Cessna. The fact is that there are a lot of Cirrus aircraft out there. The SR22 continues to be the best selling aircraft in the world in terms of unit volume. Just like Mooney, the fleet is too large to let it go unserviced.

Hopefully my comments have helped people decide what is best for them and not for me or for sternone.

[sternone]

Hopefully my comments have helped people decide what is best for them and not for me or for sternone.


Little weak responses from you, I'm disappointed.

Little extra example:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260471451007&ssPageName=ADME:B:BODO:MOT:1#ht_500wt_1182


2007 Cirrus SR22 Turbo GTS Single Engine Airplane Price: US $285,000.00

280k on controller with 195 hours on it and pretty much every option including tks.

This plane had to be well north of 600k new. that equates to over 1600 dollars an hour for depreciation!

[sternone]

Some of what you say is correct. A lot is completely wrong

A lot is completely wrong ? Let's see how much is completely wrong of what I resumed here.

Quote:
* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?

Correct.

Quote:
* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.

Correct (price not known, but I won't be far off)

Quote:
* Insurance rates are higher on a Cirrus than on a Bonanza, Mooney or Cessna Corvallis

Correct.

(You are comparing a cirrus rate with a 20 year old mooney ? Haha, compare a cirrus rate with a new mooney or a new bonanza and then come back, CIRRUS IS MORE EXPENSIVE)


Quote:
* Have high post crash fires

Correct.

Quote:
* Sidestick always needs trimming

Ok you agree the trim switch is sensitive on a Cirrus. It is MUCH more difficult to trim compared to a Mooney or a Bonanza. Ask anybody who has flown a Cirrus, if you say that the trim is normal then you are just lying. So this is CORRECT and it's a known problem on the cirrus planes, you can't deny that.

Quote:
* Lack of a prop rpm lever (10% waste of fuel)
Not true for the most point. This one is like manual vs. automatic transmission on a car. It can be a personal preference items. I have no issue with people preferring a separate prop control. I used to. However, I now prefer the way Cirrus has done it. You do need to understand how it works. As you push the throttle forward you initially get an increase in manifold pressure and an increase in RPM up to 2500 RPM. At that point RPM flattens out. Further movement of the throttle causes manifold pressure to increase. Finally you reach a point where the throttle is wide open. At that point moving the throttle further forward results in a prop pitch change smoothly until 2700 RPM (on my plane actually about 2680) is reached. This is not as flexible as having a separate prop control. In typical cruise flight there is no decrease in fuel economy relative to having a separate prop control. All you have to do is look at efficiency. With fixed gear my SR22 has about the same fuel efficiency as my friend's V35B Bonanza. Considering that I have a roomier cabin and gear hanging down that is pretty good. If you operate in other power regimes then there is probably some inefficiency. It is more of a theoretical issue than a practical one for most use profiles. I happen to like the increase in simplicity and the resulting reduction in pilot workload.

So what you are saying is it's true but doesn't make a big difference on the cirrus right ? So again I'm CORRECT.

Quote:
* Noisy cockpit

Correct.

Quote:
* Cirrus airframe limit is 15.000 hours ( I rather have a plane with a non-life limit)

Correct, I'm not lying here am I ? Buy a NEW mooney or a NEW Bonanza and you don't have this limit. Are you trying to say that a New Mooney or a New Bonanaza won't be able to pass the FAA tests ? Are you kidding me ?

Quote:
* A cirrus wing with ice up drops the speed much more than the same type of laminar wing than on a mooney

You said that the Cirrus is not good in dealing with ice 'just like all plans with a laminar wing' well the mooney has a laminar wing also and doesn't have that big problem as the cirrus has.

Correct. I'm not lying here.

Quote:
* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside

Correct, you agreed it yourself.

Quote:
* Aviation consumer : "The cirrus accident record can be summed in a single word: disapointing" The fleetwide fatal rate for Cirrus is 2.2/100.000 compared to a GA fatal rate of 1.2/100.000 according tot he NTSB

Correct, you agree also.

Quote:
* Financial status of Cirrus, it depends on 1 oil sheik.

Correct, that's not a lie from me is it ? You agree but you say it's a concern with Mooney also, and it's true, it's a big concern with Mooney but I'm talking about Cirrus and I'm not lying.

You see, can you count how many lies I told here like you tell me ?

Please do. There are maybe 1 or 2 that you disagree with me that doesn't make me lying ??

[paulp]

Ok, again point by point. First I did say that SOME of what you posted was correct. Much however is misleading. Here again is a point by point reply.

* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?

I can't find one 1999 Cirrus for sale. I suspect this comment shows your lack of knowledge of the type and your willingness to post about what you know so little. Considering that the only thing sold 10 years ago by Cirrus was the SR20 for around $180K I doubt the depreciation has been worse. If I take the middle of the price range for a 2000 SR20 it is $120K. A 2004 SR22 GTS loaded is $235K vs. a Mooney at $295. However, the Mooney has only 275 hours and sold for a lot more new. The Cirrus has 940 hours. I picked the only 2004 GTS for sale on Controller since the GTS is the closest in initial sales price to the Mooney but still sold for a lot less. A fully loaded 2002 SR22 sold for around $330K at the start of the year. CIrrus prices have risen a lot over the years.

(You are comparing a cirrus rate with a 20 year old mooney ? Haha, compare a cirrus rate with a new mooney or a new bonanza and then come back, CIRRUS IS MORE EXPENSIVE)

Wrong! I have direct experience. I am saying that in the US a Bonanza or a Mooney cost just as much to insure as a Cirrus if hull values are the same and pilot qualifications are the same.

Ok you agree the trim switch is sensitive on a Cirrus. It is MUCH more difficult to trim compared to a Mooney or a Bonanza. Ask anybody who has flown a Cirrus, if you say that the trim is normal then you are just lying. So this is CORRECT and it's a known problem on the cirrus planes, you can't deny that.

I agree it is sensitive to get trimmed properly. That is VERY different form needing constant trimming which is what you said. Read what you wrote.

As far as the prop control I am saying there is no difference under typical use i.e. in typical cruise flight but I do agree you can dream up instance where there is a difference. It is a personal preference but I wouldn't place fuel efficiency as an issue here. There are bigger things at play. In the end look at the fuel efficiency of different planes and take personal circumstances into account. For example, a Mooney is a very efficient plane not only compared to a Cirrus but to a Bonanza. The Bonanza is no more efficient than the Cirrus and is a retract with the added complexity. However, it has seating for 6. Choices, choices, choices. There is no one right plane. Heck, now my wife wants a Cub.

orrect, I'm not lying here am I ? Buy a NEW mooney or a NEW Bonanza and you don't have this limit. Are you trying to say that a New Mooney or a New Bonanaza won't be able to pass the FAA tests ? Are you kidding me ?

No I am not kidding you and that is what I am saying. I doubt the changes would be substantial. I am saying that, if certified today, the Mooney and the Bonanza would have an airframe life limit. That is a FACT.

Quote:
* A cirrus wing with ice up drops the speed much more than the same type of laminar wing than on a mooney

You said that the Cirrus is not good in dealing with ice 'just like all plans with a laminar wing' well the mooney has a laminar wing also and doesn't have that big problem as the cirrus has.


You want everything to be digital. I am pointing out that there are degrees. The Mooney wing is NOT as good at taking on ice as non-laminar flow wings. The C182 carries ice better than a Mooney. I have no doubt the Mooney carries ice better than a CIrrus. I don't have enough experience. I do know the Cirrus is sensitive to ice and I have stated as much from the beginning.

Quote:
* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside

Correct, you agreed it yourself.


Don't put words in my mouth. I said it varies with model. A G3 with 400 hours will look awesome inside.

Quote:
* Aviation consumer : "The cirrus accident record can be summed in a single word: disapointing" The fleetwide fatal rate for Cirrus is 2.2/100.000 compared to a GA fatal rate of 1.2/100.000 according tot he NTSB

Correct, you agree also.

Don't put words in my mouth. People can read what I wrote. I have spent a lot of time looking at Cirrus numbers. I suspect I have spent a lot more time than Aviation Consumer. The numbers are similar to Mooney and Bonanza. Yes, I find that disappointing. I wish they were better than Mooney or Bonanza.

Quote:
* Financial status of Cirrus, it depends on 1 oil sheik.

Correct, that's not a lie from me is it ? You agree but you say it's a concern with Mooney also, and it's true, it's a big concern with Mooney but I'm talking about Cirrus and I'm not lying.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree as to whether it is a deciding factor. Personally I think people buying a Mooney or a Cirrus will be ok but the odds are much worse for Mooney than Cirrus. Do me a favor though and don't proclaim that it is great to get a Mooney if you feel as stated above.

[IO540]

paulp

This is not as flexible as having a separate prop control. In typical cruise flight there is no decrease in fuel economy relative to having a separate prop control. Not correct. There is a big difference between 2200 and 2500 and especially 2700.

All you have to do is look at efficiency. Indeed :)

With fixed gear my SR22 has about the same fuel efficiency as my friend's V35B Bonanza. Which is virtually a WW2 design, and is this a LOP v. LOP comparison, at the same IAS?

Considering that I have a roomier cabin and gear hanging down that is pretty good.Yes, a good bit of marketing :)

Based on my tests I would bet on a 10% minimum range difference between 2200 and 2500. But nobody can verify this because at 2200 the SR22 won't be going anywhere.

A good bit of marketing. One can't argue with that. I won't even say that Cirrus were wrong to do this. After all, an SR22 (or my TB20 will go further than some turboprops or light jets, and their manufacturers can't all be stupid (can they?).

But it is a poor technical solution - on a plane whose mission capability would benefit significantly.

[scooter boy]

I have to apologise to the majority of Cirrus lover out there (who keep buying and flying these aircraft), but like Sternone I just don't get the Cirrus thing - I fear it is completely lost on both of us.

IMHO the worst thing any manufacturer can do to their client base is constantly revise and rebrand their product line. This instantly devalues the last few marques the second the new label is announced.

BTW I sold my 5 year old Mooney Ovation 2 GX privately last month with 550h TT. It had depreciated by only 23% since new. The Mooney is definitely a niche machine with a small niche market of "cognoscenti" owner/pilots. Each of the prospective buyers knew what they were looking for, mainly TKS deiced IFR capability with stunning range and performance. One had flown a Mooney around the world a decade previously.

I would predict that Cirrus will continue to dominate the market for light singles. So long as they reinvest so much of their turnover in glitzy marketing then there is no question that they will keep sales going.

SB

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally I think the Mooney is a piece of Shyte, and yes I have flown them. Why because it has a cramped cabin, poor visiblity, ailerons that feel like they were set in cement and they are universally reviled by mechanics because they are so hard to work on....BUT since this thread is not about Mooneys it is as the thread header plainly says, about the SR22, I don't think many readers of this thread really care about what I think about Mooneys.

Since I have never had the chance to fly one, what I personally would like to hear is how actual SR22 owners have found the aircraft to operate and what the maintainance trouble spots are.

[paulp]

Quote:
This is not as flexible as having a separate prop control. In typical cruise flight there is no decrease in fuel economy relative to having a separate prop control.

Not correct. There is a big difference between 2200 and 2500 and especially 2700.

Interesting. I'll have to dig into this more since Hartzell claims max prop efficiency for my prop is around 2500 but what would they know. Considering how well the SR22 competes with planes like the A36 for efficiency then if this is true they could do really well.

This is an area where I can understand the preference for something other than the choice Cirrus has made. Having owned a Fiat 124 Spyder, Porsche 914/6, Mazda RX7 and Acura NSX (which I deeply miss) I can sympathize with wanting a less "automatic" system. Cirrus chose operational simplicity. There was an automatic version of the NSX but I didn't want it.

Quote:
Considering that I have a roomier cabin and gear hanging down that is pretty good.

Yes, a good bit of marketing

It's more than that. For many a fixed gear makes a plane less attractive. For those who want a fixed gear plane Cirrus (and Cessna Corvalis) are planes which give similar efficiency to a retract but with a fixed gear. Room also makes a difference. Some people willingly trade comfort for efficiency. Different planes go after a different balance. Cirrus chose a roomier cockpit. This is more than good marketing. It is choice.

IMHO the worst thing any manufacturer can do to their client base is constantly revise and rebrand their product line. This instantly devalues the last few marques the second the new label is announced.

You may get your wish with current management. However, a car company makes no money when an owner sells his used car. A car company makes money by convincing a person to buy a new car. When used is almost the same as new it raises used values until new doesn't seem that much more expensive but there is little incentive for the present owner to trade for a new item (car or plane). It was Cirrus' move to all glass that forced the hand of other manufacturers. It also made many people who already owned a Cirrus to trade up. That drove down used prices. I mentioned that in an earlier post. A company should be out to make a profit. That means generating sales. That means constantly generating excitement about the product and new reasons to buy. Consider other items you own. Your computer has been greatly devalued each year. Would you prefer that no new microprocessors or software were available? It would strengthen the marked for your used computer. How about automobiles? Have you been opposed to adding electronic engine control, anti lock brakes, air bags, crumple zones etc.? Each of these devalued older vehicles. The period when airplane values held up the best was when Cessna stop producing single engine piston planes. Crazy me but I don't want to go back to that just to shore up used prices. If we can just shut down Cessna, Cirrus and Diamond then used prices will firm up. That means they will be doing great. Oh wait, they won't be selling anything. Never mind.

[paulp]

sternone - Well I read your post and you really have me here:

* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside

At 772 hours my plane must be really trashed out since it is almost twice your 400 hours. Go to 772_hour_Cirrus (http://public.me.com/sherriplatt) and view the carnage. I tried to take pictures that would show the trashed out interior, dilapidated leather and the dash falling apart. BTW the weather here was awesome today as was the flying.

[IO540]

Hartzell claims max prop efficiency for my prop is around 2500 but what would they know.

Prop efficiency maybe but engine efficiency variation is a lot bigger than prop efficiency variation.

I can take you up in my TB20. We climb to FL100, WOT, just into LOP, and play with the prop rpm (2200-2575) while watching the MPG readout on the GPS. It is an impressive confirmation of Cirrus Marketing :)

But hey as they say (or used to say) in the USA: fuel is the cheapest thing you can put in your engine :) :)

[Fuji Abound]

I would like to buy a new aircraft – yeah, I know, fly it out the show room and you have lost 20%, but I want a new aircraft, just like so many people want a new car.

A Mooney, sorry sir, we went bust. Socata, now they make very nice aircraft, sorry sir, we pulled out of piston aircraft. A Piper, yes of course sir, but anything close to the performance of a Cirrus will cost you a lot more. I could go on.

You see for me that is the point. Surviving as an aircraft manufacturing is a tough, a very tough business. It inevitably means compromise. It inevitably means giving people very good reasons to buy new aircraft. It inevitably means a good advertising campaign. It inevitably means some compromises. Cirrus may not be the most fuel efficient aircraft for example but I find myself asking even in these times of very costly fuel how much of a factor is an extra gallon or two an hour if you can afford a Cirrus. If fuel was such an issue Jag, Mercedes and BMW would have been bust years ago, and the anti 4 x 4 brigade would be in Westminster.

So here is the thing, Cirrus may not do it for you, but if you are in the market for a new aircraft (and a great many people have, a few still are, and hopefully many more will be in the future if GA is to survive) Cirrus are one of the few acts in town.

They are not perfect and many of those imperfections are because of compromise. Americans are big and fat, Europeans are getting that way, and they don’t want to squeeze into a Mooney. Make a large comfortable cockpit and it costs fuel – Cirrus can’t change the laws of physics. It is a fact many pilots want simple controls. How many Americans would dream of buying a manual shift? FADEC – well yes of course, who hasn’t got it in their car – or the equivalent? Cirrus has gone some way with the single leaver; doubtless full FADEC will be the next step as soon as it is proven, and when it is dual leavers will not get close to competing with FADEC. As to the chute, well my wife likes it, and everyone I fly with likes it, so whether or not they like it for the right reasons or not it’s probably better with it than without it. I could go on.

Could a better light single be conceived? Of course. However I doubt anything could ever be designed that would suite everyone. I believe glass is the way forward. I wouldn’t buy a new aircraft without glass. However I suspect IO540 wouldn’t buy one with. He’s not wrong, just takes a different view for very good reasons.

Who said you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time but you cant please all of the people all of the time.

At the moment Cirrus, Diamond, Piper and Cessna are the only acts in town so far as four seat touring aircraft are concerned – each making very different aircraft, which is as it should be. Historically a truly innovative aircraft manufacturer has never survived but both Diamond and Cirrus have used established technology in an innovative way (well with the exception of the Theilert engine), and for that reason I take my hat off to them for dragging light singles into the 21st century!

Mooney had a chance to be the fifth, but they didn’t take it. It is not often you get a second chance in this business.

[007helicopter]

All in all I think Fuji and Paulp sum it up much better than I attempted, as a part owner all I can say it has revitalised my personal interest in fixed wing flying and I can not see my self changing soon.

In the last few days I have flown Diamond DA40 and a DA42 twin for a few hours and I think they are also nice planes, in fact the DA40 was much better than I expected.

The Cirrus can really get you places fast and comfortably (we made Jordan quite easily in 2 days last week with 2 fuel stops) andI can not imagine it being quite so comfortable or achievable in any other GA aircraft that I am aware of.

And as Fuji says if you were buying knew I do not see any other viable competition.

Regarding Sterones claim about Alan K making a ridiculous offer to buy the Jet, is that your assumption or do you have any knowledge of what the offer was? he seemed pretty serious and to have a huge ammount of goodwill from the existing deposit holders. I dont think this story has fully played out yet.

The jet is a potential problem for Cirrus and I am sure if they could turn the clock back they would have not started and stuck to the SR existing line, but testament to the existing business model they are still in business and sold more planes in category than everyone else added up so far this year, so if it was just down to clever marketing I think the other guys better get new agencies.

[paulp]

Since I have never had the chance to fly one, what I personally would like to hear is how actual SR22 owners have found the aircraft to operate and what the maintainance trouble spots are.

There is a lot to love about the SR22. Compared to the SR20 the biggest difference is climb. Having lots of power is nice. The wheel pants are tight so they are not a back country plane. Similarly, G1 and G2 aircraft have 7" of prop clearance. The G3 has more. Fit and finish improved year to year. G1 to G2 was a big improvement in fuselage related fit and finish. G2 to G3 had a big improvement in gear strut fit and finish. There is just a touch of truth to the beaten up Cirrus comments in that I have seen some that were pretty trashed out. However, they were fleet planes with close to 2,000 hours and had been left outside in the hot Georgia sun for years without even a sunshade in windscreen. There is too much use of velcro and double sided tape especially on G1's but when properly maintained everything works well.

As far as avionics, avoid the ARNAV in the used aircraft (personal opinion) and the Century HSI. The Sandel 3308 is massively better.

Join COPA (www.cirruspilots.org) if you are even remotely thinking of getting one. There is a massive amount of info there. Get the pdf of the Cirrus Pilot magazine issue that covered year to year changes if you are thinking of buying used.

If buying new, thee will be massive depreciation. Look at www.controller.com and get settled in on what to expect. If you buy everything you can on the plane there won't be a lot of useful load left. This is almost but not quite as bad as a fully loaded Mooney. Just run the numbers and make the tradeoffs that are best for you.

As far as flying qualities, the side stick is great. However, the spring centered trim system removes some feedback of air over the control surfaces. Harder to adjust to is the sight picture. If you are coming from a C182 you will have to get used to seeing the runway straight ahead in the flair. New pilots have trouble with this because of the vastly better forward visibility of the SR22. Another adjustment is speed management. Until you know what you are doing a good rule is 20" of manifold pressure when 20 nm out from your destination. Always get flaps in even if you have to go nose up to do it. It works fine once you get used to it but you don't have speed brakes or a draggy gear to drop down. If you get a turbo then the fat prop acts like a speed brake when the throttle is pulled back. It is a comfortable trip plane and will suck you in to long cross-country trips. Plan accordingly. WHen I flew a 172 I just looked outside for most trips. Even a go nowhere fun flight can take you a long way so always check weather.

Parts cost can be bad on some things but its certainly isn't any worse than a Beech. There is more maintenance because when you have more goodies in a plane there is more to go wrong. This isn't really type specific but most Cirrus aircraft are/were sold close to loaded. That means TAWS, Skywatch, Stormscope, ...

If you buy new schedule extra days beyond the transition training and do a good prebuy. Insist everything be fixed right there. Cirrus has cut staff and small issues like bad paint spots can slip out. Be picky.

Documentation, training etc. is first rate except they will teach you to land too fast. Speed management in a Cirrus is important. Go to the website and you can get the POH ahead of time. Perspective is powerful but complex. Synthetic vision is awesome. EVS is pretty cool too. However, Perspective is typical Garmin and just like a 430 it isn't natural the first time. My wife hates Perspective which is one reason we have a plane with Avidyne R9.

I don't have a turbo but owners are pretty much uniformly in love with them. They are simple to operate and have great performance.

The plane is great in turbulence and awesome to land in a crosswind. Unlike a V35 Bonanza, there is little to no tail waggle in turbulence.

Oh one more flying comment, the plane will slip with full flaps just fine. However the body is slick so make sure the slip is in the proper direction to present the side of the plane to a crosswind if you want to fall like a rock (usually why you are doing a slip).

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have specific questions. Got to run.

[sternone]

Paulp, I would like to have a comment from you on my previous posted finding :


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260471451007&ssPageName=ADME:B:BODO:MOT:1#ht_500wt_1182


2007 Cirrus SR22 Turbo GTS Single Engine Airplane Price: US $285,000.00

280k on controller with 195 hours on it and pretty much every option including tks.

This plane had to be well north of 600k new. that equates to over 1600 dollars an hour for depreciation!

[007helicopter]

If buying new, thee will be massive depreciation. Look at www.controller.com (http://www.controller.com/) and get settled in on what to expect

Sternone, What part of Paulp's explanation did you not understand about depreciation?

What vehicle, plane, boat has not depreciated dramatically in this market?(other than your Mooney)

People do not buy a brand new Cirrus as an asset in finacial terms they buy it to use to go places, likewise top ends cars depreciate heavily as you drive it away from ther forcourt.

Anyone in the market for any brand of plane should be able to get a phenominal deal right now, so if you have the cash go shopping.

[Fuji Abound]

As 007heli says it cuts both ways.

If you are in the market for a good second hand Cirrus now you will get an excellent deal and IF the market recovers over the next few years you might be surprised how little depreciation you have suffered.

[172driver]

Sternone,

I am only reading this thread as amusement, however, before posting figures, get out your calculator:

600-280 = 320k $

320/2(years) = 160k$/p.a.

160/365(days) = 438 $/day

438/24(hours) = 18.25 $/hour

Still a pretty sharpish rate of depreciation, but nowhere near your (shouted := ) figure of $ 1600.

Now go, and play with your Mooney....

[sternone]

Oh sorry 172driver, In my world we calculate per flying hour, which is 1641.- USDOLLAR / FLYING HOUR

And your quoted calculation hurts also IMHO...

[bjornhall]

At the moment Cirrus, Diamond, Piper and Cessna are the only acts in town so far as four seat touring aircraft are concerned

Think we can rule out Piper at the moment; the Warrior and Arrow (and Seminole) are trainers and the Archer is out of production. But I hear the Archer should be returning next year.

[IO540]

Why does one have to buy brand new? A 2002 TB20 GT is up to date except the glass cockpit. It's a world apart from the 1950s hardware.

[paulp]

2007 Cirrus SR22 Turbo GTS Single Engine Airplane Price: US $285,000.00

Interesting plane to pick. G2 Turbo suffered depreciation in 2008 due to introduction of G3. Turbo adds about 50 lbs. In G2 to G3 80 lbs were removed from the airframe by going to a carbon fiber wing spar. Numerous owners upgraded form G2 turbo to G3 turbo after less than one year of ownership. W&B is also better on the turbo models with the G3. NA models have a very wide CG range and allow very flexible loading. G2 turbo with heavy guys in form need the rear 18 lb tail weight mod that came out later to correct the W&B issue. If you would actually read my posts you would see I mentioned the constant improvements causing depreciation on older version.

No comments on the pics of the ratty old Cirrus?

[Fuji Abound]

Why does one have to buy brand new?


Of course one doesnt.

I have never bought a brand new aircraft or car or house.

My parents always wanted a brand new house, and bought one.

Why? I suppose some people love the idea of spec'ing it as they wish, like the idea that it doesnt come with a "history", like to feel they have the benefit of a full warranty, want the latest offering - in short there are plenty of reasons without which all these industries would collapse and we would have no used examples.

Mind you I was thinking today whether we are "dumbing" down some "consumer" items. I was discussing yachts with someone today. He made the point that nearly all the quality manufacturers have gone. You can take your pick of mass produced 50 foot yachts but few of them will last. As Cirrus stands accused they will also look tired very quickly. There are a multitude of "ultra" light new aircraft but none of them look like they will last very long. I flew a Bambi I little while ago. Very fast, very up to date, but as flimsy as a paper dart compared with a Cirrus. Of course price is a factor. You can make a 50 foot yacht for £400K and enough people will buy, you can make the same yacht to the quality being built only five or six years ago but it will cost double that - the market is all of a sudden a great deal smaller.

Cirrus could build in metal, fit traditional instruments and use the best quality leathers etc - the whole thing would be a work of art, but you would need to double the price.

I find myself wondering if their is a market for a hand crafted aircraft - albeit a very small market. People will pay the price demanded for a Veyron. The trouble is people are buying into a reputation. It is doubtful anyone would buy into a reputation in the light end of aviation because almost nobody has one.

I came very close to buying a new 42. I love the aircraft and still do. I suspect the 42 with Lycomings is everything the diesel version should have been - thank goodness I didnt.

The other issue with aircraft at the top end of the GA market is their utility value to most pilots. How many Cirrus in the UK are privately owned by a single person? In reality even if money is no object people find it difficult to justify the utility value against the cost where half a million dollars is involved; £100K and its a very different matter.

A TB20 will get you from A to B in the same time as makes no difference as a Cirrus and will do so in as much style. Sure it doesnt have pretty screens and sure some may say it is a bit dated but are the screens and styling worth and extra £100k plus a great deal more depreciation? Then again you could buy a perfectly serviceable Archer with a zero timed engine for half that cost. It would add maybe 25% to the journey time but a clean example will take you there in as much style and comfort and given you only get in an out once each journey does the single door really matter that much.

I drive a Hyundai - albeit a nearly new Hyundai. It gets me from A to B safely, its got pretty much all of the gimmicks including the auto pilot :) but it is not a Merc. I ask myself why I would want a Merc and cant find a good enough reason. When I buy my yacht to sail around the world I dont want a mass produced one simply because in my opinion it will not do the job any where near as well as an Oyster. If I had a need for a 90% despatch rate with business throughout Europe I would buy a turbine, but how many private pilots have such need.

So what point am I seeking to make - only that we are each motivated by different considerations, all a manufacturer has to do is appeal to enough of us to survive. Clearly Mooney has failed that test - in other words it doesnt matter how good the product, if not enough people buy it you are stuffed. :)

[sternone]

Paulp: I'll take you to some 400 hours examples who really really look worn out.

I'll keep an eye on the G3 series since you tell me that Cirrus fixed that (I don't believe it)

[sternone]

Cirrus could build in metal, fit traditional instruments and use the best quality leathers etc - the whole thing would be a work of art, but you would need to double the price.

Double the price ? A Mooney or a Bonanza isn't double of the price !

Ahum... Beechcraft is making a plane at roughly the same price WITH the best quality leathers and in METAL, and not the piper metal.

Why people buy more Cirrus than a Beechcraft G36 who you can upgrade to a G36TN TAT is beyond my imagination.

- in other words it doesnt matter how good the product, if not enough people buy it you are stuffed.

Luckily we have forums like this where people who look beyond the Cirrus marketing machine are looking and spitting their opinion. Something that isn't really allowed by the Cirrus owners so it seems. It's not my fault you believed the cirrus marketing and ended up with a plane who carries a depreciation value of $1600 per flying hour or $18 per hour that you live.

[IO540]

I don't think Cirrus need to go to metal to deliver build quality.

It's just that to deliver build quality in composite you have to spend loads of money on tooling. Accurate expensive moulds. Not the sort of "plus or minus a few mm" moulds which Cirrus and Diamond went for, and are only gradually improving on. A properly constructed swimming pool is built to a better tolerance than that :)

One also needs accurate tooling / jigs for metal but if one doesn't have them one can conceal it, by making the mating parts to fit. Whereas with composites this is harder because the stuff comes out of a mould and there is only so much one can trim in 3D.

What Cirrus (and Diamond) need to do is to greatly improve attention to detail. And underneath the skin they need to use better quality metal fittings. The rapid corrosion just adds to the depreciation.

But maybe the more rapid tired look is an inevitable characteristic of all modern planes, because (like all cars from the last 40 years) they use a lot of trim. A Cirrus that has been kicked around looks rough. But a TB20 that has been kicked around also looks rough, despite being a 20 years older design; it has a fair bit of trim too, which looks crap when it comes loose. And clumsy maintenance (the norm) just knackers it really fast. Whereas you never take off the trims in a car unless you need to fix something - and when you do, they rattle and don't go back properly. Whereas a C182 that has been kicked around looks just like it always used to - a flat instrument panel, minimal trim, and not too much that can look tired. Same with a Mooney - all the old iron looks rather agricultural IMHO :) The glass cockpits just make it look a bit weird. Like screwing a G1000 into a Russian combine harvester.

[Fuji Abound]

This is one of the few newish Bonazas I can find:

Beech Bonanza G36 Piston Single Engine: Aircraft for Sale on AvBuyer.com (http://www.avbuyer.com/aircraft/results.asp?ListId=4&ManId=768&ModelId=1475&NumberPerPage=10)

Compare that with the price of a Cirrus of the same age.

The two aircraft are not comparable.

I am not sure how relevant moulds are. Clearly the door needs to be made accurately to fit correctly but unlike a car there are very few panel joins in an aircraft that are unfilled. I cant think where on a Cirrus or Diamond better tolerances would help other than maybe the door on the Cirrus.

All the panels inside are covered in fabrics one way or another. If good quality materials are used and innovative design which does not rely on too much trim a good interior will result. I dont see too many problems with the interior of the G3 Cirrus - yes better leathers would look better for longer but generally the standard is pretty good. If anything Diamond use materials of lesser quality.

I agree there is no excuse for some of the corrosion I have seen on Diamonds and Cirrus.

As I said earlier cut it as you will who else has survived in this business over the last few years and who else is still producing aircraft. Diamond and Cirrus are far from perfect but they are the only game in town where they sit in the market. If they have it so horribly wrong and Money (or anyone else have it right) it should be easy to take over Mooney and do as good a job - strangely I dont see a line forming. :)

[421C]

Luckily we have forums like this where people who look beyond the Cirrus marketing machine are looking and spitting their opinion. Something that isn't really allowed by the Cirrus owners so it seems.

What is it that makes some Cirrus-haters so arrogant and condescending in this assumption that the mythical "cirrus marketing" mesmerises clueless morons into buying the aircraft. It's just outrageous and I think the Cirrus guys on the thread are very restrained in their responses. (I don't fly any of the aircraft discussed in this thread)

Firstly, I've never seen anything from "Cirrus marketing" that looks particularly different or that could be any more misleading or mesmerising than all the other light airplane maketing out there. Secondly, I've never come across a Cirrus owner who was a moron who found $600k in the street. They tend to be professional people and entreprenuers who've worked hard to be able to buy the airplane they want.

All aircraft have a specific set of attributes and every owner has a different weighting of priorities amongst attributes. I think it's just immature not to recognise that any individual's preferences are as legitimate as anyone elses.

The preference the market has for the Cirrus it totally unsurprising. It's just a very attractive product. You line up a Cirrus next to a Mooney and it's a no-brainer which the majority of pilots will pick. The extra speed and range in the Mooney just don't make up for the cramped cabin, dated looks (and, perhaps, the fragile and endlessly insolvent maker). If I really wanted the max speed and range from a single for 1000nm legs, I'd buy a used Malibu with pressurisation and a cabin-class interior. I'd just rather not go than use oxygen in a cramped single for 5hrs. Which leaves the Mooney as the obvioulsy niche product it is. One can respect it as such, but it's pretty nutty to rant on about why the 20x or 50x? more people who buy Cirruses aren't in your little niche. The Beech has some sort of 'traditional' look to it which is nice, but that's about the end of it. Why do I spend the best part of $1m and then have to go after-market for turbos and deice? And the narrow cabin is horrible. Forget the numbers and technical attributes - what's the point of buying an uncomfortable aircraft?

Cirrus make some unconventional decisions which may be annoying (eg. I'd prefer a prop control for the reasons discussed, and a normal stall certification without the BRS) but the decisions they've made, on balance, appeal to more pilots than any other fast single.

brgds
421C

[paulp]

IO540 - Interesting thoughts on the interior. It makes sense. Especially older Cirrus aircraft don't like sitting in the sun day after day. Then again, a lot of cars don't like it either. A G1 to G2 interior change was to make the interior trim panels easier to remove from the plane during annual. A lot got broken going in and out of the plane. This was particularly true of fractional operators who have a 100 hour annual requirement. That meant 6 times per year for removal. My wife and I flew through a fractional for 5 years. She finally said she wanted her own plane and to maintain it her way. While I have seen Cirrus aircraft with that worn out look they have all been 1200 hour plus planes in fractionals that sat in Georgia or Florida sun all day.Usually closer to 1800 hours.

Fuji Abound - What I have seen indicates the molds are fine. Some of the finishing work could be improved. As for the doors, I think more recent ones are carbon fiber for weight. Mine fit fine but if passengers shut during run-up it doesn't work due to the propwash bending the door slightly. It is key to get the two latches sync'd and have that checked each year. The adjustment is simple. The Diamonds I have seen seemed a little better on paint shop work but no major difference. As for interior leather, Cirrus now offers a premium leather if you are willing to pay extra.

I bought my plane used because I couldn't afford a new one. Both my wife and I drive 1996 vehicles. I looked at the new Hyundai and it was nice. I offered my wife a new vehicle but she wanted the avionics upgrade instead. :)

[sternone]

I still don't get it if you make such a 'wanted' product like a Cirrus why there are so many cirrus' on the second hand market and no one picks them up. They're a bargain!

Oh wait, maybe it's because like said before that cirrus don't get any money from second hand sales so their marketing machine isn't working on it. Can't blame them. But if they where really a product that the market would need, they would have been sold directly since it's the best plane you can find out there ? APPARENTLY NOT !!! It's a proof for me, that people who don't know a lot about aviation buy a Cirrus because they just don't know better. On the second hand market things are different, there you have people who compare, calculate and think.

$1600+ depreciation per flying hour, how do you live with that ? No honestly ?

Do you try not to think about it ?

Do you lie to yourself ?

Do you think it's normal ? IT's NOT.

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone

Now you know the reason why there are a good many Cirrus for sale at the moment. It is equally true of Diamonds and I suspect true of just about every other aircraft in curent production with the number for sale being approximately proportionate to the number produced.

As I was attempting to explain earlier there is still a niche market in aviation. Really good Mooneys or Bonanazas are hard to find. Moreover I think we would agree, they are built in a different way, although I am still not sure the build quality is enormously better. However just like my analogy with yachts there are some people who will pay the going rate for quality or simply to be different. Mind you even that market is temperamental at the moment - you could get lucky and sell a good Ovation quickly and you might not be so lucky.

When I thought of buying a 42 everyone wanted one - the market was really strong and prices reflected the strengh - how that has changed, you cant give them away now.

I dont know why you are so fixated on depreciation. Have you looked at the price of some cars when new and compared this price with their second hand value a year after?

Finally I dont know why you apply logic to an illogical situation. Look on eBay at some of the consumer items purchased weeks before and being sold for a fraction of their new price. You have only got to discuss with a woman the logic of spending £4,000 on a bag and I know of some men who are worse; well come to that any man that buys a new light aircraft! I can think of at least one chap I know who has sold three cars in the last 14 months each pruchased new and each involving a very signficant loss; one of the cars he had for three weeks and it cost him £8K - I make that nearly £16 for every single hour he owned it.

In short you are wasting your time trying to make a rational financial argument for ever buying a new aircraft. :)

If you want value for money buy something a few years old - it has always been that way. Most of the depreciation works itself off in that period but with any luck you will not have to spend too much on the item for a few more years. I was always fond of telling people that I actually sold the first aircraft I owned for more than I paid for it - I really did. However, in reality the maintenance costs were high, much higher than on an aircraft a few years old and of course I didnt add the "capital" running costs onto the purchase price.

[sternone]

Fuji, I'm just comparing the huge depreciation on a Cirrus with any other plane around on the market.

The cirrus is the worse in every case. That's the whole issue.

[IO540]

I suspect the huge Cirrus depreciation of the last year or two is a combination of

- the collapse in the GA market (only nichey products, with demand supported by no longer being made, have held up well - recent-model Mooneys and TB20GTs come to mind)

- a constant flow of new models with flashy new kit

- a LOT of sales in recent years, probably satisfying years of pent up demand for something modern and Made in America (just like Cessna sales rocketed after the USA passed that GA revitalisation Act)

- modern marketing, successful at digging out completely new customers who think of them as cars so depreciation is not much of a concern

- assorted teething troubles with the older Cirruses, perhaps? (One hears many stories of major avionics failures of the Avidyne kit, and I can't help wondering why, on my long trips, I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips; could be that their European customer profile is not into going anywhere far, or it could be regular issues)

- similar to above, I might suspect significant downtime/hassle, caused not by the product being generally unreliable but by the need to fly it back to the dealer for most work (I know if I had a Cirrus then local maintenance would be hard and avionics work impossible with any glass cockpit model; it's a flight back to the Garmin/Avidyne dealer for anything at all). I would not expect this factor to translate to more Cirrus sales but the customers have nowhere else to go if they want something modern, and once you have had a glass cockpit you won't be going back from that.

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with a Cirrus as a plane (well apart from the lack of rpm control, and fixed landing gear :) ) but - along with a lot of other stuff out there - I sure would not want to own one unless I was based at an airport with a Cirrus dealer and the appropriate glass cockpit avionics dealer. That's why I am sticking with my TB20GT (sellable for about 140k which is a drop from 197k over 7.5 years) and if somebody offered to install a G600 for free I would not go for it.

If I really wanted the max speed and range from a single for 1000nm legs, I'd buy a used Malibu with pressurisation and a cabin-class interiorUnless you read the Aviation Consumer article reporting 10% of owners had in-flight engine failures. I know that article has been partly discredited but the real story behind the numerous engine failures is awfully hard to establish. I know one bloke who used to fly them for business, daily and he saw many failures in the fleet (though mostly "just" cylinder cracks rather than stoppages).

There is no good solution to this mission profile, below the turboprop level which is much more costly.

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji, I'm just comparing the huge depreciation on a Cirrus with any other plane around on the market.


Are you?

Lets see the comparison with say Diamond or any other volume manufacturer.

I have a pretty good idea what you can actually buy a 42 for at the moment. I also know what some of the Cessnas are actually changing hands for.

[Justiciar]

This is a very entertaining thread! Particularly amusing is one person's negative obsession with Cirrus.

It seems to me that you cannot divorce these issues from what goes on in the wide world and from the hugh social and economic changes which have occured in the post war years but particularly in the last ten to fifteen years.

In the immediate post war period there was the start of a new golden age in aviation, mainly in the US. As factories switched from war to peace time production we say the genesis of whole new ranges of aircraft manufactured to then modern standards with modern materials. Piper, Cessna, Mooney and Beechcraft all developed their iconic products in the immediate post war years. America was not bankrupt like the UK. People had money, these manufacturers were producing aircraft which were faster, easier to fly and safer. People had money to burn and personal transport was something that many aspired to, in an age when commercial air travel was still expensive.

Things have now changed in a way which makes it very difficult for any company to be a volume producer of touring aircraft. Air travel is dirt cheap, destinations have proliferated and at the same time aviation (GA) has become more regulated, fuel much more expensive and air space more congested and restricted, at least in Europe. People have more and varied things to spend their money on so aircraft come down the list. It is no coincidence that the average age of pilots is going up (as is the average age of attenders at things like Oskosh).

Against this background, it is hardly surprising that to make a profit a company like Cirrus has to market like a car maker or washing machine seller! They see their mission as to turn a personal light aircraft from being a specialised product to something akin to a main stream consumer product, all be it an expensive one. Compare the present to the former PC market. It was not long ago that to buy a computer you went to a specialist; now any store sells them!

There will still be a hard core of avaitors who dislike the modern image and marketing of Cirrus and prefer the older design of a Mooney or a TB20. However, they will be in a minority and as time goes on they will be an ever diminishing minority. No manufacturer will ever again I suspect build to suit such a small market. Recent events at Mooney show that it is virtually impossible to weather an economic storm of the sort we have just been through.

My prediction (not much of one really as it is already happening) is that the future of light aviation is in small LSA/VLA aircraft which are cheap to operate, can fly from small strips (useful with the cost of landing at many licensed airfields) and which run on mogas or diesel (the future is limited for Avgas thanks to new environmental lobbying in the US and elsewhere). They will be day VFR, which is all the majority of pilots aspire to. No, these aircraft are not as robust as a Piper or a Cessna, nor do thay have the payload, but they are hugely cheaper to build and to operate.

Arguments about depreciation of Cirrus versus Piper or Mooney are irrelevent. Any new product of this sort will depreciate hugely - even a new certified LSA will depreciate significantly, as does almost any consumer item these days. Mass produced anything will tend to wear and look tatty quicker than something made 50 years ago (comparison with cars is very relevant). That is "progress". That same object will at the same time be far cheaper to manufacture and to manufacturer to a high standard and be a more technically competent product than something 50 years old.

[soay]

Lets see the comparison with say Diamond or any other volume manufacturer.

I have a pretty good idea what you can actually buy a 42 for at the moment.
Depreciation of DA42s and DA40Ds is high for a different reason than that for SR22s: the engine manufacturer going bust and voiding the warranties, so dramatically increasing the running costs.

[Fuji Abound]

Depreciation of DA42s and DA40Ds is high for a different reason


Partly true I have no doubt.

However you can buy a 42 with a fixed price guarantee from Diamond for replacing the engines with the new diesels for a remarkable price.

Moreover Thielert seem to have resolved most of their issues, the prices of parts has fallen dramatically and perhaps a 40 or 42 with Thielerts is not such a bad buy.

However many of the 42s were sold to flying schools to replace ancient twins. Many have already upgraded their fleet and in the same way as Cirrus the ones keeping their bank managers happy with profits will be selling of their early 42s and replacing them and the ones not keeping the bank manager happy will be selling them because they need to.

It all adds up to a market with similarities across the fleet and elements unique to certain types - I suspect the uptake of Diamonds by schools has been far higher than the up take of Cirrus.

[IO540]

Yes, the depreciation situation on the Thielert-engined Diamonds is quite suprisingly "not bad", now that Thielert are again shipping parts.

However, one should not completely disregard the possibility of Diamond itself getting into financial trouble. The whole GA business is in dire straits, Diamond are extending themselves financially on a number of fronts (they seem to have resumed development of the D-Jet, after reportedly shelving it 6-12 months ago, and they spent a load of $$$ getting the paperwork for the Austro engine signed off) and they have now bet the whole shop on the Austro engine being reliable.

Their only hedge against this utter disaster is their old business which must still be generating some cash, and the very rapid move they did to get an avgas DA42 certified for the US market.

If the Austro engine causes problems, Diamond will be in severe difficulties and the Austro engined owners will be in an even deeper water. With Thielert, there were able to rely (with any non-private buyers) on separate contracts for airframe and engine but with Austro they won't be able to do that. I don't know whether there will be a certified downgrade from Austro to Thielert (for a from-new Austro engined airframe) but can you imagine facing such an option? A bankrupt airframe maker, and you have to chuck away a worthless engine and install an engine with a known poor reliability record made by a firm operated by an Administrator :)

[DeeCee]

421C

Excellent post. A bit of sense at last.

This is really a marketing discussion. This aircraft is largely aimed at the US market and many owners will have bought/leased through their businesses and use them accordingly. They will take any loss just like they would for their company car or machinery necessary for their business.

Last time I was in Florida I was stunned by the number that I saw. As for the comment that they are not used for long journeys, I would say that is far from the truth.

Any business will tell you that large numbers sold equals large numbers second hand. The on-going program that Cirrus have of updates and new models is consistent with building the business for the long term. I don't suppose that they sat in planning meetings saying 'Hey, let's build a new airplane to old specifications'. They designed it for their core market i.e. IR, GA friendly.

[soay]

I just received notice of an emergency AD (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FAAAD20092451.pdf) for various TCM engines that immediately grounds SR20s, until their lifters are inspected. Over on COPA, they're saying it applies to the SR22 as well. That should leave the skies quiet for a while.

[paulp]

I just received notice of an emergency AD (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FAAAD20092451.pdf) for various TCM engines that immediately grounds SR20s, until their lifters are inspected. Over on COPA, they're saying it applies to the SR22 as well. That should leave the skies quiet for a while.

I have read the AD. It is by serial number and only affects very recent aircraft. Also, since people like to make things Cirrus specific, please remember that it applies to a broad range of TCM engines no matter the airframe manufacturer. It currently does not list the IO 550N but I believe this is an oversight and will get corrected.

[IO540]

Oh well, Lycoming crankshafts, Continental tappets... no end to this "$15,000 a job" saga. I wonder if Conti will be paying for their crap QA. Lyco paid for the early crank batches, but didn't pay for the remaining 5500 :)

[Justiciar]

This thread started with a question of the safety of Cirrus. I notice in many posts the unchallenged statement that glass cockpit is the way forward and that it is very difficult to manufacture and sell an aircraft with conventional instruments. Why so?

Understandably, glass has made its way in to the airlines, where the whole process of aviation is very different. However, does glass make for a safer cockpit? There may well be a false assumption amongst buyers that it does and this may be where the problem lies. Essentially the same information is presented in a more compact format. It is questionable whether the format is any safer and personally I have found these instruments more difficult to read as part of a scan than conventional dials. Interpreting a speed or altitude from a ribbon and figures is not as effective under pressure as reading the position of a needle. Furthermore, does this expensive instrumentation contribute to the depreciation, by having a high(er) initial cost along with greater difficulty of maintenance (as IO has alluded to)? Modern glass instruments also seem to suffer from far more frequent upgrades leading to buyers perhaps chasing the latest version and flooding the second hand market.

Discuss :ok:

[IO540]

IMHO "glass" is a must, for simple fashion reasons.

There is little doubt that glass does present information more clearly.

I think most purchasers are unaware of the drawbacks, or they don't care.

[Fuji Abound]

With regards glass there is no doubt it will take a pilot accustom to a six pack time to adjust. You cant tell which you prefer until you have been behind glass for at least ten hours and perhaps more.

I can imagine the amount of information availlable from typical glass systems maybe daunting to some, and more daunting is the need to be comfortable with the controls which are many orders of magnitude more complex that traditional instruments. If you are comfortable with computers it probably will not bother you, if you are not, I can imagine some being terrified.

Be it IFR or VFR one of the keys to safe flying is situational awareness. Nothing comes close to the situational awareness provided by a 12" TFT colour MDF or whatever spec it is because at a glance you can see exactly where you are on the chart and if needs must exactly where you are in the IAP. I find it difficult to see how some of the CFIT would have occurred had the aircraft been fitted with a MDF.

To be fair the PDF is simply replicating the six pack and adding a little more information so in itself it probably doesnt advance matters a great deal, but you can paint the map or the approach on most PDFs in a pop up box or beneath the rose which I think advances situational awareness enormously. Also the PDF is more adaptable to pilot grabbing attention by flashing up urgent warnings in a way that is hard to miss.

For those comfortable with glass I think it is a substantial step forward in providing pilots with the information they need in an easy to assimilate form.

On other issues I have no idea whether glass will prove cost effective. I would guess it is much cheaper for a mnaufacturer to install glass in terms of the labour required. Clearly at the moment the systems are more expensive whilst the manufacturers are profitering and paying off their R and D costs but my guess is glass is much cheaper to manufacture. In the marine world you only have to consider how cheap chart plotters are now and I dont suppose the technology is all that different.

Inevitably there is an issue with repairs. It will take time before avionics shops have the skills to repair glass in the field and indeed are authorised to do so. However it should not be forgotten that many of the underlying systems are simply the boxes we are accustom to having on our panels but driven by the keys on the PDF / MDF. For example the GPS nav component of the G1000 is really nothing more than two 430 s. Since the systems are modular swapping certain of the modular components in the field should not be an issue.

IO540 will know better than me but I have a feeling solid state electronics are in the end more reliable and cheaper to repair than something with a whirring mechanical gyro. If that is so in the long run glass should serve us better.

[vanHorck]

Is it? What is the failure rate of glass panels and what basic instruments are you left with in case of a panel failure? What are the risks of an inflight "reset" and what time does it take?

I'm old fashioned... I still prefer the old dials combined with a good moving map display, so if one thing goes, I still have the rest...


Everyone to their opinions! :-)

[sternone]

Oh I left out one thing: the cirrus parachute has a speed limit, and 90% of the time you are probably going too fast to deploy it.

The BRS is a false safety argument, the fatal numbers of the Cirrus fleet proves that. With all their safety items they should be the safest, and they are the worse.

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone

I was warming to some of your points. I appreciate you are also having some fun so I suspect some of your comments are tongue in cheek. However while you are ahead stay there - your last post was just silly. :)

vanHorck

Well Garmin and Avidyne (the two main players in the certified market) take different views - excuse the pun. Each uses essentially modular systems so more often than not it is one module than fails. For example I have had the DI fail on a G1000, box 1 fail etc. It no different really to when that component fails in your six pack. The whole system is driven by a central processor and I guess in theory this could fail including all its back up modes. In the same way a screen could fail. Garmin overcame thise by enabling the pilot to transfer the PDF to the MDF so you should only be without the key instruments if both displays fail. Avidyne did not employ this approach (at least until their latest upgrade) so if the PDF fails there is no mechanism to paint that information on the MDF. Similarly both initially used a single solid state gyro - if it fails you are without the AI, but then again how many light aircraft have dual AIs.

Things have moved on and Garmin and Avidyne in their latest offerings emplys dual gyros, interchangeable screens and other technology to improve redundancy.

If it should all die on you for certification anything with glass will have a compass, an electrical or vac gyro, and a ASI enough to get you down perhaps with a hand held GPS in your flight bag.

[IO540]

An LCD has a huge single point of failure - the LCD driver, and (if applicable) the backlight and its inverter.

Most laptop or flat panel display failures I have seen were in the LCD backlight or the driver, and the loss of use was total. In fact I don't recall ever seeing any other kind of LCD failure.

Obviously, a failure in the OAT sensor or its interface will still affect just that one feature - same as with conventional avionics.

The are ample stories of the whole glass system crashing and resetting, and one of them (Avidyne I think) was at one stage not resettable during flight. Stuff like that will contribute to depreciation once the word gets around...

Glass cockpits were a huge opportunity to solve the main reliability killers in avionics - moisture and vibration - but neither have been addressed. The first one was wasted by having ventilation slots in the main box (because they didn't design the thing for low enough power; another story) and the other was wasted by generally commercial construction. So I don't think that long term reliability (10 years plus) will be any better than old style avionics (ignoring old style avionics that were truly crap anyway, e.g. Narco, and some other stuff that is simply a crap design, like a certain autopilot I know about ;) ). And one will have more eggs in one basket. The best bit is that only an authorised dealer can repair the stuff, because Garmin etc are keeping the manuals very close. They learnt a lesson from the freely distributed PDFs which ended up all over the internet and which enabled every street corner freelance avionics man to fix the old stuff. Can't do that with the new stuff. It's a flight back to RGV or whatever, every time. The same old avionics shop line: "Drop in to us, Sir, and we will have a look at it". £300 for the trip, plus hotel, etc. Great stuff. That's why I prefer separates (not necessarily steam gauges; just individual removable electronics like e.g. a Sandel EHSI) because one can order an exchange unit and do a field swap, with zero downtime and zero flying around to dealers.

[paulp]

IO540 -

Good general analysis of Cirrus depreciation forces. However, I can add detail on some of your coments. As for traveling to get to a service center, this is really a warranty issue. Cirrus will only back the warranty when a service center does the work. Avidyne reliability improved over the years but was never some big huge problem. What does contribute to issues on the Cirrus is that there is a lot of stuff. This is true of all of the newer aircraft loaded with lots of goodies.

Failing LCD's hasn't been a big deal AFIK on either Perspective or Entegra. Entegra has had issues with the SSD getting corrupted on the ground during data updates resulting in MFD (not PFD) loss until the SSD could be replaced. R9 now has a much more robust structure with different pieces of data compartmentalized better. R9 screens use 3 rows of LED's and drivers for tripple redundancy per screen. Each display (PFD & MFD) are actually identical so the MFD can be turned into a PFD. Garmin G1000 resets in flight better than Entegra although both will reset. This has to do with the AI only with a conventional AI as backup in the plane. Newer units reset better in flight including Entegra units upgraded to R7. As far as reliability I will put a newer all electric cockpit up against a vacuum pump based system any day. G1000 and Avidyne R9 have moved to line replacable units (LRU's) to aid in an AOG situation. Similarly, R9 and I think G1000 store configuration data separate from the box itself in a module on the cable assembly. That means when a box is swapped it is already configured just by doing a read of the settings. In my plane I have dual air data computers, dual AHRS, an additional bolster mounted backup airspeed, altimeter and electric AI all on dual electrical busses with dual batteries and dual alternators. Oh yeah, I have dual GPS units and 2 dual channel radios. I suspect the pilot will break the plane before the avionics do.:rolleyes:

The drawbacks I see with glass involve tapes vs. round gauges. That takes getting used to and I don't think it draws your attention as quickly as the position of a hand on a dial not being correct.
Something due to Cirrus that I do think is a big advance is the wide AI instead of the little imitation of a standard mechanical AI done prior to Entegra. Cirrus (specifically Alan Klapmeier) pushed for it. It allows peripheral vision to better pick up an attitude change.
As far as relaibility there are certainly gauge wiring issues on the 2002 era planes although most are fixed now.

I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips;

Not true in the US. A major part of the use profile in the US is the long cross country and a lot of the European owners I know fly long trips. I like looking at FlightAware > Aircraft Type (http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/) This shows aircraft in the US ATC system. That is a good indicator of poor weather and long cross country use by type. When you consider the number of each type registered in the US, this gives a good indicator of the extent to which the plane is used for long cross country and bad waether flying. This relates to the average risk profile each type is exposed to. For example there are way more C182's registered than SR22's. More Mooneys have been made than SR22's.

If you look here (http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/SR2*) you can get an idea of trip length. Do this for different times of day remembering the time difference and different days of the week and it is interesting.

sternone

The BRS is a false safety argument, the fatal numbers of the Cirrus fleet proves that. With all their safety items they should be the safest, and they are the worse.

Now there you go again saying things that aren't true. Cirrus is far from the worst and is similar to Mooney and Bonanza. I agree the record should be better. I have thought long and hard about that and all I can figure out is that it is the pilot and the mission rather than the plane itself that dominates. The airspeed limit is 133 kts IAS and it has worked far above that. It did fail on a deployment at close to 300 kts.

Justiciar -

You pose an interesting safety question regarding glass cockpits. The problem is that as capability increases people increase their missions till they hit their risk level. Their are studies on this subject. In some ways the safest plane might be one with no GPS (encourages off airway trips), no VOR (concept of airways like highways encourages long trips and use like a car for travel), AI (encourages flight into clouds) ... If you fly only in the pattern at a little used airport and only do it on sunny days you can make flying safer. Glass cockpits tend to come with a lot of stuff that encourages an expansion of the missions flown in the plane.

I agree that dirt cheap air travel has removed some of the romance of GA. As for marketing to non-GA people, Cessna used to sell the Land-O-Matic gear on the 182 and talk about it being almost as easy as driving a car.

[IO540]

paulp

I agree generally but there is a world of difference between the support network in the USA and the one in Europe. Don't even get me started with some very specific examples between how Socata USA has to look after its customers out there, versus over here :)

I also agree re warranty issues affecting things greatly, and yes one ends up going back to the dealer. Not because one legally must (that would be illegal in Europe) but because a 3rd party maint firm will have "a challenge" ;) extracting money from the factory..... and also won't have the expertise to do much beyond draining the oil. Warranty issues remain a big issue and it is quite normal for in-warranty owners to threaten litigation at least once.

As far as reliability I will put a newer all electric cockpit up against a vacuum pump based system any day.So would I, but that is a poor example. Most 'modern' pre-glass cockpits are nearly all electric. In my 2002 TB I have just one vac instrument: the main AI (KI-256). I'd get rid of it in a flash, but there is no (legal) means which doesn't have a pile of drawbacks, huge cost, and new complexity (like installing a G500/600 and a substantial backup battery). A dual alternator system has no excuse for not having total redundancy.

[Justiciar]

Glass cockpits tend to come with a lot of stuff that encourages an expansion of the missions flown in the plane.

Yes, that was one of the points I was trying to make, probably badly. My general concern is that mentally the glass PFD may be seen by some as a substitute for basic airmanship and that however nice and modern the avionics look they do nothing to enhance the capabilities and limitations of the airframe. For this reason some may be tempted to fly beyond their or the aircraft's limitations.

The other issue is the complexity of the systems and here I have no direct knowledge. However, I do get the impression that the all glass PFD along with the current certified GPSs can amount to considerable extra work load in certain circumstances. OK, this can be addressed to a degree by the amount of training a pilot is given or prepared to undertake, but when the proverbial hits the fan we all know how easy it is to become mentally overloaded and for performance to drop. Again, perhaps a contributory factor? Aircraft with complex systems on public transport flights have two pilots for a reason!

[IO540]

I'd say there is a gradual progression whereby each bit of additional automation reduces pilot workload.

Nothing does as much as an autopilot. But even then it is a pilot workload issue. I would not depart of any significant flight if the AP was duff, but once got a failure on the way to Greece and had to fly by hand most of the way there and then all the way back. It was not an issue but one cannot easily take pictures, have a pee, mess around, etc. The flight is still safely possible, of course, but it isn't fun anymore. I was lucky on that one - had a passenger who could hold the wings level, etc.

And in difficult IFR conditions, a lack of an AP could push a less than current pilot outside what he can handle. Some PT ops require an AP for this reason - even those pilots are gold plated ATPLs with a medical every week ;) it is recognised they are not superhuman and the pilot workload reduction is a vital safety improver.

I think too many pilots do fly without a proper systems understanding, but this has always been the case. I recall talking to one pilot who thought a VP prop was driven through a variable-ratio gearbox :) Now we have the same at a higher level - pilots who fly with a G1000 and don't know what most of the features do. This was just as possible with a GNS530 for example but there is a difference: the 530 was probably flown by the owner who probably did read the manual, whereas a G1000 could likely be in a DA40 flown by a renter.

I don't think an IFR GPS is extra work as such. One loads the route before the flight, but (especially if one has an AP) one can do this during the flight too. The level of pilot interaction with a GPS enroute is really minimal. The real problem would be if one didn't understand it and tried to work something out when airborne.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, I guess glass does encourage pilots to take on trips they might otherwise not - but is that such a bad thing?

The reality is that most pilot's basic navigation skills are poor or very poor. They are nervous about flying any distance and infringing CAS or not finding their destination. They are nervous about entering the circuit incorrectly or wrongly identifying the active runway.

If glass solves some of those concerns it is not a bad thing at all.

In IF conditions it massively simplifies flying an IP or ID or just generally flying the route accurately. Once again I would hazard this is no bad thing.

It may encourage some pilots to set off in conditions which are marginal - the typical non instrument pilot flying in conditions close to IMC. That is I think a genuine concern albeit I suspect this has more to do with the belief that the auto pilot will handle the flying rather than taking comfort in the glass.

In fact I think the systems are very simple for a VFR flight. I can barely think of any combination of buttons you could press that would result in a problem or would need cause the pilot concern. Almost whatever you do the basic information remains on the display.

Using the system for IF is a different matter. The test is having set up for an arrival at a particular destination can you reprogram the system in flight to change the destiantion and set up a new IA ending on an ILS. There are plenty of opportunities in my opinion to get the system into a "loop" and become over involved with twisting and pushing in an effort to sort things out. The only answer for this is to really know the system in side out - IMHO you should not be flying glass in IMC unless you are really comfortable with all the systems.

[IO540]

At the extreme, I would not fly at all (except a trivial local jolly down the coast) without GPS. It takes just one little c*ockup (forget to restart the stopwatch, etc) and bang there you are in CAS, and the CAA won't give you any credit for doing things the proper WW2 way...

Above that, there is going to be a progression.

Obviously, better data presentation will expand the mission capability. Not the raw technical one (only stuff like de-ice equipment can do that) but the one at which the pilot feels comfortable.

In the same way, a BRS chute would expand my mission capability because I would not need to worry as much about overflying large forests or mountains. A 2nd engine is probably better (though I would be suprised if the total fatal stats support that, because it is so easy to get killed in a twin at low speeds) but it costs an awful lot of money, ongoing.

I don't think many people are happy talking about a BRS chute expanding mission capability but it must have that effect, and IMHO legitimately so because so much is down to personal attitude to risk.

[007helicopter]

I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips;
Not true in the US


10540 that did surprise me you say that, I know you fly long trips and so does virtually every Cirrus owner I know in the UK and the rest of Europe.

Regarding Glass or Steam guages I think for me it took it a good 50 hours to get reasonably comfortable with the glass and while I know there is still a lot to learn with the GNS 430's and other kit I feel very comfortable after about 200 hours and would not feel confident with going back to traditional gauges without some serious re training and practice, I guess it is just whatever you get used to.

[421C]

pilots who fly with a G1000 and don't know what most of the features do. This was just as possible with a GNS530 for example but there is a difference: the 530 was probably flown by the owner who probably did read the manual, whereas a G1000 could likely be in a DA40 flown by a renter.

I think you have it the wrong way around. Plenty of rental aircraft have GNS430s but I bet you can't find a G1000 aircraft for rent anywhere that doesn't require a reasonably involved ground and flight training course before someone with no G1000 experience could rent. I think the G1000 pilots "who don't know what most of the features do" is a forum myth, except perhaps the bottom layer of non-essential features, which is fair enough.

I've just been flying a G1000 WAAS + GFC700 C182 in the USA, doing LPV approaches etc. There's no comparison with a legacy panel. None. IO, I know you'd want to remove a G1000 and put a multi-box legacy panel in, but I think you might be about the only guy on the planet who would!
brgds
421C

[Fuji Abound]

I bet you can't find a G1000 aircraft for rent anywhere that doesn't require a reasonably involved ground and flight training course before someone with no G1000 experience could rent.


I would agree for VFR but disagree for IMC. You need very little training for VFR and I know of one school where that is exactly what you get - its enough, but not enough for IFR/IMC.

[sternone]

It's clear that the Cirrus marketing is aimed for the non-pilot and especially his wife. That's the reason the BRS is there.

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone

It is clear you have raised some good questions but also you have had a little fun.

I am going to leave you to it now. :)

[IO540]

Well, I can think of a whole airport where one can't (AFAIK) rent anything with a GNSx30 (a proper IFR installation I mean, with a full working AP etc) but (as Fuji says) one can rent a DA40/42 with a G1000 with minimal VFR training.

Also, I've just been reading some stuff on GPS/AP integration for LPV approaches, and it does get a bit tacky because the GPS has to fake an ILS glideslope for the benefit of the AP, etc. Maybe integrated avionics (with an integrated AP, which means Garmin unless Avidyne get their act together) will be the norm by the time we get them and they are operationally relevant.

421C - I know you are lucky to be based where you can get all such bits sorted while you wait :) If I was based there, I'd no doubt have different views. But I am out in the sticks, with close to zero local support, yet I like to fly occassional trips to the far corners of avgas availability. And sleep at night. This is possible only by a careful choice of which cowboy's hardware one flies behind. The operational aspects of our respective mission profiles are different :)

[sternone]

Fuji, yes, I love these kind of discussions, let's hope Cirrus makes a better plane out of it.

It seems to be very hard for some Cirrus lovers to accept that there are problems with their lovely bird.

[paulp]

In the same way, a BRS chute would expand my mission capability because I would not need to worry as much about overflying large forests or mountains.

Gutsy comment. I find the biggest comfort for me is when flying over low IFR i.e. clouds down to the deck..

Regarding glass cockpits a hard thing for me to adjust to was that you couldn't set the horizon line like on a conventional AI. Instead the PFD represents the pitch relative to the horizon as you would view it looking outside.

I think glass is undergoing a transition from counting features to making things easier. R9 is much simpler than the older Entegra/Garmin 430W setup.

[MichaelJP59]

Also, I've just been reading some stuff on GPS/AP integration for LPV approaches, and it does get a bit tacky because the GPS has to fake an ILS glideslope for the benefit of the AP, etc. Maybe integrated avionics (with an integrated AP, which means Garmin unless Avidyne get their act together) will be the norm by the time we get them and they are operationally relevant.

Not sure of the terminology, but once that's achieved would one have in effect a mini-Airbus where you could switch AP on after take-off and only re-take manual control below decision height on the approach? Or could you even auto-land:)

[IO540]

You can do that today, almost.

If I had GPSS enabled (4 wires to connect, and a simple AP config change) I could fly a whole route hands-off. All the way to the end of the ILS glideslope (well below 100ft, I can tell you). No vertical nav of course; that implies an auto throttle system.

Autoland however requires a radar altimeter, and some software :) Not to mention an auto throttle...

[Fuji Abound]

I have flown several routes with four or five legs from 200 feet to 200 feet on the autopilot alone without touching the the flying controls once (other than the power lever). [Of course I mean in the sim in case anyone wants to be pedantic about the height at which the autopilot was connected / disconnected :)]

[paulp]

Not sure of the terminology, but once that's achieved would one have in effect a mini-Airbus where you could switch AP on after take-off and only re-take manual control below decision height on the approach? Or could you even auto-landhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

This is where things are headed. If you look at doing an LPV approach with a Gramin 430W/Stec 55X combo there is a lot of back and forth mode switching. Also, the first part of the missed is completely by hand. You don't remove the SUSP until you can go direct to the next waypoint. By contrast, Entegra R9 does all of the mode switching for you. It also understands the initial part of the missed (fly runway heading till at xxxx altitude then...). Currently, other than the glideslope portion, altitude and climb are manually entered. Once the DFC100 digital AP is available I will have vertical navigation i.e. I will be able to enter crossing altitudes into the FMS and have the AP fly them including all approach altitudes. At the moment the approach altitudes show up in the FMS on the waypoints and on the map display but are advisory only due to AP limitations.

[IO540]

There is some way to go on this. One needs a really complete procedure depiction before one can do it totally automatically.

For example, (as mentioned above) a typical SID is a straight ahead climb to some altitude, or VOR radial, etc, but not to any database waypoint. So that SID cannot be flown hands-off, for several reasons some of which are pretty nontrivial in certification terms. So, I fly a SID using its chart representation/description, and throw in GPS database waypoints where there are some defined. This is pretty easy but the best one can do automation-wise is to fly on the autopilot in HDG mode - initially at least.

Even if one had full automatic departure/go-around capability, issues remain for GA aircraft, like a minimum climb gradient (for obstacle clearance) which might be tough though possible to achieve, but which cannot be achieved on a given day due to engine management issues (max CHT) which require an early transition to a higher speed, at the expense of climb gradient. I have certainly been to airports where this is an issue. Somehow I don't see the CHT being introduced into the autopilot :)

Approaches are already possible "fully automatic" with 20 year old kit, and arguably that is where automation is most important for safety. Enroute, automation is vital for the pilot getting some rest :)

[sternone]

One question to the Cirrus owners :

Did they reinforced the flap connection on the G3 models ?

Because that flap connection really really looked freaky light to me. Never saw that on any plane !!

[paulp]

Only flap changes I know of are an improved anticorrosion process and changing the fairings from plastic to metal but that was back around 2003. I don't know of any flap failures although I admit I think the ones on the Columbia are prettier albeit probably a lot more expensive. There were some flap relay failures but that seems to have disappeared years ago even for older planes. There was one aileron hinge failure but that was due to servicing where the nut wasn't safetied down.

[paulp]

Just to update with real data i.e. facts instead of speculation:

Quote:
* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.

Correct (price not known, but I won't be far off)

A chute repack has just been completed. This is the first I know of. The price was about $11,400 + 7% sales tax. ($9385 for parts + 30 hours labor).

This is an older G1 plane which lacks the access cover of G2 & G3 models. Consequently the top plastic cover had to be removed and repainted after being put back on. This is a US done replacement so I can't comment on the potential for things to be 2X the cost in Europe.

[sternone]

2x the cost for GA work in Europe compared to the USA is not unrealistic.

There are a lot of lost of control accidents on landings in a Cirrus, do you have reason for that ?

This was a few days ago in Alabama :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg247/yves_01/plane20wreck.jpg

[sternone]

Maybe because a Cirrus doesn't have nosewheel steering ?

I might add that to the list of things I don't like about a cirrus.

[paulp]

There are a lot of lost of control accidents on landings in a Cirrus, do you have reason for that ?

This was a few days ago in Alabama :

First I think that is a picture of a recent accident in Florida but then again getting the facts straight isn't a big deal to you and the state doesn't really matter. As for the landing accidents, it is a heavy plane on small wheels and comes in much faster than a 172. It also is a low wing aircraft. I guess what you are saying might be true. It might be like a Mooney in that respect. According to Aviation Consumer, over 50% of the reports on the M20R are for loss of control on or near the runway with a typical comment being "improper flare and recovery from a bounced landing." That would probably fit the accident you showed a picture of. Ok, we agree. Fast landing singles like the Cirrus and the Mooney have higher landing loss of control accidents exacerbated by a low wing causing float in ground effect if the pilot lands hot.

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone

What this does prove is you should stick to Cesnas - the Cirrus really is for big boys, far too complicated for the average spam can driver. :)

[sternone]

Paulp: No, the Mooney has nosewheel steering, why don't the Cirrus boys have this ? You don't need it ?

Fuji Abound: Bringing up a huge list of serious points about the problems with the cirrus plane makes you conclude that I'm only ready for a 172 ? Now really, how does this makes you look ? Right, like a Cirrus moron.

[Fuji Abound]

No, I have been lucky enough to fly a great many types. I judge each on their merits and I dont have a loyalty to any one. To me an aircraft does a job - each in its own way. You have raised some good points but sometimes you go on and on and on and on and .. .. its gets a little tiresome, so a little fun is called for. :)

PS I have yet to find the perfect aircraft and I have been flying long enough to conclude I never will.

[IO540]

I am informed by a Cirrus pilot that there are issues with ground control in strong winds, due to the lack of a steering nosewheel.

The Diamonds have the same issue.

I have yet to find the perfect aircraft and I have been flying long enough to conclude I never will.

That's only because I ain't selling my TB20 :) :)

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

Its too slow,

you cant turn it upside down,

its only got one engine,

its not glass,

.. .. ..

but it is really nice :).

Shall we just agree that if you take the best bits of a TB20, a Mooney, a Cirrus, an Aztec, a Diamond, a Sia Marchetti and a Husky you have probably got the best aircraft in the world. :) :)

PS As for ground control it depends how much wind you mean, nearly lost control of a 42 while taxing after the 50 knot headwind became a cross wind. Good fun though even if I should own up to being more than a little uncomfortable.

[paulp]

Paulp: No, the Mooney has nosewheel steering, why don't the Cirrus boys have this ? You don't need it ?

Wow! So you are really saying that planes with a free castering nose wheel are dangerous to land? That hits a number of very nice aircraft other than Cirrus. Also, are you saying that you use nose wheel steering to land your plane safely i.e. to prevent PIO? I flare my plane and I am rolling down the runway straight BEFORE the nose wheel touches down. I guess your technique is different. Personally, I use the rudder and stay off the brakes until safely rolling out. Cirrus landing accidents tend to be PIO and nose wheel strike first. This is very related to excess speed and float much like a Mooney.

BTW, the Cirrus is 38.3' wingspan. Watch the ability to maneuver using differential braking when on the ramp. It helps a lot.

As far as my favorite gear for landing it is a trailing link setup. Unfortunately, no plane that I can afford has it all. <sigh>

[sternone]

Well it's definitely another reason why I shouldn't buy a Cirrus !

Looking forward to what I will find next week !

[Dinho Pilot]

Well some of the arguments of the mooney lovers were really convincing but now...

Let's see...

young and with half million in the bank? what would I buy?

Yeap the answer is a Cirrus...
The Cessna 400/350 look great and everything, but being a newbie one would better go for a simple operation aircraft (single lever cirrus) than to throttle/prop lever configuration in the Cessna... The cessna is a bit priecer though... IMHO looks better than the Cirrus too... BUT no chute!

The parachute is for peace of mind! (mid air collisions, loss of control, etc...) and any technical design fault in the aircraft...
NOTE: True is that's scares me more the thought of the wing coming out of the airplane or hitting some other guy than any other thing. Though CFIT and crash/t.o/landings are more common accidents

If you ask me where I would rather be in the case of an accident(forced landing)? I'd answer that's a hard question!
The aluminium frame can diform (within it's acceptable tension range and return to it's normal), can accumulate residual tension, stress, fatigue cracks but it's easier to fix and repair. The composites are more flammable, suffer delamination, don't like the Sun (Cirrus=hangar queen), like less to hit hard stuff like fences, obstructions, etc... (I was shocked when I saw how some cirrus looked like after their accidents).Composites are strong, but have some shorter life span compared to metals, they can behave little brittle materials. BUT as engineering progresses we will see more and more advance materials in the construction with better performance... Engineering is always evolving and Cirrus represents that...

Glass cockpit are cool, if you are geeky! I don't think that it's hard to learn and get used to them & as we give way to new generation, glass cockpit won't be more than exercising flight sim in a real environment! Youngsters learn faster... was about the same discussion when computer came and some loved the good all typewriter! LOL! Before unmanned aircraft take over there needs to be a transition... That transition is Auto pilot fly-o-matic aircraft. Sit, enjoy and relax... TCAS, weather radars, gps, etc...
I'm not saying I agree, and that piloting should become that but truth is that piloting eventually will...

It's true that Cirrus have a good marketing, and if you ask any young guy that was exposed to this trend... most would take a Cirrus or any glass stuff instead of any and better metalo stuff... It's an Iphone of the air... like or not... can be that there is better, but nothing appeals or seduces more...

P.S: And flying old metal planes scares the :mad: out of most non aviation people, so passengers love Cirrus too.

[IO540]

The Cessna 400/350 look great and everything, but being a newbie one would better go for a simple operation aircraft (single lever cirrus) than to throttle/prop lever configuration in the Cessna

If you think the prop rpm control is in the slightest relevant to pilot workload, or relevant to the technical knowledge required to fly one of these things, you need a new instructor :)

It was a Cirrus marketing gimmick, for which Cirrus owners are paying with a load of fuel, and cockpit noise level, for ever......

[Dinho Pilot]

Well actually I dunno... but my assumption is that would reduce the pilot workload during IFR flights, etc... Cause there would be no need to adjust manifold pressure and rpm... and it's better for a go around methinks.... ^^

I've went flying on a cirrus... I've been close to one of the first gen ones and looked astonishing... neither I noticed any great or visible degradation of the aircraft like the money guy mentioned so many time... looked kind of new... they always look... And maybe the fuel and vibration can be solved with flying slower? But the maintaince and ownership for those aircraft it's what's scary! :ooh:

[Cobalt]

Many of the things mentioned in this thread are true - even the remarks on poor build quality of the Cirrus (in 15 hours I have not had a single flight where there was not a needless niggle, such as simple gauges U/S or intermittent, a knob coming off, an ALT2 failure due to a loose cambelt, oxygen pressure sensor failure, one cylinder is running a bit hot at altitude, and someone else had a transponder failure - on a brand new 2009 aircraft - perhaps built on a Monday, that one!).

I just don't get why people get so upset about differences that are down to personal preference. Having flown Columbia 400 (50 hours), SR22 Turbo (15 hours so far), and Mooney (>100 hours, albeit only a 201 / M20J and some time ago) I have to say all have their good bits and bad bits.

And yes, I include the saftey record in this - otherwise we would all be driving Volvos.

I prefer the sidestick of the Columbia over the sideyoke of the SR22 and the yoke of the Mooney. I love the crisp controls of the Mooney. I like the Mooney combination of speed and short-ish field capability - the Columbia lacks this. The SR22 is the easiest of the 3 to fly into short fields. I think fixed gears on high-performance singles are stupid.

My passengers like the large interior of the SR22 in the back. I don't like the uncomfortable SR22 seats (alu honeycomb to absorb crash forces). I like two doors, but don't care enough to make that a main criterium. I understand why IO540 begs to differ.

I think CAPS is a good idea and would pay extra if I could get one in a Mooney or in a Columbia, but would not go for a slower aircraft just to get it - family fathers will probably see this differently.

Horses for courses...

and if someone gave any of the three aircraft for free, I would keep it!!!


-------------------


Re castering nosewheels - in a crosswind, these aircraft need to be treated like a taildragger - the flying ain't over until you come to a full stop. On Sunday on roll-out a crosswind gust started to make the aircraft weathervane to the right and it needed a good dab of brake to keep it straight. Also nearly taxied a Columbia into a hangar door once when one of the two brakes failed. I would pay extra for a steered nosewheel on my aircraft because it lowers the risk, but again not important enough to loose much sleep about.

Wouldn't be a problem on a nosewheel aircraft. On the other hand, they turn on a dime...

[Dinho Pilot]

Is the Columbia/Cessna or Cessnalumbia built quality bette than Cirrus?
It's weird that Cessnalumbia 400 costs almost 100k more than the Turbo GS Cirrus SR22, though they have similar performance figures...

[Fuji Abound]

It was a Cirrus marketing gimmick, for which Cirrus owners are paying with a load of fuel, and cockpit noise level, for ever......


You may think this and I would not disagree however if you read Flying this month they asked pilots exactly this question. As you might guess with such a large circulation they had a pretty good response - 70 something percent (I cant remember the exact figure without finding my copy) wanted single lever. To be fair what they really want is FADEC which they will get very soon (and Diamond already have) but never the less be it marketing hype and / or ignorance on the part of pilots it is what people want - it is perhaps again an example of Cirrus having got it right (albeit perhaps for the wrong reasons). As I said earlier it is no good giving people something they dont want and telling them its good for them unless you want to go the way of Mooney - which does no one any good.

It was a good day for flying - 2.5 each way so cant be bad.

[paulp]

Is the Columbia/Cessna or Cessnalumbia built quality bette than Cirrus?
It's weird that Cessnalumbia 400 costs almost 100k more than the Turbo GS Cirrus SR22, though they have similar performance figures...

The Columbia/Csrvalis is an excellent plane although strnone would hate it because it has a free castering nose wheel like the Cirrus. On early examples (circa 2002) I think it showed much better exterior fit and finish than the Cirrus. Today the planes are much closer since fit and finish on the Cirrus has improved from G1 to G2 to G3. I might still give it some exterior fit and finish advantage. It has a lot higher carbon fiber content than the Cirrus. Roll response is heavier but not necessarily in a bad way. Cirrus Perspective is the better avionics package (12" screens, SVT, EVS). The problem I see with the Columbia is that it is an expensive design to manufacture. Control surfaces are an example. On the Cirrus they are aluminum. You save little weight going composite and the control surfaces are simple shapes that are easy to do in aluminum. On the Columbia they are carbon fiber. Columbia doors seal better and have inflatable seals. However, the Cirrus doors make getting in and out of a Cirrus easier. You can stand up straight on the Cirrus wing and step into the back seating area. You have to duck under the gull wing door on the Columbia. The Columbia is slightly more aerodynamic (2 kts or so in real life is my guess) but it comes at the cost of head room. Since the cabins are about the same width this confuses people until the look at the planes head on. The Columbia curves in a lot more at the top of the cabin. I think this gives the Columbia a racier look but the Cirrus feels roomier as a result. Cirrus comes with the BRS parachute system standard. So, for a lower purchase price, the Cirrus gives you a little more room, the parachute and better avionics. Columbia fans would point out however that for a little more money you get what they consider a superior airframe with a higher maneuvering speed, utility category rating and dual wing spars. Both are excellent planes.

[Cobalt]

Is the Columbia/Cessna or Cessnalumbia built quality bette than Cirrus?
It's weird that Cessnalumbia 400 costs almost 100k more than the Turbo GS Cirrus SR22, though they have similar performance figures...

Based on what I have seen so far, absolutely - in 15 cirrus hours more niggles than in 50 Columbia hours. A lot more.

The performance figures are only similar - with the same fuel flow, the SR22 is a slower aircraft by 10-20 kts depending on altitude, because of its larger cabin and its lower-speed wing - you pay for that with the poor short field capability of the Columbia. You can fly the Columbia rich of peak and burn 24 gallons to get an extra 10+ kts on top of that, but that is silly. 235-240kt TAS at FL240 is nice to prove a point, but hardly sensible.

The Cirrus I currently fly struggles to keep CHT reasonable in one cylinder above FL120, but that might be a one-off problem.

[Cobalt]

Cirrus Perspective is the better avionics package (12" screens, SVT, EVS).

12" screens are down to preference. I like the smaller screens and less bulky feel of the Columbia.

SVT and EVS are nice to haves and again down to preference - I personaly find the flight simuator SVT display irritating when flying pure IFR and switch it off - for me it leads to confusion what my primary nav is, and when IMC the horizon line is too faint - but would definitely have it on IFR in mountains...

The real advantage in avionics in the SR22 is that it has a dual AHRS, while the Columbia only has one. Definitive safety benefit, something again I would pay for - wouldn't pay for SVT..

Shame the Cirrus electrical system is so poor...

[paulp]

Shame the Cirrus electrical system is so poor...
Please explain. The Cirrus Perspective aircraft have a 100 amp ALT1, 70 AMP ALT 2 and dual batteries. Due to the diode interconnect there is no action required during an alternator failure.

On older Cirrus aircraft (pre-Perspective) Alt 2 was 20 AMP. I wouldn't call this system poor but the full size alternator on the Columbia was better. You still had dual electrical system. Prior to early 2006, ALT1 was 70 AMP. Around March 2006 Cirrus went to 100 AMP ALT1 as they kept adding things to the plane.

As for 12" screens, my plane has 10" screens and I wish it had the larger 12" screens. I really like them. Call it personal preference but I believe that, on a glass panel, real estate matters. Having a friend who has SVT on his Diamond and landed it with an iced over windscreen, I believe SVT is a very nice feature. Before you say anything, I would never fly with his instructor after hearing how the guy got him into that situation.

[paulp]

the SR22 is a slower aircraft by 10-20 kts
This is not my experience but I am talking about normally aspirate aircraft. Maybe it is true on the turbos. In a head to head fly off a C350 vs. SR22 the speeds were matched on one leg and maybe the C350 was one or two kts faster on the other. I do hear the C400 is faster than the TN22 but the TN22 is more fuel efficient. The C400 is a turbocharged engine while the TN22 is turbonormalized. My CHT's tend to run in the 330 to 340 range. TN CHT's run higher and on a hot day you can't do a LOP climb (have to go ROP). The new air density controller from TAT should fix that when certified. I have flown the plane although my personal plane is not a turbo. The TAT experimental TN22 is actually a little faster than a C400 due to their new controller.

The Cirrus I currently fly struggles to keep CHT reasonable in one cylinder above FL120, but that might be a one-off problem.
I suspect it is.

Other difference to point out, when comparing prices make sure to have A/C on the Cirrus. IIRC, A/C is now standard on the Corvalis line. Also, you can get speed brakes on the Corvalis. They are not available on the Cirrus. I really like speed brakes. Finally, I find my opinion of the handling differs from others. In my opinion the Cirrus is more fun on a VFR day. IT has a high roll rate and reminds me of a sports car I used to own albeit with less control feel than I would like. The Columbia is heavier in this regard. However, I prefer its handling as an IDFR platform which is really the mission of both planes.

[paulp]

You can fly the Columbia rich of peak and burn 24 gallons to get an extra 10+ kts on top of that, but that is silly. 235-240kt TAS at FL240 is nice to prove a point, but hardly sensible.

It just hit me that the speed difference you are seeing is due to flying ROP on the Columbia. You are correct about the speed difference in that case. A TN22 is always flown LOP in cruise. In fact, the way you fly it is ROP and WOT in the climb and then 2500 RPM and 17GPH for cruise i.e. no lean assist or setting of EGT's. If it isn't hot then you can do a LOP climb on the Cirrus.

[Cobalt]

Shame the Cirrus electrical system is so poor...


Please explain. The Cirrus Perspective aircraft have a 100 amp ALT1, 70 AMP ALT 2 and dual batteries. Due to the diode interconnect there is no action required during an alternator failure.


Re the electrical system - Cirrus fixed the anemic ALT2, but has not fixed the strange / complicated connection of BAT2 to the essential bus with no proper instrumentation. So the checklist includes a simple BAT2 on only check as part of the pre-flight, but other than that... As part of my familiarisation I go through all the failure modes in the electrical system and it took me a loooong time to figure out what exactly happens when what fails.

As I said before, all of the differences between the Columba and the Cirrus are down to preferences - you could equally say fair enough, but I don't want to do a cross-tie check as part of every pre-flight and would like an automatic failover....

[Cobalt]

It just hit me that the speed difference you are seeing is due to flying ROP on the Columbia. You are correct about the speed difference in that case. A TN22 is always flown LOP in cruise. In fact, the way you fly it is ROP and WOT in the climb and then 2500 RPM and 17GPH for cruise i.e. no lean assist or setting of EGT's. If it isn't hot then you can do a LOP climb on the Cirrus.

nope, it is not. I fly the Columbia LOP in cruise and descent, but not in the climb. It would be possible to do a LOP climb in a Columbia, too, but POH says no... so I stick to that. FL180 is a long way up, too...

Real life figures - SR22 Turbo, FL180, 198kt TAS. Standard lean to target (blue line on FF) FF 17.5 USG/hr. Columbia400, 217kt TAS, 1650F TIT LOP, FF 17.2 USG.

A bit leaner on the Columbia because if the 1650 TIT limit - Cirrus Turbos are more robust, and I think generally the Cirrus has the more robust engine, and I just LOVE how they have simplified engine management...

Both were on close-to ISA days, but not on the same day.


And again - so the Columbia is faster - hey, not everyone wants that fast and 198kt are not that slow, either! For pure speed at low fuel flow the Mooney would be even better...

[paulp]

Cobalt -

Interesting comment on the electrical system. I find the Cirrus system very straight forward with some advantages. It isolates some potential faulty equipment i.e. powers just essential equipment when ALT1 goes down. Then again, on Perspective, that is still almost everything so this has become an almost meaningless feature. I thought there was a manual cross-tie on the Columbia but I could be wrong since it has been awhile. The isolation check on the diodes is quick since you just hit BAT2, flaps to 100%. check flap light off, then Bat2 when lowering flaps for preflight. In either case, I can't knock the Columbia electrical system. From everything I know it is very robust.

I said "interesting comment" because I have become fascinated lately with issues of understanding and ergonomics. For example, I find the G1000 a very nice system but my wife hates it. As I have watched her interact with different systems I have come to appreciate the ergonomics of Avidyne's R9. I have never found the Cirrus electrical system complicated but then I work as an electrical engineer.

with no proper instrumentation
Can you clarify here? I have continuous monitoring of both buss voltages and battery current. What do you find missing?

I agree with your "preferences" comment. I want to be clear that I really like the Columbia and find some aspects of it better done than the Cirrus. The most impressive (to me) thing I ever did in a Columbia was to put it into a 150 kt steep turn, trim, and take my hands off the stick. You can do it in other planes too (including Cirrus) but the ease and stability of the Columbia was impressive. Then again, there are a lot of fine planes out there.

[Dinho Pilot]

Hehehe... you all must be football player or something to own planes like that. I read somewhere that the anual cost of those it's like 30000€ year, around 2500€ month for 100 hours a year!:eek:
Seems like plastic planes brake up faster or easily...


And don't you get annoyed with having to switch fuel tanks every once in awhile... I don't understand why they didn't include a both selector in such an advance aircraft... :confused:
Since the idea is to make their operation the most simple possible... more than 10 Gallons imbalance and there is problem (maybe some crashes happened cause of that?)

The part that should be improved in these machines is certainly the engines... cause none of those run cheap on fuel...

[Cobalt]

I thought there was a manual cross-tie on the Columbia but I could be wrong since it has been awhile.

There is. An ALT failure in the Columbia means tha battery for that bus will take the load - to get it onto the other alternator you have to hit the cross-tie switch. A cross-tie check is part of the pre-flight checks where you switch of each alternator in turn. Cirrus is simpler than Columbia in that respect. That is what I meant with "fair enough, but I don't want to do a cross-tie check as part of every pre-flight and would like an automatic failover".

The Cirrus does not have a BAT2 charge / discharge indication, so if it starts boiling and dies in flight AND the ALT2 then fails this will be the first thing you know about it. Pretty low risk and you still have ALT1, so that really just a niggle. It is one of these legacy things - the design was for a mini-BAT2 and mini-ALT2 on its own essential bus. Now that BAT2 and ALT2 have grown up this bus design is just a hangover. The Columbia was a symmetric dual-bus design from the start and better than in some twins (DA42, anyone?). Does it matter? Not really, both have good redundancy.


G1000 vs. Avidyne is a neverending other debate. Perspective fixes a few of the poor ergonomics aspects of the G1000 - in particular around page selection. Also the keypad is more ergonomic than the std. G1000 keypad, but it has NO redundancy because all AP controls are gone from the PFD/MFD. Avidyne is easier to use and the ARC-mode on the EHSI is actually useful - used it all the time except for ADF/RMI practice - complete rubbish in the G1000.

And don't you get annoyed with having to switch fuel tanks every once in awhile... I don't understand why they didn't include a both selector in such an advance aircraft... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

because the engine is above the fuel ports in the tanks, and so is the engine-driven fuel pump. That means that the engine "sucks" fuel from the tanks (I leave it to the pedants to point out that it lowers pressure and outside air pressure actually pushes the fuel) and if both tanks were connected to the pump, as soon as one fuel port in the tanks sucks air this is it - you will not feed reliably from the other tank. Different in gravity-fed high wing thingies such as Cessnas. You could of course fit dual fuel pumps in/below each tank...

more than 10 Gallons imbalance and there is problem

And that is the case in any aircraft with large fuel tanks. Turbo Saratoga or Arrow no different, except they did not make it a limitation during certification - probably not required back then. Just fly along for a couple of hours in a PA32R-301T without switching tanks and your arm will become tired...

[sternone]

Does the Corvalis has wet tanks ? I hate wet tanks.

Since paulp has such a good connections at the cirrus factory maybe he could update us on the status of the SR20 G3 with the Diesel Deltahawk ?

[paulp]

Since paulp has such a good connections at the cirrus factory maybe he could update us on the status of the SR20 G3 with the Diesel Deltahawk ?
Actually my Cirrus factory connections aren't super special. I have no clue on diesel work. I worry that since Alan has left that innovation will slow. I have also heard (not through factory) that they are looking at the TCM turbo (like Corvalis) as a cost cutting measure. I have a friend who is big on diesels and likes the Deltahawk. My concern is that it is one of those great new engines that will be available "real soon now." Cirrus came very close to introducing a diesel several years ago. When taken high up and the engine turned off it wouldn't restart. That killed it and it was never sold. With diesels I am always interested in how the high altitude restart issue is solved.

Where I do have some connections is Avidyne. They have really changed how they work with customers and they have been very open on some of their recent work. I just want the new DFC 100 certified since it will complete my R9 system. It is way more important to me than SVT, EVS etc.

[sternone]

I played with the R9 release of avidyne and it's great.

I had training in the flightmax years ago, it's easier to 'not' forget what buttons to press compared to the G1000.

Deltahawk is around for years. They take it slow. They are known to finance all their development conservatively.

[sternone]

Doesn't look that good over Cirrus. I don't want them to go, I want them to improve their plane.

--
A sign of the times: Cirrus Design not paying its rent
It’s been a tough year for aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Design.

According to today’s Grand Forks Herald, Cirrus is behind $845,000 in payments on the lease at its plant in the Industrial Park in Grand Forks.

The economic downturn has had a detrimental affect on general aviation manufacturers such as Cirrus Design. The company employed 330 in its Grand Forks plant in 2006; today it employs 75.

[Fuji Abound]

but they are still improving their aircraft and the only way anyone knows how, by still being in business unlike most other manufacturers.

There is a 99.9% chance, and possibly more, that when a manufacturer goes bust there will not be any further improvements. :)

[007helicopter]

According to today’s Grand Forks Herald, Cirrus is behind $845,000 in payments on the lease at its plant in the Industrial Park in Grand Forks.

Yes but the city is the landlord and I think they are going to do everything to help Cirrus as they are still an important employer and bring dollars to the area.

[sternone]

Until they run out of money to pay themselves.

[IO540]

This is interesting

AOPA Pilot Blog: Reporting Points Blog Archive Surprising Cirrus Stats (http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=933&WT.mc_id=091218epilot&WT.mc_sect=blog)

[007helicopter]

The author, Rick Beach who owns an SR22 has made it a personal mission to increase safety and awareness of the CIrrus fleet, he does not ever appear to me biased or particually pro Cirrus but very objective. If anyone does fly a Cirrus the $60 they spend to become a COPA member is incredible value for money and I would recommend strongly any owner does join and it is a fact for whatever reason that a non COPA cirrus pilot is 4 times more likely to be involved in a fatality.

[sternone]

This is interesting

AOPA Pilot Blog: Reporting Points Blog Archive Surprising Cirrus Stats

Woops, how are the Cirrus lovers now going to talk them out of the high fatality rate ? Seems to be that the remark "yes but it was pilot error because he did not have a lot of experience" doesn't count anymore.

[Dinho Pilot]

Probably they will say that the cirrus accident rate is a bad as a cessna 182, a columbia, a beechcraft or any other high performance aircraft....
:}

[Deeday]

If you auger in on a Cirrus, at least you are going to make the air crash investigators' job a lot easier (seriously, I just thought that this very well made video was worth a mention).

<object width="580" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7nm_hoHhbFo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7nm_hoHhbFo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object>

[IO540]

Excellent video :ok:

Mind you, stalling anything c. 200ft AGL is not a good idea. What was this pilot thinking of, doing steep turns down there ???

[sternone]

If somebody has the opportunity to check out a Cirrus when his engine is removed please notice the following items :

* A lot of red silicone caulking on the firewall
* the engine mounts are really puny
* the support structure looks really weak

it just looks FRAGILE

looks like any serious impact would separate the entire front of the fuselage and send the engine into the cockpit, no wonder they have a parachute

[007helicopter]

Sternone after all your highly informative posts I am thinking of selling my Cirrus as it such a poor puny aircraft, but after what you have said about depreciation I am not sure it is the best move, I just dont know what to do now.:ugh:

[Shunter]

Sternone, you have some very strange ideas and you're getting a little obsessive/boring now. Personally I did more than few hours in an SR22 in the states and it spanks any Piper I've ever flown by a mile. I'm more than happy with owning a Cardinal, but if my flying was purely constrained to longer, solid runways a Cirrus would probably be quite high up on my shopping list.

PS. Have you got your PPL yet?

[BRL]

looks like any serious impact

What a bizarre statement. A serious impact in anything is not going to be good!

[Chief Erwin]

007 I am a LAME and know the cirrus reasonably well and think they are pretty good and very strong aircraft. Yep they tend to make the pilots a little lazy but hey you pay the money you deserve the luxury right.
Red silicon is good as you cant design a vibration free engine and prop.
The engines are designed in the G3 to colllapse down and therefore roll under the cabin in the unfortunate event of a crash...not to bad of an idea hey?

[sternone]

PS. Have you got your PPL yet?

Shunter, yes I have my PPL and even much more than that.

But hey, I don't mind that you play it on the person. Enjoy it. Go ahead. Feel good.

I'm flying my King Air tomorrow again. Go ahead and feel king of the world in whatever that may be for you.