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 ??