Lancair Legacy
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From posts both in Pprune and other aviation forums which I have cut and pasted below, there seems to be a consensus that the Cirrus is definitely not for inexperienced pilots.
Some of the other less well known negatives are (1) The airframe apparently has a life of around 4000 hrs, which would make them a problematic purchase after say 3000 TTAF and (2) the Annuals are very expensive with long down-time.
It is also reported recently that there is a far higher proportion of used Cirrus aircraft for sale compared to Piper, Cessna, Mooney or Beech. It's had a negative effect on the resale value of the "other brands", but it's predicted that the used Cirrus market will soon become "saturated" with resales, and at that point the public will begin to see the Cirrus as a "disposable airplane".
Here's what pilots in other forums have had to say:
.
Some of the other less well known negatives are (1) The airframe apparently has a life of around 4000 hrs, which would make them a problematic purchase after say 3000 TTAF and (2) the Annuals are very expensive with long down-time.
It is also reported recently that there is a far higher proportion of used Cirrus aircraft for sale compared to Piper, Cessna, Mooney or Beech. It's had a negative effect on the resale value of the "other brands", but it's predicted that the used Cirrus market will soon become "saturated" with resales, and at that point the public will begin to see the Cirrus as a "disposable airplane".
Here's what pilots in other forums have had to say:
(a) Cirrus is trying to market these planes to yuppies who've never flown light aircraft before and who lost interest in old metal airplanes because they were too noisy and uncomfortable compared to a modern car.
(b) If all else fails... pull the parachute. Unfortunately, as of July 2005 all of the folks who actually needed the parachute to save their lives are in fact dead. The previously mentioned owners in New York who got into a spin, for example. Either the 'chute didn't work or they couldn't get it to deploy. On February 6, 2005, an SR22 pilot crossing the Sierra reported having trouble with ice (NTSB ID: LAX05FA088), despite the fact that his plane was equipped with the TKS ice protection option. He pulled the parachute, but was apparently going too fast at the time, which resulted in the cords ripping out of the airplane and the plane and pilot slamming into a mountainside.
(c) IMHO, the only people that should really be flying the Cirrus are professional flight training schools (for people that want to fly for a living). It's not the airplane for your typical weekend warrior, by any means. And more money does not necessarily equal more sense. This airplane is quickly replacing the Bonanza for the reputation of "doctor-killer."
(d) My owner friends report that annuals have taken three to eight weeks at authorized Cirrus service centers and cost from $5000 to $10,000 for in-warranty airplanes
(e) Yes and no- unfortunately money is allowing rich folks to buy the shiny new plane and kill themselves with their false sense of security, but those who are properly trained in the plane are no more dangerous in it as they'd be in a new 172SP. Most aircraft salesmen are more interested in getting the plane out the door and paid for than they are with ensuring proper training is given. Give it some time and I'm sure there'll be more incidents like this unfortunately- had to have something to replace the Beech.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Victoria
Age: 63
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. Arr.
I DO have a Cirrus Bias as I own one and looking to bring a used Turbo one in. However, you will notice I also mentioned the Columbia in the same post as being a similar Industry Leader.
Do your research on NTSB & ATSB before posting. The Cirrus Test plane was a decade ago and that aircraft DID NOT have a chute on board. The Camden Incident had the Chute attempted way outside the POH limits. Do some research, download the POH.
Clearedtoreenter:
Rather than Cherry Picking you could do with research on NTSB as well to back up your posts.
Ovation:
You are repeating Parrot Fashion exactly what Mooney and Cessna Salesmen said to me before I bought a Cirrus!. I did some research and found out what they told me about Cirrus was ALL BS.
1. Cirrus Useful life: (from www.whycirrus.com) Why Cirrus - Useful Life & Inspections
"At Cirrus we chose to test for a useful life of 12,000 flight hours – about 60 years of average use. Most of our major structures, however, have been tested for twice this lifetime. At Cirrus we also chose to demonstrate that the structure is good for this design life without the need for any interim, heavy inspections – with their associated cost and inconvenience.
At Cirrus we expect that, as real-life aircraft approach 12,000 hours, a further round of testing, analysis, and inspections will determine how to extend the useful life." (i.e. this is not a throw away aircraft - my comment).
2. The reason lots of Cirrus are for sale is simple: There are heaps and heaps of them. Ovation, do your research. For example; research the GAMA sales figures. Cirrus has outsold all the traditional brands except Cessna. Mooney, Piper and other combined hardly match Cirrus figures.
As for your Cherry Picked Posts: Well, They seems to be as well researched as your post is.
Again, NTSB reports show where the chute shreaded, the aircraft was already well past VNE and well past the POH Chute limits.
Ovation, Make yourself a good cup of tea, sit down and have a look at www.whycirrus.com also download a POH, do some NTSB research rather than post fiction.
------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see positive posts about ALL General Aviation and ALL aircraft types.
I personally don't dislike any types. Of course, there are some I prefer but I enjoy flying full stop.
I applaud ALL GA success and sales of any new type or encourage any venture as long as it's positive for GA.
The petty comments and negatives on PPrune make us our own worst enemies at times.
Safe Flying to all.
I DO have a Cirrus Bias as I own one and looking to bring a used Turbo one in. However, you will notice I also mentioned the Columbia in the same post as being a similar Industry Leader.
Do your research on NTSB & ATSB before posting. The Cirrus Test plane was a decade ago and that aircraft DID NOT have a chute on board. The Camden Incident had the Chute attempted way outside the POH limits. Do some research, download the POH.
Clearedtoreenter:
Rather than Cherry Picking you could do with research on NTSB as well to back up your posts.
Ovation:
You are repeating Parrot Fashion exactly what Mooney and Cessna Salesmen said to me before I bought a Cirrus!. I did some research and found out what they told me about Cirrus was ALL BS.
1. Cirrus Useful life: (from www.whycirrus.com) Why Cirrus - Useful Life & Inspections
"At Cirrus we chose to test for a useful life of 12,000 flight hours – about 60 years of average use. Most of our major structures, however, have been tested for twice this lifetime. At Cirrus we also chose to demonstrate that the structure is good for this design life without the need for any interim, heavy inspections – with their associated cost and inconvenience.
At Cirrus we expect that, as real-life aircraft approach 12,000 hours, a further round of testing, analysis, and inspections will determine how to extend the useful life." (i.e. this is not a throw away aircraft - my comment).
2. The reason lots of Cirrus are for sale is simple: There are heaps and heaps of them. Ovation, do your research. For example; research the GAMA sales figures. Cirrus has outsold all the traditional brands except Cessna. Mooney, Piper and other combined hardly match Cirrus figures.
As for your Cherry Picked Posts: Well, They seems to be as well researched as your post is.
Again, NTSB reports show where the chute shreaded, the aircraft was already well past VNE and well past the POH Chute limits.
Ovation, Make yourself a good cup of tea, sit down and have a look at www.whycirrus.com also download a POH, do some NTSB research rather than post fiction.
------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see positive posts about ALL General Aviation and ALL aircraft types.
I personally don't dislike any types. Of course, there are some I prefer but I enjoy flying full stop.
I applaud ALL GA success and sales of any new type or encourage any venture as long as it's positive for GA.
The petty comments and negatives on PPrune make us our own worst enemies at times.
Safe Flying to all.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SERIOUSLY guys, many of you have absolutely NO idea about the Cirrus! Don't believe everything you hear and if you are not sure, DON'T POST !
The CIRRUS does NOT have an airframe life of 4,000TT, END OF STORY. It used to, in the very early days before it was increased to more like 12,000 hours and that will be reviewed at a later time subject to people breaking them etc.
There is a demonstrated and documented maximum chute deployment speed. If you were iced up and having trouble and need to deploy the chute I find it hard to believe that you would have trouble getting below this speed!
The Cirrus is NOT a difficult aircraft to fly. It is very easy and in fact most suitable for ab-initio training and if it weren't for the cost, this would be more common. It has stable flight characteristics, has mostly standard flight controls, auto prop, assisted mixture control and standard instruments to go with the EFIS, which you DON'T have to use to fly the aircraft!
Here'eth ends some of the myths!
The CIRRUS does NOT have an airframe life of 4,000TT, END OF STORY. It used to, in the very early days before it was increased to more like 12,000 hours and that will be reviewed at a later time subject to people breaking them etc.
There is a demonstrated and documented maximum chute deployment speed. If you were iced up and having trouble and need to deploy the chute I find it hard to believe that you would have trouble getting below this speed!
The Cirrus is NOT a difficult aircraft to fly. It is very easy and in fact most suitable for ab-initio training and if it weren't for the cost, this would be more common. It has stable flight characteristics, has mostly standard flight controls, auto prop, assisted mixture control and standard instruments to go with the EFIS, which you DON'T have to use to fly the aircraft!
Here'eth ends some of the myths!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
XXX 
I'll second that!
I do not own one however one of my bets customers does and from the limited experience I have with them, I would agree with XXX. Some people would kill themselves with a R/C plane let alone a real one!
Having said that maintaining the things needs a fat wallet.
J
I'll second that!
I do not own one however one of my bets customers does and from the limited experience I have with them, I would agree with XXX. Some people would kill themselves with a R/C plane let alone a real one!
Having said that maintaining the things needs a fat wallet.
J
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oz Cirrus,
I stand corrected on the airframe life. It WAS 4,350 hrs on the SR22, it is now 12,000 hrs. I will attempt to research more thoroughly. You seem to be connected at the hip to Cirrus so I can understand your sensitivity on the subject.
The point you and others pro-cirrus ppruners try and make about the BRS is that it should only be used "only in accordance with the POH", and that's where I see the problem begins. If someone is in a stall/spin or other loss of control situation, do you expect them to remember exactly what the POH says and recover the aircraft to the BRS operating envelope, or simply go for the BRS activation in the hope it will save their life?
To contemplate using the BRS the pilot has most likely done something seriously wrong and unlikely to have the skills to recover from the situation.
But then if they did recover to normal flight, they wouldn't need the BRS.
I stand corrected on the airframe life. It WAS 4,350 hrs on the SR22, it is now 12,000 hrs. I will attempt to research more thoroughly. You seem to be connected at the hip to Cirrus so I can understand your sensitivity on the subject.
The point you and others pro-cirrus ppruners try and make about the BRS is that it should only be used "only in accordance with the POH", and that's where I see the problem begins. If someone is in a stall/spin or other loss of control situation, do you expect them to remember exactly what the POH says and recover the aircraft to the BRS operating envelope, or simply go for the BRS activation in the hope it will save their life?
To contemplate using the BRS the pilot has most likely done something seriously wrong and unlikely to have the skills to recover from the situation.
But then if they did recover to normal flight, they wouldn't need the BRS.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia, Adelaide
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you never know when you might need a BRS
Oz Cirrus
The Cirrus, from my experience, albeit limited, is a wonderful aircraft. The reason I replied to your post (in which I stated that I was unsure of the complete story, and perhaps someone else could fill it in) was the remarkably aggressive way in which you replied to Private Partz's post.
Private Partz did not say anything negative about the aircraft, but simply pointed out the possibility of being lured into a false sense of security. I do not believe that it warranted such an aggressive response, especially when his statement (which you quoted in your response) that:
is in fact true. Nothing was mentioned in the post about IAW the POH, as it seemed to be more to illustrate that it won't save you in every scenario.
This was a fatal accident with the parachute deployed, and it illustrates the point he was trying to make. It isn't a get out of jail card, it is a safety feature which must be operated within limits. I don't believe that our views here are conflicting in any way, as you have said the same thing.
I agree 100%. But every aircraft has negative points to it as well, and it is balanced information which is most useful to those considering buying one.
As I've said, the Cirrus is a wonderful aircraft, and like all others, needs to be treated with respect, not flung around into stupid situations because "it's got a chute bro!"
Besides, isn't this thread supposed to be about the Legacy?
The Cirrus, from my experience, albeit limited, is a wonderful aircraft. The reason I replied to your post (in which I stated that I was unsure of the complete story, and perhaps someone else could fill it in) was the remarkably aggressive way in which you replied to Private Partz's post.
Private Partz did not say anything negative about the aircraft, but simply pointed out the possibility of being lured into a false sense of security. I do not believe that it warranted such an aggressive response, especially when his statement (which you quoted in your response) that:
there have been fatal accidents with the parachute deployed
Again, NTSB reports show where the chute shreaded, the aircraft was already well past VNE and well past the POH Chute limits.
I would like to see positive posts about ALL General Aviation and ALL aircraft types.
But every aircraft has negative points to it as well, and it is balanced information which is most useful to those considering buying one.As I've said, the Cirrus is a wonderful aircraft, and like all others, needs to be treated with respect, not flung around into stupid situations because "it's got a chute bro!"
Besides, isn't this thread supposed to be about the Legacy?
Old M8,
Obviously with your experience, the Lancair would not be a problem.
After only experience with flying the PC-9, I flew some of the older Lancair models, and it was a piece of cake. But to be fair, I was not test flying it.
Rapid rates of roll and light controls? Not really, just pleasant really, but I guess compared to the majority of Cessna and Piper production lighties, sure.
The main question for you is (and I hate to sound obvious), do you really want to actually BUILD an aircraft, or is your heart more set on owning and flying it? Apparently only a very small percentage of pilots actually complete their kit, after years of slaving away, and then sell it on. It's a huge commitment.
Anyway, some food for thought matey. Please PM me, we probably have held in similar orbits.
Obviously with your experience, the Lancair would not be a problem.
After only experience with flying the PC-9, I flew some of the older Lancair models, and it was a piece of cake. But to be fair, I was not test flying it.
Rapid rates of roll and light controls? Not really, just pleasant really, but I guess compared to the majority of Cessna and Piper production lighties, sure.
The main question for you is (and I hate to sound obvious), do you really want to actually BUILD an aircraft, or is your heart more set on owning and flying it? Apparently only a very small percentage of pilots actually complete their kit, after years of slaving away, and then sell it on. It's a huge commitment.
Anyway, some food for thought matey. Please PM me, we probably have held in similar orbits.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: queensland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gidday all, it has been a while since I took the time to read the pprune posts and I opened this thread with interest. Having experience with both Lancair and Cirrus (none yet with the legacy) I can honestly say that I was very comfortable with both, true neither are for everyone and from the posts here most would think that the Lancair was designed by the devil himself...not true, I have s...loads of hours on these from the 320 to the Lancair IVP turbo prop and even had a mechanical failure with one which ended up with a rather expensive ground contact sequence which I walked away from. Have stalled the two seater and was benign throughout the stall, with the spin the thing looses height rapidly and if you read the flight manuals in most other non aerobatic aircraft, spinning is a big no no as well although they have been certified to be able to be recovered with the standard recovery technique. Cirrus never completed the FAA spinning tests and the FAA accepted the BRS chute system as an equivelent level of safety (ELOS). There has never been a fatality in a cirrus from deploying the chute in a spin recovery, all fatalities have been where the aircraft has been flown beyond the pilots capabilities ie, IMC and the insuing panic deployment has seen the aircraft impacting terre firma at high velocity with the chute found some distance away. It should be pointed out that the BRS chute system is approved on all lancairs including the new Cessna 350/400 as an option although they did complete the spin test regime. But this is getting away from the original posters question about any local legacy aircraft and I too would be interested in having a closer look when one is at last flying
.
.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Victoria
Age: 63
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ovation: Thanks for the post. I guess my sensitivity grew from reading lots of inaccurate posts about the Cirrus (and other types). Lots of BS is written about aircraft, people and companies on pprune - but then again, this is a rumour site....
As for Cirrus n BRS: The training I got with the aircraft was quite compreshensive. More than what I thought I would get. Lots of decision making senarios are part of the syllabus. My concern with modern aircraft such as Cirrus and Columbia/Cessna 350, 400 is the used market. 2nd, 3rd and 4th owners fall off the training radar unless they formally seek proper training.
Capt Arr: See above. My 'aggressive' post was a built up reaction of being reading lots of BS over the years about Cirrus and other types.
I'm back on my medication now and it may be some time before i'm allowed unsupervised access to a computer again.
Safe Flying to all.
As for Cirrus n BRS: The training I got with the aircraft was quite compreshensive. More than what I thought I would get. Lots of decision making senarios are part of the syllabus. My concern with modern aircraft such as Cirrus and Columbia/Cessna 350, 400 is the used market. 2nd, 3rd and 4th owners fall off the training radar unless they formally seek proper training.
Capt Arr: See above. My 'aggressive' post was a built up reaction of being reading lots of BS over the years about Cirrus and other types.
I'm back on my medication now and it may be some time before i'm allowed unsupervised access to a computer again.
Safe Flying to all.
Oldm8
Thread mine I know.
Just wondering, have you bought or flown a Lancair yet? If so whats your opinion of the a/c?
(I saw one for sale today and it got me thinking)
Thread mine I know.
Just wondering, have you bought or flown a Lancair yet? If so whats your opinion of the a/c?
(I saw one for sale today and it got me thinking)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, havent done either. Lost the GA buzz about a year ago. I was making asking about the builder assist program for a while but lost interest when the exchange rate went to ****. Basically you go over to Mr Lancair in the US and hang out with him for a few months and build the whole aeroplane. Sounded like a good option for someone working full time who doesn't have any space, tools, experience to build a plane.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following the two Lancair fatal accidents within six days of each other in 2006 CASA bought into the issues of safety of the type. The SAAA ran a survey and one of the owners was asked to draft a training document which I believe can be obtained by contacting the SAAA. With the sort of experience oldm8 has I imagine he would transition easily as long as it is understood the Lancair is no Cessna.
Reading the accident reports from the US indicates mishandling appears to be the primary factor in the majority of cases.
Reading the accident reports from the US indicates mishandling appears to be the primary factor in the majority of cases.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to be a lot of traffic about the Cirrus even though OldM8 specifically asked about the LancAir.
Having flown one (a 36) a couple of times doesn't make me an expert, but it seems to me that the biggest issue is the narrow envelope between the stall speed and the VFe.
Twenty knots isn't a lot and it demands a meticulous control of approach speed.
If you're up to that (and your experience resume suggests you are), then the aircraft is both manageable and a delight to fly.
Coupled with that is the reality that it is economical and will pretty much show its tail to any of the GA light twins like the Baron and 310.
So, if you only want to fly yourself and perhaps an occasional pax (who needs to a good friend) then its a top machine.
Having flown one (a 36) a couple of times doesn't make me an expert, but it seems to me that the biggest issue is the narrow envelope between the stall speed and the VFe.
Twenty knots isn't a lot and it demands a meticulous control of approach speed.
If you're up to that (and your experience resume suggests you are), then the aircraft is both manageable and a delight to fly.
Coupled with that is the reality that it is economical and will pretty much show its tail to any of the GA light twins like the Baron and 310.
So, if you only want to fly yourself and perhaps an occasional pax (who needs to a good friend) then its a top machine.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lancair safety
The safety record for Lancairs varies by model and is reflected in the insurance cost. A turbine IV-P might cost USD$15000 to 20000 annually. My ES-P is insured for less than USD$5000. The PT requires annual approved training. The ES-P does not. If you want to go fast, be prepared to train and pay for it.
very very close look at the certification process
What certification process, all the Lancairs here that have had hair-raising problems are Experimental Amateur Built, no two are ever quite the same.
Tootle pip!!
