Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

cirrus sr22

Old 16th Oct 2009, 19:32
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 54
Posts: 806
Cirrus = fat ugly sister of Mooney

"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!

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
scooter boy is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2009, 23:04
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
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.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2009, 23:45
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Mooneys are quick but ludicrously cramped, and if you put four people in one you have just about enough fuel for a circuit...
flybymike is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 00:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
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
BabyBear is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 07:47
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,786
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.
IO540 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 09:42
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
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.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 10:09
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,786
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.
IO540 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 10:15
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 115
Accident stats SR20/22 vs DA40 / 172

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

Diamond Aircraft

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
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....
tdbristol is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 11:20
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by tdbristol
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.
soay is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 12:48
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 115
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.)
tdbristol is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 14:24
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 54
Posts: 806
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.
scooter boy is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 15:06
  #32 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 51
Posts: 4,736
I'd prefer the Cirrus FIKI myself.
englishal is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 15:27
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CZ
Age: 46
Posts: 44
Philip Greenspun´s review:
Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22)
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."
bubo is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 15:38
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,786
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.
IO540 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 16:07
  #35 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 51
Posts: 4,736
...or the radiators at Aberdeen airport - "CAUTION HOT"....

Hmm....
englishal is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 16:11
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CZ
Age: 46
Posts: 44
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......
bubo is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 16:19
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
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
Pace is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 19:09
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
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.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2009, 20:48
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 714
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
007helicopter is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 07:54
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
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".
execExpress is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.