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

cirrus sr22

Old 18th Oct 2009, 10:28
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
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
Pace is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 11:30
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
"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.
execExpress is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 13:16
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Didn't the dihedral allow them to eliminate the aileron/rudder cross-connect bungees that have caused control jams?
soay is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 15:45
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
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.
execExpress is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 15:45
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 714
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 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 15:50
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 714
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?
007helicopter is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 08:13
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 54
Posts: 806
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.
scooter boy is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 10:00
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
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.
ILOC is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 11:09
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
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).
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 13:16
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
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
Pace is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 15:46
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 714
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
007helicopter is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 16:03
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
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 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
Pace is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 16:33
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 24
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.
ILOC is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 17:39
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: north of the south
Age: 52
Posts: 157
Oh the plural of cirrus is cirrus
GearDownFlaps is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 17:53
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
Oh the plural of cirrus is cirrus
No its Cirrae or Cirruses

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 18:04
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: north of the south
Age: 52
Posts: 157
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
GearDownFlaps is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 20:37
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
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!
execExpress is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 21:36
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: EGTT
Posts: 278
rattly plastic jellymould
Composite 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.
1800ed is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 10:26
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 54
Posts: 806
corrigenda

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 .

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
scooter boy is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 11:19
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,632
....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.
Fuji Abound 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.