cirrus sr22

[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."

[quote]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?

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 away

He 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 her

and 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.