Turbo prop conversions
 

IO540

I have no experience of the Piper Jetprop but because of the reasons you give the P210N conversion is still certificated at the same weights and speeds as the origonal piston type.
The VNE is now the top of the yellow arc at 167 as opposed to the pistons 208. This is not a problem as the a/c is rarely flown at low level due fuel flows, and at the normal high teens flown, TAS is 205 ish.
The conversion includes some beefing up of known wear pionts at the the rear end. Some heavier ribs, skins, and a dual elevator trim actuator are included in the work.
This conversion appears to be operated at quite conservative limits. As for range (147 USG)we have flown Faro to our strip in Berkshire non- stop with two occupants.
Practical but expensive.

Meridian vs Jetprop
 

IO540, does the Meridian have the tail reinforcements as standard?
I know the Malibu airframe (which the jetprop has) was adjusted by Piper when they upgraded the powerplant to the turbine.

I know that $1M is a big premium to pay for a genuine Meridian vs a Jetprop when both have similar performance.

Would be a shame to lose the tail at high speed though.

SB

I don't know but believe the Meridian differs structurally.

The big thing however is route charges: the Jetprop is 1999kg while the Meridian is about 2300kg - this translates to a big operating cost difference; of the order of £100-200 just to e.g. fly across France. That's not a whole lot different to the entire cost of the fuel burnt on the flight.

Meridian MTOW
 

Interestingly I was discussing the weighty issue of MTOW for the Meridian and euronav charges with the German Piper distributor a couple of weekends ago.

He assured me it is possible to certify your Meridian at 1999kg and thus avoid charges.

A peperwork exercise basically by the sound of things and a legitimate way to save money.

The euronav charges are almost as expensive as the French autoroutes.

That is pretty amazing...

More than one in one hundred Cirrus aircraft to leave the factory have been lost in a FATAL accident.

There are very complex factors behind that, but the truth is undeniable.

Me? I'd buy an old Golden Eagle - but then, I know I'm good!

Gee wizz....

I wonder how many PA28's HAVE BEEN LOST TO FATAL ACCIDENTS?

Or C172's,C152's,404's, 310's, blah blah

Al, after so few years in production, rest assured the rate was MUCH LOWER.

Very different clientele though.

The spamcan market, as in going from A to B, has been dead on its feet for years. It's been kept standing up by U.S. consumer inertia, patriotism (not saying that's a bad thing), and ultra conservative attitudes in the GA market, especially in the USA where you could stick a pair of wings onto a Zanussi washing machine and quite a lot of GA pilots would think it looks really good. In fact it is quite possible that "Flying" Magazine would do a perfectly straight faced review of it, so long as it flew well.

Cessna have been kept in business by there being little else for the circuit bashing market, and by numerous short field / utility applications.

Piper are dead. They are kept going by spares production for the huge PA28 fleet.

There have been a total of 55 Cirrus Fatal accidents since production started of the SR, Fatal No 55 was an Accident that occurred Friday, September 11, 2009 in Rock Hill, SC, USA

Pilot appeared to lose control or turn back on take off and impact the runway at a very high speed resulting in a fire and death of Pilot Skipper Beck.

Preliminary NTSB report ERA09FA515


The original poster asked about the safety of this type of aircraft and I hope he has gained some facts to make a rational decision, there is so much misinformation.

So what you're saying is it's not dead on its feet; people still buy their airplanes.

What we are seeing is mirrored by what happened in commercial aviation. A brand new airliner looks about the same and has about the same performance (except fuel burn) as a 50 year old one. It's on the inside it looks totally different.

In my view, you don't tell a modern aircraft from an obsolete one by looking at how far its rivets protrude. You look at what's on its panel. And there, interestingly, I think the US is way ahead of everyone else when it comes to embracing and levaraging new technology. Think about GPS approaches, think about weather and traffic data links.

Furthermore, if you buy a Cessna today, you can even choose: Brand new airframe design and brand new cockpit, or well tried airframe design and brand new cockpit. C182T or 350; they are both availale.:)

I am surprised Cessna's fly at all. To me they are like sitting in a goldfish bowl. If it was a case of flying Cessna's or not at all, I'd opt for not at all.

I cut my teeth in Cessna aircraft and did aerobatics in a 150 aerobat.
I now fly an SR22 which I obviously love to bits but I can't knock the Cessna.
A class training aircraft.

I started out flying aeros in just that - a very good aircraft indeed particularly as it taught you so well the importance of conserving energy and of flying accurately. If you didnt there were very few reserves of horses or handling to make it look pretty. :) and shirley that is no bad thing for a trainer.

I have to jump in here. It's way too much fun.

Has anybody read the Cirrus POH ? That's not how I deal with problems.

They work with you not to pull the chute and to use your checklist. But every checklist ends with "pull the chute".

That summarizes the whole plane, the Cirrus plane is designed around marketing.

The only thing that I find good about the whole Cirrus ordeal is that it gave a lot of money to TAT so they could prove to the GA industry that WOTLOP is the way to run your engine.

--
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

Cirrus allmost half way around the world ferry flight
 

Leaving EGTO Rochester in Kent tomorrow as P2 on a ferry flight to Saudi Arabia in a brand new SR22 G3 Turbo, Chris Baker has flown it from the factory in Duluth on the 4th of November, check the pictures on his facebook if interested Login | Facebook

So tomorrow pm Naples, the following day fuel in Crete and then DCT Jordan where I will have to get out due to no Saudi visa.

Still a great trip which demonstrates the utility of this aircraft.

Here is a strange thing - they keep on rolling off the production line even in these challenging times .. .. ..

.. .. .. what was that, Mooney have stopped production.

Thing is either the marketing is very very good, their are a lot of very disappointed owners, or the product is not that bad - of course they could have bought a Mooney, but then again they didnt.

:) only kidding.

As I have already said the Mooney is very good, I think the Cirrus has the edge but as always it doesnt suite everyone.

SR22
 

Wow, I just saw this thread. So much info and some of it is almost correct!

Anyone who wants to stall an airplane and take it down be my guest but I'm not going along for the ride. When done within the POH limitations the chute has a great record. It is all about total kinetic energy and you have to include the forward velocity of the plane in the stall. As for why it is there, you have to have a one-on-one conversation with Alan Klapmeier and hear about his argument with his brother Dale to understand why it is standard. Oh, along the way you will hear about the mid-air he survived. I gather it made an impression on him. What I like about the chute is know it is there at night and when flying over low IFR.

I love the look of the Columbia. The Mooney is very efficient. The Cirrus is more comfortable inside with more room. Physics is physics and the Cirrus loses a little due to that and its fixed gear. That doesn't make any of them bad. I like the Mooney for efficiency. I think the Columbia is one of the prettiest planes out there. As far as the view out of the plane the Cirrus is better than either the Mooney or Columbia but not as good as the Diamond.

Handling is generally great. Roll is quick which is great for VFR flight but touchier in IFR. Trim is a pain and I would love a wheel like a 172. With a lot of practice you get it down but it is the LAST thing that gets easy and hand flying IFR is more of a pain than necessary due to it. I find the Columbia better as a stable IFR platform.

You need to know the systems. What else is new? I never found the Garmin 430W intuitive. My wife hates Perspective (G1000) but loves R9. Whichever system it is, any modern plane involves systems management.

Cirrus aircraft are FLOWN. Just look on Flightaware to get an idea of the planes in the system. Flightaware doesn't show VFR flights so it is more a measure of which planes are being used for long trips and poor weather flying. When you compare fatal accidents between types it is interesting to look at how many of each are in the system on a given day.

As for efficiency my trip this past weekend was at 14K' at 11.5 GPH with a TAS of about 160 kts. I am sure a Mooney can do a lot better but then again that's not bad for the wheels sticking down.

A common fallacy about accidents during the early years of the Cirrus was that they were from low time pilots. Actually many were high time. There was a time in type correlation (by definition since the plane was new) but not one to overall experience. The early accident rate was high but statistically meaningless. The current rate tends to match other high performance aircraft like Mooney, Bonanza etc. I think the 210 may be a little higher. All of this is hard to assess since no one knows exact flight hours for the different aircraft types.

The wing doesn't like ice. That is true of any high speed laminar flow wing. TKS on the non-FIKI planes is a get out of jail free card at best.

The side yoke is just a center yoke, remove one handle, center the other, move it all to the side. Everyone thinks it will take a long time but it doesn't. Control is precise if a bit numb due to the spring centering removing some of the feel generated by air pressure against the control surfaces.

Autopilot concerns are no different than any other plane with a rate based autopilot if flying a Cirrus with the Stec 55X. If flying one with the GFC700 then you have an awesome autopilot and the ability to do indicated airspeed climbs which removes autopilot stall concerns. The upcoming Avidyne DFC100 will add envelope protection i.e. it will drop the nose of the plane to prevent a stall or shallow descent to prevent exceeding Vne.

The key to slowing a Cirrus down is getting flaps in even if you have to climb to do it. The turbos are easier due to the big fat composite prop which acts like a speed brake. That said, I flew a Columbia with speed brakes and I loved them.

My favorite Cirrus feature? It got my wife interested in flying. It is the plane she wanted. Now she flies as much or more than I do. She insisted we get our own plane. When offered a new car/truck or an R9 avionics upgrade she picked R9. For that I am eternally grateful to Cirrus.

Paul

That doesn't take the fact away that Cirrus planes are

* badly build, have a low finishing quality
* Insurance is higher on Cirrus than on other GA planes (why would that be hu?)
* many high time pilots crashed their cirrus while low and slow
* have high post-crash fires
* are difficult to land in a crosswind
* 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)
Spin: Pull the Chute
Ice: Pull the chute
Engine Failure: Pull the Chute
Disorientation: Pull the Chute

* Cirrus airframe life limit is 15.000hours

A cirrus that has 400 hours for example looks beat up, inside and outside.

And the most important thing, which many seems to forget :

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.

I bet the marketing guys at Cirrus put that really into a small font.

And I don't hear the Cirrus lovers talk about that.

I have to give them kudos to selling these birds in huge numbers. Aldo 2009 wasn't that good.

2009 deliveries cirrus including third quarter 09 : 189
2008 deliveries cirrus : 549
2007 deliveries cirrus : 710
2006 deliveries cirrus : 721
2005 deliveries cirrus : 600

But again, numbers Mooney will never get anymore. Never ever. And kudos to the cirrus marketing machine. My meaning is just that if all the facts would have been known to potential buyers they would have bought a real plane, like a Mooney or like a Bonanza.

The Cirrus is the logical choice for somebody buying new - not a lot of options in the piston market!

If that is LOP, you must have a turbo engine to do that at 14k. If I (TB20) was able to to 11.5GPH at 14k I would be doing (ISA assumed) 172kt TAS. Your lower figure is presumably a combination of fixed gear and the turbo engine being a bit less efficient (I don't know what IAS a TB21 does at 11.5GPH but I know it is less than the TB20).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?!

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.

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.

Again, get the facts straight. The chute is there as a last ditch option so it is listed as such for many emergencies.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

$10k every 10 years is quite significant. I haven't seen this mentioned before.

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.

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.

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.

He is absolutely right. Even in the USA, it is widely reported that the Oshkosh visitor demographic gets a year older every year.

and likewise for a lot of people - once they have tasted the "2 door lifestyle" :) I would never go back to a single door.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.