Cirrus Airframe Life Limits

[Dave]

I read a few posts referring to the FAA certificated life limit of the
cirrus airframes and couldn't believe my eyes. So, i did some
searching and here's what I found:

SR20 (approved 10/23/98) - airframe life limit 12,000 hours
SR22 (approved 11/30/00) - airframe life limit 4,350 hours

It's right on airweb.faa.gov in black and white.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/91b98f5d9cf615c586256e54006329e9/$FILE/A00009CH.pdf

What bothers me is that in all the articles I've read about this
plane, it's avionics, advancements in technology, blah blah blah, not
ONCE have I read about these life limits.

So my question is - why such a huge difference between the two models?
And, does this mean the SR22, in particular, is going to be a tough
resel after someone puts a thousand or two hours on it?

Has Cirrus ever been asked about these limitations in public, and if
so what was their response?

[RD]

The consensus is that the airframe limits will be increased over time as the
airframe proves itself. Or so I've heard.



"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
> I read a few posts referring to the FAA certificated life limit of the
> cirrus airframes and couldn't believe my eyes. So, i did some
> searching and here's what I found:
>
> SR20 (approved 10/23/98) - airframe life limit 12,000 hours
> SR22 (approved 11/30/00) - airframe life limit 4,350 hours
>
> It's right on airweb.faa.gov in black and white.
>
>
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/91b98f5d9cf615c586256e54006329e9/$FILE/A00009CH.pdf
>
> What bothers me is that in all the articles I've read about this
> plane, it's avionics, advancements in technology, blah blah blah, not
> ONCE have I read about these life limits.
>
> So my question is - why such a huge difference between the two models?
> And, does this mean the SR22, in particular, is going to be a tough
> resel after someone puts a thousand or two hours on it?
>
> Has Cirrus ever been asked about these limitations in public, and if
> so what was their response?

[Dude]

I believe the response on the SR22 is that it will definitely be increased.
They stated that it was just a reduced number based on the SR20's.

There was an initial concern about vibration (which is reportedly obscene in
some 22's while not too noticeable in others). So someone put a formula on
what if you shook a 20 real hard, and assuming the 20's number is correct,
and got 4350.

There really is no reason why the planes should have such a short life
unless they are really seeing huge inconsistencies in quality on the
composites. I know they use a low cost process, but geez.



"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
> I read a few posts referring to the FAA certificated life limit of the
> cirrus airframes and couldn't believe my eyes. So, i did some
> searching and here's what I found:
>
> SR20 (approved 10/23/98) - airframe life limit 12,000 hours
> SR22 (approved 11/30/00) - airframe life limit 4,350 hours
>
> It's right on airweb.faa.gov in black and white.
>
>
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/91b98f5d9cf615c586256e54006329e9/$FILE/A00009CH.pdf
>
> What bothers me is that in all the articles I've read about this
> plane, it's avionics, advancements in technology, blah blah blah, not
> ONCE have I read about these life limits.
>
> So my question is - why such a huge difference between the two models?
> And, does this mean the SR22, in particular, is going to be a tough
> resel after someone puts a thousand or two hours on it?
>
> Has Cirrus ever been asked about these limitations in public, and if
> so what was their response?

[Otis Winslow]

That's like $70 per hour for every hour you fly just for the
life you've flown off the airframe. Are these things THAT
much fun to fly?

I can't believe anyone would pay that much for such a
short life span plane.

"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
> I read a few posts referring to the FAA certificated life limit of the
> cirrus airframes and couldn't believe my eyes. So, i did some
> searching and here's what I found:
>
> SR20 (approved 10/23/98) - airframe life limit 12,000 hours
> SR22 (approved 11/30/00) - airframe life limit 4,350 hours
>
> It's right on airweb.faa.gov in black and white.
>
>
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/
91b98f5d9cf615c586256e54006329e9/$FILE/A00009CH.pdf
>
> What bothers me is that in all the articles I've read about this
> plane, it's avionics, advancements in technology, blah blah blah, not
> ONCE have I read about these life limits.
>
> So my question is - why such a huge difference between the two models?
> And, does this mean the SR22, in particular, is going to be a tough
> resel after someone puts a thousand or two hours on it?
>
> Has Cirrus ever been asked about these limitations in public, and if
> so what was their response?

[Dave Katz]

"Otis Winslow" > writes:

> That's like $70 per hour for every hour you fly just for the
> life you've flown off the airframe. Are these things THAT
> much fun to fly?

See the earlier comments about how the 4350 was determined, and how it
will eventually be raised.

> I can't believe anyone would pay that much for such a
> short life span plane.

Apparently lots of people are; the SR22 is the best selling airplane
in the world at this point, and Cirrus is on track to deliver more
piston singles than Cessna this year.

[Fred Wolf]

I checked w my Cirrus rep,, he stated that the SR 22 has been tested to
24,000 hrs, and they expect approval to 12,000 hrs by sometime this year,,
they wanted to wait till the G2 was included in the approval process.

So thats where that stands.,,

The 4350 hr figure was agreed to because they wanted to get the SR22 out
the door, and the higher number pending time to do more testing. In other
words they had more time with the SR20
"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
> I read a few posts referring to the FAA certificated life limit of the
> cirrus airframes and couldn't believe my eyes. So, i did some
> searching and here's what I found:
>
> SR20 (approved 10/23/98) - airframe life limit 12,000 hours
> SR22 (approved 11/30/00) - airframe life limit 4,350 hours
>
> It's right on airweb.faa.gov in black and white.
>
>
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/91b98f5d9cf615c586256e54006329e9/$FILE/A00009CH.pdf
>
> What bothers me is that in all the articles I've read about this
> plane, it's avionics, advancements in technology, blah blah blah, not
> ONCE have I read about these life limits.
>
> So my question is - why such a huge difference between the two models?
> And, does this mean the SR22, in particular, is going to be a tough
> resel after someone puts a thousand or two hours on it?
>
> Has Cirrus ever been asked about these limitations in public, and if
> so what was their response?

[C J Campbell]

"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
>
> So my question is - why such a huge difference between the two models?
> And, does this mean the SR22, in particular, is going to be a tough
> resel after someone puts a thousand or two hours on it?
>
> Has Cirrus ever been asked about these limitations in public, and if
> so what was their response?

Cirrus has offered numerous excuses for it. What is inexcusable is that
Cirrus does not mention this in any of their advertising, nor do they inform
buyers before they purchase the aircraft. As for magazine reviews, you
should understand that these reviews are little more than advertisements for
the airplane. Some are more independent than others, but none of them are
really going to publish anything sharply critical of an important
advertiser. Magazine reviews should be taken with somewhat more than a grain
of salt.

Cirrus says that they will eventually extend the life limit to 12,000 hours,
which means that instead of paying $70/hour just for the airframe, you will
only be paying about $25. Still, Cirrus has not been able to get the
extension and they have been promising it for years. The claim that the
limit is based on the SR-20 is obviously bogus. So is the claim that they
are waiting for the G-2. What does that have to do with it? Do they think
that sales will be better for the G-2 if they get a reputation for
misrepresenting the SR-22?

[Mike Murdock]

> Cirrus says that they will eventually extend the life limit to 12,000
hours,
> which means that instead of paying $70/hour just for the airframe, you
will
> only be paying about $25. Still, Cirrus has not been able to get the
> extension and they have been promising it for years.

Did someone from Cirrus promise this to you? No one promised it to me, and
I've bought two SR22s from them.

> The claim that the limit is based on the SR-20 is obviously bogus.

How so? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you know what
airframe life limit testing they went through with the SR20? Since the SR22
type certificate was based on the SR20 type certificate, and Cirrus did not
go through the same airframe life limit testing with the SR22, why is it
hard to beleive that the lower life limit was mathematically derived from
the higher?

>So is the claim that they are waiting for the G-2. What does that have to
do with it?

Probably because the G2 is made with different fuselage molds, including a
different airfoil for the vertical stabilizer. What evidence are you
offering that this claim is bogus? Are you in possession of some inside
information about those devious folks in Duluth that the rest of us are not
privy to?

> Do they think that sales will be better for the G-2 if they get a
reputation for
> misrepresenting the SR-22?

I think your claims of being a pilot are bogus. I think you are just a
14-year old boy who is using his mommy's computer to post on usenet. Wow,
it's easy to come to wild conclusions when you are unencumbered with facts.
I find it quite liberating, actually. I can see why you like it so much.

-Mike

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:43:54 -0500, "Mike Murdock" >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>unencumbered with facts

-- "Mike Murdock" >
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:43:54 -0500
Message-ID: >

I think your claims of being a pilot are bogus. I think you are
just a 14-year old boy who is using his mommy's computer to post
on usenet. Wow, it's easy to come to wild conclusions when you
are unencumbered with facts. I find it quite liberating,
actually. I can see why you like it so much.

-Mike



Well said, Murdock.

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> > Cirrus says that they will eventually extend the life limit to 12,000
> hours,
> > which means that instead of paying $70/hour just for the airframe, you
> will
> > only be paying about $25. Still, Cirrus has not been able to get the
> > extension and they have been promising it for years.
>
> Did someone from Cirrus promise this to you? No one promised it to me,
and
> I've bought two SR22s from them.
>
> > The claim that the limit is based on the SR-20 is obviously bogus.
>
> How so? Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

How does a 12,000 hour airframe life limit for the SR-20 translate to a
4,350 hour airframe limit for an SR-22? Do you or does anyone at Cirrus have
one shred of evidence to support that claim?

>
> >So is the claim that they are waiting for the G-2. What does that have
to
> do with it?
>
> Probably because the G2 is made with different fuselage molds, including a
> different airfoil for the vertical stabilizer. What evidence are you
> offering that this claim is bogus?

And this is what is holding up getting an extension on the SR-22? Tell me
how the G2 is preventing Cirrus from getting an extension on the SR-22.

>
> > Do they think that sales will be better for the G-2 if they get a
> reputation for
> > misrepresenting the SR-22?
>
> I think your claims of being a pilot are bogus.

You are an idiot.

[Otis Winslow]

What if it doesn't get raised?


"Dave Katz" > wrote in message
...
> "Otis Winslow" > writes:
>
> > That's like $70 per hour for every hour you fly just for the
> > life you've flown off the airframe. Are these things THAT
> > much fun to fly?
>
> See the earlier comments about how the 4350 was determined, and how it
> will eventually be raised.
>
> > I can't believe anyone would pay that much for such a
> > short life span plane.
>
> Apparently lots of people are; the SR22 is the best selling airplane
> in the world at this point, and Cirrus is on track to deliver more
> piston singles than Cessna this year.
>

[Otis Winslow]

Well .. that's a good way to answer someone. Simply state
that they are a 14 year old non-pilot. Good reply. Bet that
one was well thought out and should carry a lot of weight.



"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> > Cirrus says that they will eventually extend the life limit to 12,000
> hours,
> > which means that instead of paying $70/hour just for the airframe, you
> will
> > only be paying about $25. Still, Cirrus has not been able to get the
> > extension and they have been promising it for years.
>
> Did someone from Cirrus promise this to you? No one promised it to me,
and
> I've bought two SR22s from them.
>
> > The claim that the limit is based on the SR-20 is obviously bogus.
>
> How so? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you know what
> airframe life limit testing they went through with the SR20? Since the
SR22
> type certificate was based on the SR20 type certificate, and Cirrus did
not
> go through the same airframe life limit testing with the SR22, why is it
> hard to beleive that the lower life limit was mathematically derived from
> the higher?
>
> >So is the claim that they are waiting for the G-2. What does that have
to
> do with it?
>
> Probably because the G2 is made with different fuselage molds, including a
> different airfoil for the vertical stabilizer. What evidence are you
> offering that this claim is bogus? Are you in possession of some inside
> information about those devious folks in Duluth that the rest of us are
not
> privy to?
>
> > Do they think that sales will be better for the G-2 if they get a
> reputation for
> > misrepresenting the SR-22?
>
> I think your claims of being a pilot are bogus. I think you are just a
> 14-year old boy who is using his mommy's computer to post on usenet. Wow,
> it's easy to come to wild conclusions when you are unencumbered with
facts.
> I find it quite liberating, actually. I can see why you like it so much.
>
> -Mike
>
>

[Mike Murdock]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> > I think your claims of being a pilot are bogus.
>
> You are an idiot.

Sometimes, but not usually :)

I chose a poor example to make my point. What I was trying to say is that
if you selectively ignore facts, you can come to just about any conclusion.
I was not trying to acuse you of not being a pilot, nor of being a 14
year-old boy, and not accusing you of being like a 14 year-old boy. If I
offended you with that remark, I sincerely apologize. It was not my intent
to insult or offend.

I was just trying to say that you are saying that someone else's claims are
bogus, without offering any facts or evidence to back up your statement. I
tried to illustrate that by making an oviously outlandish claim of my own,
about you.

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to express it in
this forum, but some people hold you in regard, so don't you owe it to them
to more carefully consider your statements?

-Mike

[Mike Murdock]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> How does a 12,000 hour airframe life limit for the SR-20 translate to a
> 4,350 hour airframe limit for an SR-22? Do you or does anyone at Cirrus
have
> one shred of evidence to support that claim?

I don't have first-hand knowledge of the exchange between Cirrus and the FAA
during the SR22 certification process, but I know what someone at Cirrus
told me

Since the SR22 design is derived from the SR20, the FAA allowed Cirrus to
come up with a number for the SR22 without doing the testing. The life
limit was calculated for the SR22, based on the SR20 and the SR22's higher
max gross weight. Doing this calculation instead of the testing saved
Cirrus time and money in the certification process. It has always been
their intention to extend the limit later on. Since they first started
building the '22, they have made many changes to reduce the cost of
manufacture and increase quality. These changes have to all be approved by
the FAA, either under the type certificate, or the production certificate.
By incorporating the life limit testing into the testing for these other
changes, Cirrus is saving money.

While you can critique any such calculation, I'm certain that the FAA
scrutinized it carefully before approving it.

I have no reason to doubt this story. What is it that makes it sound
unbelievable to you?

>
> >
> > >So is the claim that they are waiting for the G-2. What does that have
> to
> > do with it?
> >
> > Probably because the G2 is made with different fuselage molds, including
a
> > different airfoil for the vertical stabilizer. What evidence are you
> > offering that this claim is bogus?
>
> And this is what is holding up getting an extension on the SR-22? Tell me
> how the G2 is preventing Cirrus from getting an extension on the SR-22

I'm just speculating here, but I'll bet it is based on economics. They need
to get the life extension on the existing SR22 airframes, as well as the new
G2 airframes. I imagine it is more cost-effective to do both of them at
once..
>
> >
> > > Do they think that sales will be better for the G-2 if they get a
> > reputation for
> > > misrepresenting the SR-22?

I strongly disagree here. In what way have they misrepresented the airframe
life on the SR22?

I'll be the first to admit that we Cirrus owners sometimes get defensive
about our airplanes. When you've invested hundreds of thousands of dollars
it's only natural to want to justify your purchase and not want to hear
criticism that implies you made a bad decision.

However, there are some people that are suspicious of Cirrus Design Corp.,
as if they believe that they are selling snake oil. It seems these people
are waiting for the day when all of the happy Cirrus owners wake up and
realize they've been duped.

The only explanation I can think of is that Cirrus has upset the status quo,
and a few members of the old guard feel threatened, and are lashing out.

Can't we all just get along?

-Mike

[Mike Murdock]

"monitor point seven" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Mike Murdock" > wrote:
>
> > Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to express it
in
> > this forum, but some people hold you in regard, so don't you owe it to
them
> > to more carefully consider your statements?
>
> No, he doesn't. If people hold him in "regard," that is their choice. It
> does not oblige CJC to consider anything he posts. If he DOES, he is
> honorable, but he is under no obligation to do so and to suggest that he
> is, reveals a tiresome sense of entitlement on your part.
>
> IOW, he doesn't owe anybody here, anything.

Good point. How about if I just ask him to be a mensch?

-Mike

[C J Campbell]

"monitor point seven" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Mike Murdock" > wrote:
>
> > Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to express it
in
> > this forum, but some people hold you in regard, so don't you owe it to
them
> > to more carefully consider your statements?
>
> No, he doesn't. If people hold him in "regard," that is their choice. It
> does not oblige CJC to consider anything he posts. If he DOES, he is
> honorable, but he is under no obligation to do so and to suggest that he
> is, reveals a tiresome sense of entitlement on your part.
>
> IOW, he doesn't owe anybody here, anything.

Well, I would not say that. I think I owe guys like Dudley Henriques and Bob
Gardner a lot, for example, even if I don't agree with them 100% of the
time.

Aside from that, I think you have the responsibility to say what you think
is right, to admit it when you are wrong, etc.

[Dave Katz]

"Otis Winslow" > writes:

> What if it doesn't get raised?

What if a meteor destroys the earth?

OK, that was cheap.

The only way it *doesn't* get raised is if it turns out that the
airframes are falling apart, in which case a whole bunch of people,
including myself, will be quite unhappy. There does not seem to be
any indication of this in the Cirrus or any other composite airframe
that I know of.