Cirrus vs. 182

[C J Campbell]

This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Mike Murdock]

Different versions of that document have been circulating for a while. It's
a mishmash of (true) facts, opinion, apples vs. oranges comparisons, and
outright errors. I hope that for his sake, a prospective owner doesn't use
that document to make a purchase decision.

There are missions for which the T182T is the superior aircraft. There are
other missions for which the SR22 is the best conveyance. It's all about
the mission.

The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not
1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF.

The FAA has recently modified the type certificate for the SR22, giving it
an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. At the time the comparison was
written, the lower figure was correct.

I'll only beat the dead horse one more time by saying about spins: If you
are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in the
pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.

Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to grind
about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
pilots? I'm a former Skylane owner, and I think they are fine airplanes.
For my mission, an SR22 is the best choice, but I'm not going to badmouth
other airplanes because I think mine is the best.

-Mike

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
> and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.
>
> http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Richard Russell]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:39:51 -0500, "Mike Murdock" >
wrote:

snipped....
>
>I'll only beat the dead horse one more time by saying about spins: If you
>are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in the
>pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.
>
snipped...

The vast majority of those that are prone to spinning airplanes during
the turn from base to final already have their own permanent wings.
They don't need a Cirrus :)
Rich Russell
>

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> Different versions of that document have been circulating for a while.
It's
> a mishmash of (true) facts, opinion, apples vs. oranges comparisons, and
> outright errors. I hope that for his sake, a prospective owner doesn't
use
> that document to make a purchase decision.

Why? Are you a Cirrus dealer? Or are you trying to unload one of these white
elephants?

>
> There are missions for which the T182T is the superior aircraft. There
are
> other missions for which the SR22 is the best conveyance. It's all about
> the mission.
>

If the mission is to kill yourself, yes, the Cirrus SR22 is superior.

> The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not
> 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF.
>

Even if it is, no one is going to overhaul an engine for an airframe that
has only a few hundred hours left.

> The FAA has recently modified the type certificate for the SR22, giving it
> an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. At the time the comparison was
> written, the lower figure was correct.
>

Who says? The modified type certificate has not been posted by the FAA. It
has not been modified in the last 45 days, and the TCDS on the FAA website
still gives an airframe life limit of 4350 hours. The latest type data
certificate is Rev. 6, dated March 1, 2004. The airframe life limit is still
4350 flight hours according to that certificate.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K27F158D8

I think that the document is a fair comparison. It contains fewer
inaccuracies than most of the baloney claimed by Cirrus fans. Sorry it
disappoints you, but pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a
thing.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not
> > 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF.

It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at
1700.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > > The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours,
not
> > > 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF.
>
> It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at
> 1700.

Please watch what you are snipping -- you make it look like I said something
that I did not.

[Mike Murdock]

As far as I know, the IO-550-N has always had a TBO of 2,000 hours. Other
IO-550 models, like the IO-550-F, still have a 1,700 hour TBO. That tricky
suffix means a lot. Two IO-550's with different suffixes could have
different cases, cylinders, etc. TCM's numbering scheme leaves a lot to be
desired.

-Mike

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > > The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours,
not
> > > 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF.
>
> It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at
> 1700.
>
>

[Mike Murdock]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> > ... I hope that for his sake, a prospective owner doesn't use that
document to make
> > a purchase decision.
>
> Why? Are you a Cirrus dealer? Or are you trying to unload one of these
white
> elephants?

Just a happy airplane owner. The airplane I own just happens to be a
Cirrus. I don't like to see potential airplane owners misled by
misinformation propagated by those with an agenda. I have two flying
buddies who bought new or nearly new airplanes -- they fly a 182T and a
Bonanza. They're happy with their choices, and I'm happy for them. We
frequently swap rides to service centers, and I'd do anything I could to
help them out.

While their airplane choices are different from mine, and I could think of
some disadvantages to the airplanes they own, I don't feel compelled to run
them down. Chacon a son gout.

>
> >
> > There are missions for which the T182T is the superior aircraft. There
> are
> > other missions for which the SR22 is the best conveyance. It's all
about
> > the mission.
> >
>
> If the mission is to kill yourself, yes, the Cirrus SR22 is superior.

I guess I've failed in that mission, LOL. I got my first SR22 when I had
200 hours total time (100 in C-172s, 100 in C-182s) and then ink was still
wet on my instrument rating. Since then I've traded in muy first SR22 for a
PFD-equipped model, flown 900 accident-free hours in SR22s, and never had
to cancel a flight because of mechnical problems. To say I'm delighted with
the airplane would be an understatement.
>
> > The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not
> > 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF.
> >
>
> Even if it is, no one is going to overhaul an engine for an airframe that
> has only a few hundred hours left.

I'll guess I'll worry about that when I have 11,700 hours on my airframe.

>
> > The FAA has recently modified the type certificate for the SR22, giving
it
> > an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. At the time the comparison was
> > written, the lower figure was correct.
> >
>
> Who says? The modified type certificate has not been posted by the FAA. It
> has not been modified in the last 45 days, and the TCDS on the FAA website
> still gives an airframe life limit of 4350 hours. The latest type data
> certificate is Rev. 6, dated March 1, 2004. The airframe life limit is
still
> 4350 flight hours according to that certificate.

Apparently, the FAA has not yet updated the TCDS on their web site. In a
letter dated July 8, 2004, Angie Kostopoulos of the FAA Small Airplane
Directorate, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, said:

"The transmittal of this letter conveys our approval of the SR22 aircraft
life extension to 12,000 hours."

Unfortunately, I do not have a generally accessible link to this letter, but
you could verify it by calling Ms. Kostopoulos at 847-294-7426.

Wait, my crystal ball is telling me what your reply will be: It doesn't
matter, the airframe life limit is still too short. If it doesn't matter,
why did you bring up the issue of 4,350 vs. 12,000 hours? My apologies if
this rejoinder never crossed your mind.
>
>
> I think that the document is a fair comparison.

A few parts of the document contain fair comparisons. For example, the
greater prop clearance of the 182 makes it more suitable for rough fields.
Other parts of the document, like the ones that compare the performance of a
normally aspirated airplane with that of a turbocharged plane at higher
altitudes, are not fair. Different missions.

The document also omits some comparisons. For example, turbocharger
overhaul cost: SR22, $0, T182T, $thousands.

> It contains fewer inaccuracies than most of the baloney claimed by Cirrus
fans. Sorry it
> disappoints you, but pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a
> thing.

I'm not disappointed. The original document upon which this one is based
originated from a Cessna dealer, not the Cessna Corporation. Far from being
disappinted, it's just what I'd expect from a dealer who is losing a lot of
sales to a competitor.

I agree that pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a thing. It's
the major inaccuracies that taint the entire document.

-Mike

[H.P.]

I'm a newbie here but airplanenoise.com seems like its straight out of
Cessna's marketing department? I don't think I've ever seen such blatant
self-serving product marketing dressed-up as ersatz objective analysis!!
....except maybe in the case of Bose Corporation. In the comparisons with
every other aircraft make, the message is "Buy anything except a Cessna and
you'll go broke on the way to killing yourself". That kind of message
doesn't lend itself to much credence in my book.



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
> and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.
>
> http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Rick Durden]

CJ,

Badly out of date, slanted piece. I'd suggest that one look to
Aviation Consumer for a balanced look at the airplanes. On top of
that, I can't see why one would compare the two airplanes as they are
not targeted at the same market, given that one is turbocharged and
one is normally aspirated.

The turbo 182 is a superb airplane for the person who has a need to go
high, otherwise it's far slower than the Cirrus, so the comparison
isn't really accurate from that standpoint.

What the heck is "special white paint"? The material I've seen
indicates that the Cirrus has a white primary color with various
accent colors available, just as is offered for the 182. While
testing has indicated that even with black paint the airframe does not
come close to exceeding the temperatures that might cause it to
weaken, even when parked in the Sahara desert, the FAA has been
extremely conservative in the certification of composites and calls
for overall white paint.

The article was in error in a number of places, while emergency egress
is much better in the 182, it is not "impossible" in the SR20 and 22.
As part of testing Cirrus inverted an SR20 with its smallest employee
inside. She used the hammer that is standard equipment in the
airplane, broke out a window and was out within seconds. The Cirrus
has been spin tested, its recovery is conventional, as is the 182.
Neither are certified for intentional spins. The Cirrus did not
undergo the full regime of spin testing during original certification
and thus the published recovery method for departure from controlled
flight is to deploy the CAPS.

The article does not mention handling at all. While I like flying the
182, the Cirrus is far, far nicer and more enjoyable to fly, with much
more responsive handling.

There was no comparison of crashworthiness where the 182 does well,
the Cirrus does better because it has no yoke to hit, there is more
"flail" space for the front seat occupants. There is also more rear
seat room in the Cirrus, giving more "flail" space for those
occupants.

For minor damage, composites are easier to fix, hail tends to bounce
off, where it dents aluminum. If there is actually hangar rash to a
composite aircraft, you fix it by stirring up the epoxy, brushing it
on and smoothing to match, then heating it with a hair dryer. If it's
major damage, you replace the component. Aluminum is much more labor
intensive with far more parts, so composite construction is cheaper
and, due to the FARs, stronger than aluminum. At this point the
insurers like aluminium better because something like a loss of
control where the airplane goes up on a wingtip involves just
repairing the wing, which is cheaper than the needed wing replacement
on the composite airplane.

I'm wondering who wrote up the article as the ground handling is quite
comparable in the airplanes, the only place the castoring nosewheel
can be a handful is pushing the airplane backwards into a hangar,
something that is not a problem with the 182. Yes, a brake failure in
a castoring nosewheel airplane tends to cause one to discover that
taxiing is difficult if not impossible.

The airframe life and engine TBO numbers for the Cirrus were wrong.

I'm not sure I'd compare a turbocharged 182 to anything but another
turbocharged airplane, so until GAMI and Tornado Alley turbonormalize
a Cirrus, I would put this article in the dumper.

All the best,
Rick



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
> and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.
>
> http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf

[ISLIP]

>This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
>and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

and the sales figures for the last quarter and last year tell the real story of
aircraft acceptance. The article sounds like it was written by an aircraft
sales person desperate to stop losing sales to Cirrus Design.

John

23 years in Cessna., 18 happy months in Cirrus

[Michael]

"Mike Murdock" > wrote
> Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to grind
> about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
> pilots?

I'm not Mr. Campbell (fortunately) and I rarely agree with him on
anything. Further, I don't think much of the document cited.
However, I think that Cirrus fundamentally isn't being honest with its
target customer base.

I think the Cirrus is a fine airplane with some surprising limitations
in standard equipment. Selling what is supposed to be an IFR cruiser,
supposedly fully equipped without spherics, is just a bit odd. No
option for known ice is equally odd. I can't think of any part of the
US where you need IFR capability and don't need either one to maintain
that IFR capability year-round.

I think it's silly to compare the Cirrus and turbo 182 - the Cirrus
is, after all, over 30 kts faster. No amount of dancing will get
around that - and the 26 minute average trip difference falls appart
when the headwinds kick up.

I think the whole spin thing is way overrated - lots of GA airplanes
should not be spun. In fact, outside of some military trainers, I
really can't think of any 170+ kt IFR cruisers that don't have ugly
stall/spin characteristics. I see no real issue here - these are not
trainers, and should not be flown by novices.

And that is at the heart of the problem I have with the Cirrus. It's
presented as an airplane that the low time pilot can use to get solid
VFR and IFR utility. In reality, it will take significantly more
advanced designs than the Cirrus before this is possible, along with
some changes to the national airspace system. The 182 is a reasonable
airplane for a low time pilot, and turbocharging the engine really
doesn't change that. The Cirrus should be evaluated alongside planes
like the Bonanza, Viking, and similar performers - and pilot
experience should also be similar.

Michael

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:
> This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
> and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.
>
> http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf

It's telling that the article starts with flyover noise comparisons and
prop clearance. It's a poorly done attempt at a smear and shouldn't be
taken seriously by anyone with the ability to recognize obvious bias.

I have no vested interest in either aircraft, although I instruct in
both Cessna and Cirrus products. The Cirrus is an "interesting
airplane," and overall the value for the average prospective owner
(let's say, private pilot with an instrument rating) undergoing the
average mission (regional travel, 100-300 hours of flight time per year)
is just not there with the Cessna products anymore. Single-engine
piston airplane sales trends reflect this.

As a Cirrus Standardized Instructor, I have my own set of issues with
the SR-20 and SR-22. The cited article barely hints at the real
problems (which are NOT the chute or the composite airframe), and it
reads much like it was written by a person who has flown neither
aircraft. I believe that over time the Cirrus product will improve and
flourish, while the Cessna line has been taken as far as it can go,
G1000 or no.

In summary, if you operate from short/unimproved fields, the Cirrus is
not a realistic choice for you. If you want to rocket along at 180+
knots with a fairly advanced (although not overly redundant) avionics
package, the SR-22 might fit you like a glove.

Side note, the SR-22 is among the most spin-resistant airplanes on the
market today. Spins in the SR are a red herring - think electrical
system and avionics redundancy if you want to dive into the real can of
worms.

-Ryan

[Ryan Ferguson]

ISLIP wrote:

> and the sales figures for the last quarter and last year tell the
real story of
> aircraft acceptance. The article sounds like it was written by an aircraft
> sales person desperate to stop losing sales to Cirrus Design.

You're right. They are worried, and they are desperate. It is common
practice by every Cessna salesperson I've known to viciously slam the
Cirrus product line.

In my view they should go the same route Piper has, which is to focus on
aircraft which have load-hauling capability. This is the only real area
in which Cessna has an advantage over Cirrus, for now.

-Ryan

[Matt Whiting]

H.P. wrote:

> I'm a newbie here but airplanenoise.com seems like its straight out of
> Cessna's marketing department? I don't think I've ever seen such blatant
> self-serving product marketing dressed-up as ersatz objective analysis!!
> ...except maybe in the case of Bose Corporation. In the comparisons with
> every other aircraft make, the message is "Buy anything except a Cessna and
> you'll go broke on the way to killing yourself". That kind of message
> doesn't lend itself to much credence in my book.

True, but the most egregious error is that it fails to mention that real
airplanes have the wing on top! :-)


Matt

[Maule Driver]

Well, I wish it was a buying decision I expect to face...

CJC - I've always taken your posts seriously in the past. Will be difficult
after that biased pile of dung.

I hope you do work for Cessna - it's the only reasonable excuse.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
> and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.
>
> http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
om...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
> > and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.
> >
> > http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
>
> It's telling that the article starts with flyover noise comparisons and
> prop clearance. It's a poorly done attempt at a smear and shouldn't be
> taken seriously by anyone with the ability to recognize obvious bias.

Have you seen the "Stop the Noise" thread?

[Nathan Young]

On 20 Jul 2004 13:31:05 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

>"Mike Murdock" > wrote
>> Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to grind
>> about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
>> pilots?
>
>I'm not Mr. Campbell (fortunately) and I rarely agree with him on
>anything. Further, I don't think much of the document cited.
>However, I think that Cirrus fundamentally isn't being honest with its
>target customer base.
>
>I think the Cirrus is a fine airplane with some surprising limitations
>in standard equipment. Selling what is supposed to be an IFR cruiser,
>supposedly fully equipped without spherics, is just a bit odd. No
>option for known ice is equally odd. I can't think of any part of the
>US where you need IFR capability and don't need either one to maintain
>that IFR capability year-round.

WX-500 displayed on the Avidyne is an option on all Cirrus models:
SRV, SR20 & 22. I flew a Skywatch equipped SR22 a few months ago,
what a treat. Really helps with traffic awareness. I'm sure the
WX-500 is equally cool.

TKS is also an option. Not sure if it is K-ice though.

-Nathan

[C J Campbell]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
.com...
> Well, I wish it was a buying decision I expect to face...
>

I wish it was, too.

> CJC - I've always taken your posts seriously in the past. Will be
difficult
> after that biased pile of dung.
>

I did not write the biased pile of dung. However, I think it is no more
biased than Cirrus' advertising. I believe it brings up a serious number of
legitimate issues.

> I hope you do work for Cessna - it's the only reasonable excuse.
>

Most know that I work for a CSTAR, but not Cessna itself. Personally, I
enjoyed flying the Diamond far more than I did the 182.

I am also not yet convinced that the G-1000 (or any other flat panel
display) is really worth the premium. It is pretty and I could get used to
it, maybe even proficient with it, but how much additional utility do I get
out of it?

[C J Campbell]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Murdock" > wrote
> > Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to
grind
> > about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
> > pilots?
>
> I'm not Mr. Campbell (fortunately) and I rarely agree with him on
> anything.

I really hate having to agree with you on something. It is almost enough to
make me change my mind. But, yes, I think the big problem is the type of
pilot that the SR22 is being marketed to.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> If you
> are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in the
> pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.
>

Pleas don't buy ANY airplane, in that case. None are any more recoverable
than the other.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> Why? Are you a Cirrus dealer?
>

Well, the author of those documents is a Cessna dealer, that's for
sure. Look at the other docs on the site.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> However, I think it is no more
> biased than Cirrus' advertising.
>

Ah, but it is not branded as advertising, but rather claims to be some
objective comparison. Now that I've read it, I have to say that this
article is the most blatant piece of propaganda I have read in a long
time. Total, utter junk.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[lance smith]

Did some digging...

The administrative contact for airplanenoise.com is Pat Redmond and
the website mentions they are located at KOZW. A quick google shows
that Pat is the sales guy at Suburban Aviation at KDUH which is the
"exclusive Cessna sales representative for Michigan" and has just
expanded into KOZW.

http://www.suburbanaviation.com/sba/marketing.htm
http://www.suburbanaviation.com/sba/press_release.PDF

-lance smith


"Maule Driver" > wrote in message >...
> Well, I wish it was a buying decision I expect to face...
>
> CJC - I've always taken your posts seriously in the past. Will be difficult
> after that biased pile of dung.
>
> I hope you do work for Cessna - it's the only reasonable excuse.
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
> airplanes
> > and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.
> >
> > http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
> >
> > --
> > Christopher J. Campbell
> > World Famous Flight Instructor
> > Port Orchard, WA
> >
> >
> > If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
> >
> >
> >

[C J Campbell]

"lance smith" > wrote in message
m...
> Did some digging...
>
> The administrative contact for airplanenoise.com is Pat Redmond and
> the website mentions they are located at KOZW. A quick google shows
> that Pat is the sales guy at Suburban Aviation at KDUH which is the
> "exclusive Cessna sales representative for Michigan" and has just
> expanded into KOZW.

Ah, well I guess everything it says is untrue then. By extension, we can say
that everything that Cirrus supporters say is untrue, because they are also
biased. In fact, everything that Kerry says about Bush is untrue, everything
that Bush says about Kerry is untrue, and everything that everybody says
about Martin Hotze is untrue. :-)

[Dude]

Yep, that is the main gripe indeed. And it makes me question the character
of the Cirrus people that they do this. I suppose they must believe the
trade offs made on safety v. performance do not compromise safety. Also,
the must believe in the chute (though I know for a fact that at least one of
them is selling his soul on both issues).

In the end, I believe they could have made the SRV with different feathers
so that it was more spin worthy and less stall resistant. Then they would
have the perfect trainer for the more advanced planes. Unfortunately, the
SRV is really a low ball to get folks in the 172/ archer market to call
them. Apparently, they chickened out on the funds to do it right.


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Mike Murdock" > wrote
> > > Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to
> grind
> > > about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
> > > pilots?
> >
> > I'm not Mr. Campbell (fortunately) and I rarely agree with him on
> > anything.
>
> I really hate having to agree with you on something. It is almost enough
to
> make me change my mind. But, yes, I think the big problem is the type of
> pilot that the SR22 is being marketed to.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "lance smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Did some digging...
> >
> > The administrative contact for airplanenoise.com is Pat Redmond and
> > the website mentions they are located at KOZW. A quick google shows
> > that Pat is the sales guy at Suburban Aviation at KDUH which is the
> > "exclusive Cessna sales representative for Michigan" and has just
> > expanded into KOZW.
>
> Ah, well I guess everything it says is untrue then.

Even their performance/specification/statistical data is, well, it's 96.7%
untrue.

>By extension, we can say
> that everything that Cirrus supporters say is untrue, because they are
also
> biased. In fact, everything that Kerry says about Bush is untrue,
everything
> that Bush says about Kerry is untrue, and everything that everybody says
> about Martin Hotze is untrue. :-)

That's true.

[Dude]

Not just Cessna.

Here as an experiment. Have one person go to a number of booths at Oshkoth
and say how they just bought a Cirrus, but they are looking around for fun.
Have them say they have 300 hours, instrument rating, and pay $4800 per year
for insurance.

Then, have another person go around with the same story except instead of
buying a Cirrus, have them say they would never buy a Cirrus due to safety
and quality concerns.

Compare and contrast the remarks you recieve from other companies'
representatives.

If you hit the right buttons, you can get a lot these guys ranting about
Cirrus. While many of them may be hacks, a lot of them are professionals
with tons of aviation experience. I came to the conclusion that many of
them would not sell Cirrus.




"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
om...
> ISLIP wrote:
>
> > and the sales figures for the last quarter and last year tell the
> real story of
> > aircraft acceptance. The article sounds like it was written by an
aircraft
> > sales person desperate to stop losing sales to Cirrus Design.
>
> You're right. They are worried, and they are desperate. It is common
> practice by every Cessna salesperson I've known to viciously slam the
> Cirrus product line.
>
> In my view they should go the same route Piper has, which is to focus on
> aircraft which have load-hauling capability. This is the only real area
> in which Cessna has an advantage over Cirrus, for now.
>
> -Ryan

[Michael]

Nathan Young > wrote
> WX-500 displayed on the Avidyne is an option on all Cirrus models:

And standard on none, with any package.

> SRV, SR20 & 22. I flew a Skywatch equipped SR22 a few months ago,
> what a treat. Really helps with traffic awareness. I'm sure the
> WX-500 is equally cool.

It's not a matter of cool, it's a matter of being able to fly when
there are T-storms around. Having flown with both Skywatch and
Stormscope, I have to say that Stormscope is WAY more important.

> TKS is also an option. Not sure if it is K-ice though.

It is not. Further, it has a very small fluid reservoir compared to
what's available on airplanes of similar performance.

Michael

[Maule Driver]

This is all marketing tactic crap. Great stuff, right up there with
politics. Marketing and politics - 2 places where subjective eloquence is
prized and valued. No one expects objectivity or even facts (see
Kerry/Bush). Hell, even Vans quotes his performance numbers in mph -
they're apparently accurate but still have to be spun.

I'd buy a Cirrus over a 182 in a second (if it they both fit my mission).
Why? Speed baby. 30% or better is the whole ball game. That's why we put
up with retracts. And sex appeal! The 182 looks like 1954, the Cirrus
looks and flies like Century 21.

Am I being oversold? I have a couple of thousand hours of private flight,
glider, IFR, Comm, Multi. I fly a high wing, a Maule for crissakes. I
can't imagine pulling the chute and I don't care whether it's there or not.
I *know* the 182 is solid as rock and that the SR stuff is new and will have
bugs. Sex and speed any day.

Flat panel displays? That game is over... we'll all going there.
Integrated avionics is as certain as evolution. Steam guages will go the
way of, well, steam ("what's steam daddy?"). Remember, I choose to fly a
tailwheel, and a high wing, and on grass.

SEL 4 place aircraft are expensive toys and business tools. They are
discretionary expenses. Why buy the latest turbocharged rendition of a '54
truck if you have a choice?

Well I would. I live on grass and if I had $300k to spend on personal
travel, a new 182 might be about right. But I still couldn't bring myself
to buy the original '54 truck with the $60k I did have. The Maule is
sexier! (man, that's tough to say... sort of like arguing over who's grandma
is sexier) In OTW, I don't have a choice, but if I did....


"C J Campbell" > >
> I did not write the biased pile of dung. However, I think it is no more
> biased than Cirrus' advertising. I believe it brings up a serious number
of
> legitimate issues.
>
> I am also not yet convinced that the G-1000 (or any other flat panel
> display) is really worth the premium. It is pretty and I could get used to
> it, maybe even proficient with it, but how much additional utility do I
get
> out of it?
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Ah, but it is not branded as advertising, but rather claims to be some
> objective comparison. Now that I've read it, I have to say that this
> article is the most blatant piece of propaganda I have read in a long
> time. Total, utter junk.

In my business, such nonsense is called a "whitepaper".

If you're careful about what you believe, these can be useful. Think of
them as a source of questions rather than answers.

- Andrew

[lance smith]

Well you know there are no truths in the world : )

I agree the article does raise some valid points. It'd be nice if they
did some fact checking and were not so biased, but either way there is
data in there. I think they're actually hurting their cause, it's hard
to take (arguments from) zealots seriously.

p.s. As a renter I'm in neither camp. What I get depends on what I
need for the day.

-lance smith


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "lance smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Did some digging...
> >
> > The administrative contact for airplanenoise.com is Pat Redmond and
> > the website mentions they are located at KOZW. A quick google shows
> > that Pat is the sales guy at Suburban Aviation at KDUH which is the
> > "exclusive Cessna sales representative for Michigan" and has just
> > expanded into KOZW.
>
> Ah, well I guess everything it says is untrue then. By extension, we can say
> that everything that Cirrus supporters say is untrue, because they are also
> biased. In fact, everything that Kerry says about Bush is untrue, everything
> that Bush says about Kerry is untrue, and everything that everybody says
> about Martin Hotze is untrue. :-)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> Ah, well I guess everything it says is untrue then.
>

Again, the key issue here is that this advertising comes in the
disguise of a quasi-objective comparison. THAT is the point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Andrew,

> If you're careful about what you believe, these can be useful. Think of
> them as a source of questions rather than answers.
>

I like that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

Thomas Borchert > wrote
> > If you
> > are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in the
> > pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.
> >
>
> Pleas don't buy ANY airplane, in that case. None are any more recoverable
> than the other.

Not true. I know a person who recovered from a low altitude (about
300 ft) unintentional spin on final, and there are others. None of
them did it in a 170+ kt IFR cruiser, though.

Michael

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> Not true. I know a person who recovered from a low altitude (about
> 300 ft) unintentional spin on final, and there are others. None of
> them did it in a 170+ kt IFR cruiser, though.
>

Well, time to read the fine print: The Cirrus takes 800 feet or so to
recover _from a fully developed spin_. I doubt any other aircraft will
take less altitude. It's very unlikely that 300 feet recovery was from
a fully developed spin.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> > If you
> > are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in
the
> > pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.
> >
>
> Pleas don't buy ANY airplane, in that case. None are any more recoverable
> than the other.

That is just plane silly (sorry). :-)

Seriously, are you suggesting that roll rate and other maneuverability
factors are equal in all airplanes? I am certain that it is possible to
recover from even an inverted spin from 500 feet in some airplanes. I would
bet that it is even possible in a Cessna 172. I haven't tried it, but in
such a situation I would add rudder opposite the spin, push the yoke forward
to break the stall, add power if not nose down and the engine is still
running, otherwise reduce power until the nose comes up. Once the stall is
broken then roll wings level and let the engine restart (it probably will
quit if you are inverted). Of course, I would be miffed that I managed to
get myself into a skidding base to final in the first place.

[Maule Driver]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike,
> >
> > > If you
> > > are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in
> the
> > > pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.
> > >
> >
> > Pleas don't buy ANY airplane, in that case. None are any more
recoverable
> > than the other.
>
> That is just plane silly (sorry). :-)
>
> Seriously, are you suggesting that roll rate and other maneuverability
> factors are equal in all airplanes? I am certain that it is possible to
> recover from even an inverted spin from 500 feet in some airplanes. I
would
> bet that it is even possible in a Cessna 172. I haven't tried it, but in
> such a situation I would add rudder opposite the spin, push the yoke
forward
> to break the stall, add power if not nose down and the engine is still
> running, otherwise reduce power until the nose comes up. Once the stall is
> broken then roll wings level and let the engine restart (it probably will
> quit if you are inverted). Of course, I would be miffed that I managed to
> get myself into a skidding base to final in the first place.
>
No you are plane silly. I know how to spin. I like spins. I know how to
recover. Just like the FAA, I slowly realized that spin recovery has little
to do with spin danger for non acro operations.

This past Saturday a pilot lost his life a few hundred yards from my house
in a stall spin accident. Since the a/c was an extremely manueverable
model, it entered the spin quickly. The fact that it occurred about 2
wingspans above the ground made recovery difficult.

The point is *not spinning* in normal ops.

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

Yep, and all that in 500 ft. Nice of you to be on the forum, Superman.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jack]

Michael wrote:

> I know a person who recovered from a low altitude (about
> 300 ft) unintentional spin on final....

I suspect you know someone who _claims_ to have done so.


Jack

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> This past Saturday a pilot lost his life a few hundred yards from my house
> in a stall spin accident. Since the a/c was an extremely manueverable
> model, it entered the spin quickly. The fact that it occurred about 2
> wingspans above the ground made recovery difficult.
>

Do you by any chance live at Lake Ridge Aero in North Carolina? This
sounds a lot like an accident that happened there this past weekend.