Insurance for Cirrus SR20 and SR22

[Doodybutch]

I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.

An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is much
higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic parachutes.
Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and there have been a
number of deployments.

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.

Thanks,

DB

[John E. Carty]

Why not ask Cirrus?:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/contact/

"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
>together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.
>
> An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
> much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
> parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
> there have been a number of deployments.
>
> I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> DB
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
>together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.
>
> An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
> much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
> parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
> there have been a number of deployments.
>
> I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> DB

The latest AOPA Pilot addresses this directly. For a 500 hour pilot with 100
hours in retracts, and no time in make and model the figures are:

2004 Cirrus SR22: $10,800/yr.

2004 Mooney Ovation 2: $6,400

2004 C-182 $3,700

Obviously, the Cirrus carries a penatly, even against the retractable
Mooney. Against the fixed gear Cessna, the difference is more noticable.

KB

[tony roberts]

It isn't totalled after deployment.
Cirrus will rebuild it for $200,000.
Insurance would rather pay $200,000 for a rebuild than pay for dead
bodies.
So am I recommending it?
Hell no. Any plane that has a history of loss of control while on
autopilot at altitude (and then deployment of BRS) needs more
investigating.
Also, I personally am not confident in flying a plane that has no
procedure for spin recovery other than deploy BRS.

BTW - these are not my opinions - I'm quoting directly from the March
2005 COPA newsletter - so any flames may be directed to COPA.

Having said all of that, they have exceeded Cessna in sales.
Go figure!


Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article >,
"Doodybutch" > wrote:

> I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
> together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.
>
> An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is much
> higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic parachutes.
> Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and there have been a
> number of deployments.
>
> I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> DB




--

[BTIZ]

Currently the Cirrus is having a higher accident rate per hours flown than
most other single engine aircraft... it's new.. and harder to fix for minor
dings than bent sheet metal..

Also, I do not fly a Cirrus, but have seen that pilots used to C-182s or
Mooney's are not used to the speed and fast wing of the Cirrus... lots of
long hot landings on short runways...

BT

"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
>together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.
>
> An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
> much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
> parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
> there have been a number of deployments.
>
> I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> DB
>

[Dave]

Agreed Tony!

I like airplanes that respond to my control inputs, correct or not...

I have a real problem with the so called "recovery" procedures in this
design.

Would like to see the 'chute to be the LAST resort, not the first
recovery procedure..

Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design
has recovery problems?

Dave


On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:24:00 GMT, tony roberts >
wrote:


>So am I recommending it?
>Hell no. Any plane that has a history of loss of control while on
>autopilot at altitude (and then deployment of BRS) needs more
>investigating.
>Also, I personally am not confident in flying a plane that has no
>procedure for spin recovery other than deploy BRS.

[Jimmy B.]

Doodybutch wrote:
> I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
> together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.
>
> An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is much
> higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic parachutes.
> Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and there have been a
> number of deployments.
>
> I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> DB
>
>
The other issue is that the Cirrus is an unknown. There just isn't
enough of them out there to get good statical data. Of course, the
insurance industry will error on the negative side for you (positive for
them.)

[Jimmy B.]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Doodybutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
>>together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.
>>
>>An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
>>much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
>>parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
>>there have been a number of deployments.
>>
>>I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>DB
>
>
> The latest AOPA Pilot addresses this directly. For a 500 hour pilot with 100
> hours in retracts, and no time in make and model the figures are:
>
> 2004 Cirrus SR22: $10,800/yr.

Holy cow, that's a lot of money! I didn't know that the premium for
Cirrus' was that much.


>
> 2004 Mooney Ovation 2: $6,400
>
> 2004 C-182 $3,700
>
> Obviously, the Cirrus carries a penatly, even against the retractable
> Mooney. Against the fixed gear Cessna, the difference is more noticable.
>
> KB
>
>

[Mike Murdock]

The figures published in "AOPA Pilot" may be high, for various reasons I
won't go into. You might want to Call NationAir, an insurance broker which
carries a lot of Cirrus policies. Call the St. Louis office at (877) 475
5860. If you ask for Karen Caudle or J.T. Helms, they should be able to
give you some estimates, based on your experience level.

As to the unsolicited advice you've received on whether or not to buy a
Cirrus, I'd like to add one more piece: Don't believe everything people say
on Usenet (including my advice, which is why I'm giving you references to
verify it). My unscientific estimate is that at least 95% of Cirrus owners
are delighted with their airplanes. There seem to be some disgruntled
non-owners in this newsgroup, however. Go figure.

If you're not already a member of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association,
you can join for $50 a year. You can read the unvarnished truth about the
plane there -- warts and all. If it convinces you that you wouldn't be
happy with a Cirrus, it will have saved you way more than $50 in grief. At
any rate, you can get WAY more than $50 in good advice for aviation in
general (not limited to Cirrus) there. You don't have to be an owner to
join. You just have to pay the 50 bucks :)

http://www.cirruspilots.org

Best of luck in your endeavor, whichever type of plane you buy. There are
no bad types of general aviation airplanes -- just good and better.

-Mike

"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
>together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.
>
> An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
> much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
> parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
> there have been a number of deployments.
>
> I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> DB
>

[Dude]

>
> Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design
> has recovery problems?
>
> Dave
>

I got theories, but given my level of expertise, they are better labeled
guesses. I have to warn you that just asking that question is considered
heresy by many. Obviously, anyone outside of the government or Cirrus would
have to have a LOT of resources and motivation to figure this out for real.
Maybe one of the big insurers might care enough, but they would likely only
bullly Cirrus into doing the testing. USAIG has reportedly come to call in
Duluth, but has not yet demanded that Cirrus perform the normal tests in
spite of the BRS supported waiver.

Looking at a Cirrus it seems to me the CG may be too high above the wing.
Of course, this is even more true about many modern Bizjets, but intuitively
it would seem to be a bad thing for spin recovery.

The wing loading seems to be pretty high compared to the weight of the
plane, but I have no idea how this relates. In fact, if you look at the
Bizjets again, it would seem that this is not necessarily a problem.

Lastly, the shape of the wing is very complex, and it would seem that they
over did it on the spin resistance bit. How this makes it tough to recover,
or even if its a factor is unknown.

The bottom line may be that the growth of BRS technology that Cirrus is
indirectly funding could be worth the losses in the long run (not that the
families of the lost will see it that way). It could also be that after we
get another few million hours, the Cirrus will prove to be as safe as the
Cessna's and Diamonds (but I think the verdict is in already).

For me, it all didn't matter. I am convinced that the quality is just not
there. In spite of the G2 improvements, I think they are still a long way
behind the other major players, and especially behind Lancair and Diamond.

[Dude]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:g%q1e.436$ZV5.418@fed1read05...
> Currently the Cirrus is having a higher accident rate per hours flown than
> most other single engine aircraft... it's new.. and harder to fix for
> minor dings than bent sheet metal..
>
Its not harder to fix, you have to have a different skill set. A minor flaw
in aluminum costs almost exactly the same to repair from my experience. The
only difference is that the metal plane likely has a harder to match color.

> Also, I do not fly a Cirrus, but have seen that pilots used to C-182s or
> Mooney's are not used to the speed and fast wing of the Cirrus... lots of
> long hot landings on short runways...
>

Which Mooney are you speaking of? Any Mooney built in the last decade is
faster than a Cirrus. Of course, it also likely has speed brakes, and is
more respected by its pilot. Ask a few Cirrus pilot (or any others) which
plane requires more skill and attention, and they will undoubtedly say the
Mooney. I think that is why the Cirrus accidents reduced when they started
more training. The Mooney guys were mostly getting that kind of training
already.

[Dude]

>>
>>
> The other issue is that the Cirrus is an unknown. There just isn't enough
> of them out there to get good statical data. Of course, the insurance
> industry will error on the negative side for you (positive for them.)

How many planes, and flight hours, do you propose is necessary before it is
statistically relevant?

[Michael]

Dude wrote:
> Which Mooney are you speaking of? Any Mooney built in the last
decade is
> faster than a Cirrus.

Any Mooney built in the last decade is an R-model or later, and there
weren't many of those built. I have some time in an F model and also
in an R model, ant they're only vaguely similar.

> Of course, it also likely has speed brakes,

And in any case has retractable landing gear. I have some time in a
Cirrus as well, and mostly I've noticed that it requires more thought
given to descent planning than anything else I've flown - BE-55, C-310,
PA-30, M20R, and the 33/35/36 Beeches included. The full flap speed is
low, the first notch won't do much, and the gear is fixed yet the plane
is still clean and slippery. I didn't find it to be a challenge, but
then I had close to 1000 hours in those sorts of planes when I flew it.
I doubt it's the guys with that experience level who are having the
accidents.

> and is more respected by its pilot.

And there's the main issue. I have a feeling that once insurance
companies get used to treating the Cirrus they way they treat expensive
new big-engine Bonanzas and Mooneys, the accident picture will smooth
out.

> Ask a few Cirrus pilot (or any others) which
> plane requires more skill and attention, and they will undoubtedly
say the
> Mooney.

I wouldn't say that. Having flown both the modern Mooney and the
Cirrus, I think it's really a wash. The older Mooney is easier -
things happen slower, it's easier to slow down, etc. The Bonanzas are
definitely easier - to slow down/get down and to land. The Cirrus is
not a simple airplane, to be compared to a C-182. It's a fast,
slippery airplane comparable to an A36/V35 or M20R/S, and more
demanding in some respects. It's missing a couple of levers, but
that's not where the complexity comes in.

> I think that is why the Cirrus accidents reduced when they started
> more training. The Mooney guys were mostly getting that kind of
training
> already.

I think you're right on the money there.

Michael

[Dude]

>
>> Ask a few Cirrus pilot (or any others) which
>> plane requires more skill and attention, and they will undoubtedly
> say the
>> Mooney.
>
> I wouldn't say that. Having flown both the modern Mooney and the
> Cirrus, I think it's really a wash.

I am with you there, and from the rest of your comments, I think you are
more informed than most. You would likely be in the minority of our poll.

We agree totally.

[Dave]

Interesting..

I have not flown one, so I have to depend on the thoughts/theories of
others.

The Aircraft appears to be correctly ptoportioned with the
possible exception of the center of laterial (side) area, (smallish
vertical fin/rudder) maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a
float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added...

But no one has reported any yaw instability or dutch roll
tendencies. (?)

Spin recovery/training is part of the training in Canada, - we
spin ours often just cause it is a hoot and keeps us aware of the
"feel" of what can cause a spin etc.

We get to practice our recovery techniques often, and feel
it's a good thing to do in trying to stay "sharp" with the aircraft..

Nice aircraft, but the whole idea if an aircraft that has (for
me) a serious design issue is troubling.

Thanks for your reply..

Dave


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:15:22 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>>
>> Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design
>> has recovery problems?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
>I got theories, but given my level of expertise, they are better labeled
>guesses. I have to warn you that just asking that question is considered
>heresy by many. Obviously, anyone outside of the government or Cirrus would
>have to have a LOT of resources and motivation to figure this out for real.
>Maybe one of the big insurers might care enough, but they would likely only
>bullly Cirrus into doing the testing. USAIG has reportedly come to call in
>Duluth, but has not yet demanded that Cirrus perform the normal tests in
>spite of the BRS supported waiver.
>
>Looking at a Cirrus it seems to me the CG may be too high above the wing.
>Of course, this is even more true about many modern Bizjets, but intuitively
>it would seem to be a bad thing for spin recovery.
>
>The wing loading seems to be pretty high compared to the weight of the
>plane, but I have no idea how this relates. In fact, if you look at the
>Bizjets again, it would seem that this is not necessarily a problem.
>
>Lastly, the shape of the wing is very complex, and it would seem that they
>over did it on the spin resistance bit. How this makes it tough to recover,
>or even if its a factor is unknown.
>
>The bottom line may be that the growth of BRS technology that Cirrus is
>indirectly funding could be worth the losses in the long run (not that the
>families of the lost will see it that way). It could also be that after we
>get another few million hours, the Cirrus will prove to be as safe as the
>Cessna's and Diamonds (but I think the verdict is in already).
>
>For me, it all didn't matter. I am convinced that the quality is just not
>there. In spite of the G2 improvements, I think they are still a long way
>behind the other major players, and especially behind Lancair and Diamond.
>

[Dave]

WHOOPS!

Thinking one thing, typing another.......

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:16:05 -0400, Dave
> wrote:

maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a
>float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added...

Should have written.."causing this center to be well _forward_"....

...Sorry.....

Dave




>Interesting..
>
>I have not flown one, so I have to depend on the thoughts/theories of
>others.
>
> The Aircraft appears to be correctly ptoportioned with the
>possible exception of the center of laterial (side) area, (smallish
>vertical fin/rudder) maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a
>float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added...
>
> But no one has reported any yaw instability or dutch roll
>tendencies. (?)
>
> Spin recovery/training is part of the training in Canada, - we
>spin ours often just cause it is a hoot and keeps us aware of the
>"feel" of what can cause a spin etc.
>
> We get to practice our recovery techniques often, and feel
>it's a good thing to do in trying to stay "sharp" with the aircraft..
>
> Nice aircraft, but the whole idea if an aircraft that has (for
>me) a serious design issue is troubling.
>
> Thanks for your reply..
>
>Dave
>
>
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:15:22 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design
>>> has recovery problems?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>>I got theories, but given my level of expertise, they are better labeled
>>guesses. I have to warn you that just asking that question is considered
>>heresy by many. Obviously, anyone outside of the government or Cirrus would
>>have to have a LOT of resources and motivation to figure this out for real.
>>Maybe one of the big insurers might care enough, but they would likely only
>>bullly Cirrus into doing the testing. USAIG has reportedly come to call in
>>Duluth, but has not yet demanded that Cirrus perform the normal tests in
>>spite of the BRS supported waiver.
>>
>>Looking at a Cirrus it seems to me the CG may be too high above the wing.
>>Of course, this is even more true about many modern Bizjets, but intuitively
>>it would seem to be a bad thing for spin recovery.
>>
>>The wing loading seems to be pretty high compared to the weight of the
>>plane, but I have no idea how this relates. In fact, if you look at the
>>Bizjets again, it would seem that this is not necessarily a problem.
>>
>>Lastly, the shape of the wing is very complex, and it would seem that they
>>over did it on the spin resistance bit. How this makes it tough to recover,
>>or even if its a factor is unknown.
>>
>>The bottom line may be that the growth of BRS technology that Cirrus is
>>indirectly funding could be worth the losses in the long run (not that the
>>families of the lost will see it that way). It could also be that after we
>>get another few million hours, the Cirrus will prove to be as safe as the
>>Cessna's and Diamonds (but I think the verdict is in already).
>>
>>For me, it all didn't matter. I am convinced that the quality is just not
>>there. In spite of the G2 improvements, I think they are still a long way
>>behind the other major players, and especially behind Lancair and Diamond.
>>