Cirrus SR22 demo flight

[[email protected]]

Last week I went for an hour-long CFI demo flight in an SR22-GTS. What
an amazing airplane! Huge difference from the Lance I currently fly. A
comfy car-like leather interior, and the presentation from the two
Avidyne panels was just incredible. The takeoff roll was short (only 2
aboard with less than full fuel) and the climb - 1000fpm @ 110kts.
4500ft showed 185ktas. I'm still not sold on the single lever power,
but I know Cirrus did that to simplify engine control.

I can see Cirrus overtaking Cessna as the largest producer of GA
aircraft fairly soon. IMHO A plane that goes nearly as fast as a Baron
with one engine and fixed gear will appeal to more people than dated
designs like Saratogas, Skylanes, Bonanzas (fill in the blank) or even
light twins. While these are all good airplanes they can't compare to
new technology. I figure unless you actually need the two extra seats,
and how often do 6 pax acft fly with all seats full anyway, this seems
like a great alternative. First year insurance is a tad steep though. I
suspect after a few years with more acft in the fleet and more training
in type the accident rate will go down and hopefully the premiums too.
You'd think the rates would be less than a comparable retract, but that
remains to be seen. Not sure how many Columbia 350/400s Lancair is
selling, but I think both companies are on to something. Now if I could
just scrape together $400K...

[Paul kgyy]

$400K for an airplane that uses 1940 engine technology?

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> $400K for an airplane that uses 1940 engine technology?
>

So what's your choice, for 400k?

Also, some people spend that much for a plane that, in addition, has a
60s design (can you say Mooney?).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Paul kgyy]

1969 Arrow for 1/8 of that cost - at least the airframe sort of matches
the engine technology.

$400K for an airplane that has to be preheated when the temperature
falls below 32F? Ugh

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> 1969 Arrow for 1/8 of that cost - at least the airframe sort of matches
> the engine technology.
>

Have you flown the Cirrus? Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in
comparison. You'll forget the engine real soon.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ben Hallert]

Does it suck $350,000 worth of rocks?

I'm intrigued by the Cirrus, but I don't see myself buying one within
the depreciation window. It's my understanding that, on average,
planes stop heavy depreciation after about 7-8 years, but that's just
something I heard. It seems like new planes are for people with money
to throw away, but different folks get different things out of their
purchases. My wife and I buy cars that are between 1.5 and 2.5 years
old, just after the wildest depreciation has ended. We get essentially
new cars for a LOT less then the new price, plus any lemons have been
weeded out, initial recalls have been taken care of, and the little
stuff that inevitably goes bad with a brand new device has already been
cleaned up.

I'd definately apply the same logic to airplanes personally, but if I
were a corporation that could see a tax benefit out of having a clear
capital depreciation scale because I have millions I make elsewhere,
then sure, the Cirrus might be logical, but otherwise, as an individual
buyer, I'd wait a little longer.

This is completely aside to the nervousness I about the design of the
cirrus. Personally, I'm not sure I want a plane who's first recovery
technique for everything is 'pull the silks'. Parachute deployment
seems like it should be a last step, not a first. It looks like a very
nice plane, of course. Maybe in the next few years I'll 'grow out of'
those concerns. I'd love to try out that avionics package and the view
looks incredible, but not until they've come down a little in price.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Thomas Borchert]

Ben,

> Does it suck $350,000 worth of rocks?

I guess the market is answering that - with a resounding YES! Not for
everyone, of course - I can't afford one, either. But, together with
Lancair, it is on a pretty sure way to become the market leader and
dethrone Cessna real soon. Oh, and of course I'd love for it to have a
modern, economical Thielert engine.


> Personally, I'm not sure I want a plane who's first recovery
> technique for everything is 'pull the silks'.

That a, well, gross oversimplification of facts, to put it mildly - but
the issue has been debated to death here, so let's not go there again.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

> Have you flown the Cirrus?

I have. My first flight in one involved bailing out the pilot, who
botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me
understand why the accident rate was what it was.

> Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison.

Wrong comparison. The right comparison is a 1965 S-model Bonanza with
the IO-550. Which does NOT suck rocks. And a REALLY nice one, decked
out and with everything in great shape, is still less than half the
cost of the new Cirrus.

All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I
fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.

> You'll forget the engine real soon.

No you won't. At least I couldn't. Oh, they've done everything they
could to put a modern false face on the engine - but it's still
obsolete technology. You set up the engine monitor with lean assist
mode, and it all looks modern. So you advance the power lever until
you see 75%, and you start pulling back the mixture. The EGT's peak,
the bars turn blue, and eventually, about 30-40 degrees LOP, the thing
flashes "BEST ECONOMY" at you. But now you look at the power gauge and
you have a lot less than 75% power going. Now what? Advance the power
lever, I guess. Now where are you relative to peak? Guess you'll have
to restart the leaning process. Enrich to peak and a bit more, reset
the lean assist, relean. And then watch the %power gauge fluctuate in
LOP operation - and I don't mean 1-2%, I mean more like 5-10%.

It's real obvious that you're dealing with ancient engine technology
with a digital false face grafted on. Better than nothing, I suppose -
but no better than the Bonanza with a JPI at a fraction of the price.

Michael

[Montblack]

("Ben Hallert" wrote)
> purchases. My wife and I buy cars that are between 1.5 and 2.5 years
> old, just after the wildest depreciation has ended. We get essentially
> new cars for a LOT less then the new price, plus any lemons have been
> weeded out, initial recalls have been taken care of, and the little
> stuff that inevitably goes bad with a brand new device has already been
> cleaned up.


How old are the older Cirri?

How much are those vs. buying a new Cirrus today?

Are they holding their value? Relative to other used/new planes? Curious?


Montblack

[Paul kgyy]

Well, the Arrow gets 140 knots on 150 hp (75%) with 1000 lbs useful
load, and of course it's a prehistoric cabin design, but early Bonanzas
weren't any faster until they beefed up the engine, which doesn't count
in my view of aeronautical efficiency. I've flown a couple of the
newer designs (though not the Cirrus) The creature comforts are really
fine, they fly well, the glass panel is awesome, the skin is smooth
(though I'm not sure how smooth it'll be in 40 years after sitting
outside half the time).

It just doesn't make any sense to me, in spite of all of the above, to
invest that much depreciable money in a plane that cools off every time
I reduce power, has to be preheated all winter, burns a quart of oil
every 10 operating hours, and requires a manual mixture adjustment.
Many of the changes are admittedly much more than cosmetic, but the
engine is still a fairly important component of the system.

[Happy Dog]

"Michael" > wrote in
>> Have you flown the Cirrus?
>
> I have. My first flight in one involved bailing out the pilot, who
> botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me
> understand why the accident rate was what it was.
>
>> Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison.
>
> Wrong comparison. The right comparison is a 1965 S-model Bonanza with
> the IO-550. Which does NOT suck rocks. And a REALLY nice one, decked
> out and with everything in great shape, is still less than half the
> cost of the new Cirrus.
>
> All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I
> fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.

You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane? I've flown the new
SR-22 and it's awesome. For sure, people accustomed to slower planes will
need to be careful landing it. And, in a spiral, airspeed builds up in a
heartbeat so recovery procedures are to be taken seriously. But there's
nothing inherent in the design that makes it less safe to fly than any other
fast light single.

All that aside, one big plus the Cirrus has going for it is its
attractiveness as a partnership machine. The warranty, level of factory
support plus the range of toys seems to generate more interest than
functionally similar older planes and refits of older designs.

The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable in terms
of performance and servicability at that price.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message

> Does it suck $350,000 worth of rocks?

Yes. You flown one?
>
> I'm intrigued by the Cirrus, but I don't see myself buying one within
> the depreciation window. It's my understanding that, on average,
> planes stop heavy depreciation after about 7-8 years, but that's just
> something I heard. It seems like new planes are for people with money
> to throw away, but different folks get different things out of their
> purchases. My wife and I buy cars that are between 1.5 and 2.5 years
> old, just after the wildest depreciation has ended.

Good for you. When you have money to throw away, have another look.

> This is completely aside to the nervousness I about the design of the
> cirrus. Personally, I'm not sure I want a plane who's first recovery
> technique for everything is 'pull the silks'. Parachute deployment
> seems like it should be a last step, not a first.

And, in the meantime, educate yourself on the subject.

moo

[Michael]

>> All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is,
when I
>> fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.

> You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane?

No, it's more complex than that. It's a combination of airplane and
marketing. The plane isn't really any more (or less!) demanding than
one of the big-engine Bonanzas or late-model Mooneys, but generally a
private pilot with 150 hours and no instrument rating contemplating the
purchase of a late-model Mooney or Bonanza is told that it's a really
bad idea. The Cirrus markets to that segment.

That's not to say it can't be done - I've checked out a 150 hour
private pilot with no instrument rating in an A-36 Bonanza. He's
reasonably safe - as long as he doesn't try to use it as reliable
transportation. It's too fast to scud run (unlike a 172 or even an
Arrow), and requires real instrument skills to survive an IMC
encounter, not the 3 hours minimal training a private pilot gets
(unlike a 172 or even an Arrow).

The reality is that the Cirrus (as well as a big-engine Bonanza or
Mooney) is too much airplane for most low time pilots, and a low time
pilot will need a lot of training and experience in the plane before he
can use it for reliable transportation. But if the Cirrus marketing
admitted this, their sales would suffer.

> But there's
> nothing inherent in the design that makes it less safe to fly than
any other
> fast light single.

No, on balance I would put it in the same category as a V-35S Bonanza
or M20R Mooney. It's harder to slow down, but on the other hand it's
slightly less complex so it probably comes out in the wash.

> The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable
in terms
> of performance and servicability at that price.

V35S Bonanza, new paint, new interior, factory reman engine. Glass
panel (now STC'd). TKS Weeping wings (with a better system than the
Cirrus has, now STC'd). Slightly faster on the same fuel burn. Fifth
seat for when you need it. Much nicer handling, lands slower, better
rough field airplane. All for less than half the price of an
equivalently equipped Cirrus.

Michael

[Blueskies]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
> I guess the market is answering that - with a resounding YES! Not for
> everyone, of course - I can't afford one, either. But, together with
> Lancair, it is on a pretty sure way to become the market leader and
> dethrone Cessna real soon. Oh, and of course I'd love for it to have a
> modern, economical Thielert engine.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>


Cirrus outsold Cessna in ASEL aircraft, and I think they pretty much matched for total aircraft sold (includes Cessna
jets)...

[Happy Dog]

"Michael" > wrote in message
>>> All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is,
> when I fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.
>
>> You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane?
>
> No, it's more complex than that. It's a combination of airplane and
> marketing. The plane isn't really any more (or less!) demanding than
> one of the big-engine Bonanzas or late-model Mooneys, but generally a
> private pilot with 150 hours and no instrument rating contemplating the
> purchase of a late-model Mooney or Bonanza is told that it's a really
> bad idea. The Cirrus markets to that segment.

I'm curious about these numbers. Do you have any cite to back them? And,
who tells these pilots that a late model Mooney or A35 is a bad idea? Beech
or Money's sales departments? Exactly where does this alleged warning come
from such that it isn't equally available to potential Cirrus customers? If
your facts are correct, who's at fault?

>> The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable
> in terms of performance and servicability at that price.
>
> V35S Bonanza, new paint, new interior, factory reman engine. Glass
> panel (now STC'd). TKS Weeping wings (with a better system than the
> Cirrus has, now STC'd). Slightly faster on the same fuel burn. Fifth
> seat for when you need it. Much nicer handling, lands slower, better
> rough field airplane. All for less than half the price of an
> equivalently equipped Cirrus.

And maintenance costs? Anyway, I should have been more clear. I was
referring to the cost of the engine only. Not really any current options.
Annoying.

moo

[Ben Hallert]

Happy Dog,

Are you a Cirrus owner? Some of your posts seem to suggest it, or that
you're a fan. Can you provide some more personal insight into the
plane that we should know? My main beef right now is just buying
inside the depreciation window, like I said. I certainly didn't mean
to set off your 'defend cirrus' circuit!

It's an awful pretty plane, and the cockpit looks nice. I'm very
interested in seeing how those and other similar composites fair going
forward. I'm also a fan of the Lancair Columbia. Maybe not the same
market, but both seem to have some real similarities and great
potential.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Happy Dog]

"Ben Hallert" <ben.hallert@gmail.

> Are you a Cirrus owner? Some of your posts seem to suggest it, or that
> you're a fan.

I'm a fan of empirical reality. Cirrus makes and markets a product that is
deeply attarctive to small plane owners. The evidence of this is their
sales figures.

> Can you provide some more personal insight into the
> plane that we should know? My main beef right now is just buying
> inside the depreciation window, like I said. I certainly didn't mean
> to set off your 'defend cirrus' circuit!

The "plane as investment" concept is for committed dreamers. I'm this way
whenever I encounter misinformed statement about a subject that interests
me. Your speculation about Cirrus emergency procedures training was either
a joke or slothfully misinformed.
>
> It's an awful pretty plane, and the cockpit looks nice. I'm very
> interested in seeing how those and other similar composites fair going
> forward. I'm also a fan of the Lancair Columbia. Maybe not the same
> market, but both seem to have some real similarities and great
> potential.

The cost of flying your own plane is the impact on your available resources,
the amount you pay to look at it and the amount you pay to fly. Everyone
with a couple hundred grand in cash and the itch to fly tries to balance
these. That amount of cash can get you into a new Cirrus, or Cessna or a
few other planes. It can also get you into a used Cheyenne or a few other
turboprop planes. There are myriad issues to consider. Insurance and
maintenance are two areas where a new light single shines. Especially if
you have partners. Glass cockpits with approach, weather and traffic
information improve situational awareness, especially for infrequent flyers.
Whether any individual pilot is actually at less risk depends on how they
use these tools. Nothing new there. How much money you got? What kind of
flying do you want to do?

moo

[Thomas Borchert]

Montblack,

> Are they holding their value? Relative to other used/new planes?
>

Actually, it seems they don't hold their value that well. The reason is
that the newer ones have much better avionics.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,
> I have. My first flight in one involved bailing out the pilot, who
> botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me
> understand why the accident rate was what it was.

And that had to do with the model airplane you were flying in which way?


> > Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison.
>
> Wrong comparison. The right comparison is a 1965 S-model Bonanza with
> the IO-550.

I didn't bring up the comparison, the poster I answered to did. And a
1965 Bo, while a nice plane, is still a *1965* Bo.

> All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I
> fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.

Oh Bull!

> No you won't. At least I couldn't. Oh, they've done everything they
> could to put a modern false face on the engine - but it's still
> obsolete technology.

I didn't disagree with that. You know of any alternatives, besides the
DA-40 TDI? I don't.

> but no better than the Bonanza with a JPI at a fraction of the price.

Some think so. Many don't - witness the sales numbers.

Look, I don't want to fight over this or defend anything. But the sales
numbers are there. You can't debate those.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me
> > understand why the accident rate was what it was.
>
> And that had to do with the model airplane you were flying in which
way?

See my other reply in the thread. In short, it demands significantly
more of the pilot, despite the fancy avionics - and it's more than the
average low time pilot is consistently capable of.

> I didn't bring up the comparison, the poster I answered to did. And a

> 1965 Bo, while a nice plane, is still a *1965* Bo.

And still a faster, roomier, better-flying airplane than the Cirrus. I
would much rather have a 65 Bo that had been gone through and cleaned
up than I would a new Cirrus. I know a very nice one for sale for
$125K. You can add glass and weeping wings to it, and still come out
for less than half what an equivalent Cirrus would cost you.

> > All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is,
when I
> > fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.
>
> Oh Bull!

No, experience. I do a lot of recurrent training for people, and I
quite often fly right seat wing Angel Flight pilots when the weather is
more than they feel they can handle. As a result, I probably have
30-40 hours of dual given in actual IMC to those who are already rated
and own their airplanes. And you know - I've never had to bail out
someone who owns an Arrow, or a Cherokee, or a 172, or anything else
like that. Bonanzas, Twin Comanches, Mooneys, and the Cirrus are a
different story.

> Look, I don't want to fight over this or defend anything. But the
sales
> numbers are there. You can't debate those.

The sales numbers are there. Unfortunately, near as I can tell most of
them are being sold to low time pilots who have no business in them.
Those who have been around for a while don't see the value. That says
something too.

Michael

[Ben Hallert]

>Your speculation about Cirrus emergency procedures training was
> either a joke or slothfully misinformed.

That's not... entirely correct. The POH for the SR-22 says that the
only method of spin recovery is to activate the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe
Parachute System).

Of course, like I said, other then that, it looks like a fine aircraft.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >Your speculation about Cirrus emergency procedures training was
>> either a joke or slothfully misinformed.
>
> That's not... entirely correct. The POH for the SR-22 says that the
> only method of spin recovery is to activate the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe
> Parachute System).
>
> Of course, like I said, other then that, it looks like a fine aircraft.
>

Yes, we all know what the book says about spins my question is...

Your are flying along in a Cirrus and one way or another you get into a spin
at plenty of altitude (yes plenty of altitude could mean lots of thing but
work with me hear) to recover.

Do you pop the chute before trying normal spin recovery techniques?

[Happy Dog]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message

> >Your speculation about Cirrus emergency procedures training was
>> either a joke or slothfully misinformed.
>
> That's not... entirely correct. The POH for the SR-22 says that the
> only method of spin recovery is to activate the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe
> Parachute System).

Backpeddling is so very unattractive. Care to repost your claim that I was
actually responding to? Didn't think so. And, BTW, is the above *exactly*
(since you're becoming such a stickler for accuracy) what the POH says?

moo

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> See my other reply in the thread. In short, it demands significantly
> more of the pilot, despite the fancy avionics - and it's more than the
> average low time pilot is consistently capable of.

As broad a statement as that is, I don't think it's true. Also, your
original post said something else: it said you had to intervene because
it was a Cirrus. I still don't buy it.

> > 1965 Bo, while a nice plane, is still a *1965* Bo.
>
> And still a faster, roomier, better-flying airplane than the Cirrus. I
> would much rather have a 65 Bo that had been gone through and cleaned
> up than I would a new Cirrus.

I know you think so. You know I don't think so. There's no ultimate truth
in this.

> The sales numbers are there. Unfortunately, near as I can tell most of
> them are being sold to low time pilots who have no business in them.
> Those who have been around for a while don't see the value. That says
> something too.

Can you back up that sweepingly broad statement with ANY facts? They are
ALL dumb and unexperienced? ALL the more than 1000 that shelled out two
or three times than what they had to in your opinion? ALL those airplane
owners that created the market of new single-engine piston aircraft? That
sustain companies like Cirrus, Lancair and Diamond? All too dumb and
unexperienced to see the light?

Come on, you can't really believe that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ben Hallert]

Of course not, but my understanding is that the SR-22 design makes
normal spin recovery very difficult, and that it doesn't meet the FAA
designation for spin-resistant, as defined:
"the airplane may be demonstrated to be spin resistant by the
following: (i) During the stall maneuvers...the pitch control must be
pulled back and held against the stop. Then, using ailerons and rudders
in the proper direction, it must be possible to maintain wings-level
flight within 15 degrees of bank and to roll the airplane from a
30-degree bank in one direction to a 30-degree bank in the other
direction; (ii) reduce the airplane speed using pitch control at a rate
of approximately 1 knot per second until the pitch control reaches the
stop; then, with the pitch control pulled back and held against the
stop, apply full rudder control in a manner to promote spin entry for a
period of 7 seconds or through a 360-degree heading change, whichever
occurs first. If the 360-degree heading change is reached first, it
must have taken no fewer than 4 seconds. This maneuver must be
performed first with the ailerons in the neutral position, and then
with the ailerons deflected opposite the direction of turn in the most
adverse manner. Power and airplane configuration must be set in
accordance with Sec. 23.201(e) without change during the maneuver. At
the end of 7 seconds or a 360-degree heading change, the airplane must
respond immediately and normally to primary flight controls applied to
regain coordinated, unstalled flight without reversal of control effect
and without exceeding the temporary control forces specified...and
(iii) compliance must be demonstrated with the airplane in
uncoordinated flight, corresponding to one ball-width displacement on a
slip-skid indicator, unless one ball-width displacement cannot be
obtained with full rudder, in which case the demonstration must be with
full rudder applied."

According to an AOPA writeup, Cirrus requested an exception to FAA spin
resistance/recovery requirements by proposing the ballistic parachute
as an equivalent recovery device. Consequently, any problems with
using standard spin recovery techniques have been paper-worked over.

I understand that most unintentional spins take place at altitudes
below realistic recovery altitudes anyways, but as PIC, it's my
decision whether or not I want to fly an aircraft, and as a buyer, it's
my decision on whether or not I like the 'whole package' for a plane.
I'm not trying to convince people that the Cirrus is evil, far from it.
Like I said, it's a great looking plane with a lot of very nice
features. That said, it doesn't meet my _personal_ criteria for safety
yet.

Hey, give me 10 years and I might change my mind, but I'm not sure how
my personal decision not to buy the aircraft can be construed as an
attack on the Cirrus community, much less an example of 'badthought'
that must be corrected.

[Dylan Smith]

In article . com>, Michael wrote:
>> Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison.
>
> Wrong comparison.

In new aircraft, the right comparison for an Arrow would be the Diamond
DA-40 rather than the Cirrus (or Lancair). I have flown the DA-40, and I
do greatly prefer it to the Arrow (even a new one) - it's easier to get
in and out of, has a back door, stick instead of yoke, looks much
better, faster on 20 less horsepower and doesn't have the maintenance
involved with retractable gear or CS prop.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article om>, Ben Hallert wrote:
>>Your speculation about Cirrus emergency procedures training was
>> either a joke or slothfully misinformed.
>
> That's not... entirely correct. The POH for the SR-22 says that the
> only method of spin recovery is to activate the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe
> Parachute System).

How often do spins happen in that class of plane that are at a
sufficient altitude to recover from? I suspect there are very few
Bonanza, Comanche, Saratoga or C210 spins that occur at a high enough
altitude to recover (with or without a full airframe parachute). If I
were buying an aircraft like that, that particular line wouldn't even
figure in my purchasing decision.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Tobias Schnell]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:20:24 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In new aircraft, the right comparison for an Arrow would be the Diamond
>DA-40 rather than the Cirrus (or Lancair). I have flown the DA-40, and I
>do greatly prefer it to the Arrow (even a new one) - it's easier to get
>in and out of, has a back door, stick instead of yoke, looks much
>better, faster on 20 less horsepower and doesn't have the maintenance
>involved with retractable gear or CS prop.

And it is available with the Thielert-diesel-engine. My club currently
has a demonstrator on the line. Really great airplane, 135 KTAS on 6
gph and almost incredibly easy to fly. Purchase is a little bit on the
expensive side, though.

I would love to try out a Cirrus one day to see if the Star and the
SR20 are by any means comparable.

Tobias

[Stefan]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> In new aircraft, the right comparison for an Arrow would be the Diamond
> DA-40 rather than the Cirrus (or Lancair). I have flown the DA-40, and I
> do greatly prefer it to the Arrow (even a new one) - it's easier to get
> in and out of, has a back door, stick instead of yoke, looks much
> better, faster on 20 less horsepower and doesn't have the maintenance
> involved with retractable gear or CS prop.

I think you forgot the most important point: It's fun to fly.

Stefan

[Ben Hallert]

Not sure I understand what you mean. I wrote:
> I'm not sure I want a plane who's first recovery
> technique for everything is 'pull the silks'

to which you responded
> educate yourself on the subject.

I asked if you were a Cirrus owner because I wanted to hear some first
person experience. You didn't answer, but you did say:

> Your speculation about Cirrus emergency procedures training was
either a joke or slothfully misinformed.

My response was that you might be mistaken, as the actual Pilots
Operating Handbook for the SR-22 says that you should deploy the
parachute to get out of a spin.

Somehow, you interpret this as a backpedal. Not sure how it would be
backpedaling, or where your anger is coming from. Is my personal
decision to not buy an SR-22 yet somehow hurting you?

Can't we all just... get along?

[Ben Hallert]

Great point, and that's covered in a very informative write-up that
AOPA published a couple years ago:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html

[Happy Dog]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in
> Not sure I understand what you mean. I wrote:
>> I'm not sure I want a plane who's first recovery
>> technique for everything is 'pull the silks'
>
> to which you responded
>> educate yourself on the subject.

Because the "silks" aren't the first recovery procedure for "everything".
>
> I asked if you were a Cirrus owner because I wanted to hear some first
> person experience.

No. But I have a couple hours in one and the sales rep let me put it
through some pretty serious unusual attitudes. It's a puppy *unless* you
get it in a serious spiral. Then the ASI winds up like the planes I'm used
to in a power on vertical dive. Obviously, I didn't attempt a spin. Lands
very fast and flat too (and is not too hard to injure) which, I understand,
is a significant problem for pilots transitioning from a 172 or similar Vso
plane. The rep had me approach at a good twenty knots over Vso (60 kts
IIRC) right to the numbers and appeared more anxious than when we were doing
stuff like power on falling leaf maneuvers. Apparently he's had some close
calls with pilots used to slower landing planes.

You didn't answer, but you did say:
>
>> Your speculation about Cirrus emergency procedures training was
> either a joke or slothfully misinformed.
>
> My response was that you might be mistaken, as the actual Pilots
> Operating Handbook for the SR-22 says that you should deploy the
> parachute to get out of a spin.
>
> Somehow, you interpret this as a backpedal. Not sure how it would be
> backpedaling, or where your anger is coming from. Is my personal
> decision to not buy an SR-22 yet somehow hurting you?

Dude, is English your second or third language? You disparage the Cirrus
unfairly by claiming that recovery from "everything" requires use of the
parachute. It doesn't. And, I'm not angry. This is Usenet. It's a
discussion forum. Hyperbole is the norm.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message

> I understand that most unintentional spins take place at altitudes
> below realistic recovery altitudes anyways, but as PIC, it's my
> decision whether or not I want to fly an aircraft, and as a buyer, it's
> my decision on whether or not I like the 'whole package' for a plane.
> I'm not trying to convince people that the Cirrus is evil, far from it.
> Like I said, it's a great looking plane with a lot of very nice
> features. That said, it doesn't meet my _personal_ criteria for safety
> yet.

In one, barely significant area. Do you fly at night?

moo

[Peter Duniho]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Not sure I understand what you mean. I wrote:
>> I'm not sure I want a plane who's first recovery
>> technique for everything is 'pull the silks'
>
> [...]
> My response was that you might be mistaken, as the actual Pilots
> Operating Handbook for the SR-22 says that you should deploy the
> parachute to get out of a spin.
>
> Somehow, you interpret this as a backpedal.

You even quoted the "joke or slothfully misinformed" statement, and yet you
still don't get it.

Even if the POH says that the immediate action for a spin is to deploy the
parachute (as you claim in your "defense" of your original post), that's
hardly the same thing as saying that the "first recovery technique FOR
EVERYTHING" is to deploy the parachute.

> [...]
> Can't we all just... get along?

Getting along is fine. But why should someone have to put up with false,
inflammatory statements?

Pete

[Ben Hallert]

Sure, I fly at night. Again, why does my personal decision not to buy
the plane agitate you?

[Thomas Borchert]

Tobias,

> Purchase is a little bit on the
> expensive side, though.

Ain't that the truth...

>
> I would love to try out a Cirrus one day to see if the Star and the
> SR20 are by any means comparable.
>

Don't. It would spoil your DA-40 enthusiasm. The Cirrus is MUCH more of
an airplane. Much more solid feel, much nicer interior, "real" doors et
cetera, whereas the DA-40 somehow still hints at its roots as a
motorglider. The only two things the DA-40 is better in is visibility
and engine technology (diesel available). And the SR20, with the
current US$ conversion rate, is even cheaper in Europe than the DA-40.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Stefan wrote:
> I think you forgot the most important point: It's fun to fly.

Indeed it is - more due to the awesome visibility you get than the
handling (it's definitely designed to be easy in IFR and not 'sporty'!)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Happy Dog]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message

> Sure, I fly at night. Again, why does my personal decision not to buy
> the plane agitate you?

WRT to agitation, you're projecting. Your logic sucks. You base your
"personal decision" on the fact that the parachute might need to be deployed
for spin recovery. Yet you fly at night. The likelihood of an engine
failure exceeds the likelihood of an unintentional spin at a recoverable
altitude. Do you carry night vision equipment? Get it now?

moo

[Tobias Schnell]

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:17:14 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>> I would love to try out a Cirrus one day to see if the Star and the
>> SR20 are by any means comparable.
>Don't. It would spoil your DA-40 enthusiasm.

I just saw on the Cirrus website that they are offering FREE demo
rides for CFIs (hope this offer is also valid with their European
sales organisation...).

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/seeacirrus/demoflight/

Has anyone ever tried this out?

Tobias

[Thomas Borchert]

Tobias,

> Has anyone ever tried this out?
>

Uh, the original poster in this thread?

It's not that hard to get a free demo ride, e.g. in Germany.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Michael,
> > I have. My first flight in one involved bailing out the pilot, who
> > botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me
> > understand why the accident rate was what it was.
>
> And that had to do with the model airplane you were flying in which
way?
>
>
> > > Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison.
> >
> > Wrong comparison. The right comparison is a 1965 S-model Bonanza
with
> > the IO-550.
>
> I didn't bring up the comparison, the poster I answered to did. And a

> 1965 Bo, while a nice plane, is still a *1965* Bo.
>
> > All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is,
when I
> > fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.
>
> Oh Bull!
>
> > No you won't. At least I couldn't. Oh, they've done everything
they
> > could to put a modern false face on the engine - but it's still
> > obsolete technology.
>
> I didn't disagree with that. You know of any alternatives, besides
the
> DA-40 TDI? I don't.
>
> > but no better than the Bonanza with a JPI at a fraction of the
price.
>
> Some think so. Many don't - witness the sales numbers.
>
> Look, I don't want to fight over this or defend anything. But the
sales
> numbers are there. You can't debate those.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

.... and the fact that hundreds of millions of people buy cigarettes
means what?

Gerd

[Happy Dog]

> wrote in message
>
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>> I didn't disagree with that. You know of any alternatives, besides
> the DA-40 TDI? I don't.
>>
>> > but no better than the Bonanza with a JPI at a fraction of the
> price.
>>
>> Some think so. Many don't - witness the sales numbers.
>>
>> Look, I don't want to fight over this or defend anything. But the
> sales numbers are there. You can't debate those.
>>
> ... and the fact that hundreds of millions of people buy cigarettes
> means what?

Gee, that they're addicted to nicotine? That they think it's cool? Read
what the OP wrote again and then look up "faulty analogy" and try again.

moo

[Michael]

> In new aircraft, the right comparison for an Arrow would be the
Diamond
> DA-40 rather than the Cirrus (or Lancair).

There is NO comparison for the Arrow in new aircraft because the Arrow
came into being solely to satisfy regulatory requirements -
specifically the requirement to take the commercial and CFI in a
complex airplane. The DA-40 is not an adequate substitute.

The reasonable comparison for the DA-40 is the Cheetah or Tiger.

Michael

[Michael]

> Can you back up that sweepingly broad statement with ANY facts? They
are
> ALL dumb and unexperienced?

Every Cirrus (I don't know enough about the others to comment) owner
I've ever met except one had well under 500 hours when he bought it.
Cirrus won't tell us who is buying, but the accident rate is awfully
high and I can see no other reason for it being that high. I've flown
that airplane (including bailing out a pilot on approach in IMC) and I
see nothing about that airplane that should be a problem for an
experienced and proficient pilot.

Now the one exception was a guy who had hundreds of hours in a Bonanza.
He had ONE (and ONLY one) reason for buying it. The parachute. Not
because he thinks it has value (he doesn't - he considers it a gimmick
that caters to the inexperienced) but because his wife will fly with
him in the Cirrus with the parachute, but would not fly with him in his
Bonanza. That makes it worth it to him.

Michael

[Happy Dog]

"Michael" > wrote in message n
>> Can you back up that sweepingly broad statement with ANY facts? They
> are ALL dumb and unexperienced?
>
> Every Cirrus (I don't know enough about the others to comment) owner
> I've ever met except one had well under 500 hours when he bought it.
> Cirrus won't tell us who is buying, but the accident rate is awfully
> high

"Awfully high" compared to what?

moo