"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
. ..
C J Campbell wrote:

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.

http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf

I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the
spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the
composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your
anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in,
but until then I think you're spouting hot air.

And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently
stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.


First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just
because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22
has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run
some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
then that removes one of my major objections. I think the safety record is
still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the
kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any
criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me.