Cirrus Airframe Life Limits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

"Otis Winslow" writes:

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

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

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

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

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

So thats where that stands.,,

The 4350 hr figure was agreed to because they wanted to get the SR22 out
the door, and the higher number pending time to do more testing. In other
words they had more time with the SR20
"Dave" wrote in message
om...
I read a few posts referring to the FAA certificated life limit of the
cirrus airframes and couldn't believe my eyes. So, i did some
searching and here's what I found:

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

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


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

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

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

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

"Dave" wrote in message
om...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Mike

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

unencumbered with facts

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

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

-Mike



Well said, Murdock.

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

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

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

How so? Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

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


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

Probably because the G2 is made with different fuselage molds, including a
different airfoil for the vertical stabilizer. What evidence are you
offering that this claim is bogus?

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


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

I think your claims of being a pilot are bogus.

You are an idiot.