Cirrus vs. 182

"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

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

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

"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.

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.

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 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

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)

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

"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.