Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

Dave,

I have heard, though cannot confirm, that some kind of spin
certification will be required for JAA certification, so hopefully
that will put this issue to rest.


Coming from a JAA country: Yes, the JAA seems to hesitate to certify
the aircraft without the "standard" spin testing. All Cirri (?) in
Europe are US-registered so far. Cirrus and JAA seem to be still
debating the issue, since AFAIK the JAA/FAA mutual acceptance of
certification agreements seem to require the JAA to certify it. Then
again, those same agreements should have led to a much quicker
certification of the Thielert Centurion by the FAA, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Dave Katz" wrote in message
...
I've got about 500 hours in both SR20s and SR22s, so I'll throw out
some real world experience (not that it's worth anything in a
newsgroup, but here goes.)

The folks claiming that they stall without warning

Anyone here make such a claim? Or is this just a straw man argument?

As far as the accidents go, simply pointing at statistics and calling
the plane a death trap and saying that they are "falling out of the
sky" isn't supportable by the facts. Of the eight fatal accidents
(not counting the flight test accident) five (and possibly a sixth,
though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard
to blame these on the plane per se.


"per se"?

Accusing those of us who think the statistics are relevant of hyperbole will
not save any lives, nor win the argument. The fatalities per 100,000 flight
hours stat is a very valid and fair stat.

Once again, you can't take out the "stupidity factor" from one
manufacturer's stats, and not the others.



Ultimately it comes down to whether people do more stupid things in
Cirrus aircraft than in other brands. Statistically it's too early to
tell, and the time-in-type average is very low. Basically, you can
cook the numbers to support your position, regardless. I think it's
probably true that someone who is going to be stupid enough to scud
run at night or in mountainous terrain is probably more likely to die
in a Cirrus than a Cessna because of the speed. It may well be that
pilots feel safer in a Cirrus than in a 25 year old 172 (I know I do,
and it's arguably true, particularly IFR) and perhaps that leads the
marginal ones to take bigger risks. But there is no shortage of
pilots doing dumb things in all manner of aircraft, and dying on a
regular basis. Time will tell.

I believe they are over a million fleet hours, and I am told that is
generally considered the time at which the numbers become valid. It often
seems reasonable that if a design appeals to risk takers, or somehow
promotes risk taking, then we can dismiss the results. In reality, this is
a terrible mistake.

There are so many ways to approach this argument.

One would be that its the fatalities that matter, and if you cannot change
them, then the cause is not important.

Another would be that everyone of us is likely to decide that we are not one
of those idiots. In fact, the ones that are dead likely thought that.

The idea that the feeling of safety causes risk taking is meaningless in the
end. Either the design is safe or it is not. There is almost no practical
way to prove the cause without changing the results. Therefore, the design
is bad until it is found to be performing more safely. If Cirrus implements
a change, and then gets different results, then we can talk again. (the
parachute fix seems to have helped).

If the problem is indeed personality, perhaps they are selling the planes to
the wrong people. I would not necessarily disagree that this is the case
except to point out that they are not changing their sales practices and
other than looking at experience levels what are you going to do anyway.

Cirrus could get some good PR by simply dropping the SRV idea, and requiring
a high level of hours to buy their SR20 and SR22. I don't see this
happening, so I guess we will have a bunch more Thurman Munson Jr.'s.

Dude,

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.

Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.

It would also reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system.


So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else who
can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dude,

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.

Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.

Yet.

Don't get so frigging defensive. My point is that the Cirrus can be hard to
slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes because
it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag. If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.


It would also reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.


So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else who
can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?


Presently, according to some COPA members, there are many people having
excessive engine wear and needing lots of cylinder work early. One
suspected reason is shock cooling due to pilots cutting throttle to get the
plane down without gaining too much speed. The cirrus design simply adds
more penalty to poor vertical planning than most planes, and so the engine
is often asked to pay the price.

Another theory is that the engines are constanlty being run at set rpm's
that may not be the best rpm's or the smoothest. The pilot cannot control
it.

Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article , Dude wrote:

My point is that the Cirrus can be hard to
slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes because
it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag. If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

I've flown a Cirrus and while it does land fast compared to say a 182, it
didn't seem to be particularly hard to slow down compared to say a 182RG
with the gear up. They do have flaps, even if they don't have speed brakes,
and you can slip them if you need even more drag.

The thing I don't like about them is they land *fast* compared to something
of similar performance--like a 182RG. I like to at least pretend that if I can
find a nice big parking lot I can put a 182 into it--and I think I could, though
we'd probably hit something on the far end in a hopefully-survivable fashion.
I get the feeling I have to look for a long straight road in a Cirrus.

Mike Beede

Mike Beede wrote:


I've flown a Cirrus and while it does land fast compared to say a 182, it
didn't seem to be particularly hard to slow down compared to say a 182RG
with the gear up.

That's true, but I can drop the gear in my club's 182RG once below 140
(although I avoid doing so until below 120 just to be kind). The gear
doesn't add a *lot* of friction, but there's enough to make a difference.

- Andrew

"Dude" wrote in message
...
[...] If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

How is that different from every other airplane without speed brakes, where
you need to reduce the throttle in order to slow down without changing your
flight path?

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

Dude, seems to me that by now, you've seen "speed brakes" spelled correctly
often enough that it's time you start doing so yourself.

Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.

Funny...lots of people find it works just fine. It's not a FADEC, by the
way.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
[...] If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

How is that different from every other airplane without speed brakes,
where
you need to reduce the throttle in order to slow down without changing
your
flight path?


I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination will
slow my plane without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling. Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it. The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to
fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

Dude, seems to me that by now, you've seen "speed brakes" spelled
correctly
often enough that it's time you start doing so yourself.


LOL, thanks, I will try.

Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.

Funny...lots of people find it works just fine. It's not a FADEC, by the
way.

Pete


Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

"Dude" person,
I have really been reluctant to add a post to this thread because I
don't think I have seen so much misinformation in my life, but I feel
an obligation to correct patently false statements which I can refute
from a position of knowledge. I have been flying an SR22 for 2 1/2
years and have been a COPA member for 3 years.

You said that there are problems with the engines needing work at 700
hours. This is absolutely false. If this were happening, it would be
all over the COPA forums and I read them almost everyday. I have not
read the first report of an engine needing major work at 700 hours and
your statement about the interconnection between the prop and throttle
being problematic to the engine is so ridiculous as to be humorous. I
also have a very good relationship with my Service Center and we have
had a lot of conversations about various Cirrus issues, major engine
work at 700 hours has never been mentioned. And shock cooling
problems??!! Huh? I have never had this problem even once.

As far as slowing the plane down, I have never had a problem with THAT
either. I have had to start slowing down a little sooner BECAUSE I
WAS GOING FASTER TO START WITH! I have flown an ILS down to the
middle marker at 120kts (faster than the cruise speed of a 172) and
dropped flaps to land in the normal touchdown zone. It's just not a
problem and I have never wished I had speed brakes. By the way, THAT
is the correct way to spell "speed brakes".

And ANOTHER thing, if anybody thinks they are going to recover from an
inadvertent spin in less than 1,000' in any common four place or six
place airplane without hitting terra firma first, they are living a
fantasy. You just might barely make it if you are well practiced in
spins in the aircraft you are flying and perform spins on a regular
basis and you are at a very light weight. However, it will not happen
like that. It will happen unexpectedly, probably when you are heavy
with an aft CG, while you are doing something else like changing to
departure control frequency. You look up from the radio to see the
world spinning. You have less than five seconds to figure out what
happened and determine the correct control inputs. You must execute
them perfectly, or you die. Depending on the plane, loading, and
pilot proficiency in spin recovery, I would not expect many scenarios
like this to end favorably with less than 2,000' for an average pilot.

Geez, this thread has the worst signal to noise ratio I have seen in a
long time. You know, it started out with just some guy asking for a
little information, I don't think he wanted an earful of crap from
someone with an agenda. Until you fly a Cirrus for more than a
demonstration flight, you would do well to stick to verifiable facts.

Greg

"Dude" wrote in message ...
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dude,

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.

Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.

Yet.

Don't get so frigging defensive. My point is that the Cirrus can be hard to
slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes because
it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag. If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.


It would also reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.


So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else who
can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?


Presently, according to some COPA members, there are many people having
excessive engine wear and needing lots of cylinder work early. One
suspected reason is shock cooling due to pilots cutting throttle to get the
plane down without gaining too much speed. The cirrus design simply adds
more penalty to poor vertical planning than most planes, and so the engine
is often asked to pay the price.

Another theory is that the engines are constanlty being run at set rpm's
that may not be the best rpm's or the smoothest. The pilot cannot control
it.

Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)