Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

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

A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.


Define normal.

The "standard" spin recovery or one that is specified in the POH that does
not guarantee a (however gentle) crash.

Vaughn





--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

Well, we realize that you think this plane was built by the flawless
gods,

Why the ad hominems? Just because I don't agree with you?

Your POV is taking on the tone of a religious fanatic. You seem unwilling to
accept any criticism of the Cirrus whatsoever, even well-established facts.


The Cirrus cannot.


Again: how do you know? Data, please.

Cirrus' own web site says so. So does the POH. The Cirrus cannot recover
from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests. The
parachute cannot be deployed below 900' AGL. Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can. So far,
however, you have been unwilling to accept any data that disagrees with your
point of view.

"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?

"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.

Tom

Document this please. "seems to"?????????????

Big John


On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:54 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

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.

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.

Mike Murdock ) wrote:

Apparently doing acrobatics despite placards prohibiting them. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X00613&key=1

As a local to this particular crash and as one who has talked to many about
it, I am of the belief that these two pilots were simply checking out their
newly-delivered Cirrus using all the standard private pilot air maneuvers
(stalls, steep turns, etc.). They were not performing prohibited
aerobatics.

What appeared to have doomed them was their decision to perform multiple
power-on stalls in a row. During a power-on stall, the pilot botched the
recovery and the aircraft entered into a secondary stall followed by a
spin.

The question that will never be answered is why didn't they use the BRS?

--
Peter

C,

The Cirrus cannot recover
from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests


Ok, quote me where it says that in the POH.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Vaughn" writes:

We are not talking about a trainer, we are talking about an advanced,
owner-flown, plane that will occasionally end up in an inadvertant spin. Any
pilot that has enough experience to be flying one shout at least be able to
recite the standard spin recovery procedure.

Saying that the plane "will occasionally end up in an inadvertent
spin" is a lot like calling it a plane that "will occasionally end up
crumpled on the side of a mountain in clouds and freezing rain." You
have to be trying really hard to spin one; it's hard to pin that on the
plane.

We can probably all recite the standard spin recovery procedure. I
suspect that a significant number of us have never experienced a spin
nor actually done the procedure, and should it happen in real life will
probably be really confused and disoriented for long enough to die.

When I moved to California I was able to recite the standard earthquake
procedure, but when it happened the first time I had no idea what was
happening to me until it was already over...

"C J Campbell" writes:

"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?

I think the claim was something along the lines of "it's flying and
then suddenly it's not flying." I interpreted that as having no
warning in the stall.