Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

I have been reading this group for years, and when CJ Campbell speaks, I
listen..

I had researched the financials, even have enough people interested in
partnering, I already have a hanger and have 200+ Bonanza hours. The simple
fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker. I'm not much
worried about the 5+ accidents in the last 12 months. I've read many of the
NTSB reports and it seems to me pilots ARE getting into situations they
should have not been in (although the one where they guy's aliron was
falling off made me read again). Having the BRS would make one feel a bit
more at ease taking risks, but I am not a risk taker, nor would I want to
find myself in a position to deploy the chute..

I also took a serious look at the Lancair 350, but after learning of it's
price got my out of the seat..

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com


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

this is usenet. What did you expect? Do you believe all you read here,
jts like that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dennis;
If you have that many hours in a Bonanza, you'll never be satisfied
with anything else.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:09:05 GMT, "Dennis" wrote:

I have been reading this group for years, and when CJ Campbell speaks, I
listen..

I had researched the financials, even have enough people interested in
partnering, I already have a hanger and have 200+ Bonanza hours. The simple
fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker. I'm not much
worried about the 5+ accidents in the last 12 months. I've read many of the
NTSB reports and it seems to me pilots ARE getting into situations they
should have not been in (although the one where they guy's aliron was
falling off made me read again). Having the BRS would make one feel a bit
more at ease taking risks, but I am not a risk taker, nor would I want to
find myself in a position to deploy the chute..

I also took a serious look at the Lancair 350, but after learning of it's
price got my out of the seat..

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com


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

this is usenet. What did you expect? Do you believe all you read here,
jts like that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dennis,

The simple
fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker.


I wouldn't worry about that. It's bound to change. Talk to Cirrus about
it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dennis wrote:
Holy crap! I guess I should have done some more research first...

I really, really, really like the performance spec's and looks of the
Currus.. My wife read your comment and now she's put off on the idea...
Gonna have to find something else now before she but the breaks on a new
plane purchase..

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com

Hi Dennis,

I'll agree with the previous poster that while the Cirrus is a nice
airplane, I also would suggest that you not buy the airplane until they
extend the life limit. They'll undoubtedly tell you that they have
"plans" to extend the limit "somewhat", but the proof is in the paper.
Amortized over a mere 4000 hours, I'd venture a guess that an SR22 costs
more per hour to run than a capable twin (the Cessna 400 series
presently notwithstanding).

The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
revolutionary) design. I would want that limit raised after a
sufficient field history is established and a half-dozen airplanes are
torn apart when they reach the life limit to determine if the
engineering models indeed reflect reality.

However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
with more money than skill flying them. Fundamentally, I believe the
Cirrus is a safe airplane. I think we all agree it flies differently
than a Cessna, but in the right hands, that's not a bad thing.

Personally, if I had $300K (or partners) I'd buy a used Seneca or Baron.
It never pays to buy new. A twin will be just as fast, have full
deice, and an extra engine for sanity in IMC, night, and overwater
operations. The statistics will never bear out how much safer twins
are, because when everyone arrives safely following an engine out, there
is no report, and the airplane will fly another day. While that extra
engine costs $$$, it gives you the OPTION of finishing the flight in a
"routine" fashion and helps keep insurance costs down (no claims =
better prices for everyone). Next time you want to take your wife in
challenging conditions, ask her how many engines she'd want...

BTW, awesome job on the website. Just do me (and every other
alternative-OS guy) a favor...dump the IE requirement. By requiring IE,
you're limiting access to your site to a single operating system. If
you have to require anything (and for a truly standards-compliant site,
you shouldn't), require Mozilla!

Safe flying,

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

"Doug Vetter" wrote in message
et...

The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
revolutionary) design.

I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe
life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the
Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to
verify the rep's claims.


However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
with more money than skill flying them.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is
some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a design
flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying
them.

In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the
bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus with
the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is
unlimited.

The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
of "more money than skill."

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of the
Cirrus accidents so far.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

C,

The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus with
the first rash of accidents.

Any source to prove that statement? I doubt it is true.


The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
of "more money than skill."

So?


The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin.


Oh? So you did the certification flights that the company didn't do? Or how
do you know that?

Sorry, but while the Cirrus might well prove to be less safe than other
planes, I just can't stand this cheap propaganda. The Cirrus CAN recover from
a spin - it's a certification requirement! It is fulfilled by pulling the
chute. No other methods of recovery were officially tested. The FAA was
satisfied.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system.

I believe I have seen Cirrus claim the plane can be revovered from a spin
normally, but experience to date has so far shown that may not be that easy.



"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Doug Vetter" wrote in message
et...

The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
revolutionary) design.

I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe
life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the
Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to
verify the rep's claims.


However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
with more money than skill flying them.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is
some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a
design
flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying
them.

In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the
bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus
with
the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is
unlimited.

The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was
a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the
description
of "more money than skill."

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots
are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control,
and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
of "more money than skill."

I cannot comment on that specific accident, because I don't remember
what happened. Perhaps he was atypical of the "problem" Cirrus pilot.
Perhaps he was the perfect example...I don't know.

What I do know is that the vast majority of accidents in any aircraft
type -- not just Cirrus -- are due to pilot error, and an awful lot of
the well-publicized Cirrus accidents seem to fit into the classic
category of "more money than skill". Call it the "Doctor Killer" syndrome.

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.
snip

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

For what it's worth, the Seminole was reportedly never spin tested,
though its twin (the Beech Dutchess) was. Neither are approved for
spins, but at least they will recover from one.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

Here we find some common ground. Cirrus does have some QC issues.
Diamond does too, for that matter. I'm not sure why maintenance is
suffering (God knows the local Cirrus service center is always packed,
so there is no apparent lack of attention these airplanes receive in the
shop), but mechanical problems remain the cause of a very small
percentage of the total number of accidents.

As for the parachute, I'll go back to my original point -- if I lose an
engine in a twin, I have a chance to bring the aircraft and passengers
home to fly another day. In effect, the other engine is my parachute.
The difference, of course, is that if I pull the chute in a Cirrus, it's
game over for the airplane. IMHO, it shouldn't be so easy to throw away
$300K.

And, on that note, I'll conclude by saying if I were a prospective
Cirrus buyer like Dennis, I'd be very concerned about the inevitable
increase in insurance cost for these airplanes. Pretty soon, having a
partner in a Cirrus won't just be a "nice-to-have" when it comes time to
pay the bills. It will be a requirement.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
....

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents. With the most
liberal interpretation, stalls could have been involved in at most 5 of
those. Do you consider 14% to be a "large percentage"? If so, you must be
an accountant for the federal government.

-Mike

C,

They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such
regularity


Well, I sure hope I never again see you complain here about
sensationalistic reporting on aviation accidents. Jeeze!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)