Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

Greg,

Sorry if I am calling your baby ugly, but...

I get information from lots of different pilots. That means that I may end
up spreading some bad poop, but I am open to being refuted.

The information you are disagreeing with mostly comes from a very
experienced pilot who is a COPA member, but does not own a Cirrus. I have
no reason to suspect his lack of objectivity or that he has an axe to grind.
He is very knowledgeable.

I know someone who recently aquired an SR 22 on brokerage, so perhaps I will
be able to get a better experience with the plane. Cirrus reps do not
demonstrate the plane well enough for people to make a decision, you are
right about that.

My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
many people in too short of time with too few planes. Has Cirrus done good
things for aviation, maybe they have. On the other hand, maybe they are
hurting it with their bad record.

Have you thought to consider the black eye that BRS has over this whole
thing? The anti parachute crowd has lots of ammo now, thanks to Cirrus.
How about the anti composite folks? I think composites are safer, but
thanks to Cirrus, it doesn't necessarily look that way in reality.

Whether anyone can recover from a spin @1000 feet is an interesting
discussion, but you are using it as a straw dog. I don't care what the
answer is, I know that if you take off in a Cirrus, and I take off in almost
any other new single, the odds are in my favor. Enjoy getting there faster,
those few saved minutes may be a large percentage of the rest of your life.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying and
being careful.

Lastly, if you want to make a point, correct my facts, spelling, grammer, or
disagree with me, then that is great. I will likely learn from it. On the
other hand, if you want to question my motives or insult me, stay on the
porch. We KNOW as an owner of an SR22 that you have an agenda, but I would
rather take each post at face value rather than prejudging them.




"Greg" wrote in message
om...
"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)

Dude wrote:

My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating.

That's a tricky conclusion to draw from so little data. After all, if two
Cirrus planes have a midair, they might double the Cirrus fatal-accident
rate for that year.

The Cirrus is a new design, and any new technology is risky until people
acquire the experience to use it safely (look at the crashes and midair
breakups with the earliest jetliners). Unfortunately, there will have to be
many more crashes before people are able to spot the
statistically-significant patterns (assuming that any exist) and put out
SB's and AD's, design new training methods, etc.


All the best,


David (a Piper owner, with no axe to grind either way)

Dude,

Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
many people in too short of time with too few planes.


Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't that
simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better. The
statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment, depending
on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already with a
new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we know
it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new aircraft?
Yes.

So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying

And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible things
you might have to say.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That would be true, but that would be for ONE year. That is why you need
over a million flight hours before the numbers mean much. Had this sort of
thing been what was driving the numbers it would be obvious wouldn't it.
They have a big enough fleet now, so this argument isn't winning me over
like it did in the beginning.

Also, the training they are doing seems to be helping. However, if you
believe that the numbers are too small to be valuable, then perhaps we don't
know if the training is helping at all do we?

Also, its not the number of fatalaties that worries me as much as the number
of accidents that result in a fatality.

In fact, a valuable number that I have not seen studied would be the ration
of survivors for all souls on board for all accidents. That would tell you
a lot about the crash worthiness of the design. Except for people that
don't believe in statistics.



"David Megginson" wrote in message
news
Dude wrote:

My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating.

That's a tricky conclusion to draw from so little data. After all, if two
Cirrus planes have a midair, they might double the Cirrus fatal-accident
rate for that year.

The Cirrus is a new design, and any new technology is risky until people
acquire the experience to use it safely (look at the crashes and midair
breakups with the earliest jetliners). Unfortunately, there will have to
be
many more crashes before people are able to spot the
statistically-significant patterns (assuming that any exist) and put out
SB's and AD's, design new training methods, etc.


All the best,


David (a Piper owner, with no axe to grind either way)

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

Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
many people in too short of time with too few planes.


Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't that
simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better. The
statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment, depending
on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already with a
new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we know
it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new aircraft?
Yes.

So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.


Perhaps they are. At what point do we say its relevant, and how long do we
take to see if the trend is improving based on training or other changes.

I think a million hours is a good number, and if there is not significant
improvement by the third set of a million hours then they had best change
the design. That is admittedly a simplistic approach, but I have not seen
anyone set a more scientific objective standard.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying

And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible things
you might have to say.


Mea Culpa, my only excuse is that he aggravated me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Have any of you actually rad all of the NTSB reports? Most of the accidents
were hair brained, in my opinion, and not a fault of the plane

FW
"Dude" wrote in message
...

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

Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed
too
many people in too short of time with too few planes.


Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't that
simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better. The
statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment, depending
on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already with
a
new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we
know
it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new aircraft?
Yes.

So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.


Perhaps they are. At what point do we say its relevant, and how long do
we
take to see if the trend is improving based on training or other changes.

I think a million hours is a good number, and if there is not significant
improvement by the third set of a million hours then they had best change
the design. That is admittedly a simplistic approach, but I have not seen
anyone set a more scientific objective standard.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying

And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible things
you might have to say.


Mea Culpa, my only excuse is that he aggravated me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Read this article in AVflash.............

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187234

It will tell you more about the bad safety record of the Cirrus.


Trip


n article , says...

Greg,

Sorry if I am calling your baby ugly, but...

I get information from lots of different pilots. That means that I may end
up spreading some bad poop, but I am open to being refuted.

The information you are disagreeing with mostly comes from a very
experienced pilot who is a COPA member, but does not own a Cirrus. I have
no reason to suspect his lack of objectivity or that he has an axe to grind.
He is very knowledgeable.

I know someone who recently aquired an SR 22 on brokerage, so perhaps I will
be able to get a better experience with the plane. Cirrus reps do not
demonstrate the plane well enough for people to make a decision, you are
right about that.

My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
many people in too short of time with too few planes. Has Cirrus done good
things for aviation, maybe they have. On the other hand, maybe they are
hurting it with their bad record.

Have you thought to consider the black eye that BRS has over this whole
thing? The anti parachute crowd has lots of ammo now, thanks to Cirrus.
How about the anti composite folks? I think composites are safer, but
thanks to Cirrus, it doesn't necessarily look that way in reality.

Whether anyone can recover from a spin @1000 feet is an interesting
discussion, but you are using it as a straw dog. I don't care what the
answer is, I know that if you take off in a Cirrus, and I take off in almost
any other new single, the odds are in my favor. Enjoy getting there faster,
those few saved minutes may be a large percentage of the rest of your life.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying and
being careful.

Lastly, if you want to make a point, correct my facts, spelling, grammer, or
disagree with me, then that is great. I will likely learn from it. On the
other hand, if you want to question my motives or insult me, stay on the
porch. We KNOW as an owner of an SR22 that you have an agenda, but I would
rather take each post at face value rather than prejudging them.




"Greg" wrote in message
. com...
"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)

As is the case with the rest of the fleet. The bottom line is you cannot
really know in most cases what makes up the causes in any real way. The
results are not that tough to interpret though. Fatal accidents per 100,000
hours takes all the subjectivity out of the equation.



"Fred Wolf" wrote in message
...
Have any of you actually rad all of the NTSB reports? Most of the
accidents
were hair brained, in my opinion, and not a fault of the plane

FW
"Dude" wrote in message
...

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

Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed
too
many people in too short of time with too few planes.


Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't
that
simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better.
The
statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment,
depending
on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already
with
a
new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we
know
it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new
aircraft?
Yes.

So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.


Perhaps they are. At what point do we say its relevant, and how long do
we
take to see if the trend is improving based on training or other
changes.

I think a million hours is a good number, and if there is not
significant
improvement by the third set of a million hours then they had best
change
the design. That is admittedly a simplistic approach, but I have not
seen
anyone set a more scientific objective standard.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are
dying

And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible
things
you might have to say.


Mea Culpa, my only excuse is that he aggravated me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Dude" wrote in message ...
Greg,

Sorry if I am calling your baby ugly, but...

It's not my baby, it's just an airplane. It also happens to be a
fantastic travelling machine that my family and I get more use from
than any plane before it.



I get information from lots of different pilots. That means that I may end
up spreading some bad poop, but I am open to being refuted.

That, my friend, is the biggest understatement since, "Houston, we
have a problem"


The information you are disagreeing with mostly comes from a very
experienced pilot who is a COPA member, but does not own a Cirrus. I have
no reason to suspect his lack of objectivity or that he has an axe to grind.
He is very knowledgeable.

Let's see, experienced pilot, a member of COPA (so he has at least
$50), supposedly objective, and very knowledgeable. Well, I fit that
description and I also have about 300 hours in the SR22, have been
through the Cirrus factory training, an IFR rating, a lot of other
flying hours in Cessna 152s, 172s, 172RGs, 182s, T-6 Texans, T-28
Trojans, competed nationally in gliders for 10 years, and my wife
thinks I am very knowledgeable. With all of that going for me, I am
going to tell you right now that Cessnas are the most unsafe plane in
the air, I heard that the wings were falling off of them as soon as
they passed through 1,000' AGL and people were dying every day in
them. This must be true, I am more qualified than your 'friend'.


I know someone who recently aquired an SR 22 on brokerage, so perhaps I will
be able to get a better experience with the plane. Cirrus reps do not
demonstrate the plane well enough for people to make a decision, you are
right about that.

Hmmmmm. I have read post after post made by YOU, 'Dude' person, that
has proclaimed the Cirrus is just plain unsafe. Yet, now you are
saying that you may have an opportunity to "...get a better experiance
with the plane". So you are willing to get in and fly it, huh? I
don't think I could have shot a bigger hole in your credibility
myself.


My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
many people in too short of time with too few planes. Has Cirrus done good
things for aviation, maybe they have. On the other hand, maybe they are
hurting it with their bad record.

I didn't know I made an excuse, where was it? Help me here. And yes,
facts are facts, this is exactly what I am trying to help you with.
The rest of this paragraph doesn't justify a response, hyperbole.


Have you thought to consider the black eye that BRS has over this whole
thing? The anti parachute crowd has lots of ammo now, thanks to Cirrus.
How about the anti composite folks? I think composites are safer, but
thanks to Cirrus, it doesn't necessarily look that way in reality.

BRS has a black eye!!?? How? I know there are SIX people walking
around alive today because of it. Look, I will admit that I was not
crazy about the 'chute when I bought the plane, I asked the salesman
several times why they couldn't just leave it out on my plane. I can
think of a lot of better ways to use 60 lbs. But you know what, now,
I kinda' like knowing it's there. Gives my wife a warm and fuzzy
feeling too.
And what about this 'anti parachute crowd' and the 'anti composite
folks' you mention? Are they a club? Do they have a website? How do
you get in touch with them? Did they have a seminar at Sun-N-Fun?
Are the members of the 'anti parachute' crowd depressed that those six
people are walking around today?


Whether anyone can recover from a spin @1000 feet is an interesting
discussion, but you are using it as a straw dog. I don't care what the
answer is, I know that if you take off in a Cirrus, and I take off in almost
any other new single, the odds are in my favor. Enjoy getting there faster,
those few saved minutes may be a large percentage of the rest of your life.

This sounds like the musings of a person desperately trying to justify
continued ownership of their current obsolete aircraft (if you even
have one).


I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying and
being careful.

If YOU have an airplane, your fellow owners are dying too.


Lastly, if you want to make a point, correct my facts, spelling, grammer, or
disagree with me, then that is great. I will likely learn from it. On the
other hand, if you want to question my motives or insult me, stay on the
porch. We KNOW as an owner of an SR22 that you have an agenda, but I would
rather take each post at face value rather than prejudging them.


Grammar is spelled with two 'a's. I have concluded you have
questionable motives because you have: 1)dedicated so much time being
critical of an airplane you have never flown, 2) you don't even have a
basic knowledge of the plane's aerodynamic design goals, 3) you have
attempted to pass off completely false information as gospel. You are
a person with an agenda. I don't know what it is or why, but it's
there. As far as staying on the porch, well, when I get up from it is
not your call. And how does ownership of an SR22 mean I have an
agenda? I don't care if you or any of the other people on this site
love 'em or hate 'em. I do like hearing TRUTH though. This thread
was started by someone just looking for information about Cirrus
aircraft. You are not qualified to make a post on the subject. Of
all the people that should be on the porch... And by the way, you have
made more than enough posts to eliminate anyone PREjudging you. Your
position is exceedingly clear, however poorly formulated. You have
attempted to portray yourself as some sort of unbiased, informed
expert while waving the safety banner to legitimize your opinions.
Particularly insidious, and not helpful to those seeking real
information.


"Greg" wrote in message
om...
"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)

Dude,

then they had best change
the design.


only if the design is at fault. Is it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)