If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Dude,
then they had best change the design. only if the design is at fault. Is it? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
New Cirrus SR22 Lead Time | Lenny Sawyer | Owning | 4 | March 6th 04 09:22 AM |
Fractional Ownership - Cirrus SR22 | Rich Raine | Owning | 3 | December 24th 03 05:36 AM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |