Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

"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.

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

I would have to say that any plane is relatively safe while in the hangar.

This may be a way to look at it, but it would not be a way to find out
anything.

I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed.
However, I have to disagree with you on this one.

It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here.
The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't
much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one.

There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to
rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating
an environment where other innovators will just be scared away. I think
that many in the press are willing to listen to Cirrus' arguments, and give
them a break for this reason.

I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight
though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair. It may not be
true that every Cirrus sale comes at the expense of one of the others, but I
would be much happier seeing more of the other two brands being sold
instead.



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

One way to look at it is total aircraft numbers versus aircraft with
fatal accidents - which is what Richard Collins does in the latest
issue of Flying. Cirrus is comparable to the 182S that way. Many other
planes are much worse. The one fatal accident after the mag appeared
doesn't change that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dennis ) wrote:

Great! You'll have to look me up while there! I'll be the one with
"MyAirplane.com" on his shirt.. (well, one of them anyway). We may get a
booth, its up in the air right now (and only 2 weeks untillt he show).

I'll be looking for the shirt, as I am very familiar with your excellent
website.

Will you be staying over the 2 days? Wondering what camping would be like
on that field... or if its even allowed.

No, I am only attending on Saturday, unless the weather is really bad
Saturday but nice on Sunday. Since I am flying in from Syracuse, a mere 40
minute flight away, I am did not have plans to stay there.

I strongly doubt that camping would be allowed on the airport grounds.
Maybe someday this will be the Oshkosh of the Northeast, but for now the
event is still in its infancy.


--
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)

Dude,

I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed.

Why, thanks! ;-)

It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here.
The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't
much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one.

You know, I agree. The problem, as we all know, of course, is that there is no
reliable count of hours flown. So anyone can amssage the numbers anyway he or
she likes. i still take strong objection to statements like "falling out of
the sky". That's BS any way you look at the numbers.

There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to
rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating
an environment where other innovators will just be scared away.

Yes, I think that many pilots do tend to do that - while at the same time
clamoring for innovation.


I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight
though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair.

Well, there are hardly any Lancairs flying, so in that case we really don't
have any numbers to go by, I would say. And the Diamond has a great record -
but hey, it's from Old Europe, so an all-American GA pilot can't well buy that
crap now, can he? (yes, that was irony, but a lot of truth in it for some
people...)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Edr,

That it has to be a fatal to be an accident, and if there are no fatals
it doesn't count?


it does - but I don't think the statistics make the Cirrus stand out for
non-fatals.

--
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.