Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

"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.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
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.


How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at which
a wing stalls.

Dude,

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.

Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.

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"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Before I get flamed, remember this is a seies of questions, not a
statement...

In my 182 I slow the plane, assuming gear is already down, by reducing power
and pitching up. On a laminar flow wing (does the Cirrus have a laminar flow
wing?) I understand that the wing stall happens pretty abruptly - either you
are flying or your not. If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

All right, I'm done. Have at it...

Michael





"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
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.


How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at
which
a wing stalls.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54...
[...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of
being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch
angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me.

But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under
control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without
as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method.

Assuming you use either method to slow an equal amount, from the same
initial airspeed, the resulting airspeed will be the same, and will be just
as "close to the stall speed", assuming neither method changes the stall
speed (which is the case when comparing speed brakes versus pitching up).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54...
[...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of
being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch
angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me.

But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under
control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without
as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method.


Hmmm - I agree - I meant that the use of speed brakes would allow slowing
without using as much pitch - does that make sense?

Michael

"Dude" wrote in message
...
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.


Popping the speed brakes at approach speeds would aggravate the stall
condition, not alleviate it.

"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)