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)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, we realize that you think this plane was built by the flawless gods,
but what happens when the Cirrus gets into an incipient spin when it is too
low to deploy the parachute? Most other aircraft can recover from such a
condition with room to spare. The Cirrus cannot.

C,

Well, we realize that you think this plane was built by the flawless gods,

Why the ad hominems? Just because I don't agree with you?

The Cirrus cannot.


Again: how do you know? Data, please.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

Well, we realize that you think this plane was built by the flawless
gods,

Why the ad hominems? Just because I don't agree with you?

Your POV is taking on the tone of a religious fanatic. You seem unwilling to
accept any criticism of the Cirrus whatsoever, even well-established facts.


The Cirrus cannot.


Again: how do you know? Data, please.

Cirrus' own web site says so. So does the POH. The Cirrus cannot recover
from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests. The
parachute cannot be deployed below 900' AGL. Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can. So far,
however, you have been unwilling to accept any data that disagrees with your
point of view.

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)

"C J Campbell" wrote
Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.

Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.

Michael

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

...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.

Unbelieveable! Is that really true? ...and you really think that is good
enough?

Don't get me wrong, I think the chute is a great thing, in the case of
midair, loss of control, control failure etc. it provides a unique survival
option; but it should be no replacement for good flying qualities. Pulling the
chute not only terminates the flight, but guarantees damage to the airframe,
guarantees an off-field landing, guarantees unwanted publicity, and puts the
lives of the occupants and possibly even people on the ground in serious danger.
A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.


Vaughn

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:44:39 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:


Don't get me wrong, I think the chute is a great thing, in the case of
midair, loss of control, control failure etc. it provides a unique survival
option; but it should be no replacement for good flying qualities. Pulling the
chute not only terminates the flight, but guarantees damage to the airframe,
guarantees an off-field landing, guarantees unwanted publicity, and puts the
lives of the occupants and possibly even people on the ground in serious danger.
A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.

Except spin recovery isn't part of the curriculum any more.

Don

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:44:39 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.

Except spin recovery isn't part of the curriculum any more.

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.

Vaughn



Don