Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

LOL! That's the best possible response to that post.

Mike Murdock wrote:

I tried flying other planes, but only the Cirrus had enough room for the
cooler full of quiche, and the Martha Stewart cookware I use to warm it up.
A thermos full of latte' and you're good to go, girlfriend.

-Mike

"jd-10" wrote in message
...

I don't know why you dorks won't face facts:

A Cirrus is for a pilot with a very small penis. No real man would be
caught dead in that Lexus-looking POS. "d00d, it's lie having a 'vette,
man."

PUSSIES!

In fact, men with large penises ONLY fly single-engine Cessnas. They are
the finest example of great airplane design in the world. They can take
you where a Cirrus would BREAK UP ON LANDING!

Real men don't need a ballistic parachute either. If you **** up, shut
up and die like an aviator.

I repeat, Cirri are for men with very small penises.

That is all.
--
JD-10

I bet the G1000 helps out the new Mooney's with weight. Anyone compared to
see how much less it weighs than a full stack?


"John Harper" wrote in message
news:1083090163.753660@sj-nntpcache-3...
I was really thinking of the Bravo, which is a bit heavier
than the Ovation (obviously). "Guideline" useful load
for the Bravo seems to be around 950-1000 but I've
seen them on ASO etc in the 850-900 range by the
time they get TKS and fancy avionics. So with 60 gals
that gets you to around 500 lbs, not even 3 normal people with
some baggage.

John

"Aaron Coolidge" wrote in message
...
John Harper wrote:
: Won't carry 4 people (with useful fuel) though. The new
: Mooneys are wonderful planes but if you even occasionally
: need to carry four people then they don't work out. Shame,
: because the recent Bravo is a really lovely plane to
: fly.

I beg to differ, here. With 60 Gal of fuel, you have 700 Lbs of useful
load left. 60 gal gets you ~500 nm with a 1 hour reserve. (This is in
the
Ovation2 that I borrowed a couple months ago. Your mileage may vary.)

If you fill it up to 90 gal of fuel, yes, it's a 2 place + luggage
plane.
You have 5 hours of range (~850 nm), with a 1 hour reserve.

According to the Cirrus web site, useful load of an SR22 is 1150 lbs
(about
the same as the Ovation2). Fuel capacity is 81 gal. 1150 - (81 * 6) =
664
lbs useful load with full fuel. This gives ~670 nm range with a 1 hour
reserve, assuming 17 GPH. (I don't know how Cirrus gets a 1000 nm range,
that would imply 14.5 GPH to dry tanks, which would imply about 60%
power.)

I would say that the two airplanes are very comparable in terms of
power,
speed, range, price, payload flexability, etc.
--
Aaron Coolidge

ignore

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

No, why should I be?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
you let anyone buy a membership).

By whom? People who have done extensive testing and actually know? Or
one
or two irate owners who have had unusual problems with their airplanes?
If
you have the posts, make them publicly available.

The root of the problem is suspected to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend.

Suspected by whom? Anyone who ought to know? Or random armchair
mechanics
like those of posting to this thread?

They give the reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I've flown the SR20. I had no trouble at all using partial power
reductions
to slow the airplane.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like.

Then why do you keep writing "phony FADEC"? Sure looks like a claim to
me.

However, they have commented on how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot.

It *is* simple.

The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

What "sweet spot"? A reduction in power is a reduction in power. Less
power means less thrust which means less speed. There's absolutely no
reason for vertical planning to be "more problematic", no more so than all
the other low-drag airframes out there that also don't have speed brakes.
Nothing about the engine control is relevant here.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on.

Log on to what?

Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
do the same.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You show up here spouting all
sorts of nonsense about how the Cirrus airplanes need speed brakes, and
then
you accuse me of having my "level of positive thinking and optimism"
bothered? All I'm doing is pointing out how stupid your claims are. I'm
not bothered at all.

Pete

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
They were unable to demonstrate spin recovery because
the plane will not recover from a spin. And they
really tried to make it do that.

I sure would like to see some definitive cites on this question, because
I have "heard" quite a different story: that the Cirrus requires some
extraodinary control inputs to force it to spin, but it will, and
factory pilots have recovered without pulling the 'chute.

Anybody have any reliable references to testimony on this subject?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:28:36 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

aircraft, e.g. the Bonanza. And in that case, that point does NOT remain.

Yes, yes. I read the thread. I guess I don't understand why the point
doesn't remain and why the rest of my post was ignored. Did I not explain
my self very well? Especially in light of the fact that I asked questions
which, in my mind, directly relate to the validity of the comparison.
Furthermore, I offered that it's a corner case that really doesn't matter.
Especially if I'm right about CAPS, as explained.

Dude,

I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
missed one or two

Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me the
date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
the posts you mentioned.

I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going to
go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is still
small since the fleet is still young.

Thanks,

-Mike

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing
as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless
of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through
the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine
as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
be
a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
who
have had engine problems?

Pete

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"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.

The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL

How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
more than 900 feet to deploy?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL

How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
more than 900 feet to deploy?

They have the same hope any occupant of any similar aircraft has of
surviving a spin from 900' AGL.

The parachute is an irrelevant red herring in this particular example.

Pete

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:11 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:


"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL

How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
more than 900 feet to deploy?

Ya, that's the point I brought up in another subthread here, which went
unanswered. Maybe you can help.

If the deployment requires 920, does that mean after 920 you can safely
touchdown or does that mean it requires 920 + however long it takes to
slow your velocity to proper touchdown velocity? I ask because, I don't
think a chute opening 10 AGL is going to help much.

I see so many Bonanzas with newly rebuilt engines at lower than 700 hrs, it
makes my head spin

so much bull**** on this site


"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
Dude,

I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
missed one or two

Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me
the
date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
the posts you mentioned.

I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going
to
go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is
still
small since the fleet is still young.

Thanks,

-Mike

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected
to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the
reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on
how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest
you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a
thing
as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling,
regardless
of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high
RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow
through
the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an
engine
as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage
to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
be
a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot
frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why
would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
who
have had engine problems?

Pete