Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

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.

I'm still going to take a look at the Rochester fly-in, bit the salesman
might throw me out after I hit him with all these questions..

I thought about getting a Bonanza, but without partners, I couldn't afford
it.. My old boss had a 33 and then a 35, I use to be able to fly it at will
(work and pleasure).

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com

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

The simple
fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker.


I wouldn't worry about that. It's bound to change. Talk to Cirrus about
it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"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

"Dennis" wrote in message
...
I'm still going to take a look at the Rochester fly-in, bit the salesman
might throw me out after I hit him with all these questions..

I thought about getting a Bonanza, but without partners, I couldn't afford
it.. My old boss had a 33 and then a 35, I use to be able to fly it at
will
(work and pleasure).


Dennis,

Why not a Bo'? You said in another post you had 200+ hours in that.

"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.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
..
..
The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
fatality rates of any small airplane.

This is an outrageous statement! Can you post any facts showing the
accident and fatality rates of Cirrus airplanes vs. comparable aircraft? If
you examine the real numbers you will find that your statement is patently
false.

No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees
with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of Cirrus
airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured
between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because the
182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for
purposeful personal transportation."

Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was
questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft.

-Mike

"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)

According to Aviation Safety, the SR20 is nearly 4 times more dangerous than
the 182s/182t

I would really like someone to tell me how you can look at these stats and
see something less than 4 fatalities every 100,000 hours?

The Cirrus fleet has enough hours now that the stats actually mean
something. They have not found and corrected any major flaw except to fix
the parachute. If I am going to buy a plane with a parachute, I certainly
don't want it to be because the plane would be otherwise unsafe.

The best way for us to see if chutes add safety would be for Cessna to add
it as an option on the 182. Unless someone else other than Cirrus puts them
on a plane, I am afraid the chute may get a bad name.

Mr. Collins may be a well respected expert, but if he disagrees with the
basic numbers, he is in error.






"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
..
.
The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
fatality rates of any small airplane.

This is an outrageous statement! Can you post any facts showing the
accident and fatality rates of Cirrus airplanes vs. comparable aircraft?
If
you examine the real numbers you will find that your statement is patently
false.

No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees
with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of
Cirrus
airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured
between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because
the
182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for
purposeful personal transportation."

Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was
questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft.

-Mike

In article , Mike Murdock
wrote:

No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees
with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of Cirrus
airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured
between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because the
182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for
purposeful personal transportation."
Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was
questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft.

You are forgetting that Collin's article was written in January (three
month lead time for publishing), prior to the current rash of
accidents.