Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

"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

Michael wrote:

: The 300 hp IO-550 is an option on at least the S-model Bonanza (and
: probably many others). A friend of mine has one and I've flown it -
: it's a great airplane, and it will comfortably cruise at 180 kts on
: 16-17 gph.

: Michael

The 300HP IO-550, derated to 280HP, is in the Mooney Ovation2. The Ovation2
cruises in the 175 to 190 KT range on 15-16 GPH. You can get a very nice one
from the 2000 or 2001 model year for about $300K, if you look around.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

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.

The SR22 will carry 4 people and a good fuel load. Just
be careful to avoid (a) clouds (unless IFR) (b) mountains
(c) the temptation to say, gee, wonder what happens if I
pull this big red handle (d) confusing it with the SR20,
which won't.

John

"Aaron Coolidge" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

: The 300 hp IO-550 is an option on at least the S-model Bonanza (and
: probably many others). A friend of mine has one and I've flown it -
: it's a great airplane, and it will comfortably cruise at 180 kts on
: 16-17 gph.

: Michael

The 300HP IO-550, derated to 280HP, is in the Mooney Ovation2. The
Ovation2
cruises in the 175 to 190 KT range on 15-16 GPH. You can get a very nice
one
from the 2000 or 2001 model year for about $300K, if you look around.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper
wrote:
At this point in just about
any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

"EDR" wrote in message
...
NOT TRUE!!!
Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.In article 1083006290.499387@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper wrote:

What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
first place...

Then what did you base your comment on?
(I have the original three articles.)

What I read elsewhere. However I did have the technique
wrong, it seems (after a bit of surfing). I thought you took
your feet off the pedals, and that's not so, just your hands off the
stick. (Before everybody rushes in and says "you terrible
incompetent inept pilot, glad I'm not sharing the airspace
with you, etc etc etc" - I do practice spin recoveries quite
often, but using the "full" technique).

I guess I should try my "modified" M-B technique sometime
in the incipient phase. After all M-B are talking about a fully
developed spin, i.e. after 3 turns, and in the original context
of this thread, if you haven't spotted that something is wrong
after three turns of a spin (and tried to do something about it)
then your piloting skills are probably not your greatest concern.

Trouble is while my head finds spins fascinating, my stomach
feels otherwise, so I never do more than a couple in a single
flight - generally as I'm leaving the practice area, which in turn
is generally because my stomach is already suggesting it's
time to go home.

John


"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper
wrote:
At this point in just about
any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and
wait).

"EDR" wrote in message
...
NOT TRUE!!!
Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.In article
1083006290.499387@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper wrote:

What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
first place...

Then what did you base your comment on?
(I have the original three articles.)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without
pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been
demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference.

Bull. That's no difference at all.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

John Harper wrote:

At this point in just about
any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

Try that in a Maule with some load configurations, and you're gonna die.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
[...]
As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without
pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been
demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference.

Bull. That's no difference at all.

Bull? Bull yourself. It's a huge difference.

I have never demonstrated that I am capable of driving a car into a brick
wall. Does that mean that I am actually not capable of driving a car into a
brick wall?

No, of course it doesn't.

Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability.


True, but in the case of Cirrus they really did try to spin the airplane. It
used to be on their web site while the airplane was still in development.

Peter Duniho wrote:

Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability.

You are confusing common usage English with FAA-speak. 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.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.