Cirrus Airframe Life Limits

What if it doesn't get raised?


"Dave Katz" wrote in message
...
"Otis Winslow" writes:

That's like $70 per hour for every hour you fly just for the
life you've flown off the airframe. Are these things THAT
much fun to fly?

See the earlier comments about how the 4350 was determined, and how it
will eventually be raised.

I can't believe anyone would pay that much for such a
short life span plane.

Apparently lots of people are; the SR22 is the best selling airplane
in the world at this point, and Cirrus is on track to deliver more
piston singles than Cessna this year.

Well .. that's a good way to answer someone. Simply state
that they are a 14 year old non-pilot. Good reply. Bet that
one was well thought out and should carry a lot of weight.



"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
Cirrus says that they will eventually extend the life limit to 12,000
hours,
which means that instead of paying $70/hour just for the airframe, you
will
only be paying about $25. Still, Cirrus has not been able to get the
extension and they have been promising it for years.

Did someone from Cirrus promise this to you? No one promised it to me,
and
I've bought two SR22s from them.

The claim that the limit is based on the SR-20 is obviously bogus.

How so? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you know what
airframe life limit testing they went through with the SR20? Since the
SR22
type certificate was based on the SR20 type certificate, and Cirrus did
not
go through the same airframe life limit testing with the SR22, why is it
hard to beleive that the lower life limit was mathematically derived from
the higher?

So is the claim that they are waiting for the G-2. What does that have
to
do with it?

Probably because the G2 is made with different fuselage molds, including a
different airfoil for the vertical stabilizer. What evidence are you
offering that this claim is bogus? Are you in possession of some inside
information about those devious folks in Duluth that the rest of us are
not
privy to?

Do they think that sales will be better for the G-2 if they get a
reputation for
misrepresenting the SR-22?

I think your claims of being a pilot are bogus. I think you are just a
14-year old boy who is using his mommy's computer to post on usenet. Wow,
it's easy to come to wild conclusions when you are unencumbered with
facts.
I find it quite liberating, actually. I can see why you like it so much.

-Mike

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
I think your claims of being a pilot are bogus.

You are an idiot.

Sometimes, but not usually

I chose a poor example to make my point. What I was trying to say is that
if you selectively ignore facts, you can come to just about any conclusion.
I was not trying to acuse you of not being a pilot, nor of being a 14
year-old boy, and not accusing you of being like a 14 year-old boy. If I
offended you with that remark, I sincerely apologize. It was not my intent
to insult or offend.

I was just trying to say that you are saying that someone else's claims are
bogus, without offering any facts or evidence to back up your statement. I
tried to illustrate that by making an oviously outlandish claim of my own,
about you.

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to express it in
this forum, but some people hold you in regard, so don't you owe it to them
to more carefully consider your statements?

-Mike

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

How does a 12,000 hour airframe life limit for the SR-20 translate to a
4,350 hour airframe limit for an SR-22? Do you or does anyone at Cirrus
have
one shred of evidence to support that claim?

I don't have first-hand knowledge of the exchange between Cirrus and the FAA
during the SR22 certification process, but I know what someone at Cirrus
told me

Since the SR22 design is derived from the SR20, the FAA allowed Cirrus to
come up with a number for the SR22 without doing the testing. The life
limit was calculated for the SR22, based on the SR20 and the SR22's higher
max gross weight. Doing this calculation instead of the testing saved
Cirrus time and money in the certification process. It has always been
their intention to extend the limit later on. Since they first started
building the '22, they have made many changes to reduce the cost of
manufacture and increase quality. These changes have to all be approved by
the FAA, either under the type certificate, or the production certificate.
By incorporating the life limit testing into the testing for these other
changes, Cirrus is saving money.

While you can critique any such calculation, I'm certain that the FAA
scrutinized it carefully before approving it.

I have no reason to doubt this story. What is it that makes it sound
unbelievable to you?



So is the claim that they are waiting for the G-2. What does that have
to
do with it?

Probably because the G2 is made with different fuselage molds, including
a
different airfoil for the vertical stabilizer. What evidence are you
offering that this claim is bogus?

And this is what is holding up getting an extension on the SR-22? Tell me
how the G2 is preventing Cirrus from getting an extension on the SR-22

I'm just speculating here, but I'll bet it is based on economics. They need
to get the life extension on the existing SR22 airframes, as well as the new
G2 airframes. I imagine it is more cost-effective to do both of them at
once..


Do they think that sales will be better for the G-2 if they get a
reputation for
misrepresenting the SR-22?

I strongly disagree here. In what way have they misrepresented the airframe
life on the SR22?

I'll be the first to admit that we Cirrus owners sometimes get defensive
about our airplanes. When you've invested hundreds of thousands of dollars
it's only natural to want to justify your purchase and not want to hear
criticism that implies you made a bad decision.

However, there are some people that are suspicious of Cirrus Design Corp.,
as if they believe that they are selling snake oil. It seems these people
are waiting for the day when all of the happy Cirrus owners wake up and
realize they've been duped.

The only explanation I can think of is that Cirrus has upset the status quo,
and a few members of the old guard feel threatened, and are lashing out.

Can't we all just get along?

-Mike

"monitor point seven" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Murdock" wrote:

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to express it
in
this forum, but some people hold you in regard, so don't you owe it to
them
to more carefully consider your statements?

No, he doesn't. If people hold him in "regard," that is their choice. It
does not oblige CJC to consider anything he posts. If he DOES, he is
honorable, but he is under no obligation to do so and to suggest that he
is, reveals a tiresome sense of entitlement on your part.

IOW, he doesn't owe anybody here, anything.

Good point. How about if I just ask him to be a mensch?

-Mike

"monitor point seven" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Murdock" wrote:

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to express it
in
this forum, but some people hold you in regard, so don't you owe it to
them
to more carefully consider your statements?

No, he doesn't. If people hold him in "regard," that is their choice. It
does not oblige CJC to consider anything he posts. If he DOES, he is
honorable, but he is under no obligation to do so and to suggest that he
is, reveals a tiresome sense of entitlement on your part.

IOW, he doesn't owe anybody here, anything.

Well, I would not say that. I think I owe guys like Dudley Henriques and Bob
Gardner a lot, for example, even if I don't agree with them 100% of the
time.

Aside from that, I think you have the responsibility to say what you think
is right, to admit it when you are wrong, etc.

"Otis Winslow" writes:

What if it doesn't get raised?

What if a meteor destroys the earth?

OK, that was cheap.

The only way it *doesn't* get raised is if it turns out that the
airframes are falling apart, in which case a whole bunch of people,
including myself, will be quite unhappy. There does not seem to be
any indication of this in the Cirrus or any other composite airframe
that I know of.