Dennis wrote:
Holy crap! I guess I should have done some more research first...

I really, really, really like the performance spec's and looks of the
Currus.. My wife read your comment and now she's put off on the idea...
Gonna have to find something else now before she but the breaks on a new
plane purchase..

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com

Hi Dennis,

I'll agree with the previous poster that while the Cirrus is a nice
airplane, I also would suggest that you not buy the airplane until they
extend the life limit. They'll undoubtedly tell you that they have
"plans" to extend the limit "somewhat", but the proof is in the paper.
Amortized over a mere 4000 hours, I'd venture a guess that an SR22 costs
more per hour to run than a capable twin (the Cessna 400 series
presently notwithstanding).

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 would want that limit raised after a
sufficient field history is established and a half-dozen airplanes are
torn apart when they reach the life limit to determine if the
engineering models indeed reflect reality.

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. Fundamentally, I believe the
Cirrus is a safe airplane. I think we all agree it flies differently
than a Cessna, but in the right hands, that's not a bad thing.

Personally, if I had $300K (or partners) I'd buy a used Seneca or Baron.
It never pays to buy new. A twin will be just as fast, have full
deice, and an extra engine for sanity in IMC, night, and overwater
operations. The statistics will never bear out how much safer twins
are, because when everyone arrives safely following an engine out, there
is no report, and the airplane will fly another day. While that extra
engine costs $$$, it gives you the OPTION of finishing the flight in a
"routine" fashion and helps keep insurance costs down (no claims =
better prices for everyone). Next time you want to take your wife in
challenging conditions, ask her how many engines she'd want...

BTW, awesome job on the website. Just do me (and every other
alternative-OS guy) a favor...dump the IE requirement. By requiring IE,
you're limiting access to your site to a single operating system. If
you have to require anything (and for a truly standards-compliant site,
you shouldn't), require Mozilla!

Safe flying,

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------