Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

I will look for the dates for you.

I do not recall the words "cylinder failure" anywhere, just that there was
major engine work, top overhauls, and fears of needing rebuilds in the near
future.



I see someone
"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