Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

Greg,

Sorry if I am calling your baby ugly, but...

I get information from lots of different pilots. That means that I may end
up spreading some bad poop, but I am open to being refuted.

The information you are disagreeing with mostly comes from a very
experienced pilot who is a COPA member, but does not own a Cirrus. I have
no reason to suspect his lack of objectivity or that he has an axe to grind.
He is very knowledgeable.

I know someone who recently aquired an SR 22 on brokerage, so perhaps I will
be able to get a better experience with the plane. Cirrus reps do not
demonstrate the plane well enough for people to make a decision, you are
right about that.

My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
many people in too short of time with too few planes. Has Cirrus done good
things for aviation, maybe they have. On the other hand, maybe they are
hurting it with their bad record.

Have you thought to consider the black eye that BRS has over this whole
thing? The anti parachute crowd has lots of ammo now, thanks to Cirrus.
How about the anti composite folks? I think composites are safer, but
thanks to Cirrus, it doesn't necessarily look that way in reality.

Whether anyone can recover from a spin @1000 feet is an interesting
discussion, but you are using it as a straw dog. I don't care what the
answer is, I know that if you take off in a Cirrus, and I take off in almost
any other new single, the odds are in my favor. Enjoy getting there faster,
those few saved minutes may be a large percentage of the rest of your life.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying and
being careful.

Lastly, if you want to make a point, correct my facts, spelling, grammer, or
disagree with me, then that is great. I will likely learn from it. On the
other hand, if you want to question my motives or insult me, stay on the
porch. We KNOW as an owner of an SR22 that you have an agenda, but I would
rather take each post at face value rather than prejudging them.




"Greg" wrote in message
om...
"Dude" person,
I have really been reluctant to add a post to this thread because I
don't think I have seen so much misinformation in my life, but I feel
an obligation to correct patently false statements which I can refute
from a position of knowledge. I have been flying an SR22 for 2 1/2
years and have been a COPA member for 3 years.

You said that there are problems with the engines needing work at 700
hours. This is absolutely false. If this were happening, it would be
all over the COPA forums and I read them almost everyday. I have not
read the first report of an engine needing major work at 700 hours and
your statement about the interconnection between the prop and throttle
being problematic to the engine is so ridiculous as to be humorous. I
also have a very good relationship with my Service Center and we have
had a lot of conversations about various Cirrus issues, major engine
work at 700 hours has never been mentioned. And shock cooling
problems??!! Huh? I have never had this problem even once.

As far as slowing the plane down, I have never had a problem with THAT
either. I have had to start slowing down a little sooner BECAUSE I
WAS GOING FASTER TO START WITH! I have flown an ILS down to the
middle marker at 120kts (faster than the cruise speed of a 172) and
dropped flaps to land in the normal touchdown zone. It's just not a
problem and I have never wished I had speed brakes. By the way, THAT
is the correct way to spell "speed brakes".

And ANOTHER thing, if anybody thinks they are going to recover from an
inadvertent spin in less than 1,000' in any common four place or six
place airplane without hitting terra firma first, they are living a
fantasy. You just might barely make it if you are well practiced in
spins in the aircraft you are flying and perform spins on a regular
basis and you are at a very light weight. However, it will not happen
like that. It will happen unexpectedly, probably when you are heavy
with an aft CG, while you are doing something else like changing to
departure control frequency. You look up from the radio to see the
world spinning. You have less than five seconds to figure out what
happened and determine the correct control inputs. You must execute
them perfectly, or you die. Depending on the plane, loading, and
pilot proficiency in spin recovery, I would not expect many scenarios
like this to end favorably with less than 2,000' for an average pilot.

Geez, this thread has the worst signal to noise ratio I have seen in a
long time. You know, it started out with just some guy asking for a
little information, I don't think he wanted an earful of crap from
someone with an agenda. Until you fly a Cirrus for more than a
demonstration flight, you would do well to stick to verifiable facts.

Greg

"Dude" wrote in message
...
"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)

"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.

I'm not sure speed brakes would help. They would probably hurt, in
fact!

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:30:07 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

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.

I believe I have seen Cirrus claim the plane can be revovered from a spin
normally, but experience to date has so far shown that may not be that easy.



"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Doug Vetter" wrote in message
et...

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 was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe
life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the
Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to
verify the rep's claims.


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.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is
some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a
design
flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying
them.

In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the
bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus
with
the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is
unlimited.

The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was
a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the
description
of "more money than skill."

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots
are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control,
and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
of "more money than skill."

I cannot comment on that specific accident, because I don't remember
what happened. Perhaps he was atypical of the "problem" Cirrus pilot.
Perhaps he was the perfect example...I don't know.

What I do know is that the vast majority of accidents in any aircraft
type -- not just Cirrus -- are due to pilot error, and an awful lot of
the well-publicized Cirrus accidents seem to fit into the classic
category of "more money than skill". Call it the "Doctor Killer" syndrome.

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.
snip

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

For what it's worth, the Seminole was reportedly never spin tested,
though its twin (the Beech Dutchess) was. Neither are approved for
spins, but at least they will recover from one.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

Here we find some common ground. Cirrus does have some QC issues.
Diamond does too, for that matter. I'm not sure why maintenance is
suffering (God knows the local Cirrus service center is always packed,
so there is no apparent lack of attention these airplanes receive in the
shop), but mechanical problems remain the cause of a very small
percentage of the total number of accidents.

As for the parachute, I'll go back to my original point -- if I lose an
engine in a twin, I have a chance to bring the aircraft and passengers
home to fly another day. In effect, the other engine is my parachute.
The difference, of course, is that if I pull the chute in a Cirrus, it's
game over for the airplane. IMHO, it shouldn't be so easy to throw away
$300K.

And, on that note, I'll conclude by saying if I were a prospective
Cirrus buyer like Dennis, I'd be very concerned about the inevitable
increase in insurance cost for these airplanes. Pretty soon, having a
partner in a Cirrus won't just be a "nice-to-have" when it comes time to
pay the bills. It will be a requirement.

-Doug

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

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

In article , Doug Vetter wrote:

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

Per Cirrus the *only* approved recovery method for a spin
is to deploy the BRS. Several sources I found on the web state
that the chute was used to meet the part 23 requirement. I assume
they demonstrated a spin deployment in order to satisfy the
certification requirement.

There was at least one fatal accident that involved a spin. For
some reason, the pilot didn't deploy the chute. I suppose, like
most such situations, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
(That's not a joke, by the way--I assume in a life-threatening
situation that people do what seems sensible. That's why
we train for emergencies...).

Mike Beede

"Doug Vetter" wrote in message
et...


Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin

It is a requirement. Cirrus could only meet it by saying that the way you
recover from a spin is to deploy the parachute. The airplane in testing
never successfully recovered from even an incipient spin without deploying
the chute.

In article , Doug
Vetter wrote:

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

Go to the Cirrus Design website and download the POH. It says it there.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
....

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents. With the most
liberal interpretation, stalls could have been involved in at most 5 of
those. Do you consider 14% to be a "large percentage"? If so, you must be
an accountant for the federal government.

-Mike

"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
....

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents.

The NTSB has information on only 18. Leaving out the latest three, two of
which may have involved stalls:

3/23/99 Cirrus stalls when aileron malfunctions
4/10/01 CFIT
6/16/01 Bounced landing. The report notices that the Cirrus has had eight of
these previously.
8/19/01 Bad fuel management.
9/19/01 Improper servicing; low oil.
3/16/02 Instrument failure, pilot disorientation
4/24/02 Stall/spin
5/28/02 CFIT
10/3/02 Improper maintenance, control surface failure
10/15/02 Deer strike
11/3/02 CFIT
1/18/03 Graveyard spin
1/23/03 CFIT
7/12/03 low level maneuvering, stall
8/15/03 stall
10/12/03 CFIT
12/27/03 low level maneuvering, stall
1/22/04 improper maintenance, brake failure

It appears that stalls are an unreasonably large percentage of accidents,
especially for a plane that was billed as stall-proof. CFIT seems to be the
biggest problem in the Cirrus, which would seem to support the
"doctor-killer" theory. Maintenance is also a real problem area.

Although it does not show up directly in the NTSB database, it appears that
bounced landings resulting in prop and tail strikes are a problem, though
not a deadly one. I don't know how many of the bounced landings were caused
by stalls.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
....

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage
of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents.

The NTSB has information on only 18. Leaving out the latest three, two of
which may have involved stalls:


3/23/99 Cirrus stalls when aileron malfunctions
This was a Cirrus test pilot in an experimental plane. He crashed
attempting to land with a jammed aileron. The NTSB report mentions a stall
only in that the pilot was doing stalls (not uncommon for a test pilot) 10
seconds before he reported an emergency.

1/8/00 lost power in cruise, forced landing in field, no injuries. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

10/15/00 While landing, right seat passenger hit the brakes. Plane departed
the runway and hit a sign. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

4/5/01 Bounced landing, left runway, sheared off nose wheel. Pilot time in
type was 35 hours. Note that bounced landings in these planes are generally
due to too-high approach speeds. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

4/10/01 CFIT
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X00798&key=1

6/16/01 Bounced landing. The report notices that the Cirrus has had eight
of
these previously.
Pilot had just picked up her airplane and received factory training. One of
the reasons Cirrus fired their training contractor and ended up hiring the
Universityof North Dakota. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...20X01213&key=1

8/4/01 A pilot with 25 hours of Cirrus time hit a runway marker while
taxiing. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

8/19/01 Bad fuel management.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...22X01754&key=1

9/19/01 Improper servicing; low oil.
The mechanic didn't safety wire the oil plug, and it was lost in flight.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...21X01977&key=1

9/29/01 Hard landing during a training flight when an instructor (training
another instructor) pulled power during takeoff. An acquaintance of mine
purchased this plane from the insurance company after the accident and did
the repairs himself, including repairing the wing spar where the fence had
damaged it. I've flown this plane after the repairs and it flies very well.
See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

11/9/01 After a catastrophic engine failure, the pilot deadsticked the plane
in. No injuries. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

3/16/02 Instrument failure, pilot disorientation
This is the incident where they attempted to use the chute and it didn't
deploy. They landed in a field and hit a tree, no injuries. After this,
there was an AD for changing the chute deployment system. No online report
found.

4/23/02 Brake failed during taxi, hit parked plane. See
http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/...s&Number=39792

4/24/02 Stall/spin
Apparently doing acrobatics despite placards prohibiting them. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X00613&key=1

5/11/02 Pilot lost control on landing, landing gear collapsed. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

5/28/02 CFIT
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00811&key=1

See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

6/3/02 Wing tip struck parked fuel truck. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

10/3/02 Improper maintenance, control surface failure
Mechanic did not safety-wire aileron bolt. Pilot pulled chute, received
only minor injures. Plane was repaired and is flying again. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X05290&key=1

10/15/02 Deer strike
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...29X05397&key=1

11/3/02 CFIT
VFR into IMC. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X05449&key=1

11/11/02 Broken camshaft, deadstick landing, no injuries. Report apparently
not available online.

12/28/02 Defective engine part (connecting rod bolt) caused inflight engine
failure and forced landing. No report available online.

1/18/03 Graveyard spin
The NTSB concluded differently. They estimated his true airspeed at impact
at 191 knots. Doesn't sound like a "graveyard" or any other type of spin to
me. See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...22X00087&key=1

1/23/03 CFIT
Collided with power lines during an instrument approach. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00175&key=1

7/12/03 low level maneuvering, stall
It's fair enough to put this one in the stall category. Don't go from 100%
flaps to 0% flaps when you are low and slow. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...18x01151&key=1

7/12/03 nose wheel collapsed on landing. Little other information
available.

8/15/03 stall
The pilot was maneuvering to avoid a helicopter. Sounds like he stalled it.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00014&key=1

10/12/03 CFIT
This happened in Spain. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00012&key=1

12/27/03 low level maneuvering, stall
Pilot was doing a simulated ("watch this") forced landing, hit power pole
and guy wire on climbout. I guess hitting the wire would cause the plane to
stall, but it hardly seems fair to put this one in that category. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00007&key=1

1/1/04 Blown tire on landing. No injuries. No info available online.

1/22/04 improper maintenance, brake failure
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...29X00128&key=1

4/8/04 Stall/spin over mountains. Parachute saved all onboard. No online
report.

4/10/04: On the first flight after maintenance, loss of instruments in hard
IMC at low altitude. Chute saved pilot, no injuries. Aircraft not heavily
damaged, may fly again. No online report available.

4/20/04: Crashed on departure. Four fatalities. Chute was apparently not
deployed. From witness descriptions (plane went up to about 30 feet AGL,
descended to 10 feet AGL, then zoomed up to 400 feet AGL) seems reasonable
to describe as a stall or stall/spin accident. See
http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/...s&Number=85720


It appears that stalls are an unreasonably large percentage of accidents,

While I think that any number over zero is unreasonably large, I'll bet
you'd find approximately the same percentage for other airplanes.

especially for a plane that was billed as stall-proof.

Whoa! Who said that? Please provide some evidence that Cirrus EVER said
this. If they represent the plane as stall-proof, why are stalls a part of
the factory flight training curriculum?

CFIT seems to be the
biggest problem in the Cirrus, which would seem to support the
"doctor-killer" theory. Maintenance is also a real problem area.

Although it does not show up directly in the NTSB database, it appears
that
bounced landings resulting in prop and tail strikes are a problem, though
not a deadly one. I don't know how many of the bounced landings were
caused
by stalls.

Yup. That was much more of a problem early on, due to poor instruction
during factory training. Several of the prop/tail strikes occurred during
factory training. Cirrus fired the contractor doing the training and the
problem has greatly diminished.

-Mike