Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.


Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?


Right where I started. I didn't like the plane when I thought the TBO was
2000 hours.

-jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

"C J Campbell" writes:

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

You are ignoring facts, however.

You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss
this topic with you.

-jav

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

You are ignoring facts, however.

Which "facts" are those?

You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss
this topic with you.

Seems your pouting while failing to answer the question posed indicated
YOU'RE the one who can't _rationaly_ discuss the topic.

C J Campbell wrote:

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.

http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf

I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the
spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the
composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your
anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in,
but until then I think you're spouting hot air.

And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently
stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.

-Ryan
ATP, CFI, CSI (Cirrus Standardized Instructor)

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
. ..
C J Campbell wrote:

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.

http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf

I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the
spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the
composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your
anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in,
but until then I think you're spouting hot air.

And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently
stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.


First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just
because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22
has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run
some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
then that removes one of my major objections. I think the safety record is
still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the
kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any
criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me.

C J Campbell wrote:

First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just
because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22
has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run
some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Okay. I don't give Cirrus a blanket endorsement either, but I think
Cessna's going to have their hands full for the forseeable future in the
single-engine airplane market. The Cessna products are still fine for
what they do, but I think the majority of the market will choose Cirrus
for the average private pilot mission.

Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
then that removes one of my major objections.

Do you honestly still think there's any doubt?

I think the safety record is
still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the
kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

This is a voluminous subject on which I have many opinions, but in a
nutshell
I believe the statistics show it's the training, not the airplane. This is
another area Cirrus (and the aircraft insurance industry) has addressed,
and these days buying a new Cirrus involves a type-rating style checkout
which
takes most new owners 10-15 hours. Cirrus fired their former training
provider
and gave the contract to the University of North Dakota, who developed
an impressively good (although imperfect) training syllabus for
transitioning owners and instructors. The training is all
scenario-based with a
heavy emphasis on ADM and personal minimums. It's going in the right
direction.

No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any
criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me.

There's still plenty to criticize. Fortunately, most if not all of it
can be fixed, and Cirrus has been steadily improving their products.

-Ryan

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
om...
C J Campbell wrote:

First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign.
Just
because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus
SR22
has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to
run
some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Okay. I don't give Cirrus a blanket endorsement either, but I think
Cessna's going to have their hands full for the forseeable future in the
single-engine airplane market. The Cessna products are still fine for
what they do, but I think the majority of the market will choose Cirrus
for the average private pilot mission.


I think most people don't have much choice. Cessna has shown little
willingness to innovate or even build adequate numbers of the designs they
have. I am flabbergasted, actually, that Cessna managed to install the
G-1000 in several of their planes.

Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
then that removes one of my major objections.

Do you honestly still think there's any doubt?


Not really, but I will keep annoying Javier as long as I can.

I think the safety record is
still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and
the
kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

This is a voluminous subject on which I have many opinions, but in a
nutshell
I believe the statistics show it's the training, not the airplane.

I think that is right, but the SR22 seems to be the kind of airplane that
attracts the wrong kind of pilots. Oh, well. Bonanza is, no doubt, glad to
get some competition for the title of doctor killer.

"C J Campbell" wrote:
First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign.

Bwaw-haw-haw! You could have fooled us! Is that why you only cross-posted
to four groups?

If you keep grinding this axe, you won't have anything left but the handle.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
. ..
C J Campbell wrote:

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.

http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf


How come part of this document is blacked out?

There is nothing new, BTW, about fiberglass. It is heavier than aluminum,
more difficult to repair, and subject to solar radiation damage (even the
Cirrus' special 3M fiberglass -- it has to be protected by that white
paint). It does have the advantage of being somewhat tougher than aluminum
(fiberglass does not dent as easily, but it is still subject to abrasions
and cracks.

You can do anything with aluminum that you can with fiberglass or carbon
fiber.

Carbon fiber, though, is both lighter and stronger than either aluminum or
fiberglass. It is also a lot more expensive and even more difficult to
repair. It also can be woven in ways that give infinite combinations of
flexibility and strength. There are very few shops certified to repair
carbon fiber. One of the troubles with carbon fiber is it if it is
over-stressed, it doesn't just gradually crystallize and develop cracks the
way metal does. It fails suddenly and spectacularly. I learned this the hard
way when I was hit head-on by a car while riding my OCLV carbon fiber bike.
Although designed for stresses up to 14,000 pounds, the bike frame exploded
on impact. (I also flew over the car, leaving the soles of my shoes still in
the pedals. I landed on my head on the other side, which some people say
explains a lot about me. Anyway, I am now two inches shorter from having
compressed my neck and spine. The driver, of course, had no insurance, and
got her eighth and ninth outstanding traffic tickets that day. They took
away her license, but no doubt she drives anyway.)

Of course, if money is no object, then carbon fiber is the way to go. No
doubt, this is the reason the Diamond is so expensive for what you get.
Aluminum will always have an economic advantage over carbon fiber.

The Diamond uses fiberglass, too, especially in the wings and skins, no
doubt as a cost saving measure. It uses Kevlar in the seats, so your
passengers can't shoot you in the back (actually, to achieve that 26G
cockpit strength).

I think bicycles are pointing the direction to the future of aircraft. I
think we may eventually see aircraft made of titanium (the stuff is not
rare, just difficult to work with) and beryllium/aluminum alloys. You can
get bicycles made of these materials today, and they are proving their
worth, though I will probably stick with carbon fiber. You will never see a
serious fiberglass bicycle, which is even more dependent than an airplane on
strength and lightness. Fiberglass is for cheap boats, not airplanes or
bicycles.

C J Campbell wrote:

How come part of this document is blacked out?

There was a conspiracy, but it was covered up.

Reasonable points about types of materials used in airplane
construction, although I believe the Cirrus will last just as long or
longer than any other airplane out there.

-Ryan
Aluminum airplane owner