Cirrus SR22 demo flight

"Michael" wrote in
Have you flown the Cirrus?

I have. My first flight in one involved bailing out the pilot, who
botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me
understand why the accident rate was what it was.

Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison.

Wrong comparison. The right comparison is a 1965 S-model Bonanza with
the IO-550. Which does NOT suck rocks. And a REALLY nice one, decked
out and with everything in great shape, is still less than half the
cost of the new Cirrus.

All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I
fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.

You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane? I've flown the new
SR-22 and it's awesome. For sure, people accustomed to slower planes will
need to be careful landing it. And, in a spiral, airspeed builds up in a
heartbeat so recovery procedures are to be taken seriously. But there's
nothing inherent in the design that makes it less safe to fly than any other
fast light single.

All that aside, one big plus the Cirrus has going for it is its
attractiveness as a partnership machine. The warranty, level of factory
support plus the range of toys seems to generate more interest than
functionally similar older planes and refits of older designs.

The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable in terms
of performance and servicability at that price.

moo

All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is,
when I
fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.

You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane?

No, it's more complex than that. It's a combination of airplane and
marketing. The plane isn't really any more (or less!) demanding than
one of the big-engine Bonanzas or late-model Mooneys, but generally a
private pilot with 150 hours and no instrument rating contemplating the
purchase of a late-model Mooney or Bonanza is told that it's a really
bad idea. The Cirrus markets to that segment.

That's not to say it can't be done - I've checked out a 150 hour
private pilot with no instrument rating in an A-36 Bonanza. He's
reasonably safe - as long as he doesn't try to use it as reliable
transportation. It's too fast to scud run (unlike a 172 or even an
Arrow), and requires real instrument skills to survive an IMC
encounter, not the 3 hours minimal training a private pilot gets
(unlike a 172 or even an Arrow).

The reality is that the Cirrus (as well as a big-engine Bonanza or
Mooney) is too much airplane for most low time pilots, and a low time
pilot will need a lot of training and experience in the plane before he
can use it for reliable transportation. But if the Cirrus marketing
admitted this, their sales would suffer.

But there's
nothing inherent in the design that makes it less safe to fly than
any other
fast light single.

No, on balance I would put it in the same category as a V-35S Bonanza
or M20R Mooney. It's harder to slow down, but on the other hand it's
slightly less complex so it probably comes out in the wash.

The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable
in terms
of performance and servicability at that price.

V35S Bonanza, new paint, new interior, factory reman engine. Glass
panel (now STC'd). TKS Weeping wings (with a better system than the
Cirrus has, now STC'd). Slightly faster on the same fuel burn. Fifth
seat for when you need it. Much nicer handling, lands slower, better
rough field airplane. All for less than half the price of an
equivalently equipped Cirrus.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is,
when I fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out.

You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane?

No, it's more complex than that. It's a combination of airplane and
marketing. The plane isn't really any more (or less!) demanding than
one of the big-engine Bonanzas or late-model Mooneys, but generally a
private pilot with 150 hours and no instrument rating contemplating the
purchase of a late-model Mooney or Bonanza is told that it's a really
bad idea. The Cirrus markets to that segment.

I'm curious about these numbers. Do you have any cite to back them? And,
who tells these pilots that a late model Mooney or A35 is a bad idea? Beech
or Money's sales departments? Exactly where does this alleged warning come
from such that it isn't equally available to potential Cirrus customers? If
your facts are correct, who's at fault?

The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable
in terms of performance and servicability at that price.

V35S Bonanza, new paint, new interior, factory reman engine. Glass
panel (now STC'd). TKS Weeping wings (with a better system than the
Cirrus has, now STC'd). Slightly faster on the same fuel burn. Fifth
seat for when you need it. Much nicer handling, lands slower, better
rough field airplane. All for less than half the price of an
equivalently equipped Cirrus.

And maintenance costs? Anyway, I should have been more clear. I was
referring to the cost of the engine only. Not really any current options.
Annoying.

moo