cirrus aircraft

In article .com,
wrote:
* Numerous Cirrus owners have commented that trimming the plane to
hands-off is difficult and that they rely on the A/P for enroute
flying. Then again, who would drive a car today without power steering?
Perhaps this is the SATS-type future of GA.


Power steering doesn't drive the car for you. An autopilot flies the
plane for you.

With all due respect to those who have purchased SR20/SR22 aircraft, I
wouldn't buy one if someone handed me the money. In my opinion, the
money is better spent on more proven designs.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
* Numerous Cirrus owners have commented that trimming the plane to
hands-off is difficult and that they rely on the A/P for enroute
flying. Then again, who would drive a car today without power steering?
Perhaps this is the SATS-type future of GA.


Power steering doesn't drive the car for you. An autopilot flies the
plane for you.

No, but if your power steering fails, you probably call the towtruck.
And if you don't, your wife definitely does. That's my point- the
autopilot basically becomes an MEL item in these planes.

With all due respect to those who have purchased SR20/SR22 aircraft, I
wouldn't buy one if someone handed me the money. In my opinion, the
money is better spent on more proven designs.

I'm a little less chary of it, though I prefer the Lancair (from a
distance) because of their attention to the cabin crash dynamics. IIRC
they poached some of the guys who worked on the Diamond planes which
have an absolutely amazing safety record, especially the Katana. This
plus airbags has for me a lot more safety value than CAPS, which
protects you in comparatively few circumstances. However, it seems to
me that in terms of fundamental philosophy, both the Columbia and SR
series planes seem to be designed to be flown like corporate jets-
takeoff, turn on George, disconnect, flare and land. Considering the
comparative safety record thi might be the wiser approach.

-cwk.

In article .com,
wrote:

I'm a little less chary of it, though I prefer the Lancair (from a
distance) because of their attention to the cabin crash dynamics. IIRC
they poached some of the guys who worked on the Diamond planes which
have an absolutely amazing safety record, especially the Katana. This
plus airbags has for me a lot more safety value than CAPS, which

I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
ownership or reliability history. Kit-built cost of ownership is one
thing, but when it's certificated, and then you have to hunt down an A&P
who has been trained on the airplane, that certainly limits your options
and raises the overall cost.

No doubt that as automation increases, piloting skills required
decrease. That may contribute to greater safety if adequate redundancy
is employed, but it also takes a certain charm out of flying an airplane.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

No doubt that as automation increases, piloting skills required
decrease. That may contribute to greater safety if adequate redundancy
is employed, but it also takes a certain charm out of flying an airplane.

Then increased automation should allow pilots to safely fly aircraft which would
otherwise be very challenging; faster, less stable, etc.. That might restore a
certain amount of charm.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

In article 7tV_e.6370$tX3.1051@trndny06,
George Patterson wrote:
No doubt that as automation increases, piloting skills required
decrease. That may contribute to greater safety if adequate redundancy
is employed, but it also takes a certain charm out of flying an airplane.

Then increased automation should allow pilots to safely fly aircraft which
would
otherwise be very challenging; faster, less stable, etc.. That might restore
a
certain amount of charm.


That may be true of larger, faster airplanes, but is not true in the
case of the Cirrus. Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.

I don't know what would be charming or exciting about sitting around
while the AP flies the airplane. I would be happy to have AP assistance
during the mundane parts of cruise and approach, but having to rely on
the AP to keep the airplane in stable flight is something that I can't
honestly say that I would like.

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would buy a Cirrus. I know people
who own them, but don't know why they were chosen over other aircraft
(even when compared with the Columbias).


JKG

Jonathan,

Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.


more stable? How and where did you get the idea that the SR22is not?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jonathan,

Even the SR22 isn't any faster than other light
aircraft that possess more stable flying characteristics.


more stable? How and where did you get the idea that the SR22is not?

Back two or three days ago, in this thread. The observation came from one
or two Cirrus drivers.
--
Jim in NC

("Jonathan Goodish" wrote)
[snip]
I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
ownership or reliability history.


How many Columbias are up? What's Cirrus on ...2,000.

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
Cirrus

http://www.flycolumbia.com/
Columbia


Montblack

Montblack wrote:
("Jonathan Goodish" wrote)
[snip]
I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
ownership or reliability history.


How many Columbias are up? What's Cirrus on ...2,000.

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
Cirrus

http://www.flycolumbia.com/
Columbia

History teaches that pilots are willing to take chances on airframes,
but not on engines, which is pretty logical. The Grumman fleets are
pretty small and yet there's still enough guys with PMA out there to
make keeping one in the air pretty straightforward. Plus neither Cirrus
nor Lancair have retractable gear, which is probably one of the biggest
bugbears in terms of maintenance.

-cwk.

In article .com,
wrote:
History teaches that pilots are willing to take chances on airframes,
but not on engines, which is pretty logical. The Grumman fleets are

I'm not sure what this means. The airframe represents the majority of
the investment in an airplane, particularly a new single engine
airplane. I'd rather put $400k in a Cessna or Mooney than in a plastic
airplane, but honestly, the cost of new airplanes is so burdened with
liability that it's like throwing money away.



JKG