cirrus aircraft

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 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.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Morgans,

There are other ways to deal with a stick or column, and being crash-worth.
Telescoping under pressure, break-away, and airbags are all strategies that
work well.


And can be found in which aircraft?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Airbags are optional in all Mooneys and new Cessnas and can be
retrofitted to the new production Cessnas as well.
Gerd

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

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

I'd rather put $400k in a Cessna or Mooney than in a plastic airplane,

I guess you're still driving a sixties chevy then.

Stefan

wrote:
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.

That isn't logical at all to me. An catastrophic engine failure is a
bad deal, but a very survivable deal in most cases. A catastrophic
airframe failure is rarely survivable. What logic are you seeing that
I'm missing?


Matt

In article ,
Stefan wrote:
I'd rather put $400k in a Cessna or Mooney than in a plastic airplane,

I guess you're still driving a sixties chevy then.


No, but my car is largely still made from the same type of materials. I
don't need a computer to drive it straight. And just about any mechanic
and body shop can fix it.

Composites may indeed be superior in some ways, but long-term cost of
ownership for composites used in certificated GA aircraft is a huge
unknown at this point.


JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

No, but my car is largely still made from the same type of materials. I
don't need a computer to drive it straight. And just about any mechanic
and body shop can fix it.

If you can't hand fly the cirrus straight and level, then you should
urgently contact a good FI. (Have you ever flown one at all?) BTW: You'd
be surprized by the amount of electronics in a modern car.

Composites may indeed be superior in some ways, but long-term cost of
ownership for composites used in certificated GA aircraft is a huge
unknown at this point.

Composite aircraft have existed since how long? Since thirty years
maybe? With an allowed airframe life of 12000 hours or some such? You
have no clue what you're talking about. But then, luckily for Cessna and
Piper, many other pilots don't either, obviously.

Stefan