Another Cirrus crash

"FUji" wrote in
:

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Otis Winslow" wrote in message


What is it about these that has them involved in so many
crashes? Are they that difficult to fly? Are there some
gotchas with them?

Rusty pilots?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________


Slick airframe, glass cockpit with an analog pilot and a goofy
side-stick are a few problems. A good plane for wannabe airline
pilots who don't like to look out the windows. "Stall? It dosen't say
on this here tv screen that I'm in a stall... Whoops, wrong
channel..."

Quality control seems to be on par with Lightspeed, meaning they're in
the shop more than a British car. They look good and are very
comfortable. But it's the only airplane I've ever flown that I can
say I truly hated and couldn't wait to be back on the ground.



I'm brand new to avaition, I;ve only been behind the controls of 2
planes, each twice around the pattern: One an SR22, and one 194-
something ercoupe ... but I liked the "goofy" sidestick... :-)

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

probably rusty on that W/B , 4 adult males in a 200 hp airplane.


John T wrote:

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message


What is it about these that has them involved in so many
crashes? Are they that difficult to fly? Are there some
gotchas with them?

Rusty pilots?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

In article , Otis Winslow
wrote:

What is it about these that has them involved in so many
crashes? Are they that difficult to fly? Are there some
gotchas with them?

Thurman Munson syndrome?

It is kind of disconcerting to see this happening, but keep in mind that it
may not be statistically significant compared to the crash rate of Cessnas,
Pipers, Beeches, etc... I expect that we're all a bit more aware of Cirrus
right now because of the recent BRS deployment, so any news regarding Cirrus
is going to be noticed more now than it would be at another point in time.

Someone mentioned they hate the plane... I have yet to fly in one, but I
know it certainly offers everything I could hope to want in a small general
aviation plane (except for the bathroom for my wife!) It's roomy,
redundant, and fast. I really like the idea of the side stick... that must
make dealing with charts soooooo much easier with all the space freed up in
front of you. Not to mention more room for the three course meal mid-flight.


I am concerned though about the incidents I've been hearing about all of the
systems failing simultaneously. That is certainly not something I would
expect to happen with a plane with dual redundant electrical systems.
Especially not one costing over $300k. BRS is nice, but again, there is no
substitute for training, practice, and more training to keep yourself
current. Right now, I'm more than comfortable with the 172SP, and would love
to fly an SR-22... it would make getting from NJ to Atlanta much zippier...
but I know my experience level has a ways to go before I'm ready for the
challenge of stepping up to something faster and more complex.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
...
What is it about these that has them involved in so many
crashes? Are they that difficult to fly? Are there some
gotchas with them?


"James L. Freeman" wrote in message
om...
A four-place Cirrus crashed yesterday near Greenwood, SC. There were
not many details in the paper this morning. There were four on board,
all killed. It went down in a wooded area near a golf course shortly
after takeoff. There was no mention of a parachute deployment. They
had arrived a few hours before for a business meeting and did not
refuel before takeoff, but in the picture it appeared that the
aircraft was destroyed by fire after impact so there must have been
fuel on board.

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message
...
It is kind of disconcerting to see this happening, but keep in mind that
it
may not be statistically significant compared to the crash rate of
Cessnas,
Pipers, Beeches, etc... I expect that we're all a bit more aware of Cirrus
right now because of the recent BRS deployment, so any news regarding
Cirrus
is going to be noticed more now than it would be at another point in time.

Rest assured the acident rate of Cirrus is statistically off the chart
compared to C/P/B.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message . com...

Rest assured the acident rate of Cirrus is statistically off the chart
compared to C/P/B.

Here is a quote from the AOPA ePILOT electronic newsletter I received
this morning:

"Although there have been four Cirrus accidents this year—two
involving deployment of the rocket-launched parachute system, which
saved the lives of five people—the [Cirrus] safety record remains
good. AOPA Air Safety Foundation statistics show the fatal accident
rate is comparable to those of the Cessna 172 and 182. Although
insurance rates for Cirrus Design aircraft were high a year ago,
insurance officials report they have now dropped to normal levels."

Guy,

I am concerned though about the incidents I've been hearing about all of the
systems failing simultaneously.


So you're another clarivoyant that's better than any NTSB team?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

It's all well, but you've gotta fly one first, then decide if it's for
you. I was also pretty excited about Cirrus, until I got a ride in an
SR-20 last year. On the ground, you sit like a king: the ergonomics,
view and comfort are terrific, but in the air the plane is very
slippery and feels like it's skating on ice, only in three dimensions.
It was pretty much impossible to trim it off for a hands-off flight,
without the a/p. I found the beast almost too squirelly to control,
and the side stick was indeed giving that disconnected feeling. Like
the others been saying, I couldn't wait till we landed. The whole
experience was hinting that I might lack some piloting skills, but one
trip in a Cherokee put things back in place.

Bottom line, I'd take Arrow or even Warrior any time over Cirrus.
Piper's ride is solid and predictable, and you can relax and enjoy the
ride, while Cirrus is too slippery and manually flying one demands
constant control inputs to the point that it wears you out very soon.
I have suspicion this may be true for most metal vs. composite
aircraft.

-Toly.


Someone mentioned they hate the plane... I have yet to fly in one, but I
know it certainly offers everything I could hope to want in a small general
aviation plane (except for the bathroom for my wife!) It's roomy,
redundant, and fast. I really like the idea of the side stick... that must
make dealing with charts soooooo much easier with all the space freed up in
front of you. Not to mention more room for the three course meal mid-flight.

"Toly" wrote in message
m

Piper's ride is solid and predictable, and you can relax and enjoy the
ride, while Cirrus is too slippery and manually flying one demands
constant control inputs to the point that it wears you out very soon.
I have suspicion this may be true for most metal vs. composite
aircraft.

Is it "metal v. composite" or different design considerations in the
respective airframes?

Don't get me wrong. I haven't so much as sat in a Cirrus much less flown
one, but it seems that the Cirrus was designed as a higher performing
airframe than the Piper models you mentioned. I'm just wondering if the
Cirrus designers sacrificed some stability to achieve that performance.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

the SR20 is not that much higher performing.
its a 200 hp engine that does about 156 KTAS (per their website), thats about
6 kts faster then my 200 hp turbo arrow is all - and at 14000 ft I can go
faster then a SR20 (about 165 KTAS)

the SR22 with its 310 HP engine is something else now.
But compare it to other planes with a 310 HP engine.


John T wrote:

"Toly" wrote in message
m

Piper's ride is solid and predictable, and you can relax and enjoy the
ride, while Cirrus is too slippery and manually flying one demands
constant control inputs to the point that it wears you out very soon.
I have suspicion this may be true for most metal vs. composite
aircraft.

Is it "metal v. composite" or different design considerations in the
respective airframes?

Don't get me wrong. I haven't so much as sat in a Cirrus much less flown
one, but it seems that the Cirrus was designed as a higher performing
airframe than the Piper models you mentioned. I'm just wondering if the
Cirrus designers sacrificed some stability to achieve that performance.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________