Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

"Vaughn" writes:

We are not talking about a trainer, we are talking about an advanced,
owner-flown, plane that will occasionally end up in an inadvertant spin. Any
pilot that has enough experience to be flying one shout at least be able to
recite the standard spin recovery procedure.

Saying that the plane "will occasionally end up in an inadvertent
spin" is a lot like calling it a plane that "will occasionally end up
crumpled on the side of a mountain in clouds and freezing rain." You
have to be trying really hard to spin one; it's hard to pin that on the
plane.

We can probably all recite the standard spin recovery procedure. I
suspect that a significant number of us have never experienced a spin
nor actually done the procedure, and should it happen in real life will
probably be really confused and disoriented for long enough to die.

When I moved to California I was able to recite the standard earthquake
procedure, but when it happened the first time I had no idea what was
happening to me until it was already over...

Vaughn,

A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.


Define normal.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.


Define normal.

The "standard" spin recovery or one that is specified in the POH that does
not guarantee a (however gentle) crash.

Vaughn





--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system.

I believe I have seen Cirrus claim the plane can be revovered from a spin
normally, but experience to date has so far shown that may not be that easy.



"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Doug Vetter" wrote in message
et...

The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
revolutionary) design.

I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe
life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the
Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to
verify the rep's claims.


However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
with more money than skill flying them.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is
some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a
design
flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying
them.

In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the
bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus
with
the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is
unlimited.

The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was
a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the
description
of "more money than skill."

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots
are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control,
and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.


How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at which
a wing stalls.

Before I get flamed, remember this is a seies of questions, not a
statement...

In my 182 I slow the plane, assuming gear is already down, by reducing power
and pitching up. On a laminar flow wing (does the Cirrus have a laminar flow
wing?) I understand that the wing stall happens pretty abruptly - either you
are flying or your not. If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

All right, I'm done. Have at it...

Michael





"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also
reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.


How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at
which
a wing stalls.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54...
[...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of
being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch
angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me.

But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under
control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without
as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method.

Assuming you use either method to slow an equal amount, from the same
initial airspeed, the resulting airspeed will be the same, and will be just
as "close to the stall speed", assuming neither method changes the stall
speed (which is the case when comparing speed brakes versus pitching up).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54...
[...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of
being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch
angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me.

But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under
control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without
as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method.


Hmmm - I agree - I meant that the use of speed brakes would allow slowing
without using as much pitch - does that make sense?

Michael

I would think vortex generators would help reduce the stall speed without
causing to much drag and reducing its speed.


Michael 182 wrote:

Before I get flamed, remember this is a seies of questions, not a
statement...

In my 182 I slow the plane, assuming gear is already down, by reducing power
and pitching up. On a laminar flow wing (does the Cirrus have a laminar flow
wing?) I understand that the wing stall happens pretty abruptly - either you
are flying or your not. If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

All right, I'm done. Have at it...

Michael

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also
reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.


How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at
which
a wing stalls.

I've got about 500 hours in both SR20s and SR22s, so I'll throw out
some real world experience (not that it's worth anything in a
newsgroup, but here goes.)

The folks claiming that they stall without warning and are then
difficult to control have obviously never flown one. You get plenty
of warning (as required in Part 23) by buffeting, mushy controls, and
the stall warning. If you keep going, the inner part of the wing
stalls first (it is at a higher angle of attack than the outer part;
take a look at the wing cuffs.) When that happens you still have
aileron control if you're sloppy and try to use it. It feels like a
washboard road. If you are sufficiently uncoordinated you can drop a
wing, and if you try hard enough you can spin one, but you have to be
asleep at the yoke to do this.

They are not particularly difficult to slow down because of the fixed
gear. You can deploy half flaps at a relatively generous 120 KIAS.
Much easier to deal with than the Baron I fly.

I'm not sure where the "too small flaps" claim comes from; they seem
to work just fine, and making them bigger would reduce the speed at which
they can be deployed, and make the power-off descent angle with full
flaps even more impressive than it is now.

Handling is responsive and predictable. They're way fun to yank and
bank. The side yoke does not require much force and comes naturally
very quickly.

The trim is a bit of a pain (it runs too fast) but you get used to it
pretty quickly.

The paranoia about spins and spin recovery seems overblown. The test
pilots have spun them and recovered, and nowhere in the POH does it
say that spins are "unrecoverable" (contrary to another posting here.)
Until recently the POH suggested normal spin recovery technique,
though this was removed in a recent revision, presumably as a CYA
move. I have heard, though cannot confirm, that some kind of spin
certification will be required for JAA certification, so hopefully
that will put this issue to rest.

Having said that, part 23 only requires recovery from a one turn spin,
which isn't really a spin at all. The drama about the "death zone"
below 900' is seriously overblown; I suspect that the majority of
pilots have never had spin training, and even those that have are
unlikely to recover from the usual base-to-final spin in *any*
aircraft.

The 4000-ish hour life limit on the SR22 is a certification artifact;
Cirrus chose to use a very conservative formula based on the SR20
airframe life tests in order to speed the SR22 certification process,
but will be extending the life based on testing.

I think you'll find the *vast* majority of Cirrus owners are very
happy with their purchases (with the exception of ArtP, who seems
to have gotten a lemon.) I've never had a maintenance problem that
cancelled (or ended) a flight, and the only failures I've had have
been with OEM parts, and this is true of most owners.

The only design characteristic that I think can cause handling
problems for low-time transitioning pilots is the high wing loading,
which requires higher takeoff and landing speeds (rotate at 70 KIAS,
final approach at 70-75 in an SR20 or 75-80 in an SR22) and causes
serious sink rates if you get too slow. You have to land them like
heavy airplanes--hold the approach attitude all the way into the
flare, and no 50 AGL roundouts like in 172s. A number of the landing
accidents were due to this (IMHO), coupled with insufficient training
(which I understand has been fixed, though it's been three years since
I last had the factory training.) Early on the trainers were
recommending coming in five knots faster than the POH numbers in order
to accommodate sloppy 172 technique, which results in excessive float,
and bouncing, and things go badly after that if you don't immediately
go around. If you have the discipline to fly the numbers, they are
pussycats to land, and have more than enough energy to flare and land
smoothly even with the power at idle.

As far as the accidents go, simply pointing at statistics and calling
the plane a death trap and saying that they are "falling out of the
sky" isn't supportable by the facts. Of the eight fatal accidents
(not counting the flight test accident) five (and possibly a sixth,
though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard
to blame these on the plane per se.

Ultimately it comes down to whether people do more stupid things in
Cirrus aircraft than in other brands. Statistically it's too early to
tell, and the time-in-type average is very low. Basically, you can
cook the numbers to support your position, regardless. I think it's
probably true that someone who is going to be stupid enough to scud
run at night or in mountainous terrain is probably more likely to die
in a Cirrus than a Cessna because of the speed. It may well be that
pilots feel safer in a Cirrus than in a 25 year old 172 (I know I do,
and it's arguably true, particularly IFR) and perhaps that leads the
marginal ones to take bigger risks. But there is no shortage of
pilots doing dumb things in all manner of aircraft, and dying on a
regular basis. Time will tell.