If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it. Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go. http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in, but until then I think you're spouting hot air. And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU. -Ryan ATP, CFI, CSI (Cirrus Standardized Instructor) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" writes: "Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" writes: "Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours. Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated). No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO. http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom. Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating inaccurate data to make a point is not right. Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one model of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700? Oh, good grief. I'm saying that the engine in the SR22, which is the IO-550N, has a TBO of 2000 hours. "Good grief" is right. You stated "stating inaccurate data to make a point _is not right._" (emphasis mine) -- just what implication are we to make from that statement? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" writes: "Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" writes: http:\\http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons. Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life, engine TBO). Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not "flawed " data. You really should work for the DNC :~) Whatever. "Inaccurate information for the purposes of comparing current revisions of the products under consideration". Happy now? No. Your implication is one of misrepresentation. You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces. When the "new design" ("New and Improved") is seriously flawed, we damn well better bash it to pieces. When the "new design" is more marketing than engineering, it's even more appropriate. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" writes: A balanced view does not ignore the facts. You are ignoring facts, however. Which "facts" are those? You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss this topic with you. Seems your pouting while failing to answer the question posed indicated YOU'RE the one who can't _rationaly_ discuss the topic. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message . .. C J Campbell wrote: Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it. Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go. http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in, but until then I think you're spouting hot air. And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU. First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22 has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus. Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted then that removes one of my major objections. I think the safety record is still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane. No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Stefan" wrote in message ... C J Campbell wrote: Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per 100,000 hours 10 times that of average, Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane? Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted. The Boeing 737 is not being sold as easy and safe for low time private pilots to fly. The Cirrus is. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... Happy now? You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces. First of all, I thought my report of the Diamond was very favorable, and it is even newer than the Cirrus. In fact, it has many more innovations than the Cirrus, which hardly innovates at all. What is new about fiberglass, for example, or even the rather outdated Avidyne flight display (superVGA, non-integrated, slow) compared with the G-1000 (XVGA, fully integrated, fast)? The Cirrus is old news. You know, I am not making up these criticisms. You have not addressed them at all; you are just complaining that those who point out these weaknesses are anti-Cirrus, as if Cirrus were running for class president instead of an airplane that peoples' lives depend on. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... I did post the link to TCM's datasheet on the engine, stating a TBO of 2000 hours. The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours. I hope it has been, but you still have not given me any evidence of that. Given that you have made a religious issue of it, I am hardly likely to take you at your word. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"gwengler" wrote in message om... Just a few corrections: Max. cruise is 165 at 20000 ft. and 88% power. Range WITH 45 miuntes reserve is 635 nm (88% power) to 970 nm (45% power). I got my numbers off Cessna's own web site. If they are wrong then Cessna should hear about it. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22 has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus. Okay. I don't give Cirrus a blanket endorsement either, but I think Cessna's going to have their hands full for the forseeable future in the single-engine airplane market. The Cessna products are still fine for what they do, but I think the majority of the market will choose Cirrus for the average private pilot mission. Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted then that removes one of my major objections. Do you honestly still think there's any doubt? I think the safety record is still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane. This is a voluminous subject on which I have many opinions, but in a nutshell I believe the statistics show it's the training, not the airplane. This is another area Cirrus (and the aircraft insurance industry) has addressed, and these days buying a new Cirrus involves a type-rating style checkout which takes most new owners 10-15 hours. Cirrus fired their former training provider and gave the contract to the University of North Dakota, who developed an impressively good (although imperfect) training syllabus for transitioning owners and instructors. The training is all scenario-based with a heavy emphasis on ADM and personal minimums. It's going in the right direction. No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me. There's still plenty to criticize. Fortunately, most if not all of it can be fixed, and Cirrus has been steadily improving their products. -Ryan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Cessna 140 wheel pants aluminum | Mark T. | Home Built | 0 | September 9th 04 12:19 AM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware ! | Bill Berle | Home Built | 73 | June 25th 04 04:53 AM |
Cessna Steel Landing Gears, J-3 Seat Sling For Auction | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | February 19th 04 06:51 PM |
Cessna wheela and axles | clare @ snyder.on .ca | Home Built | 2 | January 10th 04 04:52 PM |