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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in
Have you flown the Cirrus? I have. My first flight in one involved bailing out the pilot, who botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me understand why the accident rate was what it was. Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison. Wrong comparison. The right comparison is a 1965 S-model Bonanza with the IO-550. Which does NOT suck rocks. And a REALLY nice one, decked out and with everything in great shape, is still less than half the cost of the new Cirrus. All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out. You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane? I've flown the new SR-22 and it's awesome. For sure, people accustomed to slower planes will need to be careful landing it. And, in a spiral, airspeed builds up in a heartbeat so recovery procedures are to be taken seriously. But there's nothing inherent in the design that makes it less safe to fly than any other fast light single. All that aside, one big plus the Cirrus has going for it is its attractiveness as a partnership machine. The warranty, level of factory support plus the range of toys seems to generate more interest than functionally similar older planes and refits of older designs. The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable in terms of performance and servicability at that price. moo |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Ben Hallert" wrote in message
Does it suck $350,000 worth of rocks? Yes. You flown one? I'm intrigued by the Cirrus, but I don't see myself buying one within the depreciation window. It's my understanding that, on average, planes stop heavy depreciation after about 7-8 years, but that's just something I heard. It seems like new planes are for people with money to throw away, but different folks get different things out of their purchases. My wife and I buy cars that are between 1.5 and 2.5 years old, just after the wildest depreciation has ended. Good for you. When you have money to throw away, have another look. This is completely aside to the nervousness I about the design of the cirrus. Personally, I'm not sure I want a plane who's first recovery technique for everything is 'pull the silks'. Parachute deployment seems like it should be a last step, not a first. And, in the meantime, educate yourself on the subject. moo |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is,
when I fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out. You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane? No, it's more complex than that. It's a combination of airplane and marketing. The plane isn't really any more (or less!) demanding than one of the big-engine Bonanzas or late-model Mooneys, but generally a private pilot with 150 hours and no instrument rating contemplating the purchase of a late-model Mooney or Bonanza is told that it's a really bad idea. The Cirrus markets to that segment. That's not to say it can't be done - I've checked out a 150 hour private pilot with no instrument rating in an A-36 Bonanza. He's reasonably safe - as long as he doesn't try to use it as reliable transportation. It's too fast to scud run (unlike a 172 or even an Arrow), and requires real instrument skills to survive an IMC encounter, not the 3 hours minimal training a private pilot gets (unlike a 172 or even an Arrow). The reality is that the Cirrus (as well as a big-engine Bonanza or Mooney) is too much airplane for most low time pilots, and a low time pilot will need a lot of training and experience in the plane before he can use it for reliable transportation. But if the Cirrus marketing admitted this, their sales would suffer. But there's nothing inherent in the design that makes it less safe to fly than any other fast light single. No, on balance I would put it in the same category as a V-35S Bonanza or M20R Mooney. It's harder to slow down, but on the other hand it's slightly less complex so it probably comes out in the wash. The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable in terms of performance and servicability at that price. V35S Bonanza, new paint, new interior, factory reman engine. Glass panel (now STC'd). TKS Weeping wings (with a better system than the Cirrus has, now STC'd). Slightly faster on the same fuel burn. Fifth seat for when you need it. Much nicer handling, lands slower, better rough field airplane. All for less than half the price of an equivalently equipped Cirrus. Michael |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... I guess the market is answering that - with a resounding YES! Not for everyone, of course - I can't afford one, either. But, together with Lancair, it is on a pretty sure way to become the market leader and dethrone Cessna real soon. Oh, and of course I'd love for it to have a modern, economical Thielert engine. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) Cirrus outsold Cessna in ASEL aircraft, and I think they pretty much matched for total aircraft sold (includes Cessna jets)... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message
All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out. You're suggesting that the problem is the airplane? No, it's more complex than that. It's a combination of airplane and marketing. The plane isn't really any more (or less!) demanding than one of the big-engine Bonanzas or late-model Mooneys, but generally a private pilot with 150 hours and no instrument rating contemplating the purchase of a late-model Mooney or Bonanza is told that it's a really bad idea. The Cirrus markets to that segment. I'm curious about these numbers. Do you have any cite to back them? And, who tells these pilots that a late model Mooney or A35 is a bad idea? Beech or Money's sales departments? Exactly where does this alleged warning come from such that it isn't equally available to potential Cirrus customers? If your facts are correct, who's at fault? The engine issues are still a drag. But there's nothing comparable in terms of performance and servicability at that price. V35S Bonanza, new paint, new interior, factory reman engine. Glass panel (now STC'd). TKS Weeping wings (with a better system than the Cirrus has, now STC'd). Slightly faster on the same fuel burn. Fifth seat for when you need it. Much nicer handling, lands slower, better rough field airplane. All for less than half the price of an equivalently equipped Cirrus. And maintenance costs? Anyway, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the cost of the engine only. Not really any current options. Annoying. moo |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Dog,
Are you a Cirrus owner? Some of your posts seem to suggest it, or that you're a fan. Can you provide some more personal insight into the plane that we should know? My main beef right now is just buying inside the depreciation window, like I said. I certainly didn't mean to set off your 'defend cirrus' circuit! It's an awful pretty plane, and the cockpit looks nice. I'm very interested in seeing how those and other similar composites fair going forward. I'm also a fan of the Lancair Columbia. Maybe not the same market, but both seem to have some real similarities and great potential. Ben Hallert PP-ASEL |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Ben Hallert" ben.hallert@gmail.
Are you a Cirrus owner? Some of your posts seem to suggest it, or that you're a fan. I'm a fan of empirical reality. Cirrus makes and markets a product that is deeply attarctive to small plane owners. The evidence of this is their sales figures. Can you provide some more personal insight into the plane that we should know? My main beef right now is just buying inside the depreciation window, like I said. I certainly didn't mean to set off your 'defend cirrus' circuit! The "plane as investment" concept is for committed dreamers. I'm this way whenever I encounter misinformed statement about a subject that interests me. Your speculation about Cirrus emergency procedures training was either a joke or slothfully misinformed. It's an awful pretty plane, and the cockpit looks nice. I'm very interested in seeing how those and other similar composites fair going forward. I'm also a fan of the Lancair Columbia. Maybe not the same market, but both seem to have some real similarities and great potential. The cost of flying your own plane is the impact on your available resources, the amount you pay to look at it and the amount you pay to fly. Everyone with a couple hundred grand in cash and the itch to fly tries to balance these. That amount of cash can get you into a new Cirrus, or Cessna or a few other planes. It can also get you into a used Cheyenne or a few other turboprop planes. There are myriad issues to consider. Insurance and maintenance are two areas where a new light single shines. Especially if you have partners. Glass cockpits with approach, weather and traffic information improve situational awareness, especially for infrequent flyers. Whether any individual pilot is actually at less risk depends on how they use these tools. Nothing new there. How much money you got? What kind of flying do you want to do? moo |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Montblack,
Are they holding their value? Relative to other used/new planes? Actually, it seems they don't hold their value that well. The reason is that the newer ones have much better avionics. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Michael,
I have. My first flight in one involved bailing out the pilot, who botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me understand why the accident rate was what it was. And that had to do with the model airplane you were flying in which way? Let me tell you, a 1969 Arrow sucks rocks in comparison. Wrong comparison. The right comparison is a 1965 S-model Bonanza with the IO-550. I didn't bring up the comparison, the poster I answered to did. And a 1965 Bo, while a nice plane, is still a *1965* Bo. All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out. Oh Bull! No you won't. At least I couldn't. Oh, they've done everything they could to put a modern false face on the engine - but it's still obsolete technology. I didn't disagree with that. You know of any alternatives, besides the DA-40 TDI? I don't. but no better than the Bonanza with a JPI at a fraction of the price. Some think so. Many don't - witness the sales numbers. Look, I don't want to fight over this or defend anything. But the sales numbers are there. You can't debate those. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Borchert wrote:
botched the ILS so badly he pegged the GS needle. It made me understand why the accident rate was what it was. And that had to do with the model airplane you were flying in which way? See my other reply in the thread. In short, it demands significantly more of the pilot, despite the fancy avionics - and it's more than the average low time pilot is consistently capable of. I didn't bring up the comparison, the poster I answered to did. And a 1965 Bo, while a nice plane, is still a *1965* Bo. And still a faster, roomier, better-flying airplane than the Cirrus. I would much rather have a 65 Bo that had been gone through and cleaned up than I would a new Cirrus. I know a very nice one for sale for $125K. You can add glass and weeping wings to it, and still come out for less than half what an equivalent Cirrus would cost you. All Arrows suck compared to either Cirrus or Bonanza. Thing is, when I fly with people in their Arrows, I don't have to bail them out. Oh Bull! No, experience. I do a lot of recurrent training for people, and I quite often fly right seat wing Angel Flight pilots when the weather is more than they feel they can handle. As a result, I probably have 30-40 hours of dual given in actual IMC to those who are already rated and own their airplanes. And you know - I've never had to bail out someone who owns an Arrow, or a Cherokee, or a 172, or anything else like that. Bonanzas, Twin Comanches, Mooneys, and the Cirrus are a different story. Look, I don't want to fight over this or defend anything. But the sales numbers are there. You can't debate those. The sales numbers are there. Unfortunately, near as I can tell most of them are being sold to low time pilots who have no business in them. Those who have been around for a while don't see the value. That says something too. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
Fractional Ownership - Cirrus SR22 | Rich Raine | Owning | 3 | December 24th 03 05:36 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Real World Specs for FS 2004 | Paul H. | Simulators | 16 | August 18th 03 09:25 AM |