Insurance for Cirrus SR20 and SR22

I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.

An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is much
higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic parachutes.
Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and there have been a
number of deployments.

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.

Thanks,

DB

Why not ask Cirrus?:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/contact/

"Doodybutch" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.

An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
there have been a number of deployments.

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.

Thanks,

DB

"Doodybutch" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.

An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
there have been a number of deployments.

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.

Thanks,

DB

The latest AOPA Pilot addresses this directly. For a 500 hour pilot with 100
hours in retracts, and no time in make and model the figures a

2004 Cirrus SR22: $10,800/yr.

2004 Mooney Ovation 2: $6,400

2004 C-182 $3,700

Obviously, the Cirrus carries a penatly, even against the retractable
Mooney. Against the fixed gear Cessna, the difference is more noticable.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Doodybutch" wrote in message
...

I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.

An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
there have been a number of deployments.

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.

Thanks,

DB


The latest AOPA Pilot addresses this directly. For a 500 hour pilot with 100
hours in retracts, and no time in make and model the figures a

2004 Cirrus SR22: $10,800/yr.

Holy cow, that's a lot of money! I didn't know that the premium for
Cirrus' was that much.



2004 Mooney Ovation 2: $6,400

2004 C-182 $3,700

Obviously, the Cirrus carries a penatly, even against the retractable
Mooney. Against the fixed gear Cessna, the difference is more noticable.

KB

It isn't totalled after deployment.
Cirrus will rebuild it for $200,000.
Insurance would rather pay $200,000 for a rebuild than pay for dead
bodies.
So am I recommending it?
Hell no. Any plane that has a history of loss of control while on
autopilot at altitude (and then deployment of BRS) needs more
investigating.
Also, I personally am not confident in flying a plane that has no
procedure for spin recovery other than deploy BRS.

BTW - these are not my opinions - I'm quoting directly from the March
2005 COPA newsletter - so any flames may be directed to COPA.

Having said all of that, they have exceeded Cessna in sales.
Go figure!


Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article ,
"Doodybutch" wrote:

I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.

An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is much
higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic parachutes.
Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and there have been a
number of deployments.

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.

Thanks,

DB




--

Agreed Tony!

I like airplanes that respond to my control inputs, correct or not...

I have a real problem with the so called "recovery" procedures in this
design.

Would like to see the 'chute to be the LAST resort, not the first
recovery procedure..

Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design
has recovery problems?

Dave


On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:24:00 GMT, tony roberts
wrote:


So am I recommending it?
Hell no. Any plane that has a history of loss of control while on
autopilot at altitude (and then deployment of BRS) needs more
investigating.
Also, I personally am not confident in flying a plane that has no
procedure for spin recovery other than deploy BRS.

Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design
has recovery problems?

Dave


I got theories, but given my level of expertise, they are better labeled
guesses. I have to warn you that just asking that question is considered
heresy by many. Obviously, anyone outside of the government or Cirrus would
have to have a LOT of resources and motivation to figure this out for real.
Maybe one of the big insurers might care enough, but they would likely only
bullly Cirrus into doing the testing. USAIG has reportedly come to call in
Duluth, but has not yet demanded that Cirrus perform the normal tests in
spite of the BRS supported waiver.

Looking at a Cirrus it seems to me the CG may be too high above the wing.
Of course, this is even more true about many modern Bizjets, but intuitively
it would seem to be a bad thing for spin recovery.

The wing loading seems to be pretty high compared to the weight of the
plane, but I have no idea how this relates. In fact, if you look at the
Bizjets again, it would seem that this is not necessarily a problem.

Lastly, the shape of the wing is very complex, and it would seem that they
over did it on the spin resistance bit. How this makes it tough to recover,
or even if its a factor is unknown.

The bottom line may be that the growth of BRS technology that Cirrus is
indirectly funding could be worth the losses in the long run (not that the
families of the lost will see it that way). It could also be that after we
get another few million hours, the Cirrus will prove to be as safe as the
Cessna's and Diamonds (but I think the verdict is in already).

For me, it all didn't matter. I am convinced that the quality is just not
there. In spite of the G2 improvements, I think they are still a long way
behind the other major players, and especially behind Lancair and Diamond.

Interesting..

I have not flown one, so I have to depend on the thoughts/theories of
others.

The Aircraft appears to be correctly ptoportioned with the
possible exception of the center of laterial (side) area, (smallish
vertical fin/rudder) maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a
float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added...

But no one has reported any yaw instability or dutch roll
tendencies. (?)

Spin recovery/training is part of the training in Canada, - we
spin ours often just cause it is a hoot and keeps us aware of the
"feel" of what can cause a spin etc.

We get to practice our recovery techniques often, and feel
it's a good thing to do in trying to stay "sharp" with the aircraft..

Nice aircraft, but the whole idea if an aircraft that has (for
me) a serious design issue is troubling.

Thanks for your reply..

Dave


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:15:22 GMT, "Dude" wrote:


Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design
has recovery problems?

Dave


I got theories, but given my level of expertise, they are better labeled
guesses. I have to warn you that just asking that question is considered
heresy by many. Obviously, anyone outside of the government or Cirrus would
have to have a LOT of resources and motivation to figure this out for real.
Maybe one of the big insurers might care enough, but they would likely only
bullly Cirrus into doing the testing. USAIG has reportedly come to call in
Duluth, but has not yet demanded that Cirrus perform the normal tests in
spite of the BRS supported waiver.

Looking at a Cirrus it seems to me the CG may be too high above the wing.
Of course, this is even more true about many modern Bizjets, but intuitively
it would seem to be a bad thing for spin recovery.

The wing loading seems to be pretty high compared to the weight of the
plane, but I have no idea how this relates. In fact, if you look at the
Bizjets again, it would seem that this is not necessarily a problem.

Lastly, the shape of the wing is very complex, and it would seem that they
over did it on the spin resistance bit. How this makes it tough to recover,
or even if its a factor is unknown.

The bottom line may be that the growth of BRS technology that Cirrus is
indirectly funding could be worth the losses in the long run (not that the
families of the lost will see it that way). It could also be that after we
get another few million hours, the Cirrus will prove to be as safe as the
Cessna's and Diamonds (but I think the verdict is in already).

For me, it all didn't matter. I am convinced that the quality is just not
there. In spite of the G2 improvements, I think they are still a long way
behind the other major players, and especially behind Lancair and Diamond.

WHOOPS!

Thinking one thing, typing another.......

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:16:05 -0400, Dave
wrote:

maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a
float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added...

Should have written.."causing this center to be well _forward_"....

...Sorry.....

Dave




Interesting..

I have not flown one, so I have to depend on the thoughts/theories of
others.

The Aircraft appears to be correctly ptoportioned with the
possible exception of the center of laterial (side) area, (smallish
vertical fin/rudder) maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a
float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added...

But no one has reported any yaw instability or dutch roll
tendencies. (?)

Spin recovery/training is part of the training in Canada, - we
spin ours often just cause it is a hoot and keeps us aware of the
"feel" of what can cause a spin etc.

We get to practice our recovery techniques often, and feel
it's a good thing to do in trying to stay "sharp" with the aircraft..

Nice aircraft, but the whole idea if an aircraft that has (for
me) a serious design issue is troubling.

Thanks for your reply..

Dave


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:15:22 GMT, "Dude" wrote:


Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design
has recovery problems?

Dave


I got theories, but given my level of expertise, they are better labeled
guesses. I have to warn you that just asking that question is considered
heresy by many. Obviously, anyone outside of the government or Cirrus would
have to have a LOT of resources and motivation to figure this out for real.
Maybe one of the big insurers might care enough, but they would likely only
bullly Cirrus into doing the testing. USAIG has reportedly come to call in
Duluth, but has not yet demanded that Cirrus perform the normal tests in
spite of the BRS supported waiver.

Looking at a Cirrus it seems to me the CG may be too high above the wing.
Of course, this is even more true about many modern Bizjets, but intuitively
it would seem to be a bad thing for spin recovery.

The wing loading seems to be pretty high compared to the weight of the
plane, but I have no idea how this relates. In fact, if you look at the
Bizjets again, it would seem that this is not necessarily a problem.

Lastly, the shape of the wing is very complex, and it would seem that they
over did it on the spin resistance bit. How this makes it tough to recover,
or even if its a factor is unknown.

The bottom line may be that the growth of BRS technology that Cirrus is
indirectly funding could be worth the losses in the long run (not that the
families of the lost will see it that way). It could also be that after we
get another few million hours, the Cirrus will prove to be as safe as the
Cessna's and Diamonds (but I think the verdict is in already).

For me, it all didn't matter. I am convinced that the quality is just not
there. In spite of the G2 improvements, I think they are still a long way
behind the other major players, and especially behind Lancair and Diamond.

Currently the Cirrus is having a higher accident rate per hours flown than
most other single engine aircraft... it's new.. and harder to fix for minor
dings than bent sheet metal..

Also, I do not fly a Cirrus, but have seen that pilots used to C-182s or
Mooney's are not used to the speed and fast wing of the Cirrus... lots of
long hot landings on short runways...

BT

"Doodybutch" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about upgrading to a Cirrus if I could scrape the money
together. They're really nice, if you haven't checked one out.

An acquaintance of mine told me that the insurance on these aircraft is
much higher than comparably priced singles because of the ballistic
parachutes. Apparently, once it's deployed the airplane is totaled and
there have been a number of deployments.

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would comment on this.

Thanks,

DB