A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 20th 04, 04:47 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.


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.

So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?


Right where I started. I didn't like the plane when I thought the TBO was
2000 hours.

-jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)


A balanced view does not ignore the facts.


  #22  
Old July 20th 04, 04:50 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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 :~)



  #23  
Old July 20th 04, 04:51 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
proves it wrong.


  #24  
Old July 20th 04, 05:04 PM
gwengler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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).

Gerd
ATP, T182T
  #25  
Old July 20th 04, 05:39 PM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.

-jav
  #26  
Old July 20th 04, 05:40 PM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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?

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.

-jav
  #27  
Old July 20th 04, 05:41 PM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" 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, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
proves it wrong.


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.

Now what?

-jav
  #28  
Old July 20th 04, 05:46 PM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" writes:

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.


You are ignoring facts, however.

You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss
this topic with you.

-jav
  #29  
Old July 20th 04, 05:46 PM
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Javier Henderson wrote:

"C J Campbell" 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, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
proves it wrong.



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'd think this would be something Cirrus would be happy to announce. So
I'm surprised their Aircraft/FAQ page still says "The SR22 airframe was
initially certified for 4,350 using data derived from the SR20 test.
Cirrus is nearing completion of the same structural tests used to extend
limits of the SR20 and anticipates that the SR22 will soon be rated for
the 12,000-hour life."

  #30  
Old July 20th 04, 05:52 PM
Stefan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

Stefan

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:51 PM
Cessna wheela and axles clare @ snyder.on .ca Home Built 2 January 10th 04 05:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.