Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:11 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:


"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL

How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
more than 900 feet to deploy?

Ya, that's the point I brought up in another subthread here, which went
unanswered. Maybe you can help.

If the deployment requires 920, does that mean after 920 you can safely
touchdown or does that mean it requires 920 + however long it takes to
slow your velocity to proper touchdown velocity? I ask because, I don't
think a chute opening 10 AGL is going to help much.

I see so many Bonanzas with newly rebuilt engines at lower than 700 hrs, it
makes my head spin

so much bull**** on this site


"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
Dude,

I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
missed one or two

Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me
the
date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
the posts you mentioned.

I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going
to
go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is
still
small since the fleet is still young.

Thanks,

-Mike

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected
to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the
reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on
how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest
you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a
thing
as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling,
regardless
of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high
RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow
through
the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an
engine
as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage
to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
be
a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot
frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why
would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
who
have had engine problems?

Pete

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote
Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.

Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.

The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL

How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
more than 900 feet to deploy?

Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the
equation.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:11 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:


"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900
AGL

How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
more than 900 feet to deploy?

Ya, that's the point I brought up in another subthread here, which went
unanswered. Maybe you can help.

If the deployment requires 920, does that mean after 920 you can safely
touchdown or does that mean it requires 920 + however long it takes to
slow your velocity to proper touchdown velocity? I ask because, I don't
think a chute opening 10 AGL is going to help much.

I believe the POH says that is the altitude necessary to safely touch down.
Whether it could be of any help before that I don't know. Even partially
opened the parachute is going to add some drag, but what happens is that the
parachute is pulled out by a rocket. Instead of opening instantly (which
would destroy the chute) a Teflon coated ring slides down the shroud lines
to allow the chute to open in a controlled manner. The airplane continues
moving forward during all this process. Once the chute is opened, the
airplane swings down under the canopy. So dropping that last few feet just
as the parachute opens the airplane's rate of descent might not be slowed at
all.

All of that assumes that the airplane is in normal forward flight. The
Cirrus spins in a flat attitude and it might not have all that much forward
motion. I guess the actual altitude needed would vary some depending on just
what the airplane is doing at the time the CAPS system is deployed.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL

How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
more than 900 feet to deploy?

OK, perhaps it is 920 feet; my point was that use of the BRS to "survive" a
spin is hardly the same as "recovering" from a spin as we have always understood
it. After a normal spin recovery in a normal airplane, there is typically no
reason to ring up the insurance company.

To respond to another point, the minimum BRS recovery altitude would also
depend somewhat on density altitude. For example; given the same low AGL, you
might not get the same happy results in Denver that you previously got in Miami.

Vaughn

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:39:20 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:


Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the
equation.

And that assumes you didn't waste time trying to recover in the first
place.

So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this thread...

One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human
nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at
recovery from the spin.

Because if the pilot doesn't follow this procedure, no questions asked, the
delay resulting from going through a recovery process and the associated
thought processes may well put the pilot below the effective altitude of the
BRS.

You're working against both existing training and instincts, and
Cirrus-specific training that simply tells a pilot about the specific
characteristics of the airplane is useless. The training needs to absolutely
pound these differences into the pilot's head. And until that type of
training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar
accident record...




"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:39:20 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:


Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the
equation.

And that assumes you didn't waste time trying to recover in the first
place.

I will look for the dates for you.

I do not recall the words "cylinder failure" anywhere, just that there was
major engine work, top overhauls, and fears of needing rebuilds in the near
future.



I see someone
"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
Dude,

I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
missed one or two

Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me
the
date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
the posts you mentioned.

I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going
to
go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is
still
small since the fleet is still young.

Thanks,

-Mike

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected
to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the
reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on
how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest
you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a
thing
as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling,
regardless
of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high
RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow
through
the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an
engine
as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage
to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
be
a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot
frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why
would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
who
have had engine problems?

Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this
thread...

One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human
nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at
recovery from the spin. snip...And until that type of
training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar
accident record...

And to come back to a point I made earlier in the thread, the result of
pulling the BRS *is* an accident. You will end up with bent metal and
possibly injuries every time you deploy the rescue system, and this reality
will be reflected in the Cirrus's insurance rates. Hopefully, the Cirrus
will some day have a low fatality rate, but I doubt if it will ever be known
for a low accident rate.

Vaughn

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this
thread...

One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human
nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at
recovery from the spin.

Because if the pilot doesn't follow this procedure, no questions asked,
the
delay resulting from going through a recovery process and the associated
thought processes may well put the pilot below the effective altitude of
the
BRS.

You're working against both existing training and instincts, and
Cirrus-specific training that simply tells a pilot about the specific
characteristics of the airplane is useless. The training needs to
absolutely
pound these differences into the pilot's head. And until that type of
training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar
accident record...

Can you imagine what a pilot that flies a Cirrus and other planes would do
in a crisis situation. Two totally different emergency procedures would vie
for top priority. Scary.