Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
....

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents.

The NTSB has information on only 18. Leaving out the latest three, two of
which may have involved stalls:

3/23/99 Cirrus stalls when aileron malfunctions
4/10/01 CFIT
6/16/01 Bounced landing. The report notices that the Cirrus has had eight of
these previously.
8/19/01 Bad fuel management.
9/19/01 Improper servicing; low oil.
3/16/02 Instrument failure, pilot disorientation
4/24/02 Stall/spin
5/28/02 CFIT
10/3/02 Improper maintenance, control surface failure
10/15/02 Deer strike
11/3/02 CFIT
1/18/03 Graveyard spin
1/23/03 CFIT
7/12/03 low level maneuvering, stall
8/15/03 stall
10/12/03 CFIT
12/27/03 low level maneuvering, stall
1/22/04 improper maintenance, brake failure

It appears that stalls are an unreasonably large percentage of accidents,
especially for a plane that was billed as stall-proof. CFIT seems to be the
biggest problem in the Cirrus, which would seem to support the
"doctor-killer" theory. Maintenance is also a real problem area.

Although it does not show up directly in the NTSB database, it appears that
bounced landings resulting in prop and tail strikes are a problem, though
not a deadly one. I don't know how many of the bounced landings were caused
by stalls.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
C,

...The Cirrus CAN recover from
a spin - it's a certification requirement! It is fulfilled by pulling the
chute. No other methods of recovery were officially tested. The FAA was
satisfied.

Unbelieveable! Is that really true? ...and you really think that is good
enough?

Don't get me wrong, I think the chute is a great thing, in the case of
midair, loss of control, control failure etc. it provides a unique survival
option; but it should be no replacement for good flying qualities. Pulling the
chute not only terminates the flight, but guarantees damage to the airframe,
guarantees an off-field landing, guarantees unwanted publicity, and puts the
lives of the occupants and possibly even people on the ground in serious danger.
A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.


Vaughn

In article , Dude
wrote:

The Cirrus fleet has enough hours now that the stats actually mean
something. They have not found and corrected any major flaw except to fix
the parachute. If I am going to buy a plane with a parachute, I certainly
don't want it to be because the plane would be otherwise unsafe.

Let's be very clear on this, the BRS/CAPS is there because the FAA
requires it.
The FAA requires it because the airplane has not passed spin
certification.
The BRS/CAPS is the FAA's alternative to spin recovery certification.

In article , Doug
Vetter wrote:

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

Go to the Cirrus Design website and download the POH. It says it there.

I would think vortex generators would help reduce the stall speed without
causing to much drag and reducing its speed.


Michael 182 wrote:

Before I get flamed, remember this is a seies of questions, not a
statement...

In my 182 I slow the plane, assuming gear is already down, by reducing power
and pitching up. On a laminar flow wing (does the Cirrus have a laminar flow
wing?) I understand that the wing stall happens pretty abruptly - either you
are flying or your not. If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

All right, I'm done. Have at it...

Michael

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also
reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.


How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at
which
a wing stalls.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
....

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage
of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents.

The NTSB has information on only 18. Leaving out the latest three, two of
which may have involved stalls:


3/23/99 Cirrus stalls when aileron malfunctions
This was a Cirrus test pilot in an experimental plane. He crashed
attempting to land with a jammed aileron. The NTSB report mentions a stall
only in that the pilot was doing stalls (not uncommon for a test pilot) 10
seconds before he reported an emergency.

1/8/00 lost power in cruise, forced landing in field, no injuries. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

10/15/00 While landing, right seat passenger hit the brakes. Plane departed
the runway and hit a sign. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

4/5/01 Bounced landing, left runway, sheared off nose wheel. Pilot time in
type was 35 hours. Note that bounced landings in these planes are generally
due to too-high approach speeds. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

4/10/01 CFIT
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X00798&key=1

6/16/01 Bounced landing. The report notices that the Cirrus has had eight
of
these previously.
Pilot had just picked up her airplane and received factory training. One of
the reasons Cirrus fired their training contractor and ended up hiring the
Universityof North Dakota. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...20X01213&key=1

8/4/01 A pilot with 25 hours of Cirrus time hit a runway marker while
taxiing. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

8/19/01 Bad fuel management.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...22X01754&key=1

9/19/01 Improper servicing; low oil.
The mechanic didn't safety wire the oil plug, and it was lost in flight.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...21X01977&key=1

9/29/01 Hard landing during a training flight when an instructor (training
another instructor) pulled power during takeoff. An acquaintance of mine
purchased this plane from the insurance company after the accident and did
the repairs himself, including repairing the wing spar where the fence had
damaged it. I've flown this plane after the repairs and it flies very well.
See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

11/9/01 After a catastrophic engine failure, the pilot deadsticked the plane
in. No injuries. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

3/16/02 Instrument failure, pilot disorientation
This is the incident where they attempted to use the chute and it didn't
deploy. They landed in a field and hit a tree, no injuries. After this,
there was an AD for changing the chute deployment system. No online report
found.

4/23/02 Brake failed during taxi, hit parked plane. See
http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/...s&Number=39792

4/24/02 Stall/spin
Apparently doing acrobatics despite placards prohibiting them. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X00613&key=1

5/11/02 Pilot lost control on landing, landing gear collapsed. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

5/28/02 CFIT
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00811&key=1

See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

6/3/02 Wing tip struck parked fuel truck. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/n...9G& NARR_VAR=

10/3/02 Improper maintenance, control surface failure
Mechanic did not safety-wire aileron bolt. Pilot pulled chute, received
only minor injures. Plane was repaired and is flying again. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X05290&key=1

10/15/02 Deer strike
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...29X05397&key=1

11/3/02 CFIT
VFR into IMC. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X05449&key=1

11/11/02 Broken camshaft, deadstick landing, no injuries. Report apparently
not available online.

12/28/02 Defective engine part (connecting rod bolt) caused inflight engine
failure and forced landing. No report available online.

1/18/03 Graveyard spin
The NTSB concluded differently. They estimated his true airspeed at impact
at 191 knots. Doesn't sound like a "graveyard" or any other type of spin to
me. See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...22X00087&key=1

1/23/03 CFIT
Collided with power lines during an instrument approach. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00175&key=1

7/12/03 low level maneuvering, stall
It's fair enough to put this one in the stall category. Don't go from 100%
flaps to 0% flaps when you are low and slow. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...18x01151&key=1

7/12/03 nose wheel collapsed on landing. Little other information
available.

8/15/03 stall
The pilot was maneuvering to avoid a helicopter. Sounds like he stalled it.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00014&key=1

10/12/03 CFIT
This happened in Spain. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00012&key=1

12/27/03 low level maneuvering, stall
Pilot was doing a simulated ("watch this") forced landing, hit power pole
and guy wire on climbout. I guess hitting the wire would cause the plane to
stall, but it hardly seems fair to put this one in that category. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00007&key=1

1/1/04 Blown tire on landing. No injuries. No info available online.

1/22/04 improper maintenance, brake failure
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...29X00128&key=1

4/8/04 Stall/spin over mountains. Parachute saved all onboard. No online
report.

4/10/04: On the first flight after maintenance, loss of instruments in hard
IMC at low altitude. Chute saved pilot, no injuries. Aircraft not heavily
damaged, may fly again. No online report available.

4/20/04: Crashed on departure. Four fatalities. Chute was apparently not
deployed. From witness descriptions (plane went up to about 30 feet AGL,
descended to 10 feet AGL, then zoomed up to 400 feet AGL) seems reasonable
to describe as a stall or stall/spin accident. See
http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/...s&Number=85720


It appears that stalls are an unreasonably large percentage of accidents,

While I think that any number over zero is unreasonably large, I'll bet
you'd find approximately the same percentage for other airplanes.

especially for a plane that was billed as stall-proof.

Whoa! Who said that? Please provide some evidence that Cirrus EVER said
this. If they represent the plane as stall-proof, why are stalls a part of
the factory flight training curriculum?

CFIT seems to be the
biggest problem in the Cirrus, which would seem to support the
"doctor-killer" theory. Maintenance is also a real problem area.

Although it does not show up directly in the NTSB database, it appears
that
bounced landings resulting in prop and tail strikes are a problem, though
not a deadly one. I don't know how many of the bounced landings were
caused
by stalls.

Yup. That was much more of a problem early on, due to poor instruction
during factory training. Several of the prop/tail strikes occurred during
factory training. Cirrus fired the contractor doing the training and the
problem has greatly diminished.

-Mike

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:AIUic.32956$w96.2306929@attbi_s54...
Hmmm - I agree - I meant that the use of speed brakes would allow slowing
without using as much pitch - does that make sense?

It's true that it does, at least initially. However, AFAIK, speed brakes do
not change the lift characteristics for the wing, so as the speed reduces as
a result of the speed brakes, the pitch angle still needs to increase in
order to provide the same lift.

Speed brakes can help you slow down without shallowing your descent or
increasing the G force on the airplane (as would happen using pitch to slow
down), but otherwise, you still wind up just as likely to stall with speed
brakes as you do without.

Pete

"Dude" wrote in message
...
[...] If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

How is that different from every other airplane without speed brakes, where
you need to reduce the throttle in order to slow down without changing your
flight path?

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

Dude, seems to me that by now, you've seen "speed brakes" spelled correctly
often enough that it's time you start doing so yourself.

Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.

Funny...lots of people find it works just fine. It's not a FADEC, by the
way.

Pete

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:44:39 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:


Don't get me wrong, I think the chute is a great thing, in the case of
midair, loss of control, control failure etc. it provides a unique survival
option; but it should be no replacement for good flying qualities. Pulling the
chute not only terminates the flight, but guarantees damage to the airframe,
guarantees an off-field landing, guarantees unwanted publicity, and puts the
lives of the occupants and possibly even people on the ground in serious danger.
A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.

Except spin recovery isn't part of the curriculum any more.

Don

I've got about 500 hours in both SR20s and SR22s, so I'll throw out
some real world experience (not that it's worth anything in a
newsgroup, but here goes.)

The folks claiming that they stall without warning and are then
difficult to control have obviously never flown one. You get plenty
of warning (as required in Part 23) by buffeting, mushy controls, and
the stall warning. If you keep going, the inner part of the wing
stalls first (it is at a higher angle of attack than the outer part;
take a look at the wing cuffs.) When that happens you still have
aileron control if you're sloppy and try to use it. It feels like a
washboard road. If you are sufficiently uncoordinated you can drop a
wing, and if you try hard enough you can spin one, but you have to be
asleep at the yoke to do this.

They are not particularly difficult to slow down because of the fixed
gear. You can deploy half flaps at a relatively generous 120 KIAS.
Much easier to deal with than the Baron I fly.

I'm not sure where the "too small flaps" claim comes from; they seem
to work just fine, and making them bigger would reduce the speed at which
they can be deployed, and make the power-off descent angle with full
flaps even more impressive than it is now.

Handling is responsive and predictable. They're way fun to yank and
bank. The side yoke does not require much force and comes naturally
very quickly.

The trim is a bit of a pain (it runs too fast) but you get used to it
pretty quickly.

The paranoia about spins and spin recovery seems overblown. The test
pilots have spun them and recovered, and nowhere in the POH does it
say that spins are "unrecoverable" (contrary to another posting here.)
Until recently the POH suggested normal spin recovery technique,
though this was removed in a recent revision, presumably as a CYA
move. I have heard, though cannot confirm, that some kind of spin
certification will be required for JAA certification, so hopefully
that will put this issue to rest.

Having said that, part 23 only requires recovery from a one turn spin,
which isn't really a spin at all. The drama about the "death zone"
below 900' is seriously overblown; I suspect that the majority of
pilots have never had spin training, and even those that have are
unlikely to recover from the usual base-to-final spin in *any*
aircraft.

The 4000-ish hour life limit on the SR22 is a certification artifact;
Cirrus chose to use a very conservative formula based on the SR20
airframe life tests in order to speed the SR22 certification process,
but will be extending the life based on testing.

I think you'll find the *vast* majority of Cirrus owners are very
happy with their purchases (with the exception of ArtP, who seems
to have gotten a lemon.) I've never had a maintenance problem that
cancelled (or ended) a flight, and the only failures I've had have
been with OEM parts, and this is true of most owners.

The only design characteristic that I think can cause handling
problems for low-time transitioning pilots is the high wing loading,
which requires higher takeoff and landing speeds (rotate at 70 KIAS,
final approach at 70-75 in an SR20 or 75-80 in an SR22) and causes
serious sink rates if you get too slow. You have to land them like
heavy airplanes--hold the approach attitude all the way into the
flare, and no 50 AGL roundouts like in 172s. A number of the landing
accidents were due to this (IMHO), coupled with insufficient training
(which I understand has been fixed, though it's been three years since
I last had the factory training.) Early on the trainers were
recommending coming in five knots faster than the POH numbers in order
to accommodate sloppy 172 technique, which results in excessive float,
and bouncing, and things go badly after that if you don't immediately
go around. If you have the discipline to fly the numbers, they are
pussycats to land, and have more than enough energy to flare and land
smoothly even with the power at idle.

As far as the accidents go, simply pointing at statistics and calling
the plane a death trap and saying that they are "falling out of the
sky" isn't supportable by the facts. Of the eight fatal accidents
(not counting the flight test accident) five (and possibly a sixth,
though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard
to blame these on the plane per se.

Ultimately it comes down to whether people do more stupid things in
Cirrus aircraft than in other brands. Statistically it's too early to
tell, and the time-in-type average is very low. Basically, you can
cook the numbers to support your position, regardless. I think it's
probably true that someone who is going to be stupid enough to scud
run at night or in mountainous terrain is probably more likely to die
in a Cirrus than a Cessna because of the speed. It may well be that
pilots feel safer in a Cirrus than in a 25 year old 172 (I know I do,
and it's arguably true, particularly IFR) and perhaps that leads the
marginal ones to take bigger risks. But there is no shortage of
pilots doing dumb things in all manner of aircraft, and dying on a
regular basis. Time will tell.