Cirrus SR22 demo flight

"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

"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

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

"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)...

"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

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

"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

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)

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)

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