KMIC - SR22 down
- Thread starter JEP
- Start date
cloudman
Well-Known Member
oktex88
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat: We don't know what happened. Who Cirrus markets to has little to do with the topic "KMIC - SR22 down".
Fly_Unity
Well-Known Member
It has every single time except twice when the pilots were way above Vne.Does it ever help?
wjmiller3
Well-Known Member
One engine! Unproven record in all weather IFR flying. Not designed to the same standards as the other airplanes in regard to stall characteristics. I like aluminum.
I would rather fly a ____ in bad weather(all can be known ice):
Multi's
Pa 31, 27, 34(>I), C310, 402, 404, BE65/70, BE55/58,
*Planes I have a good amount of time in
Night and mountains I agree, I would rather have another engine, but daytime over flat terrain it doesn't bother me as bad. And I was speaking of flying IFR, not knowingly flying a plane not equiped for ice into known ice.
As far as the unproven record, and not designed to the same standards, explain yourself.
Fly_Unity
Well-Known Member
Have you ever flown it IMC? I'm surprised.. Just shows me how naive you are. This is just another Cirrus bashing thread. How many planes are being crashed every day thats not reported on JC? a month ago a 210 ran off the runway here, crashed and not a word, and then a few weeks ago a distant friend crashed his 182, but EVERY single Cirrus that crashes its on JC for another bashing. You guys are not much better then the media, all have less then 10 hours in the plane but are experts on it. I never met anyone with over 500 hours in the Cirrus bash them (including me) and that I have close to 2000 hours in other various pistons and twins.
Id take a Cirrus IFR any day over most light twins, ask me how many failures I had in a twin, vs the Cirrus. The Cirrus is one of the best designed piston airplanes in the world for Instrument conditions.
And the Cirrus Training Center FAR exceeds other factory training standards for pistons.
OregonTrail
Well-Known Member
I have flown in a 30 year old piper cherokee with over 12k hours on it. i would live to fly a sr22 with glass cockpit. how spoiled are you people?
cmill
Cold Ass Honky
I think that cirrus makes a great airplane. However, ive never, after having any kind of short discussion with a random cirrus pilot on a random ramp thought "hey, id trust my life with this guy"
WalterSobchak
Well-Known Member
It was not certified to recover from a spin. I believe normal category aircraft demostrate recovery from 1 rotation in a spin or 3 seconds. The Cirrus was issued an exemption for this. That being the CAPS system. I like an airplane that can be controlled as opposed to "its not supposed to do that".
OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
It was spun and recovered for the JAA certification.
At this point I wish they (cirrus) would go out and spin one and put the video up on youtube to clear up the "it will crash if spun" fallacy.
At this point I wish they (cirrus) would go out and spin one and put the video up on youtube to clear up the "it will crash if spun" fallacy.
jhugz
Guppy gear swinger
This is what I am talking about. Due to already having the CAPS system for added safety it was a no brainer for them to skip the cost of spin certification. The JAA didn't go for this and it had to be spun in Europe by test pilots.
Due to the outboard wing being mounted at a lower angle of incidence then the inner wing the ailerons are very effective in a stall making the Cirrus very tough to spin.
wjmiller3
Well-Known Member
Not normal, Utility. The Cirrus WILL recover from a spin. And it was not issued an exemption because it would not recover from a spin. What I have been told by the factory reps I work with, is that Cirrus did not want the plane certified in the utility category so the CAPS was installed in leu of spin testing. Go to Europe, they spin the same PLANE OF DEATH we have here, and it was certified to do so by the JAA.
I have had the plane in the incipient phase several times by students, and the chief pilot I work for was put in a fully developed spin by a student and guess what. The plane recovered just like any other plane with wings and a rudder.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
I thought Cirrus was granted an exception to needing wings a rudder because it has a chute?
WalterSobchak
Well-Known Member
Yes NORMAL.......
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html
"The distinction between stall and spin complicates matters somewhat. A spin is an aggravated stall where one wing produces more lift than the other, resulting in autorotation. The critical point is that if the aircraft isn't stalled first, it can't spin. In light, Normal category single-engine aircraft, a spin in an incipient or early phase is defined, for FAA certification purposes, as one turn or three seconds of rotation. Recovery must be accomplished in not more than one additional turn."
"In the case of the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 and Lancair Columbia 300, however, the FAA allowed an alternative way to meet the spin criteria with an exemption from the one-turn spin recovery requirement."
Just incase you still don't believe me:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.10.2.66.42&idno=14
FAR 23.221 Spinning.
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.
Follow-up article. Here a couple of paragraphs and the link to the entire article form the Mpls Star-Tribune:
Complete Article
Complete Article
rd757
Well-Known Member
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
Only about 150 short, but I don't necessarily think they're all that the Cirrus marketing department shapes them up to be. I wouldn't own one, and they're certainly not suited for a corporate mission. An issue that I've been reading about on other forums is insurance. I hate to think about what the insurance rates are going to do at our next renewal. Thanks to Cirrus for putting people in the airplane that have no business being there, some PROFESSIONALS may have to give up their airplane because they either can't get it insured or the rates go through the roof.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Fair warning, not terribly competant with the quote function but I get tired of doing massive numbers of replys. So this is to Fly_Unity, Stomp16, stuckingfk,
First off, on the RV-6, they wanted it certified but they couldn't design it correctly and thats why it is an experimental. I came into the certification field after the failed attempt by RV. Most comments about the RV cert process are summed up in two words, "just scary". Of course those guys have like 20-40 years as engineers and technicians and have wrote most books and certification standards for Part 23 and Part 25, DO160A/B/C/D/E SAE 5412,-14, -16. So yeah, I'm terribly concerned what your opinion is. The opinions that I listen to are, at the very least, considered expert by any court in the land and by the people at Vans. But go head and stick a 530 in the dash, next to the magnetic compass from wally world, and call it IFR. I'm just curious, I spent years testing aircraft for certification purposes, at what point do I know more than you? Oh, are you just saying I'm ignorant because my opinion is in conflict of yours? Ah. I see. Well keep that up.
By the way, the first incarnation of the Cirrus used to deploy the flaps when you'd transmit on the radios. GO TEAM! Know how many guys I know that are in the EMI field who will step foot into a Cirrus in anything but day VFR? Zero. Would I take a Cirrus IFR? No. My experience has been that any airplane that has a bad rap from people in my old biz isn't worth my time to fly. I've also made the same comments on the Eclipse 500 even though it was certified for IFR.
Also, as a general rule, flying an airplane for 10,000 doesn't make you more of an expert than someone who designs or tests the same aircraft. I think you are referring to handling characteristics, there is a lot more to an airplane crash than how it handles in a 50 degree turn. Just curious, you ever watch a GS capture, have an EMI event induced, destroy any connection to the GS antenna, and the avionics not be able to diagnose that and throw up a red flag on the screen? That stuff is just scary. Used to happen on the old Rockwell Proline systems. King Air is a GREAT handling airplane, but that crap is going to kill you no matter how many million hours you have in the thing. Try to remember you don't know everything alright? You are embarrassing yourself.
See above. You don't like the comparison? If you agree with the logic that something is a blast to fly and that makes it better than some proven twins then you and I just aren't on the same wavelength. I always liked long records and word of mouth from the guys who helped test it. Obviously I'm not even in GA anymore so do whatever you please. I would be remiss if I didn't chime in every time someone openly passes around the jug of kool-aid from EAA, AOPA, Cirrus, or any other group. I used to do this on Eclipse too, but now I don't have to since the project has had the sunlight shone in on it. Maybe I'm too comfortable passing judgment since I was right on about Eclipse, I don't know man, I'm just using the same metric I have for the last 4 or so years.
Every newer GA airplane hu? I know I have openly criticized Cirrus and Eclipse (way way off on that one obviously), the windshield issue on the Mustang... so after 3 I'm a basher of every new GA airplane? I don't know man, sounds like you are little overcritical about me.
You know guys... there was a time that beech owners used to tell other guys not to get the plane's CG aft, and if you did be very damn careful about overspeeding it. NTSB and the FAA were sure the V-tail was fine, but private owners STC'ed their own cuffs on the tails for good measure. Years later the FAA, after many more accidents and mx complaints, mandated the cuffs and now we don't have any more tails flying off. I love flying V-tail bonanza's, I have close to 100 hours in one, it had a lot of problems but they were fixed. I'm sorry man, that gives me the warm and fuzzies all over. I like tried and true.
A concerned, critical, and educated GA community is essential to safety. AOPA is the anti-thesis of that simple axiom, and so are the cheerleading manufacturers. I'm not in GA anymore, but I was, and I may be again someday. I try to pass along what a know and I don't have nearly the patience to be examined under a microscope from some stranger from the internet, I promise you. I owe you nothing and I'll be God damned if I'm gonna give you my resume.
First off, on the RV-6, they wanted it certified but they couldn't design it correctly and thats why it is an experimental. I came into the certification field after the failed attempt by RV. Most comments about the RV cert process are summed up in two words, "just scary". Of course those guys have like 20-40 years as engineers and technicians and have wrote most books and certification standards for Part 23 and Part 25, DO160A/B/C/D/E SAE 5412,-14, -16. So yeah, I'm terribly concerned what your opinion is. The opinions that I listen to are, at the very least, considered expert by any court in the land and by the people at Vans. But go head and stick a 530 in the dash, next to the magnetic compass from wally world, and call it IFR. I'm just curious, I spent years testing aircraft for certification purposes, at what point do I know more than you? Oh, are you just saying I'm ignorant because my opinion is in conflict of yours? Ah. I see. Well keep that up.
By the way, the first incarnation of the Cirrus used to deploy the flaps when you'd transmit on the radios. GO TEAM! Know how many guys I know that are in the EMI field who will step foot into a Cirrus in anything but day VFR? Zero. Would I take a Cirrus IFR? No. My experience has been that any airplane that has a bad rap from people in my old biz isn't worth my time to fly. I've also made the same comments on the Eclipse 500 even though it was certified for IFR.
Also, as a general rule, flying an airplane for 10,000 doesn't make you more of an expert than someone who designs or tests the same aircraft. I think you are referring to handling characteristics, there is a lot more to an airplane crash than how it handles in a 50 degree turn. Just curious, you ever watch a GS capture, have an EMI event induced, destroy any connection to the GS antenna, and the avionics not be able to diagnose that and throw up a red flag on the screen? That stuff is just scary. Used to happen on the old Rockwell Proline systems. King Air is a GREAT handling airplane, but that crap is going to kill you no matter how many million hours you have in the thing. Try to remember you don't know everything alright? You are embarrassing yourself.
See above. You don't like the comparison? If you agree with the logic that something is a blast to fly and that makes it better than some proven twins then you and I just aren't on the same wavelength. I always liked long records and word of mouth from the guys who helped test it. Obviously I'm not even in GA anymore so do whatever you please. I would be remiss if I didn't chime in every time someone openly passes around the jug of kool-aid from EAA, AOPA, Cirrus, or any other group. I used to do this on Eclipse too, but now I don't have to since the project has had the sunlight shone in on it. Maybe I'm too comfortable passing judgment since I was right on about Eclipse, I don't know man, I'm just using the same metric I have for the last 4 or so years.
Every newer GA airplane hu? I know I have openly criticized Cirrus and Eclipse (way way off on that one obviously
), the windshield issue on the Mustang... so after 3 I'm a basher of every new GA airplane? I don't know man, sounds like you are little overcritical about me.You know guys... there was a time that beech owners used to tell other guys not to get the plane's CG aft, and if you did be very damn careful about overspeeding it. NTSB and the FAA were sure the V-tail was fine, but private owners STC'ed their own cuffs on the tails for good measure. Years later the FAA, after many more accidents and mx complaints, mandated the cuffs and now we don't have any more tails flying off. I love flying V-tail bonanza's, I have close to 100 hours in one, it had a lot of problems but they were fixed. I'm sorry man, that gives me the warm and fuzzies all over. I like tried and true.
A concerned, critical, and educated GA community is essential to safety. AOPA is the anti-thesis of that simple axiom, and so are the cheerleading manufacturers. I'm not in GA anymore, but I was, and I may be again someday. I try to pass along what a know and I don't have nearly the patience to be examined under a microscope from some stranger from the internet, I promise you. I owe you nothing and I'll be God damned if I'm gonna give you my resume.
Stomp16
You mean Shennanigans?!?!
Why me? I was never in the main part of the hate thread....
Thanks for thinking of me though! 
