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,
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.
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.
Thats a great comparison
What specifically about the Cirrus makes it a plane not capable for IFR flight in your opinion?
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.
Oh he has an opinion of that every newer GA airplane certified is a hunk. He's in the know and won't talk about it, except to "just trust me" because he knows what he's talking about.
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.