Cirrus without a chute...attractive plane?

jmp470 said:
I guess if that's all you can afford!!!! Some don't need to do that
Click to expand...

Even if you can afford new parts, why wouldn't you take them out of a salvage yard? If you can get the same part for 1/3rd the cost, why not?


Oh wait......





I guess it's kinda hard to when all the wrecked Cirri are burned up.
 
Wow, so much mud slinging. In general I hate the "this plane is better than that plane" unless you restrict things to discussing a particular combination of value, mission, etc. For example, the SR22 is a great trip plane. It isn't as efficient as a Mooney and my friend's Bonanza is better on grass strips. However, my son dislikes the Bonanza waggle (Dutch roll) in my friend's V-tail in turbulence as does my girlfriend. Low and slow? Sure wish I had a Cub. Faster travel? Wish i could afford an Eclipse like a friend has.

Like many pilots, I feel good about the plane I chose. I often defend Cirrus from what I see as false and grossly inaccurate statements. However, I haven't posted that Bonanzas are lousy because they aren't. The Mooney Ovation I was in a few years ago had excellent fit and finish. Ok, I do have to admit that I turned the tableware backwards at the table where a friend was sitting. He flies a Mooney and put plastic where I sat so I thought my action appropriate since his plane has the tail on backwards.
 
peppy said:
Ok, I do have to admit that I turned the tableware backwards at the table where a friend was sitting. He flies a Mooney and put plastic where I sat so I thought my action appropriate since his plane has the tail on backwards.
Click to expand...

Now that right there is funny! Did you bend the tines of the fork at an angle where the Bo driver was sitting? :D
 
DavidWhite said:
Also if you really feel like it, since you are so close, I strongly recommend going to the Mooney factory in Kerrville and finding the biggest dude you possibly can, and say exactly what you posted here. Tell him that Mooney is inferior and point at your shiny Cirrus. Let us know how that works out.
Click to expand...

Why would I waste my time? He can read the GAMA report! :yes:
 
peppy said:
Wow, so much mud slinging. In general I hate the "this plane is better than that plane" unless you restrict things to discussing a particular combination of value, mission, etc. For example, the SR22 is a great trip plane. It isn't as efficient as a Mooney and my friend's Bonanza is better on grass strips. However, my son dislikes the Bonanza waggle (Dutch roll) in my friend's V-tail in turbulence as does my girlfriend. Low and slow? Sure wish I had a Cub. Faster travel? Wish i could afford an Eclipse like a friend has.

Like many pilots, I feel good about the plane I chose. I often defend Cirrus from what I see as false and grossly inaccurate statements. However, I haven't posted that Bonanzas are lousy because they aren't. The Mooney Ovation I was in a few years ago had excellent fit and finish. Ok, I do have to admit that I turned the tableware backwards at the table where a friend was sitting. He flies a Mooney and put plastic where I sat so I thought my action appropriate since his plane has the tail on backwards.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth.
Maybe people should ask, what is the most stylish way to fly such and such a mission, not that it would narrow answers that much.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Now that right there is funny! Did you bend the tines of the fork at an angle where the Bo driver was sitting? :D
Click to expand...

I'll have to remember to do that. I have lunch regularly with my V-tail flying friend.
 
DavidWhite said:
I think the fact that you can buy a 10 year old SR20 for the same as I bought my 30 year old Mooney for speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Wait, your comparing an M20J with the SR20? I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, M20J vs SR22 would be more appropriate.
 
MachFly said:
Wait, your comparing an M20J with the SR20? I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, M20J vs SR22 would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Well, the HP is the same. A Mooney Ovation would be a competitor to an Sr22.

My Mooney is only 200hp.
 
I've never flown an SR22, just an SR20. I've heard that the NA SR22 is about a 170 knot airplane. If I spent the 25k on all the LoPresti mods I could do 170 knots, but that was if I wanted to spend 25k. For 65k I could do the 300 missile conversion and have a 180 knot airplane. Basically it turns the J into a shorter/lighter Mooney Bravo
 
Last edited:
Then you have a big thirsty engine and only 64 gallons of gas though, and your range is cut dramatically. At 50% power it's only 650 miles.
 
DavidWhite said:
Well, the HP is the same. A Mooney Ovation would be a competitor to an Sr22.

My Mooney is only 200hp.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but you got retractable gear.

What's the cruise speed of the Mooney J? I thought it was around 170kts.
 
170 knots with all the knobs pushed forward. I can do 161 at 7500' at 9.4gph, or 165 at 12. Retractable gear or not, Cirrus claims it doesn't make a big difference and comparing an airplane to something with 50% more hp is a stretch.
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
While burning the same amount of gas as my inferior, cramped, and old little airplane.

Even Cirrus compares the SR22 with the Ovation.
Click to expand...

Think you're quoting the wrong person here. I never said the Mooney is inferior, as a matter of fact I like the Mooney.
 
I don't have a dog in this pizzin contest.
I happen to like the SR22. A fine flying machine.
However, I am way too cheap to pay that kind of money. So I'll jus tkeep on stuffing $6 fuel in my my little piggy of an Apache. I can fly for the rest of my life and not even come close in fuel bills to buying a new Cirrus - or even a used one.
I'm not impressed with a high percentage of the Cirrus drivers, however.
So, if no publicity is bad publicity then Cirrus is riding high this morning.
Another Cirrus driver managed to slide his ship sideways off the runway and tie up an entire airport. :mad2:

But give him credit. After he slid to a stop he did not blow the chute. A fine example of self restraint (probably was busy texting)
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
While burning the same amount of gas as my inferior, cramped, and old little airplane.

Even Cirrus compares the SR22 with the Ovation.
Click to expand...


Congrats, you admitted it. Cramped and old..... 2/3 of your own argument illustrate that mooney's suck!!! :yes:

now if you like flying an old cramped airplane that gets good gas milage, that's cool..... you probably drive a prius too.. I know how you TX boys are with your prius's :yikes:

BTW, I really don't dislike Mooney's.... but felt like giving you a bunch of crap, since you're a Cirrus basher....

As long as you fly, I could careless what you fly! :D
 
Last edited:
jmp470 said:
Congrats, you admitted it. Cramped and old..... 2/3 of your own argument illustrate that mooney's suck!!! :yes:

now if you like flying an old cramped airplane that gets good gas milage, that's cool..... you probably drive a prius too.. I know how you TX boys are with your prius's :yikes:

BTW, I really don't dislike Mooney's.... but felt like giving you a bunch of crap, since you're a Cirrus basher....

As long as you fly, I could careless what you fly! :D
Click to expand...

Just trying to maker yourself feel better for not getting a Bonanza?
 
olasek said:
Its is a form of religion, you got to understand that ...
Plus it is a lot more fun to root for the underdog.
Click to expand...

I guess I line up more with the guy who said:

"There are no ugly planes. It's just that some are prettier than others."

The false accusations thrown at Cirrus frustrate me. People make claims based on little or no data.
 
peppy said:
Why so much Cirrus hate? Based on what?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you saw what I posted in the other thread, but 50% of Cirrus crashes last year involved fire. If they would add an aluminum tank to the wing I firmly believe they would be the best GA airplane out there. By a long shot.
 
DavidWhite said:
I don't know if you saw what I posted in the other thread, but 50% of Cirrus crashes last year involved fire. If they would add an aluminum tank to the wing I firmly believe they would be the best GA airplane out there. By a long shot.
Click to expand...

A simple bladder will be more than sufficient. The problem would be that it would cause law suits that would put Cirrus under.
 
peppy said:
I guess I line up more with the guy who said:

"There are no ugly planes. It's just that some are prettier than others."

The false accusations thrown at Cirrus frustrate me. People make claims based on little or no data.
Click to expand...

Bingo, I would fly a cirrus from any paved airport to any other paved airport over any terrain and through any weather I'd be willing to fly any other piston single over/through.

Here are its honest limitations.
Small, tightly faired wheels, no ruff strips (a trade for speed, fair for most pilots who never even see grass)
Non flat folding or removable back seats

The ten year repack of he chute kinda sucks, but now that folks other than cirrus can do it the cost has come down significantly and I would pay it to have a BRS in my tool kit it things ever went wrong.

Mooneys are great too however, just different. We had a Bravo that we operated 135 for a while. Cramped was the only word you could use for the cabin. But boy that sucker was fast and with huge fuel tanks letting you really go a long way if you didn't carry much stuff. I would consider one if I was doing lots of x-c flying solo or with one passenger. I honestly think David has the perfect plane for what he is doing.
 
Skylane81E said:
Bingo, I would fly a cirrus from any paved airport to any other paved airport over any terrain and through any weather I'd be willing to fly any other piston single over/through.

Here are its honest limitations.
Small, tightly faired wheels, no ruff strips (a trade for speed, fair for most pilots who never even see grass)
Non flat folding or removable back seats

The ten year repack of he chute kinda sucks, but now that folks other than cirrus can do it the cost has come down significantly and I would pay it to have a BRS in my tool kit it things ever went wrong.

Mooneys are great too however, just different. We had a Bravo that we operated 135 for a while. Cramped was the only word you could use for the cabin. But boy that sucker was fast and with huge fuel tanks letting you really go a long way if you didn't carry much stuff. I would consider one if I was doing lots of x-c flying solo or with one passenger. I honestly think David has the perfect plane for what he is doing.
Click to expand...

Just a couple of points of clarification.

The rear seat now folds down in the SR22.

The BRS repack has come down a lot in price. ~$3700 exchange from BRS and 15 hours labor to change. Call it $500 a year to have a parachute, who wouldn't want that?
 
All of this bickering is completely inane, there is no perfect plane, all of them are compromises. Pick the one that suits your mission and be happy with it. There is no reason to defend your choice against any other. Any plane operated within its limitations by a competent pilot is as safe as any other. The main problem with every plane is the nut that controls it. There is no such thing as a safe plane, figure out your weaknesses and train against them. The main safety issue in any plane is knowledge of it and proficiency in it. Cabin size is irrelevant if your missions are solo or one pax as 99% of GA flights are. Parachutes are irrelevant 99% of the time if you keep fuel in the plane.
 
Last edited:
Alexb2000 said:
Just a couple of points of clarification.

The rear seat now folds down in the SR22.

The BRS repack has come down a lot in price. ~$3700 exchange from BRS and 15 hours labor to change. Call it $500 a year to have a parachute, who wouldn't want that?
Click to expand...

Do the fold flat? The old ones fold, but not even remotely flat. They do cme out easy but the pannels under the seats are not load bearing.
 
Skylane81E said:
Do the fold flat? The old ones fold, but not even remotely flat. They do cme out easy but the pannels under the seats are not load bearing.
Click to expand...

I was told by Cirrus it was a new feature. Here is a picture. Both sides can fold independently.
 

Attachments

  • Cirrus6040-2.jpg
    Cirrus6040-2.jpg
    31.6 KB · Views: 8
Henning said:
there is no perfect plane, all of them are compromises.
Click to expand...

You mean I can't spend 20k and get a 6 seat plane that I can fill with 200 pounders, a 100 pound bag each, fly 1000 miles at 200 knots burning 4 GPH of mo gas?:mad:
 
Alexb2000 said:
Are you saying you are not supposed to put any weight on the seat backs when folded?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put much on them as you would crush the upholstery.

However what cannot hold ANY weight is the inspection panel under the seat. Deal killer for me as when I travel I use my 182 as a 2 seater with a HUGE cargo area.

Back to the plane for the mission.
 
DavidWhite said:
I don't know if you saw what I posted in the other thread, but 50% of Cirrus crashes last year involved fire. If they would add an aluminum tank to the wing I firmly believe they would be the best GA airplane out there. By a long shot.
Click to expand...

But that data is not only incorrect it isn't even close and a very easy to do search of the NTSB database will show that. It is frustrating to see highly inaccurate data get perpetuated as fact. It seems people feel if they repeat something that isn't true enough times it will magically become true.
 
peppy said:
But that data is not only incorrect it isn't even close and a very easy to do search of the NTSB database will show that. It is frustrating to see highly inaccurate data get perpetuated as fact. It seems people feel if they repeat something that isn't true enough times it will magically become true.
Click to expand...
Crosspost:

Okay so here it is. 233 SR 20 and SR 22 accidents. It was the BRAKE fires that made the numbers look awful.

These do not read like the Mooney nor the A36 accidents because a disproportionate number of the total, are really runway LOC accidents (about 1/3rd). All the acidents were reclassified in about 2010, apparently.

Cirrus pilots stall it in and end up short of the runway, and they porpoise it, collapse the nosegear, and/or botch the recovery /go around. Many many failed to retract flaps from 100% to 50% and got hurt at the end of the runway or at 200 agl over the departure end. Torque roll at high alpha fried a few. And, it won't climb worth a darn full flaps.

But, if you look at the ones in which the aircraft departed the runway (and NOT a stall spin in over the runway) there are fires in 17 of these 73. During the years 2008 back to 2004, the five brake fires were classified as runway LOC and the denominator was 10/36, so the type is doing much better.

I am impressed that one guy hit three deer, and didn't have a fire. NYC03LA007.

I am chagrined that two of the runway loss of control accidents involved CFIs giving type specific Cirrus transition training.

It is higher than the rates in my 2009 review of A36+Mooney, but I am not doing any more work that really should be someone else's project. I fly twins.

But there is no way a chi square is going to be significant at this point. Back in 09, Cirrus was 3 fires short of chi square of 0.05 to the combined Mooney and A36 record.
 

Attachments

  • CirrusReview01.27.13.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 5
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top