Cirrus without a chute...attractive plane?

bajadrifter

bajadrifter

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
9
Location
Huntersville
Display Name
Display name:
BajaDrifter
I guess I am too "old school" to ever get behind the idea of a parachute recovery system but at the same time I do appreciate Cirrus' other advances. In particular, I like its fixed landing gear yet fast speed.

Now that Mooney, Beechcraft an Commander have faded, the choices for SEL high performance aircraft are slim.

What is Cirrus produced a plane without the chute? I'll bet the useful load would increase a bunch. They could also lower the price.

The "no chute" option might improve Cirrus' image and its appeal to old farts like me...

What do folks think?
 
I think it is a purely academic question with no bearing on reality.

Cirrus has been certified with the parachute only.
You may want to appeal to Cirrus to offer a product with no parachute but they had already heard it hundreds of times and they rejected the idea. What else is here to discuss, end of the story.
 
olasek said:
I think it is a purely academic question with no bearing on reality.

Cirrus has been certified with the parachute only.
You may want to appeal to Cirrus to offer a product with no parachute but they had already heard it hundreds of times and they rejected the idea. What else is here to discuss, end of the story.
Click to expand...

Since when has that stopped us before? :D
 
bajadrifter said:
What is Cirrus produced a plane without the chute? I'll bet the useful load would increase a bunch. They could also lower the price.

The "no chute" option might improve Cirrus' image and its appeal to old farts like me...

What do folks think?
Click to expand...

I think they already make that exact airplane, it's called a Cessna Corvallis.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Really? Similar equipment I thought they were pretty close.
Click to expand...
No, Corvalis is indeed more expensive (last time I looked at it), whether there is any justification in terms of engine/performance/equipment I have no idea. Pilots usually say Cirrus is a better "buy" in terms of the price point.
 
Last edited:
Cirrus will never remove the parachute because Cirrus is a marketing machine that happens to sell airplanes. They make a product that has:

1) Weak landing gear
2) A propensity to catch fire
3) Decent, but not extraordinary performance
4) Frequent top overhauls (SR22 Turbo, if you follow the recommended cruise power of ~85%)

How do they sell it? Marketing:

1) "We have a second door!"
2) "Look at our interior!"
3) "Look at our panel!"
4) "Parachute!"
5) "No bendy legs to deal with!"
6) "Parachute!"
7) "Super autopilot that you never have to fly the airplane!"
8) "Parachute!"

You get the idea.
 
They'd have to recertify it for spin recovery without "Pull Chute" as the first and last item on the check-list.
 
I have gripes about the landing gear but weak isn't one of them. Underdamped maybe. Small tires due to need for low wind resistance can be a pain on unimproved fields.

Considering the data on chute saves I don't think the market for such a plane would be worth the marking confusion. From a purely marketing point of view the "We don't make a plane without it because it is such a great idea." approach works.
 
Re the gear

The gear is intentionally "weak" as deformation of the struts is part of the energy absorption during a caps landing.
 
Skylane81E said:
They did, the Europeans didn't buy just pulling the chute.
Click to expand...

We live in 'Murica! Seems like they would have avoided many-a internet flamewar and a tad of marketing backlash had they took Nike's advice and "Just done it"
 
bajadrifter said:
I guess I am too "old school" to ever get behind the idea of a parachute recovery system but at the same time I do appreciate Cirrus' other advances. In particular, I like its fixed landing gear yet fast speed.

Now that Mooney, Beechcraft an Commander have faded, the choices for SEL high performance aircraft are slim.

What is Cirrus produced a plane without the chute? I'll bet the useful load would increase a bunch. They could also lower the price.

The "no chute" option might improve Cirrus' image and its appeal to old farts like me...

What do folks think?
Click to expand...

Most idiotic thing imaginable. If you're that old and senile, just stick to LSA capable planes from the vintage era of the past.
 
bartmc said:
We live in 'Murica! Seems like they would have avoided many-a internet flamewar and a tad of marketing backlash had they took Nike's advice and "Just done it"
Click to expand...

:lol:

Apparently spin testing was in full swing when the FAA gave word that a demo of pulling the chute would suffice. So the went out, spun it, pulled the chute and got their certification. In North America it was left at that.
 
bartmc said:
We live in 'Murica! Seems like they would have avoided many-a internet flamewar and a tad of marketing backlash had they took Nike's advice and "Just done it"
Click to expand...

All advertising is good advertising. BTW, plane is tough to get into a spin and recovers with normal anti spin inputs.
 
Oh and he chute really isn't all that heavy on the current ones, maybe the bigger chute on the g5 will be much more massive:dunno:


I'm also a big fan of having a proper BRS, seems like a nice option to have.
 
Skylane81E said:
Re the gear

The gear is intentionally "weak" as deformation of the struts is part of the energy absorption during a caps landing.
Click to expand...

While I realize this is their rationalization and it makes sense in this regard, it's not a positive to me in the sense that it means I have a plane I don't want to take on unimproved strips.

This is the one negative I find with the 310. The Aztec I didn't worry about taking on about any kind of runway, but the 310 I am definitely careful about which runways I will take it on.
 
Skylane81E said:
Oh and he chute really isn't all that heavy on the current ones, maybe the bigger chute on the g5 will be much more massive:dunno:


I'm also a big fan of having a proper BRS, seems like a nice option to have.
Click to expand...

IIRC, they are available for the 182....:yesnod:
 
Useful load on G5 already went up 200lbs and the price, it beats Cessna.. keep the chute.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
How do they sell it? Marketing:

1) "We have a second door!"
2) "Look at our interior!"
3) "Look at our panel!"
4) "Parachute!"
5) "No bendy legs to deal with!"
6) "Parachute!"
7) "Super autopilot that you never have to fly the airplane!"
8) "Parachute!"

You get the idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do get the idea. They offer what customers appreciate. If you want to call that Marketing, then I do not want to know what you call Engineering.
 
bajadrifter said:
Now that Mooney, Beechcraft an Commander have faded, the choices for SEL high performance aircraft are slim.
Click to expand...

Aside from Cirrus SR22 and Beech G36, which isn't going anywhere, buyers with fat vallets have good choices in high performance SEL airplanes:
- Pilatus PC-12
- Socata TBM 850
- Extra EA-500
- Cessna Caravan - 186 KTAS is 40% faster than Bonanza I wanted to buy!
- Cessna Corvalis (someone already mentioned it above)
- Piper PA-46 family
- Epic Dynasty - I think they managed to restart production

There's also vapor such as Kestrel JP10 and Pipistrel Pantera, at the high and low end of the market, respectively.

The market of used airplanes is quite healthy and there's nothing wrong with zipping in a late-model Mooney, faded or not.
 
Alexb2000 said:
...the 310's fuel system.:wink2:
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah, highly complex, burn an hour out of the mains before you switch to the auxes, run them dry and switch back to the mains. If you have ever had to buy or rebuild the fuel selector valve on a plane that switches both the supply and return lines, you begin to appreciate engineering simplicity.;)
 
I have nothing against their aircraft, but their marketing policy is immoral, their almost laying lying.

Look at this:
whycirrus.jpg

http://www.whycirrus.com/compare/pdf/cirrus-vs-diamond-da40-xls.pdf

Love how they say the baggage door is standard on the SR20 and not available on the Diamond, Diamond has a rear passenger door that's big enough for comfortable to cargo in the back!
The only time I've seen SR20 meet those performance number that their saying is when it's super cold outside.
That so called "simple" single power lever is extremely complicated, 3 standard levers are much easier. I think of all aircraft of that size that I've flown, SR20 had the hardest engine management. And even if you say that it's simple it's still not one power lever, it's two.
Also they thought it was important to point out that the 40 isn't approved to spins either.

It's a good plane, but as far as marketing is concerned everything their saying is BS.


Regarding the original question, no, I wouldn't buy/fly one without a parachute. For the Cirrus it's not a luxury, it's a necessity.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
Yes, I do get the idea. They offer what customers appreciate. If you want to call that Marketing, then I do not want to know what you call Engineering.
Click to expand...

Building an airplane that doesn't easily catch fire on impact, and that actually does something impressive performance wise.

If you think that Cirrus isn't a marketing machine, best take off the foggles. No doubt, however, that they make a plane that has some aesthetic appeal and a nice interior.
 
Alexb2000 said:
...the 310's fuel system.:wink2:
Click to expand...

:rofl:

I wouldn't call that good engineering. It leaves a lot to be desired. The Commander's fuel system is nice. Something like 27 interconnected bladders. One fuel tank total. You either have fuel or you don't.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
:rofl:

I wouldn't call that good engineering. It leaves a lot to be desired. The Commander's fuel system is nice. Something like 27 interconnected bladders. One fuel tank total. You either have fuel or you don't.
Click to expand...

Right, one leaky bladder and you don't have fuel lol.
 
The Navion has two main tanks and a smaller accumulator tank. All metal. The fuel selector is ON and OFF like a Cessna 152. It's when they started putting all sorts of aux tanks on it that people started doing stupid things.
 
Henning said:
Right, one leaky bladder and you don't have fuel lol.
Click to expand...

Not actually true, it depends on where the leaky bladder is. If it's at a wing tip, pretty little fuel loss. If it's the bottom bladder, a bigger deal. The tanks naturally drain inward and downward.

Overall it seems there are many more human failures of using multiple tanks properly vs mechanical failures of tanks leaking all your fuel out. So, a well-engineered system would be as reliable as it can be, but also take human factors into account.

What I liked with the Aztec was that every tank was a main. Take off and land on whatever combination you want.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Not actually true, it depends on where the leaky bladder is. If it's at a wing tip, pretty little fuel loss. If it's the bottom bladder, a bigger deal. The tanks naturally drain inward and downward.

Overall it seems there are many more human failures of using multiple tanks properly vs mechanical failures of tanks leaking all your fuel out. So, a well-engineered system would be as reliable as it can be, but also take human factors into account.

What I liked with the Aztec was that every tank was a main. Take off and land on whatever combination you want.
Click to expand...

All true, but to me the issue really is a 'meh' one. I have yet to have a fuel related incident, as you said, the failure is typically a human related one. Just understand the system you're operating and operate it properly and you don't have problems. I learned to operate the twin Cessna systems early on, never have pumped a drop overboard.
 
zaitcev said:
The market of used airplanes is quite healthy and there's nothing wrong with zipping in a late-model Mooney, faded or not.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that a low-time, late model Mooney is a very attractive choice in the high performance single market right now. Although a few years out of date (panel/avionics), low-time "J" models interest me.
 
bajadrifter said:
I have to agree that a low-time, late model Mooney is a very attractive choice in the high performance single market right now. Although a few years out of date (panel/avionics), low-time "J" models interest me.
Click to expand...

Panels/avionics can be updated much cheaper than buying a new plane with modern avionics.
 
Henning said:
All true, but to me the issue really is a 'meh' one. I have yet to have a fuel related incident, as you said, the failure is typically a human related one. Just understand the system you're operating and operate it properly and you don't have problems. I learned to operate the twin Cessna systems early on, never have pumped a drop overboard.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. I've never had an issue with the more "complex" fuel systems and so I've never cared. Since it is a human factors issue, whether or not it impacts you is dependent on you as a human. For those of us who don't mind and understand how it works, no big deal. For those who get confused, big deal.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm with you on that. I've never had an issue with the more "complex" fuel systems and so I've never cared. Since it is a human factors issue, whether or not it impacts you is dependent on you as a human. For those of us who don't mind and understand how it works, no big deal. For those who get confused, big deal.
Click to expand...

I am a believer that any complexity in basic flight operations will always result in some issues even when the pilot understands the system involved.

We all love complex aircraft, but we also see experienced pilots that surely understand the need to put the gear handle down, land gear up.

In my case I almost killed myself flying a Bonanza with the tip tanks and four position valve. I was on an approach in turbulent dark night conditions, it is hard to see the valve, I was distracted by ATC several times during my checklist, and... I landed on what appeared to be an empty tip tank. I still beat myself up over that one and I definitely understood the fuel system.
 
bajadrifter said:
I have to agree that a low-time, late model Mooney is a very attractive choice in the high performance single market right now. Although a few years out of date (panel/avionics), low-time "J" models interest me.
Click to expand...

I had the same train of thought. Haven't looked back yet, the Mooney is a fine machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top