Soooo Many Cirrus' For Sale

[traumamed]

I agree in principle, but can you really say you have the same level of *support* as you do with an SR22? The Cirrus ecosystem (including it being a lifestyle brand) is very compelling for someone willing to drop over a million bucks on a plane.

I fully agree, it is a plane marketed to people looking for comprehensive support, and to be part of a brand image/lifestyle. It works in a lot of automobile segments, and has worked well for Cirrus. It's a great plane, but the value proposition depends on what a prospective aircraft owner, well, values.

I'd take an sr22T over an m350 at the same price.

What's that old saying about Fords and Chevys? Of course, I'm 5'7" and 135 lbs, my wife is 5'1" and 105 lbs, and our kids are teeny tiny like us. I can certainly appreciate that what works size-wise for us is not going to work for a lot of people.

 

[EdFred]

I'll agree with most of this, but there's one thing the cirrus has that the mooney and bo don't: comfort. I'm a big guy, and the sr22 is the second most comfortable plane I've sat in, behind only the sf-50 . The cirrus looks like an egg because it's designed for 2000 size people instead of 1950 size people.

I'd take an sr22T over an m350 at the same price.

SR22T are pressurized?
(That may be the next plane, the M350 series, not the Cirrus)

 

[Jim K]

I'm 5'7" and 135 lbs, my wife is 5'1" and 105 lbs, and our kids are teeny tiny like us.

I'm 6'4", 275, and Mrs. K is about 175 these days I think. Hence, I fly a PA32

SR22T are pressurized?

Nope. Nor do they require the additional maintenance of a pressurized retract. They haul the same amount. I believe most insurance companies will want recurrent simulator training for a PA-46. Also a pain in the ass the crawl into the front, or so I've heard. They're a little faster, but it seems to me the negatives outweigh the benefits.

The right answer is still Seneca, for me.

 

[traumamed]

I'm 6'4", 275, and Mrs. K is about 175 these days I think. Hence, I fly a PA32

The right answer is still Seneca, for me.

PA-32 is a sweet bird! Seneca, yeah, I love them too... but man, I'm scared enough of what my one TSIO-360 could do to me. I shudder to think of maintaining two of them.

 

[EdFred]

I'm 6'4", 275, and Mrs. K is about 175 these days I think. Hence, I fly a PA32


Nope. Nor do they require the additional maintenance of a pressurized retract. They haul the same amount. I believe most insurance companies will want recurrent simulator training for a PA-46. Also a pain in the ass the crawl into the front, or so I've heard. They're a little faster, but it seems to me the negatives outweigh the benefits.

The right answer is still Seneca, for me.

Yeah, but I made the mistake of saying to April, "You know with pressurization we could get over a lot of this weather that we can't in the Comanche." I talked her down from a 414/421, and she REALLY wants the air stair. To be honest, wing gymnastics is wearing on me. But I'd still rather do wing gymnastics than be seen in a high wing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Try getting a GFC500 in a DA40? How about ANY autopilot other than the KAP140? See what happens.

You can't put a GFC500 in any G1000-based aircraft. Diamond was an early adopter of the G1000, IIRC the DA42 was the first aircraft certified with the G1000. They only built non-G1000 DA40s for three years. There's only about 111 aircraft on the registry from that timeframe, so the market is quite limited... And that's not Garmin's fault.

That is just ONE example. The DA40 is not a very nice platform to upgrade in general.

I'm just trying to figure out what upgrades it needs. I mean, you can get a supercharger for it if you want... But the mods I can think of on other planes are mostly things that wouldn't apply:

* Already has advanced avionics
* Already has long range fuel tanks
* Already has super clean aerodynamics, so no speed mods.
* Already has a really neat configurable extended baggage system

So, color me confused.

I got tons of hours in a DA40. I love that bird. But it was built as a trainer/flying school plane, not a family XC hauler.

Yup. So if you want a family hauler, get something else.

 

[szwinger]

The SR-22 is a great airplane and a joy to fly, but it is not head and shoulders above its contemporaries. If we compare spec sheets: Bonanzas, any Mooney from the M20K onward, and the 400/TTx all fall in the same basic camp. However, most of these alternatives do not have 'chutes and do not look like Faberge eggs.

I hear/read this often. I don’t agree (but that doesn’t mean you are wrong). The reason, in my opinion, the SR22 and the C182 are priced above the Bonanza/Mooney/Piper relatively speaking is that they are fixed gear. That doesn’t matter until it does. I think that is driven by Insurance and pilot age. The 400/TTx is the exception. I haven’t followed the market, but my recollection is that back when it mattered (when they were still produced) they weren’t appreciably cheaper than the SR22.

I have a friend with a new Mooney (it has 2 doors). It holds 100 or so gallons of fuel. He has all the goodies including AC and FIKI. The useful load is under 900lbs (maybe around 800 but just say 900 for giggles). I had a G3 SR22 with all the options. TKS, AC, TN, etc. It’s useful was 980ish if memory serves. The G5 and on have an additional 200 lbs useful (but that 200lbs must be fuel). Gross is 3600, Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) is 3400.

From what I’ve seen an A36 Bonanza isn’t cheap. Comparing planes from the last century isn’t really comparing “contemporaries”

 

[szwinger]

An interesting discussion (to me at least) would be what if the Cirrus didn’t have the Chute. I’m not saying the Chute being option, I’m saying not available from the factory.

I don’t believe it would materially affect their sales. What other choice is there. What other piston has FIKI as an option. There are a few, but not a whole lot. Not every plane with TKS is FIKI (my previous Cirrus had TKS but wasn’t FIKI).

I think they have a niche with or without the Chute.

 

[Sam D]

One could probably do an STC for disabling the chute if they did the full spin series and anything else the FAA let them skip out on. EASA didn't let them skip anything, so the plane should be capable of it.

This is where Henning would usually chime in to talk about how he's spun a Cirrus before. Miss that guy.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The reason, in my opinion, the SR22 and the C182 are priced above the Bonanza/Mooney/Piper relatively speaking is that they are fixed gear. That doesn’t matter until it does. I think that is driven by Insurance and pilot age. The 400/TTx is the exception. I haven’t followed the market, but my recollection is that back when it mattered (when they were still produced) they weren’t appreciably cheaper than the SR22.

Bonanzas are not cheaper than Cirri, all else being equal. That's one reason I'm not really partial to them - You have to spend a lot more money up front to get one compared to most other types.

From what I’ve seen an A36 Bonanza isn’t cheap. Comparing planes from the last century isn’t really comparing “contemporaries”

When I say "A36" I include "G36" in that - The difference is the avionics (G1000). And they still make 'em. Just not nearly as fast as Cirrus does.

An interesting discussion (to me at least) would be what if the Cirrus didn’t have the Chute. I’m not saying the Chute being option, I’m saying not available from the factory.

Big disagree. Pilots don't care, but their spouses do. I've been standing right there when that discussion has happened. "If you get this one with the parachute, you can buy us a plane."

I don’t believe it would materially affect their sales. What other choice is there.

Bonanza and Mooney are the main competitors in that class.

What other piston has FIKI as an option.

Mooney Ovation. In fact, the Ovation was the first FIKI single. It's rare for a Mooney to have TKS and not have it be FIKI, as all of the ones that came from the factory with TKS were FIKI. (I know of just one non-FIKI one.)

 

[szwinger]

Big disagree. Pilots don't care, but their spouses do. I've been standing right there when that discussion has happened. "If you get this one with the parachute, you can buy us a plane."

I find this an interesting topic. I don’t have any evidence to support my supposition but my contention is that if someone is looking at a plane seriously enough to include the spousal unit they will buy a plane. If it’s an easy sell all the better. If the Chute wasn’t an option on the Cirrus a plane would still be purchased. Lot’s of planes were sold before Cirrus came along.

This is not directed at any specific person or post, just a general observation from what I’ve heard or read:

I find the bravado of “the Chute is a crutch for incompetent pilots” or “permission from the spouse” an easy explanation. I have flown over “flat potential landing areas” in the Desert. I’ve also ridden modern dirt bikes over the “flat ground”. What looks safe from 10,000 or 5,000 or 1,000 AGL is a whole lot more challenging when you have 2 wheels (or 4) on the ground on a dirt bike or a Jeep.

The Cirrus is a whole lot more than the parachute. My friend loves his Mooney and it does things my Cirrus won’t. He wouldn’t advise me to buy a Mooney. I wouldn’t advise him to buy a Cirrus. Neither of us thinks the planes are comparable. We both make the right choice. Neither of us spend any time second guessing the others choice.

My wife was very involved in the purchase of my 182, P337, SR22 and Stinson. If the only reason she would fly with me was because there was a parachute on the plane I would be flying alone.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I find this an interesting topic. I don’t have any evidence to support my supposition but my contention is that if someone is looking at a plane seriously enough to include the spousal unit they will buy a plane. If it’s an easy sell all the better. If the Chute wasn’t an option on the Cirrus a plane would still be purchased. Lot’s of planes were sold before Cirrus came along.

I think the chute just makes the Cirrus the easiest one to purchase.

I find the bravado of “the Chute is a crutch for incompetent pilots” or “permission from the spouse” an easy explanation. I have flown over “flat potential landing areas” in the Desert. I’ve also ridden modern dirt bikes over the “flat ground”. What looks safe from 10,000 or 5,000 or 1,000 AGL is a whole lot more challenging when you have 2 wheels (or 4) on the ground on a dirt bike or a Jeep.

Absolutely. A Cirrus pilot doesn't need as much luck to survive a major incident as the rest of us do... And there's nothing wrong with pulling a chute. That's what it's there for. I'm sure there have been some people whose last thought before they perished was "I should have bought the Cirrus."

The Cirrus is a whole lot more than the parachute. My friend loves his Mooney and it does things my Cirrus won’t. He wouldn’t advise me to buy a Mooney. I wouldn’t advise him to buy a Cirrus. Neither of us thinks the planes are comparable.

Interesting. Mission wise they are quite comparable, if you're talking long-body Mooney. Ovation vs SR22, Acclaim vs SR22T.

 

[wanttaja]

Big disagree. Pilots don't care, but their spouses do. I've been standing right there when that discussion has happened. "If you get this one with the parachute, you can buy us a plane."

Experienced the same thing... Cirrus owner told me he bought the plane because his spouse wanted the chute.

With all of us being pilots, we can't understand the fear that arises in some passengers. Yes, you can tell them to take a Pinch Hitter course, but a lot of people dismiss the possibility that they could fly. Pointing at a big handle in the ceiling and telling them, "This will save you" is powerful inducement. May not be true all the time, but it does give them some confidence.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jim K]

I would say that any pilot who discounts the parachute has not experienced a serious engine issue in flight. Yet.

As AG & RH say, "in a single engine plane you're in a state of emergency all the time. 'We only have one engine! '".

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Experienced the same thing... Cirrus owner told me he bought the plane because his spouse wanted the chute.

With all of us being pilots, we can't understand the fear that arises in some passengers. Yes, you can tell them to take a Pinch Hitter course, but a lot of people dismiss the possibility that they could fly. Pointing at a big handle in the ceiling and telling them, "This will save you" is powerful inducement. May not be true all the time, but it does give them some confidence.

I'm glad the HomeSafe/Safe Return/Autoland technology has made an appearance, because now you don't have to half-wreck the airplane if the pilot becomes incapacitated.

Once that's available as a retrofit, Garmin is going to sell a lot of stuff. It'll be tricky, but it'll get there eventually. Right now, it's on higher end planes as it runs on the G3000. But the G7 Cirrus "Perspective Touch +" is now G3000 powered, so I expect that we'll see it there before too long. The key is that they need to add autothrottle, or at least a way to tell a passenger what power setting to use. The current autoland systems also brake after landing and shut off the engine, but those don't necessarily need to be automated IMO, if there's a passenger in the other front seat.

 

[szwinger]

Interesting. Mission wise they are quite comparable, if you're talking long-body Mooney. Ovation vs SR22, Acclaim vs SR22T.

They get the same places, but one is fixed gear, one is retract. One has 5 seatbelts (I have grandkids) one has 4. His is an Ovation Ultra. It’s fast. I fly 65% power. Mine is Normally Aspirated (NA). I had a TN previously, but I flew that at 65% power too so generally around 170KTAS plus or minus a few. From internet stuff I read I have a “slow” Cirrus. His Mooney is generally 20KTAS faster than how I fly the Cirrus. He only needs 2 seats. I’ve read reports and will find out in a few years that insurance companies are getting hesitant to write policies for old pilots in retractable airplanes. My current policy requires an annual IPC. I’ve looked at Mooneys. I like them too.

In the 60’s and 70’s the Mustang and Camaro had the same mission each with their proponents.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

They get the same places, but one is fixed gear, one is retract.

So, the same mission. One just leaves their bits dangling in the breeze all the time.

One has 5 seatbelts (I have grandkids) one has 4. His is an Ovation Ultra. It’s fast. I fly 65% power. Mine is Normally Aspirated (NA). I had a TN previously, but I flew that at 65% power too so generally around 170KTAS plus or minus a few. From internet stuff I read I have a “slow” Cirrus.

Probably because you're running at 65% and an awful lot of other Cirrus owners are doing 75% or even more. Lots of "I didn't buy this airplane to go slow" folks in that crowd...

His Mooney is generally 20KTAS faster than how I fly the Cirrus.

Hmmm. How's he fly the Mooney? I run 65% as well and I didn't think I'd outrun a Cirrus at 65% by that much.

 

[szwinger]

Experienced the same thing... Cirrus owner told me he bought the plane because his spouse wanted the chute.

I’m probably wrong on this point. For me at least I would have bought the plane even if it didn’t have a chute. The neat thing about the G5 is it has 5 seatbelts. The back seat is essentially the same size as the previous generations so at least 2 of the people need to small or very well acquainted (if not they will be well acquainted by the time you land).

 

[szwinger]

So, the same mission. One just leaves their bits dangling in the breeze all the time.


Probably because you're running at 65% and an awful lot of other Cirrus owners are doing 75% or even more. Lots of "I didn't buy this airplane to go slow" folks in that crowd...


Hmmm. How's he fly the Mooney? I run 65% as well and I didn't think I'd outrun a Cirrus at 65% by that much.

I’m not sure, but I think he flies by the numbers. I know he leans to whatever the G1000 tells him to (I think there’s a green line for fuel flow. He hasn’t had a cylinder problem yet and is approaching 500hrs. This is his first turbo. Previously owned a mid-70’s M20 (m20j?) He flies in the teens with O2. I generally fly 8,000 - 10,000’. Just high enough to clear the rocks around here.

 

[wanttaja]

I’m probably wrong on this point. For me at least I would have bought the plane even if it didn’t have a chute. The neat thing about the G5 is it has 5 seatbelts. The back seat is essentially the same size as the previous generations so at least 2 of the people need to small or very well acquainted (if not they will be well acquainted by the time you land).

If it's certified as a five-seat aircraft, it won't qualify under MOSAIC.... if and when.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I’m not sure, but I think he flies by the numbers.

Yabut, which numbers? 65% or 75% or something else?

I know he leans to whatever the G1000 tells him to (I think there’s a green line for fuel flow. He hasn’t had a cylinder problem yet and is approaching 500hrs. This is his first turbo.

Ovation Ultra does not have a turbo... It's just an overpowered normally aspirated engine. They still say the service ceiling is 20,000 (same as mine) even though it's got more hp. I still get 500 fpm at 15,000 so he probably gets it a bit higher than that.

 

[szwinger]

If it's certified as a five-seat aircraft, it won't qualify under MOSAIC.... if and when.

Ron Wanttaja

Well, that is something I hadn’t considered. Dang.

 

[szwinger]

Yabut, which numbers? 65% or 75% or something else?


Ovation Ultra does not have a turbo... It's just an overpowered normally aspirated engine. They still say the service ceiling is 20,000 (same as mine) even though it's got more hp. I still get 500 fpm at 15,000 so he probably gets it a bit higher than that.

I don’t know, but would guess 75%. It’s a 2017 with a pilot side door. It’s definitely a Turbo. He just went through the 500hr turbo v-clamp deal. Maybe it’s not 190 KTAS but it’s definitely noticeably more than 170 KTAS.

I’m not really up on the Mooney naming conventions. He’s a POH kinda guy so I’d guess whatever the tables in the POH show is where he flies.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don’t know, but would guess 75%. It’s a 2017 with a pilot side door. It’s definitely a Turbo. He just went through the 500hr turbo v-clamp deal.

If it's a turbo, it's not an Ovation.

The only Mooney with a turbo and two doors would be the Acclaim Ultra, which should be outrunning you by more than 20 knots, although if he's only flying it in the teens he's missing out on extra speed up high. That's a 242-knot bird if you put it in the right place.

 

[szwinger]

If it's a turbo, it's not an Ovation.

The only Mooney with a turbo and two doors would be the Acclaim Ultra, which should be outrunning you by more than 20 knots, although if he's only flying it in the teens he's missing out on extra speed up high. That's a 242-knot bird if you put it in the right place.

Well, that explains his N number. It has 242 in it. His other plane had 201 in the N number. I think the M20s were supposed to go 201 MPH (not knots but similar naming conventions)

 

[David Loftus]

Try getting a GFC500 in a DA40? How about ANY autopilot other than the KAP140? See what happens. That is just ONE example. The DA40 is not a very nice platform to upgrade in general.

And useful load is only half the battle, you also have to check the CG and the maximum landing weight as well. Tail strikes are a constant thing with it.

I got tons of hours in a DA40. I love that bird. But it was built as a trainer/flying school plane, not a family XC hauler.

I think your info is a bit dated. Diamonds have had full G1000 with GFC700 autopilot since 2007. Also, Southtec in NC was working on an STC for G3X Touch and GFC500. They've already successfully installed in DA20's. Not sure of current status on DA40, but certainly a lot cheaper upgrade for pre 2007 models with KAP140's.

 

[francisco collazos]

You guys are making me really sad that I don't have a plane.

 

[iamtheari]

Yeah, but I made the mistake of saying to April, "You know with pressurization we could get over a lot of this weather that we can't in the Comanche." I talked her down from a 414/421, and she REALLY wants the air stair. To be honest, wing gymnastics is wearing on me. But I'd still rather do wing gymnastics than be seen in a high wing.

You must be quite the negotiator. I can barely talk myself out of a 414/421 most days.

 

[traumamed]

I hear/read this often. I don’t agree (but that doesn’t mean you are wrong). The reason, in my opinion, the SR22 and the C182 are priced above the Bonanza/Mooney/Piper relatively speaking is that they are fixed gear. That doesn’t matter until it does. I think that is driven by Insurance and pilot age.

I guess one person's triumph is another's tragedy. The SR-22T would absolutely be a 215-knot cruiser if the gear folded. Mooney probably thanks their lucky stars on a daily basis that Cirrus never tried to certify a retract. The SR-22 is a joy to fly, but a 20+ knot speed penalty to drag wheels through the air is a dealbreaker for this pilot. I didn't realize insurances would age people out on gear.

Are there any other planes that comfortably cruise over 150 knots and are not retract-flavored? I am having difficulty thinking of any offhand, aside from a few two-seat experimentals.

An interesting discussion (to me at least) would be what if the Cirrus didn’t have the Chute. I’m not saying the Chute being option, I’m saying not available from the factory.

I don’t believe it would materially affect their sales. What other choice is there. What other piston has FIKI as an option. There are a few, but not a whole lot. Not every plane with TKS is FIKI (my previous Cirrus had TKS but wasn’t FIKI).

I think they have a niche with or without the Chute.

I'm in a community hangar that has four Cirri. Two of the owners told me their spouses would have said no to any other option. The chute got them "permission" to buy a plane. The dynamics of some marriages are... interesting. Lol. In any case, Cirrus markets a lifestyle and an image. Take the chute out of the equation and it is debatable whether the SR-22 would have become the success story it is.

I'm glad the HomeSafe/Safe Return/Autoland technology has made an appearance, because now you don't have to half-wreck the airplane if the pilot becomes incapacitated.

Will "look hunny, it has autoland!" have the same ring to it as, "look hunny, it has a parachute!"

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Are there any other planes that comfortably cruise over 150 knots and are not retract-flavored? I am having difficulty thinking of any offhand, aside from a few two-seat experimentals.

Columbia/Cessna 300-350-400 series.

Will "look hunny, it has autoland!" have the same ring to it as, "look hunny, it has a parachute!"

If they knew what riding down under the chute was really like, yes.

 

[Salty]

auto land really only helps with pilot incapacitation. Mechanical failures will not be resolved by auto land.

I'm in the minority that wouldn't pull the chute in most cases, I'm a pilot, for the most part, if the plane is flying, I'm going to fly it. But even I recognize that there are scenarios where the chute is the only option that would help.

 

[traumamed]

auto land really only helps with pilot incapacitation. Mechanical failures will not be resolved by auto land.

I'm in the minority that wouldn't pull the chute in most cases, I'm a pilot, for the most part, if the plane is flying, I'm going to fly it. But even I recognize that there are scenarios where the chute is the only option that would help.

Even so, the Cirrus airframes have not proven to be statistically safer than their peers. That one has always been a head-scratcher for me. Like you, I'd prefer to fly to the scene of a survivable forced landing, but engine failure at night in IMC with mountain obscuration over the Rockies, idk how anything but a chute is going to let you live to tell the harrowing tale. How, then, have CAPS not yielded safer GA planes?

One review of the data from 2019:

Cirrus At 25: A Safer Airplane?

If the Cirrus worldwide fleet hours-flown claim of a million hours per year is accurate, the worldwide overall accident rate for 2018 was 2.7/100,000 hours or

www.avweb.com

Old article, but still fairly valid. Ostensibly updated in 2023:

Cirrus: A Sober Look

A series of accidents has tarred the reputation of what was supposed to be the safest GA airplane ever made. But is that an accurate picture? An honest look at the Cirrus accident record.

aviationsafetymagazine.com

 

[Salty]

Even so, the Cirrus airframes have not proven to be statistically safer than their peers. That one has always been a head-scratcher for me. Like you, I'd prefer to fly to the scene of a survivable forced landing, but engine failure at night in IMC with mountain obscuration over the Rockies, idk how anything but a chute is going to let you live to tell the harrowing tale. How, then, have CAPS not yielded safer GA planes?

Old article, but still fairly valid. Ostensibly updated in 2023.

Cirrus: A Sober Look

A series of accidents has tarred the reputation of what was supposed to be the safest GA airplane ever made. But is that an accurate picture? An honest look at the Cirrus accident record.

aviationsafetymagazine.com

There's a lot of reasons that might be the case.

The least politically correct of which is that those that buy a cirrus are also those more likely to crash an aircraft.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

auto land really only helps with pilot incapacitation. Mechanical failures will not be resolved by auto land.

Right. It's not a replacement for the chute, it's a replacement for one of the issues that the chute is there for that can give you a nicer ride down and better support after landing.

I'm in the minority that wouldn't pull the chute in most cases, I'm a pilot, for the most part, if the plane is flying, I'm going to fly it. But even I recognize that there are scenarios where the chute is the only option that would help.

Agreed... But there's a lot of good reasons for pulling the chute anyway. Day VFR, engine fails and you can't make an airport maybe... But night or IMC engine failure, much higher likelihood I'd pull it if I had it.

Where it's probably best is in a mid-air collision, and that's the whole reason it's there in the first place.

Even so, the Cirrus airframes have not proven to be statistically safer than their peers. That one has always been a head-scratcher for me.

For quite a while in the earlier years of Cirrus, there wasn't much extra training for Cirrus the way there is today. That has helped significantly.

It seemed like the presence of the chute led to some extremely poor ADM, and people would go when they really shouldn't have because "if it doesn't work out I can just pull the chute." But the flip side is, back then pulling the chute totaled the airplane, and after the situation deteriorated to where a chute pull would have been a good idea, the pilots likely couldn't bring themselves to destroy the airplane on purpose and/or admit that they were no longer in control of the situation, so they didn't pull the chute until it was too late: One went down with a load of ice and pulled the chute something like 30+ knots above Vne (which is already significantly faster than the max chute speed) and the chute ripped right off. There was at least one other one where the chute was pulled far too late and the plane crashed before the chute had a chance to deploy. And finally, there were some instances where the pilot tried to pull the chute and it didn't activate. There were some SBs on the early systems because it was difficult to pull hard enough to activate.

All told, it took a few years before CAPS got its first save.

Another factor is the fuel tank design... Cirri love to burn after crashing, sometimes when the crash was otherwise survivable.

Finally, there's still the fact that it's a "lifestyle brand" and they market heavily to non-pilots. That's great for growing GA, but also attracts a lot of folks with more dollars than sense who tend to have an outsized opinion of their own abilities due to success in other areas of life. The training program has helped, but it's hard to get rid of that attitude.

Like you, I'd prefer to fly to the scene of a survivable forced landing, but engine failure at night in IMC with mountain obscuration over the Rockies, idk how anything but a chute is going to let you live to tell the harrowing tale.

Turn on the terrain page and have bright landing lights, maybe... But a chute would be much better.

 

[Steamflyer]

If planes were still being made in any numbers, and the regulations moved forward like they do for cars, every single engine plane would probably be required to have a parachute. Think about how airbags, antilock brakes, and rear cameras filtered down from luxury add-on to required equipment as the technology matured and became cheaper.

 

[AvNavCom]

Where it's probably best is in a mid-air collision, and that's the whole reason it's there in the first place.

Max Trescott has an interesting opinion that Cirrus aircraft have a higher approach speed for forced landings than most other single-engine aircraft, resulting in significantly lower survivability during a forced landing, since the kinetic energy (square of the velocity) is so much higher. For this reason, he states (as I recall) that the chute is virtually always preferrable to a forced landing.

Having never flown a Cirrus, I can't comment intelligently on how true that statement is, but an increase in kinetic energy along with an increased propensity for burning suggests that the calculus of accepting a forced landing in a Cirrus vs pulling the chute isn't quite the same as it would be for some imaginary C172/Cherokee equipped with a chute.

 

[Steamflyer]

Max Trescott has an interesting opinion that Cirrus aircraft have a higher approach speed for forced landings than most other single-engine aircraft, resulting in significantly lower survivability during a forced landing, since the kinetic energy (square of the velocity) is so much higher. For this reason, he states (as I recall) that the chute is virtually always preferrable to a forced landing.

Having never flown a Cirrus, I can't comment intelligently on how true that statement is, but an increase in kinetic energy along with an increased propensity for burning suggests that the calculus of accepting a forced landing in a Cirrus vs pulling the chute isn't quite the same as it would be for some imaginary C172/Cherokee equipped with a chute.

It's not a low speed wing per se - it's designed to be efficient. So approach speeds and ability to tease the last little bit of lift out of the wing is lessened.

 

[Bell206]

and the regulations moved forward like they do for cars, every single engine plane would probably be required to have a parachute.

Not really. The regulations have been moving toward fault tolerant designs for years that could handle one or two catastrophic failures and still make it back to the ground with no parachute needed. However, they have taken in consideration that aircraft could be around 50+ years later so the Part 23 rewrite and other new regulations have incorporated some type of structural life limit or mandated structural inspection program.

 

[Steamflyer]

Not really. The regulations have been moving toward fault tolerant designs for years that could handle one or two catastrophic failures and still make it back to the ground with no parachute needed. However, they have taken in consideration that aircraft could be around 50+ years later so the Part 23 rewrite and other new regulations have incorporated some type of structural life limit or mandated structural inspection program.

While the parachute idea did stem from a frank structural failure (mid-air), I don’t believe that many GA aircraft suffer from catastrophic failure of the kind addressed by fault tolerant design. They suffer engine failures to a first order. That’s what the parachute is for.

 

[Bell206]

That’s what the parachute is for.

I merely replied in the context of your comment that every plane would be regulatorily required to have a parachute. You'll find as the regulations do change they have not required parachute. The 2017 Part 23 rewrite didn't address it nor do the current drafts for the new powered-lift regulations and most of these aircraft cannot glide or autorotate. Instead the new rules encompass fault tolerance, redundancy, and demonstrated failure probabilities. While the rules do allow the use of a BRS for certification requirements as the CAPS was used, a good number of designers are not incorporating them for various reasons. And even the EASA has frowned on a non-steerable BRS chute as being acceptable with some new designs which is in line with their past decision to not accept the CAPS as a spin recovery device on the Cirrus.