Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on November 21, 2005, 12:28:05 PM
-
I brought this up in the 747 thread, thought it might deserve one of its own.
Has anyone been following the Cessna 'Cirrus killer' story as it develops? Apparently, the CEO of Cessna announced a couple months ago that the company is working on a new four seater, single engine design that's to compete directly with the threat that the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22 pose. As you may know, Cirrus sold almost as many four seater single engine aircraft as Cessna last year, and may surpass them this year or next. The reason? Cessna's offerings in this market (most notably the venerable 172) haven't changed too much since the 1960s. Incremental updates like fuel injection and even glass cockpits haven't changed the basic performance too much, and people are looking for something that cruises a bit faster.
The Cirrus SR-22 cruises almost twice as fast as the 172, mostly because of aerodynamics. The composite structure is a lot cleaner, the engine is bigger, there are a lot of improvements. It also has the CAPS ballistic parachute recovery system, which I guess reassures some people.
What we know:
It will use a variant of the O-540
It will be composite (instead of metal)
It will cruise at Cirrus speeds
It will be fixed gear.
Predictions:
It will look a LOT like the Cardinal.
It will be spin rated
It will have full FADEC and instead of three throttle, mixture, and prop controls, it will have a single 'power' lever that manages all of those automatically.
Anyone else have any dirt/predictions on it? Let's see if we can get a conversation started.
BTW, I don't like the Cirrus. I also don't like the modern 172 that much.
-
For reference, the Cessna C-177 Cardinal:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Cessna177BCardinal05.jpg/300px-Cessna177BCardinal05.jpg)
-
They already have that model out. It's called a 182. Typical for Cessna. Fix performance problems by adding more HP and not change the airframe.
Frankly I'm very happy that Cessna has some real competition. They have been extremely complacent figuring that name recognition would carry them through. They had a nice product for 1960 to 70. They have done very little to change or make it evolve.
Their so called resurection and "new design" of the 172 was IMO totally bogus. It is virtually the same plane and the changes made would fit more in line with a year to year model change not requiring a new air worthyness certificate. It's not a "new airframe or airplane".
-
The 172 is the Microsoft Windows of General Aviation. Does most things right, even a kid could fly and land it, but it has no appeal whatsoever.
However, I think it's kind of unfair to compare the SR-20 or 22 with the 172R or SP, mostly because of the difference in prices.
The Cirrus is on the level of the 182, and their performances then are not so different.
Moreover, the Cirrus SR-20, full tank, 4 on board has a CG that's clearly off-limits. Add to that the fact that it's a much more sensitive plane and doesn't allow for the mistakes you can do in a Cessna.
Our club considered many options for the fleet renewal, and we finally chose the 172 SP and R (with the 180 HP upgrade) over the Diamond DA-40 (and of course the Cirrus, which was substantially more expensive).
Why? The 172 is a proven design, with tolerances of more than 150% of recommended operation numbers, and it withstands anything our members can do wrong (well, most things).
The real problem with the 172 is that it's THE general aviation airplane. The Cirrus looks elegant, sleek, and new. Perfect for 1 or 2 owners flying from long, prepared fields (1000+ yards).
I'd choose a Lancair over a Cirrus any day. Problem is, it's not certified in Europe...
Daniel
-
Both of your posts seem to miss the point: Cessna is designing a new aircraft that they hope will challenge Cirrus on its turf while providing something as robust as the 172, and hopes to do it with more than just adding horsepower.
A 1965 Cessna 172 pilot could transition to the 2005 Cessna 172 for VFR in no time, most of the lesson would be in how to use the Garmin 1000 glass cockpit. It's silly, you can almost use the same weight & balance, performance, and fuel burn numbers, even 40 years later.
I'm no fan of the Cirrus. The idea of flying a plane that can't recover from a spin without use of the parachute is crazy. The POH for the SR-22 says that if you enter a spin, 'don't waste time trying to recover from the spin', and you should 'deploy the CAPS immediately'. Ridiculous.
But the fact remains, the Cirrus is on the verge of outselling the 172. Anything that goads them into competition will be good for the rest of us. Personally, I want to see a composite from New Piper. If the Columbia 400 is so dang great, imagine what a Columbia 450 or 500 might look like? Competition breeds advancement.
-
I'm surprised Cessna sells any new 172s.
Who buys a new one for $170k-230k?
you could easily buy a very good used one, spend a lot of $ making it perfect & still have $50k-100k left over for $200 hamburgers
-
I've been flying the SR22 GTS lately (Version 5 of the Avidyne Entegra glass cockpit system...Version 6 does away with ALL of the mechanical engine instrument and presents them on the display) and this is what you get:
-Incredible interior...over 48" wide and lots of room in the back.
-Incredible Situational Awareness with 1 big PFD, one MFD and dual Garmin 430s which can present Traffic and stormscope views.
-Very clear electronic charts...no more paper approach plates all the Jeppesen approach plates are presented on the MFD.
-Electronic Checklist...no paper to fumble with and no missed steps because you literally check each item with the push of a button.
-An honest 185 knot true airspeed...thanks to a redesigned cowl and firewall. Also the Hartzell blended airflow prop helps add some efficiency.
-Weather downlinked right to the panel.
-Airport Diagram overlay which is neat and I think my favorite feature...it puts you on the JeppView system as a little airplane icon so you can navigate around an airport using the diagram on the screen...you just can't get lost! Flew to MDW (Chicago Midway) and never had to hold a pencil to my airport diagram.
-Very smooth autopilot perfectly capable of flying an ILS approach on its own.
-Easy to operate handle to deploy a parachute. Invaluable to loved ones, clients and friends should you become incapacitated in flight.
___________________________
Never flew any Cirrus regularly but a steam gauge SR20 and had one ride in a steam gauge SR22 prior to hopping into this airplane...and I love it.
Best part...this one has 4 Bose X headsets kept in the airplane so I get to have my very own top of the line ANR headset while I'm in it :)
If Cessna can beat all that...and the price by a wide margin...then more power to them. For a fully loaded Cirrus SR22 you'll be forking over about $450,000 and waiting for a 6 week backorder.
(Constant six weeks I'm told producing what I think was 3 airplanes a DAY if I remember what I was told. I remember being astounded but do not remember the figure)
Also to quote the sales rep..."We love when we sell an SR20 because we just sold two airplanes!"
-
There's a Cirrus based at the local airport. I haven't got to see inside it yet. But it does look the business. I'm sure I'll inveigle a flight in it eventually.
The first one I ever saw was in Reykjavik in Icleland last November on a ferry flight to Europe. I didn't envy the pilot when he woke me up with his engine warm up as he prepared to depart on a dark -10C morning.
Cessna does need to come up with a rival. Frankly it's time.
-
I hope Columbia can get their manufacturing house in order. Those are some seriously nice planes. Personally, I think the dark horse here is going to end up being Vans.
Imagine, if you will, a certified version of the RVs. A certified RV-10A could kick the pants off the single engine four seater market, and a certified RV-7A could "0wnz" the two seater training market.
-
Frankly once an airplane costs more than 350k us I am not interested in it at all no matter how good it is.
They depreciate too fast when new to every entice me to part with that much money.
My 1958 182 cost a tenth the price and is a great plane. I can add a Garmin 430 for 10k us and I did add an Stec autopilot for 12k. That is alot less money than any new plane including the 172.
My plane goes up in value each year not down. It is a proven performer and it does what I need it to do. Without the benefit of corporate tax right offs and depreciation a new plane makes no sense for an individual to own.
As long as Cirrus keeps selling 3 a day there is no pressure for them to reduce cost. However if there is ever a slowdown in sales I wonder how low they could drop the price and still make money? They have probably recouped their development costs and their certification costs by now so the price they are chargeing must have a hefty profit component.
Shame they do not reduce the price to 250k us where guys like me could afford one.
-
By the way Chairboy do not think that Cessna cannot make low wing planes as well, they have made many. Check out their twin engine line up like the 310 etc.
I think if they are going to make a Cirrus killer they will start with a clean blackboard but also play to their strengths.
Probably not full composite, but maybe composite wings. You can expect fadec and full glass as they are doing that already. A Lycombing engine of course. I would expect a wide cockpit and very comfortable seats but I doubt they will have a side stick or any stick at all. Cessna planes always have a yoke.
-
I mention the high wing because the president of Cessna stated that it would be a high wing, that part wasn't a guess. You might be right about composite wings/metal body, dunno.
On the stick/yoke question, I believe that the cirrus is a side yoke, not a side stick. Not really relevant, but something I found that was interesting.
BTW, Habu, I'm with you 100%. Refitting an older plane seems like the obviously smartest path compared to buying new.
-
We call it a Sidestick at the company...Splitting hairs isn't worth the trouble. Besides...it's a stick and it's on the side :)
-
Cessna needs to learn how to place the yoke so it stops hitting my kneeboard.
so does Piper & Beechcraft.
-
I find the perfect solution to the nudging kneeboard is a nice pair of dress slacks with a very tight weave. They are nice and slick. They repel water, paper and laminated checklists almost as though they were designed.
No more nudging kneeboard, and you've still got your teeth to hold on to your pencil.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
I find the perfect solution to the nudging kneeboard is a nice, tight dress
I'm 6'2, and I've had my share of nudged kneeboards too. Once, in a Cessna 152, I was on short final or flaring when my kneeboard caught the yoke.
That was pretty exciting.
I've found that flying something that you don't wear like a backpage (eg, not a 152) that has more room really helps out. I miss my Warrior II I trained in, that was pretty roomy. The 172 I've been flying is ok too, haven't had any probs with the kneeboard in it, but I guess I'm so busy staring at that misplaced wing (who puts wings on TOP anyhow?) that I haven't had a chance to appreciate it.
-
I rather like Cessnas myself. We got an old C-182 with a 300+ hp engine. Had a pilot who liked Vietnam style flying and it was plenty exciting to be 5 men with no seatbelts, on the floor + the pilot.
It's a steady workhorse. Pretty cheap running costs. Seems to hold up quite well too. Static lines have been bouncing off the side of ours for several decades and sure it has some dents, but all in all it's in surprisingly good condition.
From a passenger's perspective it's a nice aircraft.
-
Keep in mind that a 177RG will cruise at 150Kts. putting it right in the same category as an SR20. It also has better range and payload.
I would think that a cleaned up Cardinal would be a great starting point for Cessna. I'm partial to high wings. They don't get stuck in snow banks so easy.;)
Think about the speeds seen with the 210. Now put that engine in a 177.
:eek:
-
Show me the Cardinal RG you've been flying! I want one and will pay cash...
Best we do is 135kts just like the Arrow cousin at Piper.
They've got the same motors...IO-360s at 200hp.
The Cirrus is a much more aerodynamically efficient airframe...with fixed gear. The SR20 gives you an honest 150kts TAS...not in a high power descent or groundspeed with a tailwind.
Hell...in a Mooney M20J-201 I file for 150KTS and it's the slickest of the slick with a 200hp IO-360. Cirrus has done something right...
But on the other hand the Cardinal is my favorite Cessna. I like the looks and the sports car feel of that low to the ground fun to fly people mover. With a 950lb useful load...it's a dead tie with the SR20 without the glass, interior room and parachute.
Doh...wrote down a 320 for the Mooney not 360...durrrrr ::drool::
-
Ok you got me. Trade a Plane does list it at 149Kts 75%. Probably a little generous on their part. Still, I gotta wonder what a cleaned up 177 with an IO540 will do.
-
There might be one out there with speed mods...but the only one that does any good is the exhaust fairing. You'll pick up 9 kts with that.
With that big engine the wings would rip off...they flex a bunch as it is :)
I'm interested to see at least a drawing of this Cirrus killer. You can get a free demo of an SR22 if you'd like...just give them a call and they'll send one of many of their demo planes out to your airport and they'll show you what it's all about.
The SR20 and 22 are the same airplane. The SR22 has a longer wing which is basically a 3 foot wingtip. The spar does go all the way to the end, but if you were to look at one and then another...the SR22 has a row of fasteners about 3 feet inboard from the wingtips...that's where the SR20's wing stops. Interior space is the same. It's all about the Motor...or all about the Overstock.com woman...wooooow.
-
There's no doubt that Cirrus has a good bird. I first sat in one of their prototypes about 10 years ago at Sun n Fun. Liked it right from the get go.
Of course back then they were projecting a selling price of about 140K for an SR20.
I can't swing 400K+ for a an SR22. A Seneca II (Known Ice), looking at the blizzard outside...that's the ticket. 140K will do it too.;)
-
Dynamt, have you seen the Columbia? All the features of the Cirrus and more, without unrecoverable spins. Heck, the Columbia 400 even comes with built in cabin pressurization. The Cirrus SR-22 (which cruises best in O2 country) leaves the pilot to rely on nose breathers. Finally, it's the fastest single engine prop in general aviation, not to mention long legged. An unmodified Columbia that a customer picked up at the factory in Bend, OR flew non-stop to Dallas-Fort Worth. That's pretty impressive, in my books.
-
Do you guys really mean unrecoverable spin, or do you mean that spin recovery is not reccommended in this Cirrus.
Spin recovery is no big deal in most aircraft.
-
The only approved way to recover from a spin in the Cirrus is to deploy the airplane parachute. The POH specifically says that you must not 'waste time' trying to recover from the spin.
-
You're not approved to get into the spin in the first place.
If you find yourself in one you must deploy the CAPS system (the parachute).
The parachute is the deciding factor in Gross weight also...rather than stalling speed as usually the case. The parachute anchors can only hold so much weight.
I was recently told about someone loading it up to over 7000lbs (lead bricks maybe...thats a lot of weight!) and on departure it still climbed out at 1000fpm. That's impressive...
-
Most times when a company goes for performance they do so by cutting back on head room. A smaller frontal profile = less drag = more speed. Of course for big guys like me I will not even consider a plane with a cramped cockpit (like a Mooney or Diamond) no matter how fast they go.
So I hope Cessna keeps with their generous cockpits even if it costs them a few knots airspeed.
Lots of really fast homebuilts out there. But you sit in one and you see that your knees hit the underside of the instrument panel and you Dave Clarkes hit the canopy and your shoulder is in contact with your passenger and the other is pressed against the cold window.
Now imagine staying in that position for 4 hours on a cross country flight. You might enjoy it at first but I am sure it gets old fast.
I have never sat in a Cirrus so I am not sure how they fit taller pilots. I will have to try one out soon and see.
-
Habu,
I know what you mean. Went for a ride in a Lancair 360(2 seat home built),
Yikes.. I don't fit. 6'2" 225#s.
Cirrus is a very roomy airplane. You will like it.
-
I'm 6'0 and 230lbs...with the holidays coming up that doesn't look to change...ruh ro!
I fit just fine in a Cirrus with lots of head room, shoulder room and leg room.
Here's an excerpt from the POH on spins...
Do take note that it's not certified because it hasn't been demonstrated by a test pilot that the airplane can recover. That doesn't mean it can't recover from a spin...they just didn't test that aspect because of the parachute.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/32/SR22%20Spin%20Page.JPG)
Here's a page on the cabin dimensions...very much roomy.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/32/SR22%20Cabin%20Dimensions.JPG)
Habu...have you tried on a newer Mooney? (Ovation or Bravo) Those new cockpits are better than they were in the past, and the instrument panel doesn't feel (to me at least) like it's laying on your lap as it does in the M20J. It's still like sitting in a sports car...but it's a good change.
-
Very cool diagram! The Cherokee Warrior, by comparison, is 41" wide and 49" tall.
The Columbia 300-400 is actually 51" tall, and 49" wide, so a little more headroom.
-
For some modern cockpits, check these out:
Here are some of the configurations of the Columbia cockpit, steam gauges & avidyne:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Lancair%20LC-40%20Columbia&specialsearch=cockpit&aircraftsearch=&distinct_entry=yes
Here's the Garmin 1000 version of the Columbia cockpit: http://www.lancairusa.com/20051031.html
I think I prefer the Avidyne glass cockpit, it's less busy than the G1000.
-
golfer,
I got thinking about the speed you posted for a 177RG (135Kts.) seems slow. I fly a 172M with the Penn Yan 180 upgrade and I plan 120Kts. and usually see 122-124Kts. TAS at 7-8K. I would of thought that if you take off the struts, suck up the gear,add 20HP and add a CS prop you'd get more than 10-15 knots. Oh well.
-
You're adding a lot of weight to it as well. The club I instructed at and still do though not so often has one...
True Airspeed calculator on the Garmin 430 at 23"mp and 2400rpm = 135kts. I'm sure you can get more out of it if you run up the prop a bit but that's not how you fly it according to the book. You also don't get that speed on the same fuel flow. I could get 160KTAS out of the Mooney if I left the prop at redline...but the fuel flow wouldn't be 9.5gph anymore either.
I did some quick fishing around for a 177RG POH and found one that appears to be transposed from a POH and typed up by hand.
I don't have the 177's POH with me so this will have to do. In the club's 177 I've never seen the fuel flows they mention on this site...13gph for an IO360...I see that on takeoff in the Mooney on the same motor...not in cruise. Could be the way the engines are set up and the RPM settings.
Still...135ktas at 23" 2400rpm is what we get. Maybe we're dragging an invisible drag chute :)
The site...here (http://www.aerowings.org/aircraftpoh.htm) where I got the info also spells "Gauges" as "Gages" so do take that with a grain of salt. If these numbers are right then they're right...just not what I've seen and certainly not what I've heard the reputation of the Cardinal to be...it's no Mooney but it sure is purdy. According to these numbers...it outclasses a Mooney M20J.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/32/C177RG%20Performance.JPG)
-
Thanks for the Info.
Not sure what you meant by adding weight. Conversion adds a minor amount to empty weight.. You do get 250# Gross increase, actually makes it a 4 seater. I have 52 Gals. 48 useable. Full fuel payload is 721#s.
I assume that chart is MPH. So your figure would be about right 23/24 at 5K shows 162 MPH or 137.7 Kts. and 70% BHP. You only have a small anchor.;)
-
Hmmm....
Who changed that chart to MPH when I was not looking ;)
I can't stop laughing at myself...:rofl
-
For my book, any aircraft that has no demonstrated spin recovery technique is dangerous and has no business being certified. In fact demonstrated spin and unusual attitude recovery is usually a prerequisite for certification, Cirrus got around this with the BRS, and I think that is downright dangerous. Relying solely on a BRS to save your prettythang if and when you get into trouble is the most ridiculous ideas yet to be proposed in aviation safety since homeland security.
I say when because this reliance will lead to a contept of conventional aviation saftey , don't believe me? Just think of how it's going to affect Joe Citizen, flying on the edge of inclement weather simply because he feels safe in the knowledge that his BRS will save him "if" something goes wrong.
Never mind the fact that he and his passengers may still suffer horrendous injuries and may still die as a result of the ground impact.
Never mind the fact that while he's trying to make up his mind if this big cloud he's flown into constitutes a hazard he flies into a mountain, and never mind the fact that should he happen to encounter a freak wind gust that suddenly tips his plane over and down into a spin or unusual attitude he's going to have to pull the BRS and in the process destroy the aircraft when a little rudder and roll input would pull any well designed aircraft back onto straight and level.
Sounds like a money grab at the expense of public safety to me.
-
Originally posted by SD67
think of how it's going to affect Joe Citizen, flying on the edge of inclement weather simply because he feels safe in the knowledge that his BRS will save him "if" something goes wrong.
Device dependency. This is a very hot topic in the skydiving community with good cases on both sides.
We have an Automatic Activation Device. If your vertical speed is higher than 78mph at an altitude of 750, it'll a small pyrotechnic charge that pushes a razor forward, which cuts off the loop holding your reserve in. It essentially gives you a last chance of extending your life beyond the next three seconds.
The same arguments are being made:many new jumpers who didn't jump in the pre-AAD time have developed Device Dependency. The loose definition of this concept is: if you are not willing to do something without the device that you are willing to do with it, you are device dependent.
In flying device dependency could be going up in unfavourable weather or doing advanced maneuvers. The concept is the same.
These devices will save lives. They will also cause deaths. Either by functioning according to their specifications (we lost a very well known skydiver after he made a series of diving spirals under canopy to build speed and unknowingly exceeded 78mph vertical, had his AAD fire, then a two-out in a downplane configuration) or because the users increase the risks due to having them.
The principle behind this is known in psychology and well described by Brian Germain in his book "The Canopy And Its Pilot". I can highly recommend it to pilots as well, as there are many similarities between canopy flight and powered flight.
Risk homeostatis in essence; you balance the perceived risk against your perceived skills. Add more stuff that you think are working in your favour and your perceived "skills" go up, and you're thus willing to take more risk. In essence, ya get used to a certain level of danger and to get the same arousal ya used to, you increase the perceived risks.
Key here being perceived risk vs actual risk, and perceived skills vs actual skills. A mismatch in the wrong direction is very dangerous indeed. Device dependency has a tendency to increase perceived skill and decrease perceived risk.
A simple equation such as if(saved > killed) then GOOD doesn't model the myriad of variables out there. But it's a start.
I turn on my AAD and forget about it. Sometimes, I forget to turn it on. I'll jump knowing it's turned off. There are, after all, two fundamental rules.
1) Don't f*ck up.
2) Don't f*cking die.
Devices may save you if you mess up. Best not to try it, though.
-
Originally posted by SD67
For my book, any aircraft that has no demonstrated spin recovery technique is dangerous and has no business being certified. In fact demonstrated spin and unusual attitude recovery is usually a prerequisite for certification, Cirrus got around this with the BRS, and I think that is downright dangerous. Relying solely on a BRS to save your prettythang if and when you get into trouble is the most ridiculous ideas yet to be proposed in aviation safety since homeland security.
I say when because this reliance will lead to a contept of conventional aviation saftey , don't believe me? Just think of how it's going to affect Joe Citizen, flying on the edge of inclement weather simply because he feels safe in the knowledge that his BRS will save him "if" something goes wrong.
Never mind the fact that he and his passengers may still suffer horrendous injuries and may still die as a result of the ground impact.
Never mind the fact that while he's trying to make up his mind if this big cloud he's flown into constitutes a hazard he flies into a mountain, and never mind the fact that should he happen to encounter a freak wind gust that suddenly tips his plane over and down into a spin or unusual attitude he's going to have to pull the BRS and in the process destroy the aircraft when a little rudder and roll input would pull any well designed aircraft back onto straight and level.
Sounds like a money grab at the expense of public safety to me.
Fair enough.
However a few points...
Deploying the CAPS system doesn't mean the airplane is destroyed.
There have been several very much successful deployments of the parachute including one in British Columbia where the airplane came down on a heavily wooded and rocky slope in an area smaller than a basketball court. Everybody walked away, the airplane was airlifted by helicopter out and was repairable with about $20,000 damage. This loss of control incident would have been a fatal accident in anything other than the Cirrus.
The airplane's landing gear is designed to absorb the impact of the airplane at gross weight under the CAPS canopy and combine that with a fairly sedate vertical speed...you walk away from the accident and have a perfectly repairable airplane.
I sincerely think your beliefs that Pilot Joe Regular will go further beyond his own limitations or drastically increase his personal limitations because of the CAPS system are misplaced. The same warnings can be said to light airplanes and "known ice" certification. There isn't a light or propeller driven airplane made that can withstand prolonged contact with heavy or severe ice. The tools (whether TKS or Boots and a Hot Plate) are strictly for use when escaping ice and should be used as such.
The same people who would charge into an area of known ice heavier than "light" in a light airplane is the same guy who'd justify the decisions you list above.
Continued VFR into IMC is a/the big killer of light airplane pilots and it's something that happens in every type of airplane from a J3 cub to Piper Meridians. It's certainly not exclusive to an airplane that gives you a way to save your life and your passengers lives.
BRS parachute systems have been used in the ultralight community for years and have had hundreds of successful deployments and saved a majority of those lives. The airplane has enough rudder and if I had someone who had too much money and wanted to have a go...I'd spin the thing.
Spin recoverability of an airplane doesn't much matter because if you flew yourself into the spin in the first place as a result of poor airmanship...what makes you think that you could get out of a very disorienting spin while in IMC? I've never been in a spin in the clouds, so does that mean I'm not certified or fit to fly instruments?
Here are a few more pages from the SR22 information manual:
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/32/SR22%20CAPS.JPG)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/32/SR22%20CAPS%20Deployment%201.JPG)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/32/SR22%20CAPS%20Deployment%202.JPG)
"it's use should not be taken lightly"
Anybody that hops in a Cirrus is going to have some training and Cirrus right now has some of the best CFIs in the country doing that training. I know a few and though I haven't been to their "CSIP" program (what CFI can afford that anyway?!) I can assure you that they do not and I do not take the parachute lightly, treat it as an item to be used on a regular basis or use it as an excuse to justify dumb piloting mistakes.
-
Was installing the BRS a way to circumvent some of the prohibitive expenses of certification, or is it an actual feature of the aircraft? Just looking at the plane, it seems quite conventional. I would expect normal spin recovery techniques would be effective, if the airframe remained intact.
-
::Shrug::
Maybe they were trying to make a point? Call Cirrus and ask I just fly the darn things :)
-
Have I mentioned the Columbia yet?
(http://www.willmarairservice.com/imagesmain2/lancair/400inclouds.jpg)
-
I figured you would prefer a Luscombe, Chairboy.
-
Only for supersonic flight.
-
If you visit the COPA site. One reason that many people give for picking cirrus is room, mainly headroom. Some of these people have owned both.
There also seems to be some gripes about the seats.
I'd be happy with either. anyone got 400K they don't need, I'll pick up the rest.:rofl
-
They're not your living room recliner...but they're no slouches. Blows away a Mooney. Sure beats the C-172, PA-32 and Chevy Silverado I'm used to piloting. Silverado has heated seats and lumbar suport too :)