Stol wrote:
One correction... A deployment --- ALWAYS ----totals the aircraft. To my knowledge there has not been even one Cirrus repaired after the chute was used.

I am cautious of using the word ALWAYS as there is almost ALWAYS an exception to the rule.

N1223S: Cirrus took possession of the first CAPS deployment aircraft, rebuilt it and re-sold it.
CGEMC: The aircraft was extracted by helicopter from the mountain slope on Mount O'Leary and repaired to fly again.
N931CD: Rebuilt flown and sold to new owner, a retired airline pilot who continues to operate it.
N3425L: Rebuilt and sold...exported to Brazil.
N181LM: CAPS landing in shrubs, resulting in damage minor enough to qualify for a ferry permit from Jamaica to the United States for repairs.

The CAPS deployement in itself is not enough to total a newer aircraft with a high value, but the resulting damage when it hits the ground is what usually does it in.

Lowflybye wrote:

nmflyguy wrote:So what would the liability only premium typically be for a 1,000 hour pilot, IFR rated and current, no claims history, 100 hours logged in type, in the Cirrus SR 22 vs. the Corvallis 400?

I'll get you some quote examples for comparison when I get in to the office today.

OK...as promised. I ran 10 different scenarios through a "tire kicker" program with Chartis that allows us to get a good idea of what the quotes will run. Here are the parameters that I used for comparison in order to get as close to apples to apples as possible.

- Pilot = PVT / INST / 1,000 PIC / 100 RG / 100 M&M
- Hangared in Tennessee
- Aircraft value of $300,000 (this is low for a new SR22, Corvalis, or Bonanza, but keeps us in line on values for the DA-40 and 182)

Beech A36 - $3,821 annually for full coverage / $600 annually for Liability Only
Cirrus SR22 - $3,821 annually for full coverage / $600 annually for Liability Only
Cessna Corvalis - $3,418 annually for full coverage / $450 annually for Liability Only
Diamond DA40 XL - $2,659 annually for full coverage / $316 annually for Liability Only
Cessna 182 - $2,659 annually for full coverage / $316 annually for Liability Only

***Only the Cirrus carried a requirement for initial and annual recurrent training***

A couple of things to note here.
- These are only “tirekicker” quotes and would be subject to change with more complete information.
- These quotes are only representative of one underwriting company's “tirekicker” rates.
- Of the group of aircraft, the Corvalis is (arguably) the fastest and the only one that is Turbo. The SR22 can be purchased as a Turbo, but the system did not have the rate options for that model…suffice it to say it will be a bit more.
- Liability premiums are based on the number of seats and the risk category for the aircraft…keep this in mind when comparing the Liability Only rates.
- Notice the Cirrus and A36 share the same rates, yet the Bonanza is a complex aircraft AND has 6 seats.

Just for additional comparison / information…the annual premiums for the SR22 and the Corvalis with a hull value of $600,000 (more indicative of the actual purchase price of a new model) were $6,100 and $5,462 respectively.

Thank you, Lowflybye ... knew you'd come through with the numbers.

What to conclude?

Complex and/or high performance birds appear - by these tirekicker quotes - to pose higher liability claims risks than simpler/lower performance birds. Who'd a thunk it?

The Cirrus liability rates do not seem to be out of line at all with either the Bonanza or the Corvallis in that respect - the two closest competitors in terms of price and performance. Maybe the reason we hear about so many accidents in late model Cirrus's (that would be all Cirrus's) as compared to late model Bonanzas or Corvallis's is that Cirrus's outsell the hell out of their closest competitors.

What is remarkable in your data, Low, is the relatively low liability (and hull) rates for the Diamond DA-40, which is within shouting distance performance wise of the Cirrus, Bo, and Corvallis.

It seems that if the Cirrus is supposed to be today's new "doctor killer", it probably has more to do with the numbers sold and the typical mission profile of a Cirrus - longer cross country flights in all weather conditions, usually owner flown, and - if conventional wisdom is correct - more often purchased by low-time pilots with more money than brains ... as opposed to us poor but smart guys flying old spam cans!

Looking at these quotes I think it indicates that more people are getting killed and injured in the Cirrus. If liability insurance is based on risk profile and number of seats, then the two most expensive to ensure aircraft are a 6 seat Bo at $600 and a 4 seat SR22 at $600, the Cirrus wins the cake $150/seat vs $100/seat. Thanks for the research LowFlyBye.

lowflybye wrote:Beech A36 - $3,821 annually for full coverage / $600 annually for Liability Only
Cirrus SR22 - $3,821 annually for full coverage / $600 annually for Liability Only
Cessna Corvalis - $3,418 annually for full coverage / $450 annually for Liability Only
Diamond DA40 XL - $2,659 annually for full coverage / $316 annually for Liability Only
Cessna 182 - $2,659 annually for full coverage / $316 annually for Liability Only

***Only the Cirrus carried a requirement for initial and annual recurrent training***

A couple of things to note here.
- These are only “tirekicker” quotes and would be subject to change with more complete information.
- These quotes are only representative of one underwriting company's “tirekicker” rates.
- Of the group of aircraft, the Corvalis is (arguably) the fastest and the only one that is Turbo. The SR22 can be purchased as a Turbo, but the system did not have the rate options for that model…suffice it to say it will be a bit more.
- Liability premiums are based on the number of seats and the risk category for the aircraft…keep this in mind when comparing the Liability Only rates.
- Notice the Cirrus and A36 share the same rates, yet the Bonanza is a complex aircraft AND has 6 seats.

Just for additional comparison / information…the annual premiums for the SR22 and the Corvalis with a hull value of $600,000 (more indicative of the actual purchase price of a new model) were $6,100 and $5,462 respectively.

nmflyguy wrote: What is remarkable in your data, Low, is the relatively low liability (and hull) rates for the Diamond DA-40, which is within shouting distance performance wise of the Cirrus, Bo, and Corvallis.

I have around 30 hours or so in a DA-40XL composed of mostly XC and hard IFR flying. The DA-40 is nowhere near the same performance as the other 3 mentioned...maybe on paper, but not in the real world. The DA-40 has only 180 ponies under the cowl compared to 300 or more in the others...in the real world it is a closer comparison to a Cessna 172SP in terms of speed, climb performance, endurance, and payload. The DA 40 is a trainer that has been polished to appeal to a traveling aircraft market. Its ancestry is rooted in gliders and the flight characteristics reflect its lineage. I am not knocking the plane, it is great for its designed purpose, but it is no competitor of the thoroughbreds mentioned earlier.

nmflyguy wrote:It seems that if the Cirrus is supposed to be today's new "doctor killer", it probably has more to do with the numbers sold and the typical mission profile of a Cirrus - longer cross country flights in all weather conditions, usually owner flown, and - if conventional wisdom is correct - more often purchased by low-time pilots with more money than brains ... as opposed to us poor but smart guys flying old spam cans!

Hmmm, that conclusion seems eerily familiar for some reason.

emwhiteman wrote:Looking at these quotes I think it indicates that more people are getting killed and injured in the Cirrus. If liability insurance is based on risk profile and number of seats, then the two most expensive to ensure aircraft are a 6 seat Bo at $600 and a 4 seat SR22 at $600, the Cirrus wins the cake $150/seat vs $100/seat.

That is a partially true statement, but remember that the liability risk profile also includes lawsuits and Cirrus has one of the most famous and costly ones on record for small aircraft...Corey Lidle. Some things these numbers do not take into account are the number of hours flown and the flight profile of the aircraft. These premiums are simply a reflection of the loss ratio and the premiums needed to remain profitable to cover the losses. This is just one piece of the puzzle that would help indicate the safety comparisons on the aircraft.

It is very hard to do apples to apples safety comparisons on different aircraft models for the reasons that are being shown in this thread. My opinion, the Cirrus has far more accidents than it should...is it more dangerous than other aircraft? That all depends on the pilot...for me the Cirrus or the Corvalis would be safer than the Bonanza simply because I have more time and training in them. It's all about experience, training, and attitude. Pilot's who look for computers and aircraft systems to do their flying for them and let their basic airmanship skills atrophy are accident prone in anything they fly. In faster, more complex aircraft the forgiveness of laziness becomes very limited.

Pilots who continually strive to learn from each flight to improve their skills are the safest, and the best pilots have learned to operate at the limits of themselves and their aircraft to get the maximum performance out of both without crossing over those limits.

Very well stated lowflybye.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to this thread.

kevbert wrote:I stumbled onto a pretty good blog a couple of months ago that addresses this very topic. The author, Steve Wilson, uses some very interesting statistics to really bash the Cirrus safety record.

http://stevewilsonblog.com/2009/04/16/dead-pilots-dont-lie.aspx

Steve Wilson is a Cessna sales guy. That makes what he says a bit suspect. For the opposite end of manufacturer massaged data you can go to http://www.whycirrus.com and get the interpretation below.


2007 US General Aviation Mishaps (NTSB)

  US Registered Aircraft Mishaps/yr.(Fatal) (per 1,000 ac) Mishaps/tr. (per 1,000 ac)

Cirrus SR20/SR22________3,335________________0.9_______________________4.2
Cessna 182*_______________16,068________________0.9_______________________4.4
Mooney M20________________7,736________________1.0_______________________4.4
Cessna 350/400_______________581________________3.4_______________________5.2
Cessna 172*________________26,591_______________0.5_______________________5.5
Beech 36___________________2,831________________3.0_______________________7.1
Diamond (Single Engine)________899________________1.1_______________________7.8
All US-registered SE Aircraft 145,036________________1.5_______________________8.2
Piper PA-46 Malibu/Matrix______ 772_______________1.3______________________11.7

* Recent model C-172 have a somewhat worse record; C-182 a slightly better record

This is from Cirrus so take it with the proverbial grain of salt. Personally I hate comparisons based on aircraft numbers rather than hours flown. The numbers do show that both Diamond and Columbia aircraft are too few in number to generate good statistics. Just one fatal accident will kick their numbers around drastically.

Other random thoughts are that, accident rate tends to track landing kinetic energy i.e. weight times stall speed. I believe that the Diamond aircraft have, in reality. a better safety record than the Cirrus aircraft. They stall at a lot lower speed. The correct comparison for the SR22 is the A36. I believe the A36 is better designed to minimize runway loss of control due to larger tires and better damping of the gear. Otherwise it is a similar aircraft. BTW, Cirrus recently improved nose gear damping.

For fun look at http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/. This will show how many planes of a given type are in the system. The SR22 is a trip plane and so is the A36. Since it is getting late there aren't a lot of planes up but the numbers at the moment are:

SR22 12
C182 6
BE36 6
M20T 3
M20P 2
M020 1
C210 5
P210 1

Now you know why you hear so many SR22's on the air. There are a lot out there. As a result I would expect more SR22 accidents per year than Mooney, C210 or BE36. Have fun and look for yourself. Searching the NTSB database for fatal crashes, US only, from 1/1/2010 to 1/1/2011 I get

SR22 5
C182 5
BE36 6 (possibly 7 since one G35? listed)
C210 5

Now I have no idea why 5 is the magic number. Also, the count for Cirrus is, I believe, incorrect. However, I am assuming the same entry requirements exist for all aircraft. Be sure to just search on Beech or Cirrus since, for example, you will see A36, G36, BE36 as entries. Similarly there is SR22 and SR-22 and SR 22.

Looking at the data above I don't see an issue with the SR22. It appears that similar aircraft have similar accident rates. Could it be that pilot error dominates over any aircraft safety differences? Actually, the Flightaware numbers make the SR22 look good. If chute pulls were counted as fatals the data might be closer to the other aircraft.

Full disclosure: I currently own a Cirrus SR22. I have over 800 hours in type with hours also in C172, C182, PA28, and limited hours in several other types. I have approximately 1100 hours total. I do not consider the SR22 a perfect plane and there are things I do not like about it. At present, I do think it is an excellent used aircraft buy if what you want is a trip plane. A back country plane it is not.

Finally, sorry for the crappy formatting. I tried but I don't know how to do tables.

lowflybye wrote:

Stol wrote:
One correction... A deployment --- ALWAYS ----totals the aircraft. To my knowledge there has not been even one Cirrus repaired after the chute was used.

I am cautious of using the word ALWAYS as there is almost ALWAYS an exception to the rule.

N1223S: Cirrus took possession of the first CAPS deployment aircraft, rebuilt it and re-sold it.
CGEMC: The aircraft was extracted by helicopter from the mountain slope on Mount O'Leary and repaired to fly again.
N931CD: Rebuilt flown and sold to new owner, a retired airline pilot who continues to operate it.
N3425L: Rebuilt and sold...exported to Brazil.
N181LM: CAPS landing in shrubs, resulting in damage minor enough to qualify for a ferry permit from Jamaica to the United States for repairs.

The CAPS deployement in itself is not enough to total a newer aircraft with a high value, but the resulting damage when it hits the ground is what usually does it in.

I was just repeating the exact words the factory pilot who passed through here a couple of years ago told me.. Her exact quote was " when the chute deploys the cables that support it will rip through the sides of the fuselage and total the airframe" I am glad to see you have data to counter that claim...... All the Cirrus owners will now get a break in insurance premiums as their toy can be fixed instead of a total loss that is eaten by the insurance company....

PS. there is NO friggin way I would ride in a repaired one though.

IMHO.
Ben

Welcome to the group Pep...

lowflybye wrote:Welcome to the group Pep...

Thanks. If I can just find a way to afford that Super Cub (maybe Carbon Cub) I want then I would be more relevant to the group. Off topic for this thread but I also love the Peterson. I got to fly in one once and was very impressed. Right now, though, I can't give up having a traveling plane.

***CAUTION: THREAD HIJACK AHEAD***

pep wrote:
Thanks. If I can just find a way to afford that Super Cub (maybe Carbon Cub) I want then I would be more relevant to the group. Off topic for this thread but I also love the Peterson. I got to fly in one once and was very impressed. Right now, though, I can't give up having a traveling plane.

If your a pilot, wanna-be pilot, or just a flying enthusiast you are relevant to the group as long as you are willing to learn, teach, and support.

Who says a Super Cub is not a traveling airplane? It may not go as fast or as high as a Cirrus, but it will go just as far AND you get to enjoy the view down around the countryside as well as dropping in to visit friends along the way. Just ask MountainMatt and some of the others about long distances in slower aircraft. He flew his Stinson 2,100 nm during his 5 day trip to the BCP fly in this year and our Maule has been coast to coast. While the Stinson and Maule may arrive at a destination a bit after the Cirrus, we can carry our gear and yours on the trip.

It's all in your perspective of what a traveling airplane should be...

***WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM***

patrol guy wrote:With the safety parachute those cirrus planes have, it seems to me that I am reading all the time about people dieing in those airplanes. I wonder if there really is any better safety record for them??
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/ju ... ane-crash/

I think its you too.
The Cirrus is a very safe plane. Is there anyone on here that has over 200 hours in a cirrus that truly thinks the plane is dangerous? Now some Cirrus pilots are dangerous for sure. That the preformance and safty features may temp some safe pilots to take extra risks in one, i would also agree with. But i would like to hear from someone with real time in one that felty it was inherantly more dangerous than other planes of comparable speed. I'll admit its a little harder to land at my 1800' dirt strip at 5000' altitude on a hot day than my cub. (I still do ) But its not a nasty plane with dangerous qualities.
Blu

Blu wrote:

patrol guy wrote:With the safety parachute those cirrus planes have, it seems to me that I am reading all the time about people dieing in those airplanes. I wonder if there really is any better safety record for them??
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/ju ... ane-crash/

I think its you too.
The Cirrus is a very safe plane. Is there anyone on here that has over 200 hours in a cirrus that truly thinks the plane is dangerous? Now some Cirrus pilots are dangerous for sure. That the preformance and safty features may temp some safe pilots to take extra risks in one, i would also agree with. But i would like to hear from someone with real time in one that felty it was inherantly more dangerous than other planes of comparable speed. I'll admit its a little harder to land at my 1800' dirt strip at 5000' altitude on a hot day than my cub. (I still do ) But its not a nasty plane with dangerous qualities.
Blu

Cue the Cirrus owner and pilot.....

I have owned a 2002 Cirrus SR22 for a couple of years now. I love it. It was my first aircraft purchase. I have had my PPL since 1979 with only a little over 100 air hours until about 2009. I now have a little over 300 hours with about 200 of them in the Cirrus. Other planes I have been checked out in and rented - Grumman Cheetah's, Pipers up to the Arrow, Mooney, Cessna up through the 185 and the Diamond D40 and 20. I am actively involved in the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA).

To address a few points in this thread:

* The Cirrus lands just like any other plane. If you do it right the stall horn is going off when the mains plant (65K). Early on the fear was tail strikes and instructors would teach higher landing speeds (85K). These higher speeds would result in the plane floating and potentially porpoising causing prop strikes and worse. Those pilots who understand this are quite safe. But COPA can't get to everyone.

* I agree with the post about the D40. It is not at all comparable to the Cirrus. It floats more like a Cessna and lands very slow. Cruise is really about 140K. Nice plane, but I like the Cirrus better.

* The Mooney and Grumman aircraft have more in common with the Cirrus. And I know the Grumman had issues early on as well. That type club had to battle some of the same issues that the Cirrus now has. Essentially a slippery plane that cruises well but requires an understanding of how to manage the energy.

* The chute... or CAPS as we call it. Even on the COPA website there are constant battles about when to pull. The prevailing wisdom (which I agree with) is to think of CAPS first. Not pull first, think of it first. Too many have decided before they start the engine that they would never pull. Its not what real pilots do. One pilot in Florida just gave his life and that of his wife by trying an off field landing rather than CAPS. He made it clear to his friends he would never pull. The field was just bad enough to flip the plane and kill them. A CAPS landing would have almost certainly saved their lives. Placing CAPS as a last resort will typically put its deployment out of the envelope. We are now trained to think that with an engine out unless directly over an airfield at 1500', get over an open area and pull. I have practiced in a simulator and could probably glide to a landing 98% of the time. But that 2% is the part that will kill you. And if you are committed to the landing and under 500' , CAPS is worthless. So it has to be considered and decided well before then. BTW, I have had an engine out in a Grumman and landed off airport just short of the runway. The plane was totaled but I walked away. I was very lucky. Under the same situation today I would not hesitate to pull CAPS.

*Train as much as possible, but understand your limitations. While we can't speak for every Cirrus driver, those in COPA train quite a bit. Some of the training by COPA is the best I have seen in aviation. We expect trouble and are pleased when none comes up.

With all that said, I envy those with planes that fly low and slow. Sometimes I just want to get up in the air. I would love to land on grass strips and park the plane under a tree. Perhaps camp out under the wing. Maybe yell out to people on the ground " Which way to Ireland?" The Cirrus is really not that kind of plane. I love its ability and feel it is as safe or safer than anything out there when flown properly. It can get you there quickly and in comfort. But I really envy you guys sometimes.

Watching these debates for a while leaves one noticing that the popular approach for haters of Cirrii is changing from the now-debunked spin issuse to the supposed propensity to crack tanks and burn up in otherwise benign accidents. I'm surprised nobody brought it up in this thread, it's the talk of the town everywhere else.

BTW, I only received my PP this year, with 72 hours - pushing the territory of Cirrus slackers! My DPE arrived in an SR-22. Apparently he was late for the checkride and a friend just tossed him keys. That is how you get a 15,000 hour pilot into those things. The FBO vultures saw the Cirrus and descended upon him to shake him down for a landing fee. It is an impressive-looking airplane.

Oh and BTW 2, a Korean company flew a prototype for a Cirrus-fighter last month, called "Navaon". Uses the same TSIO-550 as Corvalis, 315hp, and they promise 210 kts for $575k.

-- Pete

zaitcev wrote:Watching these debates for a while leaves one noticing that the popular approach for haters of Cirrii is changing from the now-debunked spin issuse to the supposed propensity to crack tanks and burn up in otherwise benign accidents. I'm surprised nobody brought it up in this thread, it's the talk of the town everywhere else.

BTW, I only received my PP this year, with 72 hours - pushing the territory of Cirrus slackers! My DPE arrived in an SR-22. Apparently he was late for the checkride and a friend just tossed him keys. That is how you get a 15,000 hour pilot into those things. The FBO vultures saw the Cirrus and descended upon him to shake him down for a landing fee. It is an impressive-looking airplane.

Oh and BTW 2, a Korean company flew a prototype for a Cirrus-fighter last month, called "Navaon". Uses the same TSIO-550 as Corvalis, 315hp, and they promise 210 kts for $575k.

-- Pete

Pete,

Interesting you bring that up. Actually the accident numbers for high time pilots transitioning to the Cirrus is pretty bad. Instructors cringe when they hear they are to train one in a Cirrus. There is a story about one high time airline pilot that taxied the Cirrus perfectly down the white line... riding the brakes the entire time. The brakes caught fire and the plane burned up. That probably could have happened in a Diamond. You just don't do that with a free castering nosewheel.

As for the minor crashes causing the tanks to explode, first I have heard of it. And trust me, if it were an issue it would be discussed ad nauseum in the COPA forum.

Actually the accident numbers for high time pilots transitioning to the Cirrus is pretty bad. Instructors cringe when they hear they are to train one in a Cirrus.

I haven't heard that.

When I was first considering a Cirrus it was in 2002. It was new so I talked to an insurance agent about it and several other planes. He said most new high performance aircraft have a higher initial accident rate since everyone is, by definition, low time in type. He said he expected the accident rate to drop to typical levels and it has. BTW an interesting read on safety is "The Killing Zone: How & Why Pilots Die."

All of this got me thinking about what was different transitioning to the SR22. My first day of transition training, I was about 5,000' above the intended airport when I saw it and started pulling power. My instructor smiled, point being made, and said to forget it. I couldn't get down in time. He reminded me that a 757 pilot starts descending into ATL before he can see the airport. He said that until I got comfortable slowing the plane down, he wanted me to pull power to 20" when 20 miles out. He also drilled into me that I needed to slow first and get flaps in before descending. Otherwise the Cirrus is too slick and you will pick up too much speed in the descent. I had another memorable lesson the first time I went out fun flying in the Cirrus. I left PDK in Atlanta and the next thing I knew I was about to enter Virginia. With the 172 I would look outside and say "weather looks good." Now I am a lot more serious about checking regional weather before ANY flight.

The side yoke was easy to adjust to. The lack of feel through the controls less so. The spring trim system damps out the forces I liked on the Piper and Cessna. I miss a trim wheel since trim is very sensitive. I find the Columbia a more stable IFR platform and the SR22 the more sports car feeling plane but others disagree strongly with me. The view out the front when landing is very different. It looks nose low but isn't. In a full flare you initially feel you aren't flaring at all since you can see the runways over the nose the entire time. That was very different from the 182 I had started flying. The plane has a lot of stuff on it which means more things to go wrong. The interior has improved with each generation but G1 airframes are particularly fragile in that area. The interior is nice. It just pays to take good care of it.

{humor on] Here is what is very dangerous about my SR22. First it is comfortable. If it was cramped and the seats hurt then weather would be less of an issue. It has an AI. Those are very dangerous since they make you think you can fly inside clouds. It has a VOR. Dang now with airways you'll think there are highways in the sky and treat it like a car. Worse it has a GPS. That's like 4 wheel drive on a car. All of a sudden you can go off road errr off airway. It has a landing light. Shucks makes you want to fly at night.[humor off]

[Blu[/quote]

Cue the Cirrus owner and pilot.....

I have owned a 2002 Cirrus SR22 for a couple of years now. I love it. It was my first aircraft purchase. I have had my PPL since 1979 with only a little over 100 air hours until about 2009. I now have a little over 300 hours with about 200 of them in the Cirrus. Other planes I have been checked out in and rented -


There a a few Sr 20 / 22 based here... One was in for its annual this year and was at the 10 year old mark.....

No major squalks but the chute inspection and repack was nearly 13,000 bucks.... Look like you have one year left till the dreaded money sucking event....

They are great planes though... All it takes is money to keep them in the air.
IMHO.

Stol wrote:[Blu

Cue the Cirrus owner and pilot.....

I have owned a 2002 Cirrus SR22 for a couple of years now. I love it. It was my first aircraft purchase. I have had my PPL since 1979 with only a little over 100 air hours until about 2009. I now have a little over 300 hours with about 200 of them in the Cirrus. Other planes I have been checked out in and rented -


There a a few Sr 20 / 22 based here... One was in for its annual this year and was at the 10 year old mark.....

No major squalks but the chute inspection and repack was nearly 13,000 bucks.... Look like you have one year left till the dreaded money sucking event....

They are great planes though... All it takes is money to keep them in the air.
IMHO.

[/quote]

Yep, not cheap to own. Right out of the box my MCU failed. That was $3K to get replaced. So I got my initiation early. But I guess it is about the same as a Bonanza with the gear to worry about. I have been saving for the chute repack. If you break it down the chute is worth about $100 per month. Based on what I know now, it is good insurance.

But compared to what I trained in during the early 80's the Cirrus is almost like cheating. If you get lost in a Cirrus you might as well rip up your ticket and send it back to the FAA. The situational awareness with the GPS, Terrain, Aircraft collision tracking, stormscope, etc. is really nice. But it is made to go places, not just fly around to look at scenery. Like I said earlier, there are times when I would love to have access to a Cub or Decathalon.

I have a 6 pack and have no intention of upgrading. It just fits my scan better. But you have to fly the plane first. It is easy to get sucked in to the avionics. I could completely understand why a lot on this forum would never have anything to do with a Cirrus.

The side yoke was easy to adjust to. The lack of feel through the controls less so. The spring trim system damps out the forces I liked on the Piper and Cessna. I miss a trim wheel since trim is very sensitive. I find the Columbia a more stable IFR platform and the SR22 the more sports car feeling plane but others disagree strongly with me. The view out the front when landing is very different. It looks nose low but isn't. In a full flare you initially feel you aren't flaring at all since you can see the runways over the nose the entire time. That was very different from the 182 I had started flying. The plane has a lot of stuff on it which means more things to go wrong. The interior has improved with each generation but G1 airframes are particularly fragile in that area. The interior is nice. It just pays to take good care of it.

I would agree with the sensitivity thing. The Cheetah and Tiger are a lot more nimble. The Cirrus is kind of stiff. You really feel it when you do a lot of airwork. But again, the mission is going somewhere not cutting holes in the local practice area. And weather is definitely an issue. My first flight IFR with my wife and she wanted XM Radar. I gladly obliged.

The landing definitely looks flat with the lower glare shield. But as you say, it really isn't. That seems to be a problem with people transitioning. They think they have flared enough then they touch the nosewheel. It's stiff, so it bounces. Then it bounces again, then it hits the prop. If you have the right speed and flare properly that won't happen.