New, in 1947. Pretty good specs and a good looking plane.

One of my EAA chapter members built and flies the Cirrus VK-30 5 place pusher. Pretty much the same layout as the airplane in your photo, but add 45 years' worth of laminar flow, aspect ratio and swoopy fiberglass.

I've flown in this airplane with him, and even got a few minutes of stick time. It's a long range cruiser as you would expect. You guys won't be seeing this airplane visiting back country strips!

Tom's VK-30 will cruise at 220 MPH easily, and has a 12 or 13 hundred mile range. But it ain't good enough, so he's adding a supercharger to the Continental 550, which will add a bunch of power and speed.

The college kids that designed the VK-30 and the SR must have one he;; of a financial backing to stay in business after all the crashes.
You do know there owned by the first Islamic bank.
Wasn't there something like 13 VKs built and 6 have already crashed. Plus every week another SR crashes.

mr scout wrote:
You do know there owned by the first Islamic bank.

Wrong. Cirrus is owned by the private equity branch of Arcapita Bank. From Arcapita's web site:
Arcapita operates out of four offices in Bahrain, Atlanta, London and Singapore. The Bank has a paid-in capital of $311 million, of which 70% is held by over 300 prominent individuals and institutions mostly from the Arabian Gulf region, and the remaining 30% is beneficially held by Arcapita's management.

Being based in Bahrain and having owners from the Arabian Gulf does not make it an Islamic bank any more than Citibank (led by an Indian) is a Hindu bank.

PA12_Pilot wrote:

mr scout wrote:
You do know there owned by the first Islamic bank.

Wrong. Cirrus is owned by the private equity branch of Arcapita Bank. From Arcapita's web site:
Arcapita operates out of four offices in Bahrain, Atlanta, London and Singapore. The Bank has a paid-in capital of $311 million, of which 70% is held by over 300 prominent individuals and institutions mostly from the Arabian Gulf region, and the remaining 30% is beneficially held by Arcapita's management.

Being based in Bahrain and having owners from the Arabian Gulf does not make it an Islamic bank any more than Citibank (led by an Indian) is a Hindu bank.

Well since your cutting and pasting, this from Cirrus

In August 2001, Cirrus sold 58% of the company for $100 million to Crescent Capital, the US arm of the First Islamic Investment Bank of Bahrain (now called Arcapita) [

More to the point is the fact a couple of young folks were able to do what hundreds of other aircraft start-up companies have been unable to do. Lots of companies never made it past the first crash

Looks a little like an early version of the A-10

Take off the wings and it looks like a car

mr scout wrote:Wasn't there something like 13 VKs built and 6 have already crashed. Plus every week another SR crashes.

The cirrus does have it's share of accidents but i think that's because they are a new fast plane used a lot for real traveling. If you look on fight aware at any time I think you will find the cirrus making a much larger percentage of the flights than it makes up of the single engine fleet.
I find that most people that bash the cirrus have very little experience in one.

There's a reason why it's the best selling single engine plane for the last 8 years.

So enlighten us ole wise one...............I have some time in one, its slick fast and ahead of a bunch of its owners. I dont want to turn this to a bash Cirrus just making a point about venture capital

I first saw the new Cirrus 4 place SR-20 or SR-22 several years ago. I taxied my little T-craft right up next to it and got out to take a look. Peering in through the window, I noticed the GORGEOUS interior, built and appointed like the finest luxury car. Spiffy leather, air conditioning, big-screen TV style instruments. For all the world it looked like the latest Ferrari or Lincoln car.

Then, way over there in the farthest, most un-important corner of the cockpit, nearly inconspicuous, far out of the way (so you wouldn't accidentally touch it), and small enough not to distract the pilot from his computerized video game and air conditioning controls... were the primary controls for the aircraft.

That's all I needed to see. Even Lincoln puts the steering wheel in front of all the gadgets and luxury puffery.

Some time after that, I learned that the company had hired and built up a world-class sales force drawn from high-end car dealers and speedboat companies. The word came down that these sales guys would sell this slick airplane to anyone with or without a pilot's license, and were saying that it was the safest airplane in the world because of the parachute that would forgive you for any mistake.

That's all I needed to hear.

It's a spectacular technical achievement for an airplane, to go that fast and still meet the 61 knot stall, have good handling, etc. What a great XC cruiser that would make. But it is fast enough that I'd be wanting to get some practice in it with a really sharp instructor before I put my family in one and went off assuming I was safe. If I won one of them in a raffle, I'd see about what it would take to put the controls back in front of the pilot. Side sticks are all well and good, but an "out of sight, out of mind stick" is another thing IMHO.

Moving further off topic but it has the same basic control system that Airbus uses. The side yoke or what ever they call it is nothing new.

Tyler wrote:Moving further off topic but it has the same basic control system that Airbus uses. The side yoke or what ever they call it is nothing new.

Well..........not exactly. The only thing that is the same is where they are mounted. The Airbus is a fly-by-wire and the Cirrus is mechanical.

Hafast wrote:

Tyler wrote:Moving further off topic but it has the same basic control system that Airbus uses. The side yoke or what ever they call it is nothing new.

Well..........not exactly. The only thing that is the same is where they are mounted. The Airbus is a fly-by-wire and the Cirrus is mechanical.

Thats what I meant, same placement. Sorry for not being clear enough.

mr scout wrote:So enlighten us ole wise one...............I have some time in one, its slick fast and ahead of a bunch of its owners.

So would those same owners have been safer in a 210, bonanza, or mooney? Or is your argument that they should of been in a 172 getting more practice?

Blu...


...butting in here YES. They should have been in a 172 with advanced GPS/moving map and an autopilot.....or a high performance aircraft without out all of the gee-whiz stuff. They should have gotten more experience, becoming more familiar with the technically advanced navigation and autopilots of today.....before stepping into such a high performance aircraft. At least that is the opinion of the FAA,as recently presented to nearly 100 flight instructors, during our revalidaton seminar two week ends ago. It was a two day affair with 16 hours of presentation. The major subject of discussion was Technically Advanced Aircraft....how unprepared,unfamiliar and inexperienced their owners may be: the lack of proficiency demonstrated by a significant percentage of their operators and the resulting poor record of safe operation.

Of course many operators of TAA are excellent airman, fully trained, experienced and competent. However the accident/incident rate is higher that that of general aviation aircraft as a whole and the FAA is quite concerned. It is a bit like the historical "V-tailed Doctor Killer" of an earlier generation. Persons with a lot of money, an elevated sense of self....buying high performance V tailed Bonanzas and killing themselves.

My comments are not intended to be offensive. Just passing along what the FAA is saying. One is free to take it up with the FEDS.

Bob

z3skybolt wrote:Blu...


...butting in here YES. They should have been in a 172 with advanced GPS/moving map and an autopilot.....or a high performance aircraft without out all of the gee-whiz stuff. They should have gotten more experience, becoming more familiar with the technically advanced navigation and autopilots of today.....before stepping into such a high performance aircraft.

It is a bit like the historical "V-tailed Doctor Killer" of an earlier generation. Persons with a lot of money, an elevated sense of self....buying high performance V tailed Bonanzas and killing themselves.

My comments are not intended to be offensive.

Bob

I'll buy that. I mean their dead who can argue they didn't mess up.
I think your reference to the "V tailed doctor killer" is spot on. Let's face it all the new planes bonanza or mooney have very similar "gee wiz factor" to the cirrus and are at least as complex. I think it's the combo of a sales force geared to new younger pilots and a plane that is a newer interior design that appeals more to non pilots that has hurt the cirrus statistics.

If you gave 1000 ford f150's to a group of 45 year old truck drivers and also gave 1000 chevy 1500's to a group 16 year old boys. What do you think the accident statistics would look like in 3 years? Would that prove ford trucks are safer than chevy's?

I will agree fully that some cirrus pilots get in over their heads on a regular basis, but I'm not convinced they would be any safer in any other high performance single engine plane. I strongly believe the fault in almost all the cirrus crashes lies (as in most plane crashes) with the pilot not the plane its self.

Ohh you really don't have to worry about being offensive. The day I get my feelings hurt over a discussion about a plane I didn't build or design is the day I start using tampons.

Blu wrote:
If you gave 1000 ford f150's to a group of 45 year old truck drivers and also gave 1000 chevy 1500's to a group 16 year old boys. What do you think the accident statistics would look like in 3 years? Would that prove ford trucks are safer than chevy's?
.

Both suck, MOPAR rules.

Geeze Blu, you just had to turn this into a Chevy/Ford/Dodge thread didn't you.

mountainmatt wrote:

Blu wrote:
If you gave 1000 ford f150's to a group of 45 year old truck drivers and also gave 1000 chevy 1500's to a group 16 year old boys. What do you think the accident statistics would look like in 3 years? Would that prove ford trucks are safer than chevy's?
.

Both suck, MOPAR rules.

Geeze Blu, you just had to turn this into a Chevy/Ford/Dodge thread didn't you.

With the some of the truck drivers I've been seeing on the road these days, I'm betting it would be a close tie. Just saying.......