I have never really had an interest in Cirrus aircraft, just not my type of thing. Sure, someday if I can have more than one airplane, I would like a fast cross country aircraft thats is good in IMC, but there are so many nice old Pipers, Mooney's and (the one I really like) Belanca Vikings.

What drove me to make a post about this was the videos I watched from owners. Take Tim McGraw's video about his Cirrus. He talked about how they were able to match the head rests to his tatoos, and how his wife would only let him learn in a Cirrus because of the advanced saftey features. I threw up a little. I am not knocking Cirrus. I am sure it is a fine aircraft, but if some one asked me why I like something such as an airplane, the first things that would come to mind would be things like avionics, stall and slow speed stuff, ease of maintenance, you know, stuff that actually matters.

I think I am starting to understand stuff like this :

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/fa ... 259-1.html

My wife just told me that Tim McGraw has a house here in Chelan. I wonder if it was his Cirrus that we watch make 3 landing atempts at Chelan (S10) before moving on?

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to bash on someone elses brand of airplane, I am just cranky today.

D.

Tim who?

denalipilot wrote:Tim who?

Cheesy Nashville pop country star. I only listen to real country so I had to Google him. Shooter Jennings and Hank 3 are more along the lines of the modern stuff played in my hangar.

Good way to validate the claim that they build a rich mans toy. It's become one of those cool things you no longer want because of the stigma that goes with it.

As I've often heard, the Cirrus has become the "doctor killer" of today, vice the Bonanza being the "doctor killer" of 30 years ago. Money and skill are not necessarily bedfellows. Not to say rich people can't be competent pilots, but in this age of instant gratification, too many rich people often buy what is beyond their reach skill-wise.

Cary

I remember hearing something about Alan Jackson liking old taildraggers, & having an airstrip at his getaway cabin, until his wife, agent, and/or record label made him quit flying. I watched an hour-long bio show about him on one of the c&w cable stations & not one peep about aviation. Bummer. There was an article in Sport Aviation a few years ago about Aaron Tippin, he is the real thing and one of us when it comes to flying.

Steve Wilson bashes the Cirrus better than just about anyone else.

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

^^^^ OUCH!

The latest victims, RIP
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief ... 2019&key=1

There was a cirrus flying from Reno to the bay area a few years ago , that crashed. The pilot was flying on a winter nite that would give Santa a reason to stay home.
Anyway he he fell to earth as a big ice cube,I think because the parachute made him feel safe. Hit the ground doing 500 mph or something .

kevbert wrote:Steve Wilson bashes the Cirrus better than just about anyone else.

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

Keep in mind this guy is a sales rep for Cessna.
Do you think a die hard Chevy salesman would be the best source for info on a ford?

The cirrus is not a perfect plane but if u want a fair comparison read aviation consumer.

The biggest short coming in my mind is that there isn't a 6 seat model.

There are a lot of different markets within aviation. Consider the single engine turbine aircraft, the "light jets", and, yes, how about the SLSA??

They all attract different people. I give Cirrus credit for drawing a LOT of people (they sold over 100 of the things last year) into aviation that might not otherwise consider flying themselves.

With that, you're going to draw in a few who either don't get the appropriate training, or get it from the wrong person, and pay the ultimate price.

Nevertheless, Cirrus has sold a LOT of airplanes during some really lean times in the aviation industry. Good on them. This is not an airplane I'd be attracted to, but they are beautiful airplanes, well built, and very capable performers.

If you want to argue that a manufacturer shouldn't build an airplane because someone might get hurt in it, we'd all be out of the aviation gig.

And, by the way, if you actually look at the accident statistics, the Cirrus doesn't really stand out as much if any worse than other types.

MTV

kevbert wrote:Steve Wilson bashes the Cirrus better than just about anyone else.
http://stevewilsonblog.com/2009/04/16/dead-pilots-dont-lie.aspx

I just read that page, not any of the follow-on links, but all he did was spout numbers-- NOT causes. There's an expression, figures don't lie but liars can figure. What make Cirrus accidents look bad are usually pilot error things IMHO, like the Corey Lidle flying into a building incident. Maybe he wouldn't have in a slow old Champ, but I don't see where the outcome woulda been any different in anything else with much speed to it.

Fairly high performance aircraft that attracts low time pilots=predictable high accident rate. Look at the old Bonanza and Cessna 210 numbers (C-210s have a terrible fatal accident rate, one of the reasons Cessna did not start making them again when they restarted single engine production). Comparing a Cessna 182 or 172 with a Cirrus is just not an accurate equation, their approach and stalls speeds are much lower. Should compare it with a Corvalis/Columbia. When you look at legacy Mooney's fatal accident rate (very low) you are looking at a high performance single that was very good for low time pilots, probably because they were equipped with "wing leveler" that automatically leveled the wing when you let go of the controls...maybe a better safety feature than a parachute.
I wouldn't be at all interested in owning a Cirrus or be at all afraid to fly one after a proper check out (check outs very expensive, by the way).

Only compare accidents per hour flown in similar categories of flight (ie: x-country, night, IFR). A C-172 flown in the pattern, daytime, at a local air-field, with instructor aboard is nothing like single pilot x-country IFR in a Cirrus.

With that, you're going to draw in a few who either don't get the appropriate training, or get it from the wrong person, and pay the ultimate price.

True. Let me broaden that.
Some of the people who buy the fast planes (not just doctors, but similar profiles...) learn on the fast track and do not immerse themselves into the aviation community/culture/values/decision making process-etc. The longer they are flying and isolated and get by with cutting 'corners' and pushing the 'limits', it encourages them to 'take a bigger slice' next time.....
In addition, I believe "the chute" likely comes into play with Cirrus with some of the victims. "I have an out, a backup, an ace in the hole" This can be a comforting reassurance while the 'rules are bent and broken'.

Opinion.
lc

I have no background with Cirrus aircraft other than admiring their nice lines and interiors from a distance. That said, Steve Wilson's blog post linked to above (and a couple linked to from that one) doesn't paint a rosy picture for Cirrus safety. He does spout a lot of numbers, but he cites his sources and they seem legit. Maybe his personal encounter with icing in an SR20 caused some sort of personal vendetta against Cirrus, or maybe he's just being a good Cessna salesman. I don't know, but here's my summary of his criticisms after reading most of his stuff:

1) He's critical of Cirrus' marketing strategy of encouraging new pilots into complex aircraft.
2) He's critical of the spring centered side yoke that has very little aerodynamic feedback with little to no force gradient.
3) He's critical of the elevator design that allows easy "ice bridging", potentially locking the elevator.

Cirrus' marketing strategy has undoubtedly been successful, and people need to take responsibility for their purchasing decisions. I don't really begrudge Cirrus on that one. My question is about side yoke. If it's as he claims, that there is almost as much yoke force sitting on the ground as there is at cruise because of the centering springs and lack of aerodynamic feedback, then that does seem like a recipe for over controlling the airplane, especially at lower airspeeds where control feel is critical.

Those with Cirrus stick (side yoke) time, what is your experience with the "control feel" of these airplanes?

I've got a bit of time in a Cirrus...like the airplane for what it was designed to do and it is a piece of cake to fly...by the time you exit the pattern you are used to the sidestick. Cirrus did an excellent job of trying to design the complexity out of the airplane. I will put it this way, it is not the aircraft that is causing the accident rate on Cirrus aircraft. I would dare say that 90% of us one this forum with tailwheel experience could safely fly a Cirrus in VFR with a basic checkout...I would venture the same bet the the oppposite would be true of half the Cirrus pilots in a Cub. It's all about basic stick and rudder skills which seem to be extremely lacking in many Cirrus drivers...especially if a Cirrus is all they have flown.

I'll second what lowflybye said.
It's not a hard plane to fly or land. Any tail wheel pilot could fly it with a check out
But the reverse in not true.
it's speed tempts me to make much longer trips.
And it sucks in ice so that can be a bad combo.

You guys have made some realy great points.

I think what Little Cub said is very true. I see it every summer. The guy who keeps his 210/RV6/Bonanza or whatever "advanced" aircraft he choose to own, here in Chelan at his summer home. I will see a hangar open that I have never seen open, and some fast airplane being pulled out and preflighted. I have seen aircraft at Lake Aero getting annualed with less than 8 hours since the last one. It is usually the fast stuff, the Cubs, Chiefs, Kit Fox's and Cessnas seem to get used much more.

I actually saw the end result of this type of pilot on my introductory flight. The day before a infrequent flyer in a Cardinal RG spun it into the parking lot of Mill Bay Casino in Manson. Probably not the best marketing tool for selling flight training for the instructor to have me fly circles over a fresh wreck, but that wasn't going to stop me, and now everytime I fly past that spot I think to myself "don't be a douchebag"

What led me to post about the Cirrus web site is not if the planes are any good or not, they look awesome. It is that felt way too much empathisis on the web site is placed on how the plane looks and feels. I really had to dig into the site to find the specs and data on the aircraft, and still did not find what I was looking for.

The accident rates that surrond the doctor killer planes have another effect too. I want a fast, IFR, cross country aircraft someday. I still want a slow, taildragger, fun aircraft. I am working towards having both.
I see V tail Bonanzas in need of some of my A&P talents (thats how I will afford 2, buy them broken) and have seen several Mooney's, a Globe Swift, Belanca Viking...
All of these aircraft have stories and urban legend around them as being killers. Is it true? As I study the causes and reasons for aviation accidents it seems most could have been avioded at some point during the flight and the performance of the aircraft had little to do with where the accident chain really started.

I am by no means and experienced pilot. I got my Private last October and have only 125 hours. I guess what I have going for me is that I have dove head first into aviation. Tried to in 1995 when I got my A&P, but ended up playing with Italian motorcycles for 20 years. I tend not to try to do things I am not qualified, competant, and qualified to do. But how does one know if it is the right time to start flying a Globe Swift, or Belanca Viking? Or Cirrus for that matter. Learning in one? Screw that, you would have no idea what contact flying is, and develop no stick and rudder skills.

D.

On a somewhat related subject, in my area there have been a few fatal highly publicized motorcycle accidents that shared a common thread: they were brand new fully decked out Harleys that simply did "a Corey Lidle". Perfect day weather wise, they just missed a curve. These were very low time riders with the necessary cash to play biker, but not the training or experience to pull it off.