dell30rb
Final Approach
But they still have training wheels!
Haven't seen this... way to go Mooney! Hilarious.
Honestly though I don't think they will be able to compete unless they add a parachute.
Cirrus SR series Generation 6?!
- Thread starter JustinD
- Start date
Haven't seen this... way to go Mooney! Hilarious.
Honestly though I don't think they will be able to compete unless they add a parachute.
Staples has a laptop for sale for $150. No red handle, but they would probably throw in the red button!
tuwood
Pre-takeoff checklist
Another thing Cirrus does better than anyone is marketing to the wives. The safety aspects of the parachute and blue level button are such a powerful marketing tool to them. Even the comfort of a luxury SUV and car like environmental controls (on the co-pilot side of course) are all geared towards our better halves.
I know a few Cirrus drivers who want to get turbines, but their wives are vetoing them because it "doesn't have a chute". When I started looking into flying I had never even heard of Cirrus before, but when I brought up flying to my wife she said I could only do it if I flew the plane with a chute. wtf
As you can see I now fly a Cirrus. #MarketingWin
mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
@mulligan now that the word is out can you share what options your bird will be getting?![/QUOTE]
This is the paint scheme that I selected. It will look like this on the ramp, just have the N105KL tail number on it instead. I got the SR22 NA FIKI GTS with Oxygen. I did make a change to the interior. I wanted this paint scheme but the Carbon trim. I also liked the seats in the Platinum better than the Carbon so I kept the Platinum seats and just had them do the rest of the stuff in Carbon. There was a lot of back and forth and they were resistant to do it but at the end of the day, I walked away a happy customer. So far, the experience has been completely different than my experience of buying a Cessna. Cirrus sure does do a nice job in all aspects of the sales process. While I have not made it to delivery yet, they have blown the doors off of how Cessna did it for me. I know the training that I will get with it will be far superior to the non-existent training that Cessna offered.
This is the paint scheme that I selected. It will look like this on the ramp, just have the N105KL tail number on it instead. I got the SR22 NA FIKI GTS with Oxygen. I did make a change to the interior. I wanted this paint scheme but the Carbon trim. I also liked the seats in the Platinum better than the Carbon so I kept the Platinum seats and just had them do the rest of the stuff in Carbon. There was a lot of back and forth and they were resistant to do it but at the end of the day, I walked away a happy customer. So far, the experience has been completely different than my experience of buying a Cessna. Cirrus sure does do a nice job in all aspects of the sales process. While I have not made it to delivery yet, they have blown the doors off of how Cessna did it for me. I know the training that I will get with it will be far superior to the non-existent training that Cessna offered.
tuwood
Pre-takeoff checklist
This is the paint scheme that I selected. It will look like this on the ramp, just have the N105KL tail number on it instead. I got the SR22 NA FIKI GTS with Oxygen. I did make a change to the interior. I wanted this paint scheme but the Carbon trim. I also liked the seats in the Platinum better than the Carbon so I kept the Platinum seats and just had them do the rest of the stuff in Carbon. There was a lot of back and forth and they were resistant to do it but at the end of the day, I walked away a happy customer. So far, the experience has been completely different than my experience of buying a Cessna. Cirrus sure does do a nice job in all aspects of the sales process. While I have not made it to delivery yet, they have blown the doors off of how Cessna did it for me. I know the training that I will get with it will be far superior to the non-existent training that Cessna offered.
[/QUOTE]
We went with the SR22 NA FIKI GTS with Oxygen as well with Carbon Agate/Sterling. When's your delivery date? We'll be down there the week of Feb 6th.
MetalCloud
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2015
- Messages
- 739
- Display Name
Display name:
MetalCloud
That's why I bought one. Also, I wanted the chute for me and my kids. The cabin is roomy and comfy and well appointed. FIKI and turbo are a huge win. It's fast and relatively efficient. Training was invaluable coming from cessnas and I love flying this plane. It's FUN and easy to fly.
Go cirrus!
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,542
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Incredibly efficient.
Case in point:
S. FL to N GA in my Tiger: 5 hours at 10 gph and 133k, 50 gals and almost always a fuel stop.
Same flight in my SR22: 3.5 hours at about 13.5 gph and 170k. 47 gals and never a fuel stop.
An hour and a half quicker on slightly less fuel. And the Tiger itself is no slouch in the efficiency department!
mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
March 22nd. Nice looking bird. We looked at that color scheme as well. Hard decision!! Look forward to hearing how your delivery experience goes!!
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
You mean insurance reducers
I can't say I find them too common. I live in northern Florida, There's maybe one Cirrus based at my field and one of the worlds largest fly-in communities is 5 minutes from where I live, there's hardly any cirrus's in there either. I can honestly say I don't see Cirrus all that often around Florida
German guy
Cleared for Takeoff
I also think that Cirrus are just gorgeous, with a very good ramp presence. At least the never ones with the fancier paint schemes certainly do turn heads at ramp....
Exactly my thoughts. The interior, particularly the panel, is the other big thing.
Cirrus is certainly doing many things right. That they are owned by Chinese obviously didn't hurt them, if not the contrary.
Exactly my thoughts. The interior, particularly the panel, is the other big thing.
Cirrus is certainly doing many things right. That they are owned by Chinese obviously didn't hurt them, if not the contrary.
Wow, very nice!
mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
Or when they do sell them they are purchased quickly. Pretty popular in the south east. Not so much out west.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Wow. Close to a million bucks for a fixed gear, single piston engine airplane. It's hard not to have a "That's bonkers" reaction.
I'm glad they sell - rich GA pilots are pilots all the same, and we need as many as we can get. But I'd still take my 50 year old twin into low IFR, or over high terrain, or at night/over water anytime, and the Cirrus I simply... wouldn't.
I'm glad they sell - rich GA pilots are pilots all the same, and we need as many as we can get. But I'd still take my 50 year old twin into low IFR, or over high terrain, or at night/over water anytime, and the Cirrus I simply... wouldn't.
labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
I think it's cool that they finally threw the SR20 a bone. Plus finally seeing the Lyc IO-390 in a certified factory plane is cool. With a 150lb MTOW increase the SR20 gets pretty close to a true 4-place aircraft, no?
ifly4fun
Line Up and Wait
I do love the fact that I will be able to do my database updates from my iPad! I know its no big deal, but now I have to go to the hangar, grab the cards, bring them to the office or house, do the downloads, go back to the hangar and do the updates and hope nothing goes wrong. Now I can just update my iPad using the Garmin App and head to the plane, turn a switch and it will upload the new databases while I pre-flight.
With a ~$1M price tag - I can't believe they don't put a LTE Card in these for cellular downloads. I'm sure those that can afford a plane line this wouldn't flinch at a $15 data plan.. not to mention all the other stuff you could get with it (weather, flight plan, etc)
labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
It should also include a coffee maker and a toaster.
dell30rb
Final Approach
I don't think a Twin has any safety benefits over a chute, save for over-water flights. There are pros and cons to each that basically cancel each other out. There have been enough chute pulls to show that it works, even over rough terrain. Its simple and harder to screw up than having engine failures in a twin. You are twice as likely to have an engine failure in a twin. With the cirrus you get all of the performance benefits of a single and you have an "oh ****" red handle as long as you are above 800' agl or so, coincidentally about the same time you are well above blue line and the gear and flaps are up in a twin.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Not even close, sir. There's no comparison to having a second engine -- the chute is a very poor competitor to true multi-engine redundancy. There have been holy wars over this at the Red Board, and it's not my intent to recreate that here, but you won't find even a shred of agreement from me on that subject. I treat the Cirrus the same as I would any other single engine airplane when it comes to pre-flight planning and contingency considerations, and I don't give any weight to the fact that the BRS is installed. I strongly suggest anyone who flies the Cirrus do the same. You don't want to be descending into the mountains, cold water, or god knows what under a canopy. That's a terrible option compared to a safe landing at an airport.
I say that as someone who actually likes the Cirrus, and taught in it, even went through CSIP training back in the day. It's a fine aircraft, but it's still just a single piston engine aircraft with no magical properties and should be flown accordingly. My suggestion for operational profiles is the same as any other single engine piston fixed-wing aircraft: do not to fly it over widespread low IMC, over water, or over terrain, and plan night flights very carefully.
"Twice as likely to have an engine failure in a twin" is an OWT which has been beaten (and debunked) to death in many years of message board debates, BTW.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
I do love the fact that I will be able to do my database updates from my iPad! I know its no big deal, but now I have to go to the hangar, grab the cards, bring them to the office or house, do the downloads, go back to the hangar and do the updates and hope nothing goes wrong. Now I can just update my iPad using the Garmin App and head to the plane, turn a switch and it will upload the new databases while I pre-flight.
I recently upgraded to the GTN 650 and purchased a Flightstream 510 last week -- it is truly marvelous to walk out to the plane and let it update itself wirelessly from the iPad. It happens quite quickly, you won't even need to get out of the plane and kill time while it updates. I also love the two way flight plan transfer. Really an excellent upgrade to the GA flying experience. I'm quite happy with it. I'm sure you will be too.
tuwood
Pre-takeoff checklist
You're assuming that we're not all broke after buying said $1M aircraft. haha
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
This is the paint scheme that I selected. It will look like this on the ramp, just have the N105KL tail number on it instead. I got the SR22 NA FIKI GTS with Oxygen. I did make a change to the interior. I wanted this paint scheme but the Carbon trim. I also liked the seats in the Platinum better than the Carbon so I kept the Platinum seats and just had them do the rest of the stuff in Carbon. There was a lot of back and forth and they were resistant to do it but at the end of the day, I walked away a happy customer. So far, the experience has been completely different than my experience of buying a Cessna. Cirrus sure does do a nice job in all aspects of the sales process. While I have not made it to delivery yet, they have blown the doors off of how Cessna did it for me. I know the training that I will get with it will be far superior to the non-existent training that Cessna offered.
[/QUOTE]
Cirrus is selling a premium product, and they have to market it that way. The SR22 is their flagship product, at least until they start delivering Vjets. The 182 isn't anywhere close to that in Cessna's lineup. Since Jack Pelton left its difficult to believe Cessna has much commitment to piston airplanes at all now.
Think of Cirrus as the "Gulfstream" of piston singles
Amortize all the costs - purchase, insurance, maintenance, etc - not just fuel and time over the entire time you will own the Cirrus.
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Ugh... no!
I've owned my Twin Comanche for 16 years. In year three of ownership I did exactly as you're suggesting... never again.
I'm sure I could have flown myself and my family first class everywhere we've gone all these years for significantly less than the total cost of my ownership.
Owning doesn't pencil out, never has, never will. Unless your time is extraordinarily valuable, owning a personal aircraft is nothing more than a joyous privilege of being an American citizen.
I have no regrets. I've loved owning an aircraft (had two at one time, once) and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I just try very hard to avoid doing the math on the costs, to avoid an increase in my wine budget.
dell30rb
Final Approach
I believe the probability of an engine failure statistically doubles.
I believe there are pros and cons that more or less even out for the type of flying I do, which is personal transportation in the Southeast. A sudden engine failure at rotation in a Cirrus is a non event if you have room to stop. In an old legacy piston twin you might suddenly find yourself heading for the weeds at 80 knots in a plane full of gasoline. A failure in a piston twin right after takeoff, before the plane is cleaned up is a close the throttles and land straight ahead situation, same in a Cirrus.
If you want to talk redundancy of secondary systems a Cirrus is probably more redundant and reliable. Most have dual alternators, dual electrical systems and the important avionics are solid state with dual AHRS and have their own internal battery backups. Money being no object I would prefer this style of system to dual vacuum pumps and gyros.
I am flying a Twinkie this afternoon - its a nice airplane with a Miller conversion. But if you want to get down to safety of an older piston twin vs a newer Cirrus I don't see any one having a clear advantage. I might choose a twin but I don't think I would statistically be any safer in one.
Last edited:
connerjadwin
Filing Flight Plan
Didn't Cirrus initially plan on rolling out this lighting in MY '14? I remember seeing an ad in Flying Mag.
Edit: Here is the ad that I am referring to: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/october/15/cirrus-led-lighting
Edit: Here is the ad that I am referring to: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/october/15/cirrus-led-lighting
Last edited:
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,351
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
Sigh. Okay. Let's get into the double-probability of failure thing again. Only gone through this about a dozen times already...
The chance of an engine failing is X, let's say. I've had 5 engine "failures" in about 10,500 hours. 3 of those were in piston airplanes, two in turbojets (one precautionary shutdown). In other words, engines certainly do fail. Not much of an argument about that. Let's call the failure rate, on average, 1 in 5000 flight hours. That's not an accurate number, I don't know what the actual rate is. No one does, because engines fail more often than is specified in accident reports. Maybe it's 1 in 10,000 flight hours. And the definition of "failure" varies. Partial failure? Full failure? Failure and regain control? Etc. There are tons of variables, primarily maintenance and owner tendencies. But my point will be clear regardless of the vagaries of the figure itself.
On a light twin, two engines operate all the time, unless there's an emergency or training going on.
So your chance of the left engine failing at any given minute is 1 in 300,000. (5000 * 60).
And your chance of the right engine failing at any given minute is 1 in 300,000.
It's important to recognize that your chance of an engine failure does not double. It remains the same. The chance of an individual engine failing remains 1:300,000 for a 60 second slice of time.
Skipping the directional control discussion for a second, let's look at the outcome for 99% of a given flight. Once the aircraft has reached TPA on the climbout, an engine failure in a light twin is a non-event. There's plenty of time to recognize the problem, feather the engine if necessary, and land uneventfully. And that's happened just plenty over the years, and those cases do not show up in the NTSB Accident Database.
If that same engine fails on the single-engine airplane, it's a ride to terra firma beneath canopy, or potentially an off-airport landing.
To get to that same result in a light twin requires both engines to fail within a relatively short period of time. Of course that can happen -- fuel exhaustion or contamination -- but in terms of mechanical failure the probabilities become a moot point. The chance of a double engine failure in a given moment is 1 in 90,000,000,000. In other words, it's just not going to happen unless you starve them of fuel.
So what you're really comparing is a 1:300,000 chance of gliding to 1:90,0000,000,000. That's an easy decision.
I think it's quite right to recognize that still, all is not equal just because of these facts. We have accidents in light twins due to pilot error during the critical phase of flight in which the aircraft is rotating, accelerating to Vyse and beyond on the climbout. I would never try to talk someone into flying a light twin, who didn't already believe in his or her own abilities to handle the aircraft in that phase of flight, and remain committed to recurrent training. I'm in the sim every six months for jets, but that doesn't translate at all to flying my light twin. I have to get out there and practice, review, and fly with discipline to maintain my safety margin all the way through the flight. Takeoff is by far the most critical time and a thorough brief is simply required for every takeoff. This is the Golden Rule for pilots of light twin airplanes.
And I agree that twins aren't for everyone. I've flown as much as 800 hours per year because aviation is my profession, and that does pay dividends when I fly my personal aircraft, despite what I wrote above. I'm on top of my game, know what's coming, and feel like I'm ahead of the aircraft. I have an unfair advantage because I walk, talk, sleep and breathe aviation. There's nothing else for me, no full-time job or business to manage to distract me. Would I feel like I had an edge if I only flew 100 hours per year? Hell no. And maybe I wouldn't own a twin at that point.
My point is that if you fly a single, it's for your own reasons and I respect them. But you can't slap a chute on a Cirrus and call it equivalent to a twin. Truly, like I said earlier, it's not even close. There is simply no comparison to the operational capabilities of the light twin, to the light single, even though the Cirrus is plush, has A/C, great avionics, great autopilot, great everything. Up front is the same -- more or less -- 1950s technology I have riding on either side of me in my old twin. Piston engines vibrate, get hot, thrash themselves to bits. I'm less of a fan of big bore engines, and have had my fair share of troubles with TCM 6-cyls to the point that I'm more suspicious of them than I would a Lycoming 4-banger. The bigger the single, the more you ask of the engine, the better the chance of problems -- that's just my experience, and I've seen it repetitively in the last 26 years of mucking about with airplanes.
I've been interested in the Cirrus accident data for a lot of years and I really think the problem is cultural. Early on Cirrus marketed this airplane to people with the underlying message that "you can learn to fly and use this as a business tool." Fair enough, but Cirrus' safety record has been poor, to say the least. The problem isn't the airplane, it's the attitude that some (certainly not all!) of its pilots bring to GA. When you choose to operate over terrain, over widespread low IFR, over water, through weather, you have to be realistic about the tool you're bringing to the fight. The BRS should NEVER be a factor in pre-flight planning when operating the Cirrus and that's a point I emphasized heavily when I taught in the aircraft. The chute is an absolute last resort and if you're planning a trip thinking "I'll just pull the chute here over the Rockies at night in case my engine fails," well, you're not doing yourself or General Aviation as a whole any favors. If you put yourself in a position in which the chute is the only option you made a bad flight planning decision to begin with.
deonb
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2015
- Messages
- 2,266
- Display Name
Display name:
deonb
Barring quantum entanglement between engines, the more engines you have the higher the chance is that one of them will fail. If you have 300'0000 engines you will have 1 fail on average every minute.
So with 2 engines your chances of failure of either one is 1 in 150'000, and the failure of even a single engine is a problem in some cases.
Of course the power of the twin is that the chances of BOTH engines failing is much lower, but its not 300'000 squared either. That would be the odds of them failing in the same minute, but it doesnt have to fail in the same minute for it to be a problem - just on the same flight.
So with 2 engines your chances of failure of either one is 1 in 150'000, and the failure of even a single engine is a problem in some cases.
Of course the power of the twin is that the chances of BOTH engines failing is much lower, but its not 300'000 squared either. That would be the odds of them failing in the same minute, but it doesnt have to fail in the same minute for it to be a problem - just on the same flight.
dell30rb
Final Approach
If the probability of a engine A failing in 60 seconds of operation is 1 in 300,000 and the probability of engine B failing in 60 seconds of operation is 1 in 300,000 I believe the probability of engine A or B failing in that 60 seconds 2 in 300,000.
You are right that the probability of BOTH engines failing at the same time in a twin is so remote it could only possibly happen if you hit birds or someone topped you off with the wrong fuel.
You are right that the probability of BOTH engines failing at the same time in a twin is so remote it could only possibly happen if you hit birds or someone topped you off with the wrong fuel.
Last edited:
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
So the SR-TwentyTwin will come out and make the whole world a happy place, then what argument would one have?!
dell30rb
Final Approach
DA-62 comes close! Auto feather and a high single engine service ceiling certainly tips the scales.
deonb
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2015
- Messages
- 2,266
- Display Name
Display name:
deonb
No Red Handle...
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
As much as people hate on the Cirrus I would love to have one. I'm surprised no other manufacturers are introducing chutes to their new planes as well. Reality is I will never be able to afford one. Closest thing I could get to a Cirrus will probabaly be a Vans.
This. It's a wives plane. They see comfortable leather seats, big windows, a parachute, and climate control that looks like it belongs in a car. It feels familiar to them and Cirrus does a great job marketing it.
labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
The new DA-42 actually has a higher single engine ceiling. The SR22-G5 and the DA-42-VI actually very closely compare.
labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
I'm honestly more excited about the upgrade to the SR20...
dell30rb
Final Approach
I thought the DA42 was/is pretty weak in the useful load department.
labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
Not the VI. Nearly 1,300lbs useful. The older ones for sure have issues but in terms of load and performance, the newest DA-42 is pretty freaking sweet.
mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
Easy. Cirrus did it for me and only took about two weeks for FAA to send me new registration form in mail and a reserved tail number for the new bird. All I did was sign a piece of paper and cirrus did all the leg work.
JustinD
Line Up and Wait
@mulligan and that was to transfer your current N number over to the new bird? I reserved my N number ahead of time prior to getting my 182 so that was a breeze, I'm just concerned with how to transfer it, because I obviously can't fly my airplane with the N number reserved for a new plane....could I?