Cirrus vs A36

J

Joegoersch

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
110
Display Name
Display name:
JoeGoersch
Just wondering if anyone knows any recent report comparing safety of the Bonanza A36 to the Cirrus.
 
weilke said:
Both use the same faulty piece of equipment to hold the controls in place. That part is what explains any temporary differences between the types.
Click to expand...

Yes. My thoughts exactly. The cause of about 89% of accidents !!! Just wondering if any formal reports.
 
Joegoersch said:
Yes. My thoughts exactly. The cause of about 89% of accidents !!! Just wondering if any formal reports.
Click to expand...

Most of the data that compares aircraft types is suspect. As there is no formal mechanism that records hours and passenger miles for part 91 most 'studies' take a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) for those parameters. By making the right assumptions, you can arrive at ant conclusion that fits your agenda. Within the Cirrus world there is a difference between those who buy new and can afford to fly in a csip twice a year to do recurrent training and those who bought an 18 year old plane and just wing it on the transition training.There is also a gradient with newer aircraft flying more than older ones. In the end , it is very difficult to sort out the factor 'aircraft type' as a potential contributing factor.
 
I'm looking forward to when we all have ADS-B, as it should give us better statistics? I also like to phrase statements as questions to give myself an out?
 
There was a fatal accident in Massachusetts (i think 2015?) where a bonanza lost an engine in IMC (it was low IFR below) and glided until it crashed into a house killing all 3 on board. The NTSB said there was a breach in the crankcase and 2 puncture holes near a cylinder and a fractured oil sump. I can't speculate, but I think it's reasonable to say a chute would have been a good option to have in that situation.

I wish there was a way to retrofit bonanzas with the chute kinda like you can with the C172 and C182.
 
weilke said:
Most of the data that compares aircraft types is suspect. As there is no formal mechanism that records hours and passenger miles for part 91 most 'studies' take a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) for those parameters. By making the right assumptions, you can arrive at ant conclusion that fits your agenda. Within the Cirrus world there is a difference between those who buy new and can afford to fly in a csip twice a year to do recurrent training and those who bought an 18 year old plane and just wing it on the transition training.There is also a gradient with newer aircraft flying more than older ones. In the end , it is very difficult to sort out the factor 'aircraft type' as a potential contributing factor.
Click to expand...
One data point is that there have been many more chute pulls in Cirruses than in Bonanzae. From this, we can conclude that Cirruses have a much higher rate of engine failures, unrecoverable spins, in-flight breakups, and pilot panic attacks than Bonanzas do.
 
iamtheari said:
One data point is that there have been many more chute pulls in Cirruses than in Bonanzae. From this, we can conclude that Cirruses have a much higher rate of engine failures, unrecoverable spins, in-flight breakups, and pilot panic attacks than Bonanzas do.
Click to expand...
Maybe there’s some sarcasm there that I’m not seeing, but that’s not even close to being accurate.

For one, Bonanza’s have no chute & two, they’ve been around much longer than Cirrus, so that’s not a fair assessment by any means.
 
weilke said:
Both use the same faulty piece of equipment to hold the controls in place. That part is what explains any temporary differences between the types.
Click to expand...

I was going to note they both have the same faulty piece of equipment that spins the propeller..
.
.
.
.
Kidding, just kidding...
 
Ryanb said:
Maybe there’s some sarcasm there that I’m not seeing, but that’s not even close to being accurate.

For one, Bonanza’s have no chute & two, they’ve been around much longer than Cirrus, so that’s not a fair assessment by any means.
Click to expand...

Fair (and Balanced) is on another network...:)
 
Ryanb said:
Maybe there’s some sarcasm there that I’m not seeing, but that’s not even close to being accurate.

For one, Bonanza’s have no chute & two, they’ve been around much longer than Cirrus, so that’s not a fair assessment by any means.
Click to expand...
The post I replied to began “Most of the data that compares aircraft types is suspect.” Probably I should have edited the quote down to just that sentence to make the sarcasm more clear. :)
 
Just felt like posting this.

Cheers

 
GRG55 said:
I was going to note they both have the same faulty piece of equipment that spins the propeller..
.
.
.
.
Kidding, just kidding...
Click to expand...

It's true though. There are problems with the Continental aircraft engine. I didn't put it in my comment as the pedantic nitpickers would have gotten all orgasmic about some minor differences between the model numbers on the Bo vs the Cirrus, but both engines have the same weak points.
 
Ryanb said:
Maybe there’s some sarcasm there that I’m not seeing, but that’s not even close to being accurate.

For one, Bonanza’s have no chute & two, they’ve been around much longer than Cirrus, so that’s not a fair assessment by any means.
Click to expand...

I got it. But as a devotee, I view sarcasm as a potential art form that not everyone appreciates. Like Picasso or Andy Warhal paintings, which I do not get.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 90E3159A-0979-4D84-B5D9-320DA336E89D.jpeg
    90E3159A-0979-4D84-B5D9-320DA336E89D.jpeg
    162.5 KB · Views: 52
JC150 said:
There was a fatal accident in Massachusetts (i think 2015?) where a bonanza lost an engine in IMC (it was low IFR below) and glided until it crashed into a house killing all 3 on board. The NTSB said there was a breach in the crankcase and 2 puncture holes near a cylinder and a fractured oil sump. I can't speculate, but I think it's reasonable to say a chute would have been a good option to have in that situation.
Click to expand...

Retrofitting into a Lycoming 540 would have accomplished the same thing. *ducks*

GRG55 said:
I was going to note they both have the same faulty piece of equipment that spins the propeller..
.
.
.
.
Kidding, just kidding...
Click to expand...

Yep, and you beat me to it. I recognize the argument quickly runs south by the crankshaft AD of 1990s Lycos and the sunk cost of aircraft certification making airframe purchases captive audiences of the crappy engines they came with, but it needs to be said. Of course, Lycoming went and boned it up by contracting Conti for their ignition system via that bonehead siamese mag they proliferated over every post-70 vintage airplane, one that even Conti has discontinued support for mind you. Lycoming has literally a bomb factory as their only powerplant competitor, and they still manage to f---- up that two car funeral. o_O:D
 
weilke said:
There is the 'Machen conversion' that transplants a TIO540. Reviews are mixed.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it. But that's apples and oranges. NA to NA would be the adequate conversion to have.
 
The Cirrus eliminates gear up potential and adds a parachute.. I can't think of a single emergency where I am thinking "man, I wish I didn't have a chute!"

As others pointed out, it's the person at the controls that matters. But personally I wouldn't consider any single engine piston plane to own other than a Cirrus.. not an indictment of Piper, Cessna, etc., but why not have available every tool you may need

My $0.02

Queue the "not a real pilot" "it spins" "magenta line" people
 
I sat is a new Cirrus SR22T yesterday. Cramped. My 6'4" son could not fit. I don't consider 6'4" excessively tall.

Cirrus may have a chute, but I am 6'1" and it felt claustrophobic. Non-starter for me.
 
Stephen Shore said:
I sat is a new Cirrus SR22T yesterday. Cramped. My 6'4" son could not fit. I don't consider 6'4" excessively tall.

Cirrus may have a chute, but I am 6'1" and it felt claustrophobic. Non-starter for me.
Click to expand...

6'3" and I fit just fine. 34in jeans.
 
I'm 6'0 and have plenty of room. With a 50 inch cabin height and 49 inch width it's bigger than almost all the other single engine ga offerings..
 
Stephen Shore said:
I sat is a new Cirrus SR22T yesterday. Cramped. My 6'4" son could not fit. I don't consider 6'4" excessively tall.

Cirrus may have a chute, but I am 6'1" and it felt claustrophobic. Non-starter for me.
Click to expand...

I have been in both aircraft just recently and The Bonanza A36/G36 is way more comfortable in my opinion. Even the 4 back seats I can still fit in all four very comfortably without bending my neck to fit in.

Comfort: Bonanza!

Speed and Safety: Cirrus (Without the PIC just the airplane)

Looks: Subjective!
 
Hey don't hate on me just because my son would not it in the airplane. Maybe they increased the density / height of the seats in the 2018 models?

I will say that the seats were extraordinarily comfortable. Just no headroom and that was without a headset on.

My take on the chute is that for the price of a new Cirrus, I would have to think about purchasing a 10 year old Baron. With that you get two engines, which allows for much better control of descent in case of an engine out. I still think a twin is the ultimate in safety, if that is what you are really concerned about.
 
Challenged said:
I'm looking forward to when we all have ADS-B, as it should give us better statistics? I also like to phrase statements as questions to give myself an out?
Click to expand...
Interestingly concept of ADS-B allowing better data collection.

For example, I know there are relatively few Mooney aircraft out there as part of GA fleet, but whenever talking to ATC, I hear a lot of Mooney's on frequency. They seem to be over represented...

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Tantalum said:
I can't think of a single emergency where I am thinking "man, I wish I didn't have a chute!"

As others pointed out, it's the person at the controls that matters. But personally I wouldn't consider any single engine piston plane to own other than a Cirrus.. not an indictment of Piper, Cessna, etc., but why not have available every tool you may need
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I can't help but think about the ERAU arrow that lost its wing, or the Cirrus SR22 mid-air collision back in 2014 near Frederick, MD which pulled the chute and was able to survive. Having a second engine doesn't make any difference in both cases, but having a chute does. You just never know when you're going to need a chute, but when you do, its better to have it than wish you had it.
 
Tantalum said:
I can't think of a single emergency where I am thinking "man, I wish I didn't have a chute!"
Click to expand...
I can think of one. When it’s deployed and on fire.
 
Salty said:
I can think of one. When it’s deployed and on fire.
Click to expand...
Why would you pull it if it is on fire? Having one doesn't mean you have to use it, but, I still can't think of a single situation where I would be happy not to have that option
 
Tantalum said:
Why would you pull it if it is on fire? Having one doesn't mean you have to use it, but, I still can't think of a single situation where I would be happy not to have that option
Click to expand...
I said if it’s deployed and catches on fire. Then I’d be wishing I kept flying.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I have been in both aircraft just recently and The Bonanza A36/G36 is way more comfortable in my opinion. Even the 4 back seats I can still fit in all four very comfortably without bending my neck to fit in.
Click to expand...

I've flown a SR22 quite a bit and a Baron 58 the past 2+ years; Baron and the A36 have the same cabin size. The SR22 has noticeably more room, especially when the dual yoke is in the Baron. And two doors is really nice up front. The big barn doors for the back of the Baron are sweet though for those in the back.
 
Seriously my take on the 2 is that flown in a conscientious and conservative measure by well trained pilots the delta is statistical noise. Since there are a handful of GA pilots that are not conscientious, conservative and well trained, the statistical edge will go to Cirrus which has a fleet fatal rate of around 1.3/100K, whereas per Flying magazine the A36 fleet fatal rate is 1.86/100K. To the average person behind the yoke that difference means very little. That is a population difference of 0.000013 chance of dying per hour of flight versus 0.000019 chance of dying per hour of flight. Both will be better than that if you look at a conscientious, conservative and well trained pilot. Now look at PA28's, 0.8/100K, C172's 0.6/100K, DA40's, 0.3/100K, PC12's 0.3/100K, if you want statistical safety there are other models out there ;-)
 
Joegoersch said:
Interestingly concept of ADS-B allowing better data collection.

For example, I know there are relatively few Mooney aircraft out there as part of GA fleet, but whenever talking to ATC, I hear a lot of Mooney's on frequency. They seem to be over represented...

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe Mooneys hold greater appeal to gregarious pilots. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top