Wow. I'm really impressed. I wish I was the pilot that you are, so I didn't have to worry about flying over LIFR (~200ovc), or at night, or mountains.

Maybe some day, I'll be a pilot, too. And what's up with that Kent fella that landed his V35 engine out? He's a BPPP instructor and actually instructs Bonanza pilots... people who fly Bonanzas, how to do engine outs. Under the stress, he forgot a couple of things and landed long in a 2k' clearing hitting a bunch of trees - in day VFR. I was still impressed with how calm he was and the job he did. Would you call him a pilot, because he's buying a Baron, now.

I'm usually a really reserved personality, but "I don't need a parachute, I'm a pilot"?

I'm pretty sure Stan - the P51 pilot - wears a parachute when he flies Red Nose.

I don't believe in karma. I hope you don't either.

This would be and example of irony, not karma- it is ironic that you'd confuse the two!

Sorry, Brian - I just got a thank you PM for my civility right before my last post, and I let it slip a bit.

I understand someone not liking the traditional aluminum frame. Some don't like anything that's not rag & tube.

I understand it being a tough sell before it was used much.

I understand wanting to fly another plane, anyway, just because you like it, or you fly day VFR all the time, or you're willing to take the risk.

But what makes the parachute a tough sell now? 8 pulls this year, and not a serious injury one. Never a serious injury when pulled above 1k' and below Vne. A safety record that is blowing away the rest of GA in the personal and business category?

I understand not wanting one. I just don't understand not appreciating the benefit of one.

I think for a lot of us who have flown 40+ years, it's a little different to think of things in a "different way". When I first heard of the Cirrus chute, I was skeptical. I've made several engine out landings (all successful, but *all in day/vfr*!), and at first was kind of in the "ah, well, I have engine monitors, I practice engine outs, etc etc..." group.


However, time has passed....


Might I compare it to my experience with glass in the cockpit? I learned to fly IFR on the old "horizontal card" DGs, and the solid black with "yellow line" artificial horizon...nothing had a "database" except the expired paper chart. Flew along at night in weather, calling Flight Service every hour for weather updates down the line. I felt pretty confident for a lot of years...

Then I was thrust into a cockpit that had glass, synthetic vision, databases, "direct", etc. Now, I *want* my gps with database, my XM weather subscription, etc....I can see (haven't gotten there yet) that I may want a plane with a chute for single engine IFR/night....


I am grateful for the discussion. Please keep going with it...


stan

Sure, the chutes have worked great for those that have used them, I won't argue agains't that at all

As I told Tim via a PM conversation we recently had, I had an '01 Cirrus SR-22 that I bought in '05 with under 500 hours total time. Originally I test flew a new '05 but after flying it I realized I wanted a six pack and the '01 was the only model offered with rudder trim manufactured thus far.

The seats were HORRIBLY uncomfortable. I couldn't fly it for more than a couple of hours without having to land and get out and walk around a while. Also, the four point seat belt harnesses were really uncomfortable. It took 45 minutes just to put air in the tires, the wheel pants were so poorly designed. I put more money into that thing in maintenance in a short period of time than I have any other airplane I've owned (I've owned about a dozen airplanes including three twins). I had to replace the starter adaptor, a flap switch - twice, and reseal a fuel tank. For a four year old less than 500 hour airplane, I was quite disappointed. The trim switch was way too touchy, you could't fine tune it and there was no manual trim. It was "twitchy" to fly without the autopilot engaged. I picked up a bit (+/- 1/4") of ice and lost 30 kts of cruise speed.

I sold the Cirrus after four months and about 75 hours of flying it. I bought it right and in '06 the market was still good so I actually made money on the thing, though. I've been told that they've improved them since then but I truly have no desire to own one again. Neither fancy glass panels nor parachutes excite me.

For the flying I do, over the terrain I fly, and based on all of my current needs, I think the second engine will be of potentially far more use to me than a 'chute. I fly solo 90% of the time so I'm well under gross and even the TC with those tiny little engines can maintain altitude quite well on one engine. Absolute worst case, I have a lot of time to choose my landing spot in the event of any drift down, the same can't be said for pulling a 'chute.

When Cirrus comes out with a pressurized 6 seat single powered by a turbo-normalized 550 I'll seriously look into trading my TAT TN 550 powered A36 for one.

Why? I want pressurization.

Anything short of that and it would be pointless. I see my A36 as more capable than any Cirrus and little reason to give that up.

Much is made of the advanced avionics of the Cirrus but they can't fly any approach I can't fly with a CNX 80 and a King HSI with my ancient, trustworthy and capable C-III.

My iPad is a fabulous moving map, with Garmin Pilot and the GDL 39 I get (limited) ADS-B traffic and full FIS-B weather.

With the money I'm saving vs. a Cirrus I'm going to buy a ski condo.

Ken has provided a great answer to Burns original question which is basically "why would you not want a Cirrus?". He knows what he's talking about from real experience and I can appreciate, and value, his point of view and expertise on the subject.

I've got a skinny butt and I too found the Cirrus seats uncomfortable. In fact after my demo rides my rear end hurt. It wasn't enough to keep me from ordering one because there were things which outweighed physical pain in the aircraft's appeal to me. But I was worried about it. I looked at a lot of cushion options at OSH last year. And I ordered one from Jim Barker (the PMC of Cirrus). But I didn't like it. So, I decided to grin and bear it and what I found is that the Cirrus seat must be a bit like a bicycle seat in that it is very uncomfortable until it isn't. I wish they would do something to improve it. I get the 26G protection but can't understand why they don't put a 1/2 inch of gel foam in.

On the other stuff Ken I think they have listened and learned. The wheel pants have doors now. The interior and exterior quality have improved as has maintenance reliability. So, there is progress but I wouldn't want one of the older Cirrus (G1 or G2) either.

Back to Burns' thread question with a comment in a different direction.

I owned a Waco for a couple of years and want another one. I want one because they are a hoot to fly, I love the open cockpit and I really like flying a tailwheel biplane. It is enormous fun. I want one that costs a lot more than the one I sold but I'm not buying toys for a year or two as I'm investing all my spare cash in my business at the moment. It's tempting to think about maybe buying a Stearman for a lot less, or maybe even some other kind of biplane. But frankly, they aren't Wacos and won't ever be what I want.

So, my point is we all have our unique passionate feeling about airplanes. There is nothing "wrong" with a Stearman. Great plane! It's just different. I get why a Stearman pilot might not want a Waco. We biplane pilots are adults and we don't need to get our jollies, or measure our sticks, by running down the other biplanes. This is not always the case with owners of planes not spelled Cirrus unfortunately.

It's called a Malibu

[quote="Burns Moore"]Tony . . . Tony . . . Tony. I suspect you've had a couple too many of your favorite libation:[quote]

Sorry Burns. Stone cold sober!

I hope your recovery from the east to west jet lag is faster than mine! Welcome home!

It's called a Malibu

Neither would a 6 place pressurized IO550 powered single.

Jason,

The Malibu is a possibility. But Piper really stubbed their toe with that model.

Have they ever added cowl flaps? Useful load was always challenged. Still, it's a possibility.

I don't need any more range than 80 gallons LOP will provide. That will get me to Seattle or Texas non-stop and round trip to/from Chicago from the west coast with only a single fuel stop in Colorado each way.

The useful load is the issue. Can a Malibu haul 5 adults and weekend luggage 300 NM with IFR reserves?

I think the Malibu could have been done better. I believe Cirrus, because of their composite construction, may be able to manufacture a superior pressurized single.

Depends on the five adults and who is packing.
I actually looked closely at the PA46 Mirage, my notes show with the fully loaded config at the time including a radar pod, 800lbs in the cabin leaves you enough fuel for 430 NM no wind.

Tim