If this thread is meant to prop up the value of used cirri, then I guess it's working . . .

With that in mind let's change this to cirri talk and let someone start a web site to support Beech products . . .

Who wants to buy me a Beech Premier so I can fly my really long 300 NM trips in 40 minutes?
I am willing to start a crowdsource funding....

Tim

I get it, Burns. I use to be irritated by Cirrus buyers on BT. But before I became a convert - first due to safety record and then cause it's really kind of a cool plane - I realized that there's a few A* guys, SX300 guys, 414 & 421 guys, etc., that really contribute.

And you have to admit, self-serving as the comment seems, Cirrus and their vastly improved safety record, has caught the attention of a lot of pilots. Parachute pulls and the resulting walk-aways are intriguing.

It's so easy to x-out a Cirrus thread, or just not click on it.

But you did say you wanted a ride. So I know you're peeking a little.

It's ok to fly one and sneak a peek at another. I still look longingly at my V35B model in my office, and my Bonanza screen savers, and the stupid pictures Tim (who now flies my Bonanza) sends me. I even post one on COPA every now and again.

It's good to hear from you Nate, and with that said have I mentioned how much I miss Texas?

I was not saying that they don't fill a market niche nor that they don't provide a capability not found Beech aircraft . . .

What I am saying is that if I were at a "Neighborhood Beautification" meeting with our neighbors also committed to "Neighborhood Beautification" and a fast talking developer walked in and said, "No you don't want to fix up your neighborhood, you want a new big super colossal Disney planet water/space park, and let me show you how neat it would be".

A comment was made that "dumb" people buy MB when the Hyndai is a better car . . . and that might be true, but let's wait 10 years and then see. Mass hysteria and slick salesman ship go only so far.

And yes I would enjoy a ride your airplane. As I said previously it's a perfect solution for your aviation requirements.

I have no desire to own a Cirrus (again). Had one (SR-22), hated it. Sold it within four months.

Nate, you write, "Cirrus and their vastly improved safety record".
Do you have any facts to back that up, or just their marketing mantra about a "spin resistant" plane, which in fact is also resistant to recovering from a spin and I believe one was lost in testing.

A recent Aviation Consumer survey article said that while Cirrus talked a good game about safety,that in fact their accident record was right in the middle of comparable planes, no better, no worse.

I think the chute is a good idea and I'd pay for one if available for my plane. Think how bad the Cirrus crash record would be if they did not have the chutes.

Bill,

You got bad info.

Cirrus recovers from spins like other planes (Europe even tested it).

The fatal accident stats are in fact better than the rest the past couple years.

I like reading about different products and how they compare to each other.
I am learning a lot too!

Bill - the improved record is THE reason I changed. It is well researched. Because of the tracking Cirrus does on all of their planes, and the periodic maint., like scissors and parachute repacks, they have very accurate numbers about ACTUAL hours flown.

About 3 years ago, they started a new focus on training, and they are serious about it. My transition training was 8 hours a day for 4 days, and I had more homework before I went than I had in passing my Commercial written.

They have not had a confirmed fatality this year, although they list one in their stats - a disappeared Cirrus over the jungles of Brazil. A pretty safe bet. I looked up Bonanzas - just Bonanzas - to compare in the NTSB. Not only are there more fatalities (obviously), but there are also more incidents.

I could go on and on about pulls, and no serious injuries above 1,000 ft and below Vne, but the stats themselves are:
0.94 fatalities per 100k hours flown in Cirrus over the last 12 months.
1.44 over the last 36 months.
2.38 is the rate for GA Personal and Business Flying.

The trend is continuing to improve. Significantly.

8 pulls this year - everyone walked away.

I know this is going to go over like a lead balloon here, but I hated the crash section on BT - ignored it for a while, but like looking at an ugly Bulldog, I just couldn't quit obsessing. The difference:
Log on to BT. Another crash. Geez, pit in stomach.
Log on to COPA. Another pull and another pilot and passengers walked away! Cool. Can't wait to fly.

I try not to go on, but I'm excited. And, you asked.

You're right, but those aren't the only considerations in owning an airplane. The Cirrus was four years old with less than 500 hours total time and required more maintenance expenditures than any other airplane I've owned.

I've had a number of airplanes over the years as you have and the Twin Comanche is the right airplane for me at this time.

The fact is if I lose an engine, a 'chute will help little over many of the areas that I fly; densely populated areas (Los Angeles), water (Sea of Cortez) and inhospitable terrain (mountains and deserts of Arizona and the Baja of Mexico) where a second engine, even with drift down, may be tremendously beneficial, even life saving (my own or those on the ground). If I go down over the Baja of Mexico, a 'chute may allow me to get on the ground alive, but when no one comes to get me for weeks, I'm still going to die. The same with the mountains and out in the middle of nowhere where it is 110º on the ground with no shade.

I really like the Twinkie. It was one of my final three choices. If I could have found a low time, NICE one, I might have bought it. That's not an easy thing to find.

Ken,

I would think flying over many of the locations you list, (water, desert...) you would have survival gear with you and more importantly emergency radios. You will not wait very long for rescue if you manage to get down in once piece.

Tim

I have survival gear and supplies along with a portable 406 MHz EPIRB, hand held HAM radio and hand held aviation radio; I like backups. Stacking the odds in my favor is always a good idea and I think a second engine does that in my circumstances better than a parachute.

They sell a lot of Cirri so others feel that the 'chute is right for them. That's OK but that doesn't mean that it is right for me nor that I secretly wish I owned one

Arlen, you write "Cirrus recovers from spins like any other airplane".
And that I have bad info.

Where do you get your info? What does the Cirrus pilot manual or handbook say about Cirrus and spins? Does it give a recovery method other than the parachute? Surely if they are so easy to recover from a spin, the manual would have that method in there.
Does it or not?

I have owned and flown 2 Beechcraft. My current B36 TC which is not approved for intentional spins and my T-34 A which is approved for acro including intentional spins. Both Beech models have spin recovery methods in the pilot manuals. I have never spun the B 36, but I have a number of times in the T-34 and recovered normally, which is power off, opposite rudder, neutral ailerons and forward stick or yoke until the stall is broken.

If Cirrus could have met the U S standards for spin recovery, don't you think Cirrus would have done so?

Finally, did they lose a plane testing or not?

Most, though, not all of my info comes from AV Consumer which I consider an informed and unbiased source as any. I don't have any money vested in Cirrus, am not trying to sell one nor any other plane.
The Av Con report of about two years ago clearly put Cirrus in the middle of accident statistics, no worse, but certainly not better. I haven't seen a report for just the last year, so can't say. It does seem to me that if, as you write, that Cirrus has had 8 parachute pulls in the last year that that is a high number of pilots that for some reason couldn't fly normally any longer.

The Twinkee ran fine on both engines, but I found it to be very lacking on one. Had one at gross on a hot day and could barely make positive rate at 3k ft. It also did not have de-ice, so I saw no reason to own one. The B55 with the Colemills is probably the safest plane if you are going to have an engine out.