The test pilot that died during Cirrus pre-certification flight testing died because of a binding aileron due to flexing. The aileron-wing gap was increased and the problem eliminated. Unfortunately that plane lacked CAPS.

There is a good book on aircraft design that discusses the Lancair Certified (Columbia) and Cirrus stall-spin characteristics. I'll try to see if I can find it. It says the Cirrus is recoverable but requires firm use of elevator. I know several people who have spun a Cirrus and all say it recovered normally. I have spun a plane (Super Decathlon) but not a Cirrus and have no intention to do so since it isn't approved.

For all of the people so terrified of this, don't ever fly a twin. Twins aren't spin tested. The Lancair Certified C300 received certification using a rudder limiter.

Hi Bill,

I think you raise an interesting point, although it may not be the one you intended. What I take away from your point that I think is valuable is this - if someone inadvertently spins the plane what is the survival method?

The reason I think this is a great point to raise is that inadvertent spins happen. As you point out your Bonanza has intentional spins prohibited. As do most Normal category aircraft. They are prohibited not because they can't be recovered but because it is highly likely they wont be. Certainly, the accident record bears this out. Yes, a B36TC can be recovered. It was demonstrated during certification. The POH lists the "approved" method of recovery of the aircraft. It does this in the hopes that the pilot can save his life by following a procedure.

Now, to answer your question, this is what the POH for my 2013 G5 SR22T says about spins:

"Spins are prohibited". Gee, that sounds like what similar aircraft, a Bonanza for example says. Perhaps slightly different wording, maybe not as succinct, but substantially similar. Would you not agree?

Now, the Bonanza POH goes on to describe how to get out of the predicament of an unintentional spin. Fair enough. What does the Cirrus POH say is the way out of the mess?

Just as you expected: "Because the aircraft has not been certified for spin recovery (sorry to interrupt but notice it doesn't say that it hasn't been "demonstrated" and it doesn't say it "can't be recovered" only that "has not been certified") the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) must be deployed if the airplane departs controlled flight. Refer to Section 3, Inadvertent Spin Entry."

So, what Cirrus has done is the same thing in practical effect that Beech has done: provided a way out of an prohibited maneuver.

The only practical differences are these:

1. The CAPS system has so far worked every time. I think any reasonable person would agree that PARE has not.
2. Cirrus Pilots, who are properly trained, make a call out regarding how they will recover from an inadvertent spin (or other unfortunate boo boo) twice each flight at a minimum. So, not only do they train for the aircraft recovery but they keep it top of mind with a verbal, and physical, action twice per flight.

I think it's a fair question for a fair mind: Which method has the greatest probability of a successful (by this I mean survival of passengers and crew) outcome?

One last point, and I mean no disrespect, but I only have a slightly hairy chest. Luckily for me it doesn't extend to my back. It is also mostly silver hair. So, having said that I will admit to "inadvertently" spinning an airplane relatively close to the ground. It scared the sh!t out of me. I lost some amount of chest hair over it. I never want it to happen again. But if it does, despite my confidence in the historical record regarding spin recovery demonstrations completed by Cirrus test pilots, and perhaps others, I'm going to try to immediately pull the damned chute. Once on the ground I will use the remains to clean myself up.

Can we discuss something that actually matters?

Great post, Tony.

Michael, I have not spun my Be 36, as it says not approved. I am sure it was tested and met genuine, unadulterated, not watered down U S spin recovery FAA standards when it was certified. And I don't think any test pilots were killed in it's certification testing.

I have spun and recovered in perhaps a half dozen airplanes and most especially a Beech T-34. I own two other planes that are not prohibited against spins or acro and they have center sticks and I have done acro, including spins and recovery in them.

As a further source of info, Patti Wagstaff., did Cirrus acro for the factory, and I'll probably see her at Oshkosh and ask her if she ever did any practice spins. Patti now owns and flies an Bonanza I believe though that may be more of a business problem with Cirrus rather than a specific problem with the airplane.
Next, some models of Bonanzas, other than T-34s are factory approved for acro. I wonder if they are approved for spins and what their manual says about that and recovery method.

Bill,

Are you an ABS member? ABS has POH's for just about all models. A quick search of their website revealed a POH for F33A's and the limited aerobatic model F33C. The POH is clear (at least the one on the site) that "Spins are prohibited". Now, I wouldn't swear that is the case for the F33C. However, in the POH I read there they do give instructions for recovering from a spin which, without using the acronym, basically recapitulate the PARE method. Unlike Cessna's there was no admonition to just let go and scream for mommy. (sorry, couldn't resist as that may be the best way to make a 172 recover).

[/quote]As a further source of info,( hoping there might be even one open minded pilot on this site)[quote]

As far as this comment is concerned, I have been around here for a few years and read thousands of posts from hundreds of members who I would say are very open minded. In fact most seem to have no axe to grind - which is more than I can say for the direction this thread has taken. Personally, I think I'm pretty open minded. That's why I don't think I'm hung up on this topic. And I want you to know that I don't take offense the comment, although I do find it offensive.

The twin I had before the Twin Comanche just happened to be a Colemill B55. Neal sold it for me here on BT, even. I had a 182 between the Baron and the TC.

When I did my transition training in the TC a couple of months ago, on one flight I took off with full fuel (120 gal) and two of us plus assorted stuff (+/- 400 lb) on board. We climbed directly to 8,500 ft (+/- 10,000 ft density altitude) and feathered the left engine.

Of course I was nicely under gross but I could maintain altitude without difficulty. The MEI I use for my twin transition training (this airplane and my previous Colemill Baron, to be discussed below) has me do everything to ATP standards. That includes a single engine go around while under the hood with the critical engine at zero thrust - ideally with a crosswind if he can find one. This was done right after the feathering exercise above so we still had almost full fuel on a warm day. I eeked out +/- 100 feet per minute climb at (+/-) 4,000 ft density altitude.

While under the hood and pulling the power to zero thrust, the management of adverse yaw in the TC is almost a non-event. In cruise I've intentionally run a tank (I have six, three per side) dry twice. That's no issue at all, almost no adverse yaw, extremely easy to manage. In the Baron, I had intentionally run a tank dry in cruise a couple of times and an "engine out" in cruise in the Baron gets your attention pretty quickly !

I have 1,376 lb useful load in the TC, a fuel capacity of 120 gallons and at my typical cruise altitudes of 8,000 - 12,000 ft get right at 165 KTAS burning an average of 15.7 GPH (10.5 NMPG).

In my Colemill Baron, I had greater useful load at 1,777 lb and a larger fuel capacity of 136 gallons. They way I flew it, I would get 182 KTAS on about 24 GPH (7.5 NMPG).

At 8,500 ft with the critical engine feathered, I could still climb 300-400 FPM in the Baron and when doing the single engine go around during my transition training, yes better than the TC.

In the Baron I had (theoretically at least - STC paperwork notwithstanding) 300 HP per side. In the TC I have 320 HP divided between the two engines

Immediately before the TC I had a Cessna 182. I find it kinda fun that when I change the oil in the TC, I use the same amount of oil in the two engines combined as the 182 held in it's single engine. So oil changes cost about $17 more in the TC than the 182, the cost of an extra oil filter. I also only have to maintain a total of eight cylinders between the two engines in the TC versus six in the 182 (12 in the Baron). It is also my anticipation that maintaining the two Lycoming IO-320s will probably be about the same price as maintaining one Continental O-470 and less than what it takes to maintain one Continental IO-520.

Compared to the Baron, the TC is two years older on airframe age, has better avionics, the same time remaining to TBO on the engines, much lower prop times and about the same airframe time - and the TC was about 50% of the purchase price of the Baron. The TC gets 30% better MPG, is a bit slower and should (I haven't had it that long) require much less maintenance than the Baron.

They're all good airplanes. Right now the TC seems to fit my "mission" better than anything else I can find. It will NOT cost twice as much to maintain and fly as a comparable HP single, maybe 20% more and worth every penny to me.

Plotting out a typical flight of mine on WingX, KAVQ-KSMO, IFR using my typical routing and current winds, it shows:

Baron - 2:10; 52.1 gallons
TC - 2:24; 36.0 gallons
182 - 3:04; 36.9

So, flying the Baron versus the TC I get there 14 minutes earlier and use 16.1 gallons more. The really interesting thing though, is flying the TC versus my previous 182. I get there 40 minutes earlier in the TC than if I were to fly the 182, and I would use LESS fuel !

Tony, I am not a ABS member , used to be, then got busy with other airplanes. Good as my Bonanza is, there are other planes that offer some more fun non standard transportation things. I also found the group to be tilted a bit more one way than I am. I was very impressed with asking and finding some help to a fuel pump problem I had when at the AOPA meeting in Ft. Worth. I went to some Beech events in the past, but they are pretty expensive, so I cut back. May well join again. It would be nice to be able to look up any manual on a site.

And I wonder why so many people who own, fly, and love Cirrus are on the Beech forum?

As for open minded, no I don't see that. It seems just like much of human nature, that whatever you own, it must be the best, not only the best, but really flawless. People on this site can't seem to give Cirrus credit for the chutes, ( which probably have worked better than even Cirrus hoped) but give nays to low points like the silly side controller, and folks can't even admit and agree with facts that Cirrus did not do and meet US spin recovery tests like Beech, Cessna etc.

As for my comment being offensive, I am not too impressed with yours about a Cessna pilot to let go and "scream for Mommy". It's not what I said, but maybe you are trying to be funny. Also, it seems wrong, I don't have a Cessna manual, but they likely give a full, normal, conventional recovery method. I don't fly Cessnas much, but I am told that a 172 will recover hands off. The power off, and let go method, actually comes from a lot of actual flight spin recovery by Gene Beggs years ago and he found that method works in many planes, especially Pitts, may not work in a few like a Zlinn.

Ken,

I really like that plane! I have very fond memories of flying right seat in one with an Argentine girlfriend and her parents in the last century. It is a neat little twin and with four skinny people, which we all were in those days, we could gas it up and fly long enough to want to talk to someone else. Every time I see a nice one I look around to see if I can spot the beautiful brunette and just get the silliest, goofiest grin. I think my friends must think I just want the plane! Anyway, I'm glad you like yours too!

OK, Bill. I'm back from all the meetings of the evening, and I see you're still hung up on...."Cirrus did not do and meet US spin recovery tests like Beech, Cessna etc."

Your tenacity, i.e., stubbornness, is large.

Guess what, we all agree on that point! I said that a few pages back.

So, what's your point? Obviously that didn't make the Cirrus more dangerous than Beech, Cessna, etc.. So what is your point?

I get that you like to argue. That's obvious. But, is there something else here? What am I missing?

Why is the side stick "silly?" It is out of the way and very comfortable to use. Trying to find switches and circuit breakers under my huge yoke and support arm is silly if anything is.

Bill,

Sorry. Wasn't referring to you. More like me 'cause that's what I did and I was referring to my other post. So, didn't mean to be offensive and sorry I didn't communicate. But, POH or not, you can take my word to the bank - turning loose of the controls and screaming for mommy does, in fact, make the little 172 recover from a spin! Having to take your underwear home and explaining what happened to your wife also gives one motivation to keep the ball centered. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Now, I find the arguing about which plane is good, bad or ugly often funny, sometimes ridiculous and usually factually so far off reality that I just have to chalk it up to people being people. It is irritating though when people push things that aren't correct in the face of correction out of sheer obstinacy. Even when that happens I've been here long enough to see that it's usually just an aberration and they will return to a more or less even keeled disposition sooner or later.

I have thought of designing a bumper sticker with the little kid peeing on a Cirrus like you see the Ford and Chevy haters trucks. If I could get the Jeffs to make a reasonable deal I'd be a BT sponsor. I figure after my first million I'd branch out, print similar ones for Cessna, Piper and if I could talk my wife into delisting my phone maybe even Beech. I'd take a page out of Stan's book and blow it all on airplanes…

Anyway, I can see I'm not going to get you off being all hung up about Cirrus' spinning like a corkscrew into the ground while some poor sap keeps repeating "power off, ailerons neutral, rudder opposite turn, elevator, elevator….damnit what's a freakin' elevator " KABOOM! After all he's a Cirrus pilot and probably failed the practical a few times anyway…

Now, would any of you open minded guys like to start an endless argument about whether the impossible turn is more impossible in a twin than a single?

A couple things here, Bill:

1) We're on a predominately Beech piloted forum. There are TWO guys here that have been somewhat anti-Cirrus, and you - the two month newb - are leading the charge. Two. That's remarkable. And a change over the last year.

2) You've been a member for... 2 months? And now, you think you know the BT communitiy? Tony, Jim, Ale, me, and others have been here a long time. We go to BT lunches and get togethers. We've made friends. We like the spirit, here. Frankly the COPAns are, on the whole, a bunch of arrogant liberals. BTers are, on the whole, conservative, hard-working, God-fearing, super good guys with a tremendous amount of information.

Most of us Cirrus guys just answer questions. We don't proselytize. It is you that comes on the Cirrus thread and attacks.

I love the plane you fly. It doesn't fit my mission because it's not as safe over LIFR and at night. Day VFR? Still not as safe, IMO, but I'll let you argue that without comment. If I was retired and not flying on a schedule, I'd never have sold my great V35B.

There's a lot of people here that don't fly Beech. Some never have. Some use to, like, again, Tony, Ale, Jim and myself. And I still have a love for Beech - especially the v-tail. I may fly a Beech again someday, when I think it fits a future mission.

We few Cirrus pilots are on here because we like the people here, and the friendships we have established and continue to establish.

When you've been here a while, and see what the non-Beech driver's often contribute, maybe you'll understand.

In the meantime, if you feel threatened - perhaps on the behalf of Textron/Beech - don't click on a Cirrus thread.

Go to a BT lunch or get together. Meet some of the black sheep and make some friends. One of the great things about BT is it has transcended the normal online forum. We've met face to face. That's a big part of what makes this work.

Bill,

You never answer on SPIN PREVENTION. None of your planes have passed SPIN PREVENTION which has been mandated by the FAA for all new aircraft.



Greg,

In terms of depreciation, the annual loss is about the same between all piston models. The reason it appears so much worse for Cirrus is the models have increased in price at the same time they increased in capability. e.g. A new Cirrus G1 SR22 was mid $300s airplane. The G2 was in the mid $400s, a G3 started in the low $500s to the $600s depending on options. The G5 is really between $550K and $700K. As a result people look at the new price and compare to what they see on the used market and say what a massive loss. The planes have averaged between 8-15% a year, just like Bonanza, Cessna, PA-46....

Tim

This is the number one thing that attracted me to the Twinkie. The VMC rollover is what scares me more than anything in a twin.

The number two reason was mentioned, too - maintenance and super efficient for a twin.

Nate,

I had to warn Tim this afternoon. You be nice to Bill now.......he's just learning



Don't worry about the dreaded VMC rollover. The rollover is really just a frigging stall. Don't get that slow, point the nose down. It's just like a single.

Question, which has a better glide ratio....the SR22 or the BE58?