It's time for the Jeffs to change the name of this website to CirrusTalk.

First time we've agreed, but I said this 2 years ago and got "fanged" . . .

A few of these recent Brand X threads reminded me that in the context of things, that darn 'chute polarity tends to overshadow so much of the other things about Cirrus as a company and as an airframe that starkly contrast with other piston GA manufacturers.

As has been mentioned here before, they seem to have a reputation of "the only" airframer in the lowly certified piston-single echelon that continually innovates. I would take this a step further and suggest that they seem to be leading the charge for actually interfacing with their customers and improving their product. They have gone from a clunky, poorly built plastic clown plane with essentially the same set of boxes checked as everyone else (for a lot less money) to a really interesting airplane, notwithstanding CAPS.

They have "upgraded" substantially four times in 15 years and incrementally over that. Six point engine mounts, oleo strut, reduced empty weight, better avionics, even better avionics, improved wing, improved exhaust, improved door latches, less bad fuel gauges, increased MTOW, less bad brakes, LED lights, TKS, FIKI, ESP, EVS, TAWS. Hell, now you can even telephone your mother from the comfort of the left seat while departing KTEB at 5:30 on a Friday.

They have, over time, deliberately and methodically reduced many sources of the common gotchas. There is redundancy for some of the more important items. What do the SR22, Phenom, Mustang, TBM, Meridian and G1000 King Airs have in common? They can be ordered with two AHRS and two ADCs. Having a backup system for primary flight instruments is probably overkill for the steely eyed aces here but for average pilots like me, I like to know I can get it. Two alternators? Want a FIKI piston single with air conditioning that can carry four people, luggage and 50 gallons of gas? Airbag seatbelts? Can't get those in a Corvalis. They re-engineered the flaps to be available at almost any reasonable airspeed. A keypad to enter data into avionics? With all due respect to the knob twisting savants out there, I have not seen an airline cockpit in a while without at least one.

They also have a really interesting engineering blog that admittedly toots their own horn, but rather than the indecipherable weekly SB and AD email I get from Cessna, actually explains some of the intricacies of the machine and its systems. They have a substantial body of flight data recording in addition to whatever Savvy gleans from managing XX% of the fleet. For my 182, I have have a POH that suggests I lean "as required" and ensure my fuel supply is uncontaminated before flight.

All in all, I wish just one other manufacturer would try that whole listen-to-your customer-and-make-a-better-product approach instead of resigning themselves to the niche that they all seem to be falling into post 2008. Cirrus' sales numbers would suggest the airplane buying public prefers that approach.

You can love or hate the 'chute as much as you want, but Cirrus' biggest sales pitch should be everything else that goes into the plane. Where are the other guys? How many Bonanza (Baron, Matrix, Corvalis, Seneca, Mooney, 182) sales have been lost to the simple improvements that Cirrus produces every year?

John,

WHY...do you read these threads..

....and then complain about reading these threads.

I now know what WGAS stands for

I now know what WGAS stands for

A few of these recent Brand X threads reminded me that in the context of things, that darn 'chute polarity tends to overshadow so much of the other things about Cirrus as a company and as an airframe that starkly contrast with other piston GA manufacturers.

As has been mentioned here before, they seem to have a reputation of "the only" airframer in the lowly certified piston-single echelon that continually innovates. I would take this a step further and suggest that they seem to be leading the charge for actually interfacing with their customers and improving their product. They have gone from a clunky, poorly built plastic clown plane with essentially the same set of boxes checked as everyone else (for a lot less money) to a really interesting airplane, notwithstanding CAPS.

They have "upgraded" substantially four times in 15 years and incrementally over that. Six point engine mounts, oleo strut, reduced empty weight, better avionics, even better avionics, improved wing, improved exhaust, improved door latches, less bad fuel gauges, increased MTOW, less bad brakes, LED lights, TKS, FIKI, ESP, EVS, TAWS. Hell, now you can even telephone your mother from the comfort of the left seat while departing KTEB at 5:30 on a Friday.

They have, over time, deliberately and methodically reduced many sources of the common gotchas. There is redundancy for some of the more important items. What do the SR22, Phenom, Mustang, TBM, Meridian and G1000 King Airs have in common? They can be ordered with two AHRS and two ADCs. Having a backup system for primary flight instruments is probably overkill for the steely eyed aces here but for average pilots like me, I like to know I can get it. Two alternators? Want a FIKI piston single with air conditioning that can carry four people, luggage and 50 gallons of gas? Airbag seatbelts? Can't get those in a Corvalis. They re-engineered the flaps to be available at almost any reasonable airspeed. A keypad to enter data into avionics? With all due respect to the knob twisting savants out there, I have not seen an airline cockpit in a while without at least one.

They also have a really interesting engineering blog that admittedly toots their own horn, but rather than the indecipherable weekly SB and AD email I get from Cessna, actually explains some of the intricacies of the machine and its systems. They have a substantial body of flight data recording in addition to whatever Savvy gleans from managing XX% of the fleet. For my 182, I have have a POH that suggests I lean "as required" and ensure my fuel supply is uncontaminated before flight.

All in all, I wish just one other manufacturer would try that whole listen-to-your customer-and-make-a-better-product approach instead of resigning themselves to the niche that they all seem to be falling into post 2008. Cirrus' sales numbers would suggest the airplane buying public prefers that approach.

You can love or hate the 'chute as much as you want, but Cirrus' biggest sales pitch should be everything else that goes into the plane. Where are the other guys? How many Bonanza (Baron, Matrix, Corvalis, Seneca, Mooney, 182) sales have been lost to the simple improvements that Cirrus produces every year?

Maybe he meant: Wow - Good And Stimulating.

Maybe he meant: Wow - Good And Stimulating.

Ok I'll bite.

The title said Not another parachute thread. Yet turned into some
kind of philosophical brain dump about the subject again.

I suppose I wish BT was what it was when I joined, Jason with the long hair avatar, discussions about beech products. Instead it's become something like Facebook. I do not have FB cause I got tired of seeing people's babies their cars, and selfies at a restaurant.

I do appreciate the brand x, I should learn how to use it. I always click recent and page through the first several pages and the ignore function does not work like that.

If I was buying a plane today I'd get a cirrus and hang out at their place. I just wish BT was like it used to be. As a business development consultant I watched many many things over the years out grow themselves and forget what they were good at. sometmes success is a problem. I saw a post a while back about 30k members, cool except 20k of them have never made a post. Hmmmm. L8r.