That's a canard. It is spin certified in Europe.

Kelly, out of curiosity, what kind of experience do you have with the Cirrus (hours and types of flying etc)?

-Neal

You make some pretty big blanket statements there. I know Cirrus owners who would never own a Beechcraft and vice versa. If I had a $250k budget and only wanted a 4 place airplane it would be a difficult decision given the fact that $250k buys you a much newer SR22 (2006 GTS with less than 600 hours TT) than a F33/V35 and that SR22 will have a glass cockpit, TKS, CMAX/EMAX, Skywatch, etc. Again, it all depends what is important to you and where you want to spend your money. I've seen people sh-t all over the Cirrus on this board and it is somewhat disconcerting, especially when most have never flown/operated the airplane and even more so, do not appreciate what Cirrus has done for the general aviation industry as a whole.

-Neal

Sure. See below. And before I go on, how much real life experience do you have with the SR22 Yves? I don't mean anecdotal experience but real life butt in the seat experience?

But here's the bottomline...I just don't see the point of people going over to another enthusiast's forum to stir sh-t up just for the sake of stirring sh-t up. It is unproductive in my view and only further serves to divide pilots when at the end of the day, we all share a love/passion for flying (whether its a Cirrus, a Bonanza, or a new LSA).

* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?

Depreciation is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, if you bought a 2006 GTS brand new you might be a little miffed at its rate of depreciation. You also might have gained a ton of tax advantages in the process. Moreover, for the buyer of that 2006 GTS in today's market, what does he care what the previous owner paid for it when he picked it up from the factory? I am advising a gentleman right now who is staring at a 2006 SR22 GTS with 500 hours for $240,000. He hasn't pulled the trigger but the offer is on the table. Keep in mind this plane is 3 years old, hangared, in stellar shape, TKS, Skywatch, CMAX/EMAX, Avidyne, XM datalink WX, etc. Not bad for $240,000. And I doubt it will depreciate another $150,000 over the next 3 years. Seems like quite a value. What kind of F33 does $240,000 get you today? A really nice one...with updated avionics, new paint/interior, etc...but it is also 16 years older or so.

* Insurance rates are higher on a Cirrus than on a Bonanza, Mooney or Cessna Corvallis

Are they? I don't know. There are insurance people who participate on this board so I will defer to them. That said, what kind of Bonanza's are you comparing those Cirrus rates to? Are they apples to apples with the same hull value? Without a true apples to apples comparison a claim like you make does not make sense to me.

* Sidestick always needs trimming

I don't know about "always" but given the cooly hat switch it isn't a terribly difficult ordeal. Many airplanes constantly require trimming. Flown properly, that King Air that you love so much will most likely require a rudder trim change with every power change. I flew the Brasilia for a year and literally every single time we touched the power levers we immediately went for the rudder trim as well.

* Lack of a prop rpm lever (10% waste of fuel)

I would have preferred to see a prop lever as well but with that said, you ARE aware of the fact that if you move the power lever just aft of full forward the governor will reduce the prop from 2700 RPM to 2500 RPM right?

* Noisy cockpit

I don't recall it being all that noisy...not any more so than a Bonanza.

* Cirrus airframe limit is 15.000 hours ( I rather have a plane with a non-life limit)

The last I was told on this subject is that Cirrus and the FAA are working to get this limit rescinded entirely but before they can do it they need some operating data and history.

* A cirrus wing with ice up drops the speed much more than the same type of laminar wing than on a mooney

I've flown both the Cirrus and the Mooney in ice and I don't recall one icing up any more than the other. That said, it is possible that the Cirrus does accumulate ice faster but I don't know. What qualitative and quantitative data are you basing this bullet point on Yves? Do you have a verified source and not just a "I heard from so and so?"

* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside

I've flown several >400 hour SR22's and they looked just fine. I think the fit and finish of the G36 is definitely nicer than that of the SR22 however. But I don't think that a well maintained and cared for SR22 will look "beat up" after only 400 hours. Again, is this based on one or two airplanes you've seen or twenty of them?

* Aviation consumer : "The cirrus accident record can be summed in a single word: disapointing" The fleetwide fatal rate for Cirrus is 2.2/100.000 compared to a GA fatal rate of 1.2/100.000 according tot he NTSB

I don't think this has that much to do with any flaws in the airplane as much as it does with the fact that less experienced pilots were flying them. The V-Tailed Doctor Killer reference comes to mind. It is no secret that the legacy of Cirrus' incredible marketing/sales job is that less experienced pilots were operating these aircraft and most definitely got themselves into situations beyond their experience level.

* Financial status of Cirrus

The Cirrus CEO commented just the other day that they are in good financial health and should be profitable in 2010.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... -aircraft/

* no nosewheel steering: A lot of lost of control accidents on the grond/landing, problems with ground steering in high winds (according to some cirrus pilots)

I've never had a problem with the airplane in the landing/taxi phases of flight. Nor have I had any sort of issue with its nosewheel system. As a matter of fact, once you figure it out and get comfortable with it, you actually have more flexibility in my view since you can spin it around in a very tight radius (similar to a taildragger).

* wet tanks: high post crash fire

I can't comment on this point as I don't have any experience or knowledge here but can you qualify your statement?

* Cirrus stats : http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=933&WT.mc_ ... _sect=blog It seems to be that the high fatality rate is NOT because pilots have low expierence.

This blog makes some interesting comments. Here is one:

“Only two pilots in a Cirrus fatal accident had less than 150 hours total time,” Beach said. “One of them was (the late New York Yankees pitcher) Cory Lidle, who had an instructor in the right seat during the accident.” (The other took place off the coast of France under unknown conditions.) Pilots with more than 400 hours total time accounted for 33 of 44 fatal Cirrus accidents where pilot experience was reported.

Sorry, but 150 hours isn't the magic cutoff for "low time." Most studies have shown that pilots with more than 400 hours and less than 2000 hours are the riskiest subset of pilots. Moreover, 400 to 1000 hours just isn't a whole lot of time in my opinion, especially if part or most of it is within 100 miles of one's home base in VMC conditions.

That blog goes on to confirm what I said above - that pilot error is by far the largest cause of accidents with the Cirrus and it isn't the airplane itself.

Here is another interesting blurb from the blog:

Part of the reason active COPA members have a better record is that they are more likely to use the airframe parachutes that all Cirrus aircraft carry as standard equipment. There have been 20 parachute deployments in Cirrus aircraft in the last decade, and 17 of them were successful in saving the lives of 35 people aboard those airplanes.

During the same period, there were 55 fatal Cirrus accidents where the airframe parachute wasn’t deployed. In examining those scenarios, Beach estimates more than half (30) had “a high or good probability of success if the pilot would have pulled the (parachute) handle.”

The parachute function of the aircraft saved lives. That, to me, is a big deal. We had a Cirrus go down right near me in the Hudson River. The pilot had a seizure and died. His son pulled the parachute and as a result, he, his sister, and his mother all survived. It was an incredible story. They most likely would have died in any other small airplane.

Now since you asked me to go line by line with your points above, can you do the same with my counter-points? Thanks

-Neal

Just to muddle things up, I thought I would add comments to some of the Neal - Yvés back and forth. I fly a 2008 SR22T for a customer who I tried to convince to buy a G36. I now have about 100 hours in the Cirrus.



The first Bonanzas did not have nose wheel steering and some very experienced pilots that have flown them prefer it to nose wheel steering. It is much lighter and the airplane can be turned easily. Using nose wheel steering to hold the airplane on a straight course in high crosswinds is considered bad pilot technique and suggests the pilot doesn't know the proper application of the ailerons which do a better job.

But John, what's your experience worth against religiously held beliefs ?

I have my own doubts about some aspects of the Cirrus phenomenon, mostly with their marketing claims and the survivability of low-speed accidents, but the repetitive bashing of the brand without much fact to support it is tiring.

Couple of comments:
- Castoring nosewheels: The Grumman line and the DA40 have the same, don't hear much about them loosing control on landing or takeoff.
- Depreciation: The rock-bottom prices on fairly current Cirri are not the result of the aircraft being inferior, they are simply a function of the tax code and the real-estate and stock market (that fund new aircraft acquisitions) conspiring to create the current glut.
- Cirrus finances: Luckily, they are privately held and don't have to tell us . They where aggressive in shedding cost last year (including stopping payment of rent on some of their production facilities and furloughing most of their workforce), any classic highly unionized aircraft manufacturer would indeed be out of business by now. Mooney has gone bankrupt thrice, their planes are still flying, while it is nice to have continuity, in the company, it is not a necessity for an existing fleet.

For the record, my interest is in better aviation for all. I share Neal's view that we are all aviation enthusiasts and should encourage that passion. I think it is important to note that a source of knowledge that most everyone on this forum universally respects, Tornado Alley, promotes products and systems for both brands, Cirrus and Beechcraft. In fact, they are working to create a better Cirrus using their improvements that will be branded like a Colemill conversion. Hopefully, they will offer their highly regarded TN system for Barons in the near future and not abandon the Beechcraft line as a relic of glory years gone by. Perhaps this is a germane point to keep in mind for those of us who are biased for our brand and who have to keep this candle burning or fall into history as the ancient aluminum aviators.

I did not want to go to the COPA sight to "stir up sh**," but to legitimately ask knowledgeable pilots there for their perspective on the aspects of aviation that are important to our safety. Perhaps it would be difficult to get a experienced response about these questions at Beechtalk and I am certainly ignorant about all things Cirrus. Are there advantages to their brand that we can bring to our fleet? Is anyone at Hawker Beechcraft listening or cares about personal aviation? How does a Cirrus advocate respond to my challenging questions about composite construction and laminar wings? Discourse is usually healthy as evidenced by the lively discussions/threads that we all enjoy amongst the group on this site. Hopefully, it doesn't have to be rude or angry, but rooted in the facts and physics that most pilots use to guard themselves against the high levels of risk associated with hurtling 200+ miles per hour across forbidding terrain.

It might be risky to assert here, but I am sure that Beechtalker's probably do not have a monopoly on truth. I would assert though, that in my opinion we have a larger share of it than other brands.

Cirrus Vs. Beechcraft Bonanza...what a great topic! That is why I love this forum, it gets the expression of opinions, and shows the passion we each have for aviation. I read comments about the side stick controller, which I believe is a contributing factor to some of these crashes. It is a short throw control column, that has to be labeled with a pointer to show you were neutral is, need I need to add anything more? I thought Boeing went with the standard configuration for the flight control “stick”? Nonetheless, the sidestick controller is a software input device, that takes the parameters of stick deflection force, and COMPUTES what the airplane will do. I have the opinion regarding a side stick, when I see high time commercial/ATP pilots killed...and wonder what happened???

It is true, I have not flown a Cirrus, but I have flight time in most single engine airplanes, just mention it and I probably have flown it. As a flight instructor who conducts flight training in high performance singes for insurance qualifications, I can and have opinions. Piper Malibu Mirage, Turbo Saratoga, T-Tail Turbo Lance, Tri-pacer, Warrior, Archer II, Turbo Arrow III, Beech Sierra, Skipper, B35's, A36, B36TC, Cessna 172, 182G1000, T206H G1000, P210, Cutlass, T182RG, Diamond DA40XL, Mooney M20C, M20J, Bellanca Super Viking, Grumman AA1A/C, AA5A Cheetah/Traveler, AA5B Tiger...I enjoyed them all! I am not talking about taking a ride in these airplanes, I have more than a few hours in each, most with at least 300 to 400 hours.

So, let me have an opinion as all around, the Beechcraft Bonanza is the most versatile airplane in the fleet. First, I really enjoy the solid feel of the flight controls, as the control yoke feels right to me. The A36 in the only airplane I know of, that you can fly off a grass strip, and still have a respectable cruise. The Cessna Centurion is a load hauler, but not that much fun to fly around, as it is heavy on the controls, but one stable airplane for sure! The T206H with the Lyc. IO-540 is a thirsty engine, around 20 gph 50 degrees rich on the TIT per book, but manages 160 knots between 10,000 – 12,000 feet. However, the back seat isn't that large, and with that fuel burn, your useful load lugging 89 gallons around isn't what you would think from a fixed gear single.

Want to talk about the Malibu Mirage? I flew approximately 450 hours in 2 years with a 1999 PA-46, and had a love/hate relationship with the airplane. First, 120 gallons of fuel was ummm, necessary! The airplane would never operate out of a grass strip, and at a gross weight of 4,350 lbs on a single, it wasn't the fasted airplane to rotation speed. You never wanted to fy the airplane below 10,000 feet, as you would true out at 150 knots below 7,000 and you still had to feed the engine about 20.5 gallons per hour. Yes, the engine ran cooler, but to get the most out of that fast fuselage, you needed to be above 14,000 feet. Climbing, you had to maintain 125 knots to keep the engine cool, on a fuel burn of 34 gallons per our. That would give you about 700 feet per minute, so you would consume about 15 to 20 gallons to get to altitude. A fuel imbalance of 10 gallons meant switching tanks during the climb, and I would always figure that once at altitude, I had 100 gallons to use at cruise. At 17,000 feet, I could manage engine temperatures at 360 to 370 degrees CHT, and 21 to 22 gallons per hour to maintain those temps. True airspeed at that altitude was 180 to 185 knots, depending on the OAT, but at ISA I would manage 185 knots. Very roomy cabin, quiet and air conditioned! Oh, and certified known icing, although I would collect ice and it would degrade performance enough that I would avoid ice at all cost!

The Turbo Saratoga was a nice airplane, and the one I flew had TKS and the Avidyne panel. I like the Avidyne over the G1000 in some ways, a little more intuitive although the G1000 with the GFC 700 does an amazing job, as it is an integrated digital autopilot that a computer nerd could look like a better pilot than the actual pilot. The Saratoga offered more load flexibility as far as CG range, and the club seating, although not the most leg room, the wide cabin made it a comfortable place to conference or recline and enjoy the scenery. I would see 170 knots at 10,000 – 12,000 feet, on a fuel burn of 18 gph and a happy engine. The turbo T-tail Lance was another issue, as it was the scariest airplane I have every flown! You would be going down the runway at 70 knots, trying to get the nose wheel off the ground, meanwhile the direct steering would engage/disengage, so weaving while trying to rotate the airplane and get it airborne was something else!

The Bonanza seems to be the most honest flying airplane that I have experienced, and if I were to win a $200 million, it would be my personal airplane that I would take everywhere. It just has an honest feel to it, good performance, carries ice like you wouldn't believe (fat NACA 2312 airfoil), and is a fun airplane to fly. It is the all around great flying airplane, that is comfortable and a high performance airplane that, although designed in 1945, still has a competitive advantage over many other airplanes.

Absolutely you can price this airplane with the Cirrus, and I would bet "your paycheck " on it! Since the design cost and tooling has been paid for many times over, and if you outsourced the airframe/wing assembly, you could hit the price right on. Think about it in a comparitive analysis using interpolated data. An RV10 kit, all aluminum and a little smaller, can be bought for approx. $40,000 + new Cont. IO-550 $60,000 FADEC???, interior, etc. + Garmin G1000/GFC 700 A.P. at $200,000 + average profit of $70,000 and 1,000 hours labor @ 100/per hour = $470,000 Not too far off?

Can you tell I have been trapped in a snowstorm? Opinions Welcome, and Merry Christmas to all subscribers to this site!

An acquaintance of mine, a 100 hr. 50 year old new pilot was talking about buying a new Cirrus SR20 at that time. I prodded him to look at an A36 even though I had never flown one then. His question to me (a 20 year Mooney driver then), why would anyone not buy a brand new, composite, state of the art design as opposed to a 10-15 yr. old Bonanza? Looking back, he answered his own question. Buying a well equipped A36 (The greatest single engine airplane ever built and made better by TAT) for half price of a new Cirrus??? No question for me, but it takes all kinds to fill the freeways, errr I mean skies. Oh BTW he did'nt buy either one, just wanted to argue and I'm always willing to oblige on that front. Ed

I gotta agree with most of what you wrote except that the "side-stick" in a Cirrus is definitely not "short throw", the movement from full up to full down elevator is about the same as a Bonanza yoke. I had no trouble at all adapting to the flight controls of a SR-22, it feels a lot like a wheel held by one hand except that there's no up/down motion when you tilt it for roll. The one thing I didn't like at all is the electric trim which is nearly impossible to set precisely. Many high time Cirrus pilots will tell you the only way to set the trim accurately is to turn on the autopilot and let the auto trim do it.

While I hesitate to add fuel to the fire here, the value for the used Cirruses is getting pretty attractive even to someone looking at buying an A36.

Take these two planes for example (similar price, similar useful load)

2003 Cirrus SR-22
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 154884.htm

1983 Bonanza A36
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 154060.htm

I agree with the comments about depreciation, I'd hate to be selling a Cirrus right now if I paid full retail price for it a few years ago. However when it comes to buying used, there seem to be some really good values. The build quality and extra cargo space (assuming the back 2 seats are out) favor the A36 but the Cirrus is more comfortable for 4 passengers (wider cabin and better headroom for me), it has the parachute (of minimal value to me flying over the midwest but more attractive when in Colorado or NM) and its 20 years newer at the same price (its also slightly faster).

Is anyone else out there going through a similar comparison? I'm still favoring the A36 but the margin narrows every time another $10K to $20K comes off the Cirrus values.

2 in the back of the Cirrus is not as comfortable as 2 in the back of the Bo.

I've got 150 hours flying the SR22. The pilot seat and controls are very comfortable. Wouldn't say they are "more" comfortable than my Bo but they certainly aren't less comfortable. It's probably just personal preference.

Some things I like better about the SR22, some things I like better about the Bo.

I think the SR22 is a great design. I do not feel the airframe is built to last like the Bo is. I do not think you'll ever see 10 and 20 year old SR22's. Had they made them of metal I may have bought one.

The composite airframe is my only gripe with the SR22. Nobody will ever be able to convince me it's better than aluminum.

Before I decided on an A36 I was also considering Cirrus (Cirri?) and Columbias. What I found interesting is that these "state of the art" composite airplanes often had less than 500 lbs of payload with full fuel. I'm not drinking the composite koolaid that it allows a lighter airplane for any given strength. Here you have a 30-year old aluminum airplane with the extra weight of its retractable gear that carries 4 real people compared to a new composite airplane with fixed gear that only carries 2 real people. You would think composite technology would allow these companies to deliver a true 6-place airplane using the same powerplant, not true 2-place airplanes.

While researching the plastic airplanes I also heard some horror stories in terms of dispatch rates. I think most of this has to do with a young design and these rates will eventually improve for both companies.

I give Cirrus a lot of credit for their marketing efforts. Their marketing department has convinced a lot of people that they "must own" a product that is certainly not superior.

A low full fuel payload by itself isn't indicative of inadequacy, it may just be the result of the design's greater flexibility in terms of range vs payload. A better measure would be the payload with enough fuel to fly a specific distance or time (e.g. three hours plus reserves since many pax don't like to sit longer than that). It certainly makes no sense to penalize a design just because it offers the option of carrying enough fuel to fly for 7 hours with full tanks.

A low full fuel payload by itself isn't indicative of inadequacy, it may just be the result of the design's greater flexibility in terms of range vs payload. A better measure would be the payload with enough fuel to fly a specific distance or time (e.g. three hours plus reserves since many pax don't like to sit longer than that). It certainly makes no sense to penalize a design just because it offers the option of carrying enough fuel to fly for 7 hours with full tanks.