Thanks to Chris for giving us some balance here

Composite construction has a lot going for it, which is why it is so commonly used on the new generation of aircraft. It has a wonderful surface and is immensely strong.

I keep wondering to myself if I would buy a composite Bonanza if Beech ever produced one, and I honestly think I'd seriously consider it if I could afford it. I'm guessing it would outperform the metal version.

I'm wondering about construction differences between your starship and the modern composites. I think the modern ones have a foam core, which makes them lighter in weight? This is common construction on composite boats, but has not proved as durable as the old solid, heavy fiberglass.

Isn't there a 10,000 hour airframe limit on the Cirrus? What happens then... plastic doorstop?

There are a ton of Bos and Barons with more than 10k hours still flying...

I don't care what anyone says.

I did 130 hours in an SR22 in 5 months. Is it a great airplane? Yes. Does it rattle and shake and vibrate and feel like a speedboat?? Yes.

I bought a Beech. I've never been happier.

I'm not saying the SR22 is a bad plane. I could've saved $200K if I bought the SR22 instead of the G36.

Isn't there a 10,000 hour airframe limit on the Cirrus? What happens then... plastic doorstop?

There are a ton of Bos and Barons with more than 10k hours still flying...

Chris,

I generally agree with you about composites, and I don't make a habit of throwing them under the bus just for kicks. OTOH, I take exception to both points in the statement above. If the fact is that the airframe is life limited when another comparable airplane's is not, that isn't an unfair or biased. It's just a fact.

To be fair, other composite airplanes like the Diamonds do not share this limit, but then, I don't consider them comparable airplanes either

I haven't a clue if it was raised or not. I would have to look at the TCDS to see if there was an amendment listed or not; irregardless, it is now either 10k or 12k. The fact that it was raised should be viewed as a positive as opposed to a negative at any rate.

Beech wouldn't have a choice if they wanted to certify in Part 23. The law is the law.

Composites certainly have some things going for them. The most obvious is the arbitrary shapes that are possible. That provides a lot of freedom with aerodyamics and styling - which can translate to increased performance and sales.

My experience with composites planes is limited to the DA40. Outside of the "buzzy" sound signature in the cabin, the issue I have with that particular plane is the seats. The seats are molded from composite and feel like a McDonald's booth IMO. If the seats were more flexible then my impression of the plane, at least from a touchy-feely aspect, may be different.

Recyclability is one thing that concerns me about composites. What is the plan for composite planes at end of life? Do they go in landfills or are they designed to be recycled? Based on what I know, it seems that aluminum airframes are more environmentally friendly when looked at from cradle to grave. Then again, composite planes may save enough fuel over their lifespans to beat aluminum from an energy conservation perspective.

I cant imagine sitting on composite formed seats would be all that comfortable -- wow! I didn't know that about the DA40.

With respect to the environmental concern that you have, I can't speak for all composites; but I can tell you what happened to the Starships that were sent to the boneyard. Eventually, they were chopped up into very small pieces -- very small -- and then, those very small pieces were incinerated. I am sure some fumes, ash, etc. made it up into the air, but I haven't felt any effects of that . . . I am sure a few bugs were probably killed in the process . . . <sigh>

Poor bugs!

Perhaps my environmental concern is a symptom of my upbringing. But that's another story

I have a big problem with absolute life limits because I think everything should be replaced or repaired on condition, but in the case of the Cirrus and Cessna x00, the killer for me is the environmental impact. At least when that 58P is tossed on the scrap heap at 12000 hours we can throw the metal in a furnace and reclaim it to produce a brand new airplane. What do we do with the composite structures and all the raw materials and energy tied up in them? Decorate a landfill.

Hope Beech is listening and NEVER attempts to "modernize" their construction. It's fine just the way it is.

I guess I'm still unclear on how it changes the actual utility of the aircraft, regardless of why it's life limited the way it is. To use an extreme example, if there was a regulation passed down tomorrow that limited any aircraft with a V-tail to 10,000 hours total, do you not believe that would affect the utility and the price point of the affected aircraft? That's been my point all along, not that the Cirrus was inherently inferior due to its composite frame.

I understand what you're saying, and I have no doubt you're right in why the limits are what they are. And, for the record, I never said the Cirri were flawed because of the limit. However, their utility is certainly diminished by the limits and the why behind these limits doesn't change the situation one iota.

They DA40 seats are both a positive and a negative. It's a positive in that they're crash rated to (I think) 12Gs. Negative in that they're stationary and uncomfortable. I can't get far enough away from the rudder pedals at 6' 1", for example.

Many people also aren't aware that the DA20 has a structural temperature gauge. Basically, if the airplane gets too hot, that gauge illuminates, and you cannot fly the aircraft. I know that happened last August at the flight school for a few days, though I believe it was the first time they'd ever seen it.