Written like Cirrus hasn't been delivering airplanes for 18 years. Cirrus isn't the "new kid on the block".

Gerry,

This post is really disappointing. In the first place most of the Cirrus owners I've encountered aren't all that young. Really, if you think about it, that's too bad. There are continual threads here lamenting the paucity of new, young flyers. IF Cirrus were selling to a lot of them wouldn't that be a good thing?

"Prematurely rich"? That just sounds like jealousy at its worst, argumentum ad hominem at best. Disappointing. How does one get to be "prematurely rich"? Is that a thing? A problem? This is America! What difference does it make how long it takes? What's wrong with being rich? Does being young and rich mean you're stupid, fool hardy or a ridiculous risk taker?

Everyone ought to be impressed with the parachute in my opinion.

As for "they will shove off into weather that many of us would not chance in a well equipped pressurized twin"...prove it. There are fools flying all kinds of airplanes. Even well equipped pressurized twins. But anyone who takes Cirrus sponsored training isn't going to do it because they've been led to believe it's safe.

Gerry,

This post is really disappointing. In the first place most of the Cirrus owners I've encountered aren't all that young. Really, if you think about it, that's too bad. There are continual threads here lamenting the paucity of new, young flyers. IF Cirrus were selling to a lot of them wouldn't that be a good thing?

"Prematurely rich"? That just sounds like jealousy at its worst, argumentum ad hominem at best. Disappointing. How does one get to be "prematurely rich"? Is that a thing? A problem? This is America! What difference does it make how long it takes? What's wrong with being rich? Does being young and rich mean you're stupid, fool hardy or a ridiculous risk taker?

Everyone ought to be impressed with the parachute in my opinion.

As for "they will shove off into weather that many of us would not chance in a well equipped pressurized twin"...prove it. There are fools flying all kinds of airplanes. Even well equipped pressurized twins. But anyone who takes Cirrus sponsored training isn't going to do it because they've been led to believe it's safe.

Gerry,

Not taking it personally at all although I did own and fly a Cirrus for a few years. I just thought your post was unnecessarily perjorative. I'm not one of those "prematurely rich guys" either. Whatever financial status I may personally enjoy is the result of over 40 years of hard work. Regardless, I do think that you are wrong about the typical Cirrus buyer, their age, their economic circumstances and their thought processes and actions.

I don't think you can back any of it up with data either (notwithstanding your last post which doesn't even make the effort to prove your original assertion about prematurely rich guys shoving off into weather presumably less rich, older and wiser pilots wouldn't attempt in a well maintained pressurize twin), but I'd like to see you make the effort instead of argumentum ad hominem. I don't speak any Latin at all but the term is well known and is defined as "a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

I agree completely that there is "Lots of room for debate here" but you seem to be as interested in denigrating or marginalizing the owners/operators of the plane as the plane itself. Go right ahead but recognize that it makes any empirical arguments you may care to offer less effective. You're entitled to your opinion, and similar ones have been expressed here endlessly, I just don't care for the way you went about. I've read many of your posts in the past, met you briefly once, and respect you based on that. I think your original post here was disappointing in part because of that respect.

Even the "rich folks airplane forum" has plenty of class warfare. Bizarre

This is bringing me back to the old days. Feels like when I last heard these OWT's Osama Bin Laden was still alive, or maybe even Saddam.

I think that says all we need to know about your credibility on the Cirrus topic.

I didn't read all of this post, but then Jonathan quoted this part.

This is ridiculous. And wrong.

Anyone who has followed the ~1k threads addressing this knows they demonstrated spin recovery in Europe. But I would pull the chute. It's also what the POH says to do.

Second, 1k' is recommended due to reaction time; the demonstrated 1.5 spin recovery was less.

Third, and this is the big one: how many spin recoverable planes are going to recover if spun from pattern altitude? When not expected. With the average, non-acrobatic pilot.

Statistically, I would say none.

How many CAPS saves from pattern altitude. Several.

A lot of room for debate? Only if you're arguing from extreme bias.

Gerry,

Not taking it personally at all although I did own and fly a Cirrus for a few years. I just thought your post was unnecessarily perjorative. I'm not one of those "prematurely rich guys" either. Whatever financial status I may personally enjoy is the result of over 40 years of hard work. Regardless, I do think that you are wrong about the typical Cirrus buyer, their age, their economic circumstances and their thought processes and actions.

I don't think you can back any of it up with data either (notwithstanding your last post which doesn't even make the effort to prove your original assertion about prematurely rich guys shoving off into weather presumably less rich, older and wiser pilots wouldn't attempt in a well maintained pressurize twin), but I'd like to see you make the effort instead of argumentum ad hominem. I don't speak any Latin at all but the term is well known and is defined as "a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

I agree completely that there is "Lots of room for debate here" but you seem to be as interested in denigrating or marginalizing the owners/operators of the plane as the plane itself. Go right ahead but recognize that it makes any empirical arguments you may care to offer less effective. You're entitled to your opinion, and similar ones have been expressed here endlessly, I just don't care for the way you went about. I've read many of your posts in the past, met you briefly once, and respect you based on that. I think your original post here was disappointing in part because of that respect.

I think someone once told me that jealousy is a sin and no one is without sin. Not religious; but the shoe seems to fit.

When did this occur?

Just goes to show everything is relative. We're mostly all paupers compared to a select group who are out there buying his and hers G650s for personal use. There have been interesting recent studies where people with $100M net worths are not considering themselves as rich/wealthy/far out on the right side of the curve as they actually are.

I've never understood begrudging someone for being successful in and of itself, even when I was younger and totally broke (now I'm a bit older and slightly less broke). I thought this was one of the "good things" about being American, which I always equated with being an aspiration-oriented culture across social strata, but it seems like I'm living in 1980s Sweden right now or something (no offense Adam / Swedes, it's perhaps an old worn out socialist stereotype).

I've spent almost all my money on sports cars and flying, the rest I've wasted!

Even at $100m net worth it’s not hard to find people with 100x your wealth. Weird world

In my experience dealing with UHNW folks it is primarily significant cash flow that creates the “feeling” of wealth, not so much net worth. The reason? With the exception of those that have cashed out, most people with that level of net worth have the preponderance of their assets in closely held businesses or stock in public companies that pay little/no dividends (think tech). The cash flow stemming from assets of this nature are typically limited to salary/bonuses in the former, or small dividends and various forms of debt-based monetization in the latter. Suffice to say, the concept of “feeling wealthy” is pretty subjective. A fun question to ask people is how much would they need to have to consider themselves “rich”…be prepared for a wide range of answers.