My MU2 can do both these flights in the same time, carrying more cabin load, and burn far less fuel.

The KEGE to KGGG flight was with 30-40 knot tailwinds, take that into account when looking at the results.

Mike C.

Wait, what? SR22 easiest plane to fly. Didn’t they have to come up with special training much like the MU2 because guys were killing themselves in Cirrus planes?

The wing stalls and you can’t recover. You need a chute because of the horrible wing design. But you say it’s the easiest to fly? Come on.

Mike

Mike, I've flown at least 80 different types of planes, from Grumman AA1's to Cheyenne 400's, and the Cirrus is no different that most. It is easy to fly, it doesn't really stall, it just mushes like a Cherokee, but, it is fully controllable due to the outboard wing cuffs. Unlike most others, which stall abruptly, or drop a wing, like all single engine Cessnas ever built.

The "special" Cirrus training is 90 percent on the advanced avionics systems that few competing airplanes have.

There are plenty of safe and successful Cirrus pilots that have started from scratch in brand new SR22T planes. I personally know at least six who have done it in the last eight years.

The wing stalls and you can't recover? Absolute nonsense. The chute is not a band aid for poor handling, it is a safety device added as part of the design due to the Alan Klapmeier's experience of a mid air collision, as told by Dale Klapmeier:

"In 1985 my brother Alan had a mid-air collision. The other airplane’s wing was severed from the fuselage and the pilot tragically died in the crash. Alan’s airplane lost a big chunk of its wing, including half of the aileron, making it almost impossible to control. He was able to get it back to the airport by keeping the speed very high – about 140 KIAS – and using full aileron deflection, but even with that configuration he was still in a turn at touchdown."

In fact, the Cirrus has been tested to prove its' spin resistant characteristics, it was demonstrated to be fully recoverable using conventional techniques.

"The FAA also determined, as stated in the ELOS, that the probability of high altitude loss of control is very
low. In the event that control is lost, the CAPS system provides an effective means to protect the occupants.
The departure resistance aspects of the ELOS are primary, but the presence of the CAPS system is an
additional risk mitigating feature due to its ability to recover the aircraft in less than 1000 feet.
In its presentation to the JAA Sectorial Team on February 26, 2003, the FAA re-stated its philosophy. The
primary focus is to prevent departure from controlled flight / spin entry, through three aspects.
• First, the FAA found that the enhanced stall handling characteristics are based on the intent of the spin
resistance requirements.
• Second, the FAA found that the improved departure resistance addresses the real issue driving the
accident rate – inadvertent departure from controlled flight – and that this supports the US Department
Of Transportation’s safety mandate.
• Third, the FAA concluded that the Cirrus wing treatment and handling characteristics are parallel to
NASA research.
The FAA’s secondary focus of addressing these accidents is the low altitude departure recovery being possible
using the CAPS system, The FAA noted that the CAPS system recovers the airplane in the same or less
altitude than airplanes in the same class take to recover from the one-turn spin requirement of sec. 23.221. The
FAA saw the stall handling characteristics providing the ability to recover from a stall without losing control
or entering a spin, and the CAPS system as a second line of defense. "

https://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/mi ... report.pdf

I went to fly a SR22 while i had my Turbo Saratoga. They said oh no you need lots of special training. So back then they figured it was not that simple. Could not imagine it would be any more difficult than any other complex high performance plane. But the Cirrus dealer and rental places sure thought it needed special training. With that I figured if it was that special maybe I didn't want to fly it. LOL

Never really messed with one after that, only sat in one the day I was told I was not well enough trained to fly it.

Mike

Michael,
You are repeating the usual Cirrus hater/envy….I never flown one talk

Docile….Easy to fly….Benign in stall….relatively quiet cabin (fer a piston)

If I still had mine I would take you up to change your mind in short order.

She recovers from a spin just fine….I was horsN around a bit too
Much

NOT a pure pilot’s airplane….granted…and way too many Cirrus have been kilt by their passenger

A great traveling airplane

One more thing…

Stress of engine failure during cruise…Is….Just….NIL

As compared to a turboprop:

Requires type rating.

Requires yearly checkride.

Requires more runway generally.

Requires runway friction. This sometimes prevents use on wet, snowy, or icy runways.

Significant residual idle thrust.

Higher landing, parking fees.

A lot more fuel burn for turboprop altitudes.

Poor airframe layouts for single engine jets, no good place to put the engine.

High cost of engine maintenance (Williams requires engine program at $165/hour for example).

Mike C.

Now, about engine failure just after takeoff...

Mike C.

Cirrus said it was required for spin recovery, which is kind of poor handling.

They did this to make sure the chute was essential equipment.

We all know from later testing this wasn't really true, the SR series recovers from spins just fine without it.

Oddly enough, for the SF50, Cirrus made the opposite argument, the chute had no certification requirements at all, thus they were excused from some testing of it.

It really isn't a consistent message for the SR to require the chute for handling, then show it doesn't need it, and then say the SF doesn't require the chute.

Mike C.

Why do you think airframe failure slows a plane down?

If the wings fall off, the plane goes very fast!

A mid air or structural failure in an SF might be excruciating waiting those 30 seconds before the chute finally comes out.

One also has to wonder what happens if the chute control system is borked and the 30 seconds timer isn't working. How is that truly tested?

Mike C.

I would suspect that the chances of survival after an engine failure in a Vision Jet are significantly higher than that of an engine failure in an MU-2.

I cannot imagine that is the case. MU2 flies fine on one engine. Quite good in fact. Neither flies well on no engines.

Mu2, and pretty much all twin tprops don’t seem to have lots of accidents bc of engine failing. Mostly LOC and or other stupid pilot tricks.

My guess is Cirrus Jet will have good safety record bc it is simple and requires type rating. I actually think the type rating is an advantage over SETP, helps ensure you are competent enough to fly it. It also has envelope protection which I have a feeling will help it significantly over that long term accident rate wise.

Cirrus said it was required for spin recovery, which is kind of poor handling.

They did this to make sure the chute was essential equipment.

We all know from later testing this wasn't really true, the SR series recovers from spins just fine without it.

Oddly enough, for the SF50, Cirrus made the opposite argument, the chute had no certification requirements at all, thus they were excused from some testing of it.

It really isn't a consistent message for the SR to require the chute for handling, then show it doesn't need it, and then say the SF doesn't require the chute.

Mike C.

Glad to see the BT community still hates Cirrus aircraft. I bet Diamond aircraft are glad they aren’t as popular with their new models to be such a “target”. Obviously Cirrus has caused quite a stir in the marketplace. Remind me again who has sold the most certified airplanes designed in the last 25 years…..

Time to beat a new drum. Some of you guys need to go fly more.

Peace,
Don

Not really true.

The process of getting the ELOS (equivalent level of safety) for using the chute for spin recovery was far more involved than testing spin recovery. So it would be stupid to do this for task reduction. It was done to make sure the chute was a necessary thing to maintain airworthiness. This prevents, say, an STC to remove it.

Further, chute testing results in the destruction of an airframe whereas spin testing does not.


Which was no great effort.


This is revisionist history.

Cirrus only got the chute excused from testing at the VERY END of the certification process, literally just a few months before the type certificate was issued, when things started to get difficult to keep the chute as a required airworthiness element. If your reasoning applied, they would have applied for the special condition at the start.

Mike C.

More people have died in a Cirrus than any other airplane designed in the last 25 years.

Faith in the chute kills people.

The extra pilot training started in 2012 lowers that faith and saves lives.

Once again, it has been proven that pilot training is by far the best safety strategy over anything else you can do.

The chute on an SF50 will be used extremely rarely due to high training requirements for the pilot. In the end, this will mean it will save very few lives, perhaps zero.

Mike C.