I think the parachute was intended to sell more airplanes... so potential customer would have his wife's approval. That was certainly true in my case.

I don't have any issues with Cirrus or flying time in them, but it is interesting to see the responses. I like my Baby Doll, and started this thread only after having seen the internals up close at TAT. I must admit it is amusing to poke fun with the Clorox bottle stuff, but this is just smack. I wonder if anyone is going to the APS seminar at the Cirrus Migration in Dayton and has the cojones to talk smack at that crowd.

It can't be that terrible of an airplane if Tim and George at TAT are considering selling a refurbished upgrade version. Or maybe that is just a good market with a lot of planes.

Kelly,
You love your airplane -- otherwise it wouldn't be named "Baby Doll".

I can guarantee you that those Cirrus owners love their planes just as much as you love yours. That's just life in the airplane owner's world...

Would these people be the equivalent of "Birthers" in the aviation world?

As I understand it, Alan had a mid-air collision years ago.

He survived, but I think the other plane resulted in at least on death. I don't have the details.

I think this was the motivation for the parachute. His thought was that you should have one more option.

Would these people be the equivalent of "Birthers" in the aviation world?

I'll hunt around and see if I can find an article substantiating this, but my recollection is that the Cirrus never went through the type of spin testing required for other Part 23 airplanes because the chute was approved by the FAA as an acceptable means of spin recovery. So it's not a matter of the Cirrus having failed the spin test and therefore adding the chute, but rather the Cirrus starting with the chute and threfore never being subjected to the spin test. Correct?

Right. The parachute represents an "equivalent level of safety".


From the source of all knowledge (Wikipedia: )
"Cirrus is the first manufacturer to receive FAA certification for production aircraft with ballistic parachute systems. With the NASA-developed spin resistant wing, the parachute system was accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration as an equivalent level of safety and complete spin testing was not required by the FAA."

Here's the Type Certificate Data Sheet:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/0e89bd1a6ab4916c8625745d0047b84c/$FILE/A00009CH.pdf

I am not a Cirrus hater, think the chute is pretty clever, and seriously considered buying one, but it's lack of demonstrated ability to aerodynamically recover from a spin was a big factor in my never quite being comfortable with the idea of owning one. Just sayin'...

Subsequently, in order to obtain some international certifications, the planes where put through a standard spin testing regime and found to be recoverable by conventional means.

Drew,
I never did spin my SR22, but I know guys who did....successfully recovering...

The only spins I've ever done were in a C-152 during my commercial training. I liked having the parachute as an option, since years went by without practicing spin recovery. I think for many of us, surprised and shocked and disoriented if we actually found ourselves in an inadvertant spin, it may be easier to pull that little red handle than to try to do an actual recovery. The accident statistics are full of inadvertant spins that result in contact with the ground...

On the other hand, in 24 years of flying, I've never entered an un-planned spin, so who knows...

After four pages of messages - - so far nobody has ever yet really focused on the issue that drove the Cirrus spin /design philosophy.

The data.

The data.

The data.

The data shows that virtually all ( 98% or more, I think) of the fatal stall/spin accidents happen at an altitude that is too low for a recovery -- even if one is promptly attempted by a good pilot in an aircraft that fully meets the FAA spin recovery requirements. The classic is the spin over the top on the base to final turn at 500 feet.

Now think about that fact.

What the devil is accomplished by going to extraordinary lengths to make the airplane recover with a loss of "only" 800 feet from a one turn inadvertent spin - - - that starts at 750 feet AGL ?

After you become "one" with the significance of those realities - - then please give Alan and Dale a nice tip of the hat for forcing this issue to the front of the certification table at the FAA.

And, not for the first time, the FAA did something very rational. They looked at the data.

And the obvious then became the reality. It is MORE important to design an airframe that has characteristics that make it harder to GET INTO A SPIN than it is to desgin an airplane that is easy to recover from a spin. And the later activity often makes the airplane easier to spin in the first place !!!!

That is why the Cirrus wing has the staggered leading edge.

NOTICE - - what was NOT mentioned in all of that discussion ?

Why? Because it is really not related to that issue, is it ?

Regards, George

PS> Can somebody tell me how the Baron does on spin recoveries? Are they good airplanes ?

Can't add data on the Cirrus/Bonanza comparison, but I can tell you how I thought a pretty new GT Cirrus flew, and compare it to the A36 I also fly. The Cirrus was owned by a partnership that was shedding one partner, and I was a candidate to fill his shoes. So off we went.
First, at comparable loadings (percent MGW), the Cirrus demanded a lot more runway before it felt motivated to fly. The Bonanza can feel like that when compared to another airplane I fly a lot, a Navion, but the Cirrus was noticeably worse. I would say that at comparable percent loads, the difference was about the same as a Bonanza with and without takeoff flaps. The Cirrus plodded along fgor quite a while. The Bonanza quickle becomes light on its feet.
Second, in the air, the controls did not feel well-harmonized (this is something the Bonanza is justifiably famous for). In particular, pitch was quite sensitive and roll was heavy. The trim setup- a single "coolie hat" switch on top of the side yoke, made operation kind of hit or miss (for me...this might improve with time). In the air, the Cirrus felt more directionaly stable (and also heavier on the controls). In turbulence, ditto. No Dutch roll, no tail wag. Approaches in the Cirrus were flatter, the flaps obviously less authoritative. I felt the Cirrus flew more like a Mooney than anything. For strict A to B travel, probably all that would be OK, and the cosmic situational awareness from all that glass certainly was interesting. But I think fun should enter into the picture, and I did not find the Cirrus fun to fly. The Bonanza? Definitely.
Robin White

I've noticed a trend with Cirrus', or probably better stated a few Cirrus pilots based on an admittedly limited handful of incidents. In 30 years of going to the airport several times a week I've found the majority of pilots to have situational awareness for the most part and a basic sense of common decency. Of the few times I've have my airplane get the crap beat out of it in a public parking area such as in the tie downs at an airport restaurant there is a common theme. This always seems to happen when somebody starts up their Cirrus in their parking spot, warms up their engine, then goes about getting a clearance, and then finally adding even more power to taxi from their parking spot. Then these types will seldom make a full 90 degree turn into the taxi way between the parking spots stopping short with their tail now pointed at yet another airplane. Now this airplane starts hopping and beating against its tiedown chains while the Cirrus pilot goes about his business. When I used to fly my RV this made me crazy because it was very light and the ailerons and rudder would slam against their stops. This made me very aware of the trend and I watched over my airplane like a hawk if there was a Cirrus parked on the same ramp.

At home I have another, but similar observation. My hanger is very near the compass rose and if there is a pilot that is going to give my hanger a good blasting, well you guessed it. I find myself wondering if these guys have any idea that they are being so rude and disrespectful of other peoples airplanes. I'm beginning to think that Cirrus somehow lures these few bad apples to their brand.

Have any of you noticed anything similar?

The data since certification would indicate that the safety record of the type isn't any better than the legacy airframes and that motivated pilots will manage to fly the 'spin resistant' Cirrus wing right into unrecoverable situations at low altitudes.

George,

I think your points are all valid. I don't think Cirrus' approach to spin testing makes it a bad airplane - it's just not something I'm comfortable with. I do think Cirrus has been very creative and that their creativity had alot to do with the GA revival of 98-08. Before we bought our Bo, I spent 2.4 hours in an SR22 with an instructor. I was impressed with the airplane's cockpit, and generally like the way it flew, but thought it was squirelly on the runway and in the pattern. So ultimately, I agree with Robin - I didn't go that way at least in part because I just did not enjoy flying it as much as some of the alternatives.

Drew