Any of you fly yourself? Was thinking of a Cirrus SR22
AviationPlanes, Private Charters, Flight Lessons, and more
Welcome to 6SpeedOnline.com!
Welcome to 6SpeedOnline.com.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join 6SpeedOnline.com today!
The SR22 is certainly an excellent plane, I've wanted one myself for some time. (Though lately I've been lusting after a turbocharged Glasair III a friend has)
I'd say it's probably a bit much of a plane to get started with. In fact, I'm not even certain Cirrus will sell you one directly unless you have a decent amount of flight time. I know they include several hours of instruction and checkout time on every aircraft they sell.
A 182 would be a better choice. And that said, you'd be better off renting until you have some hours under your belt, as you won't have to eat the insurance costs, and if something less than pleasant should happen, well, it's not your plane. It will also make your insurance significantly cheaper when you do buy your own plane.
Edit: Hmm.. dead thread resurrection. Oh well, the advise is still valid for newbies.
The SR22 is certainly an excellent plane, I've wanted one myself for some time. (Though lately I've been lusting after a turbocharged Glasair III a friend has)
I'd say it's probably a bit much of a plane to get started with. In fact, I'm not even certain Cirrus will sell you one directly unless you have a decent amount of flight time. I know they include several hours of instruction and checkout time on every aircraft they sell.
A 182 would be a better choice. And that said, you'd be better off renting until you have some hours under your belt, as you won't have to eat the insurance costs, and if something less than pleasant should happen, well, it's not your plane. It will also make your insurance significantly cheaper when you do buy your own plane.
I've known a number of people that bought and learned in a 22. It can certainly be done, but for instance you're looking at nearly 100 hours of dual time before you can solo in the plane versus +/- 20 hrs dual necessary to solo in a Cessna 172. Cirrus will happily sell you one, and I believe they used to subsidize some of your first year insurance costs if you bought one to learn in (dont think they do anymore).
I learned in a glass panel 172, glad I did, better to beat up on someone else's plane the first few hours
When a pilot purchases a Cirrus with little or no Cirrus time, most insurance companies will require you to take the Cirrus transition course, which takes about three days. I went through it in my 20, then again when I purchased the 22 (great systems refresher and practice). Were I to do it again, I would have bought the 22 instead of stepping up through the SR-20, the 22 is actually a bit easier to fly due to the extra power on tap. You can always just throttle back and go slow.
__________________
Matt
2007 Atom - SOLD, WHAT'S NEXT????
2003 GUMBALL!!!! VETERAN
Have there been enough documented parachute deployments in personal aircraft to derive any form of success rate of deployment and non-secondary factor deaths after deployments? It seems I remember in the news a year or two ago a story about a failed parachute deployment that resulted in the deaths of all aboard the plane. Given the nicknames of the old BeechCraft Bonanzas as "doctor's lawndarts", I've been reticent to pursue any flight instruction beyond a few lessons. If these parachutes are good, I'll learn to fly airplanes.
pretty good records though, 2900 in the air and only 12 crashes in 11 years with one crash being when it was still experimental.
__________________
Big truck, a station wagon and a Mammoth place. Nothing too fancy.
This is what I do.| To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |||||| To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |to email me.
We're dumb, too. Join the Angry myspace posse : To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Have there been enough documented parachute deployments in personal aircraft to derive any form of success rate of deployment and non-secondary factor deaths after deployments? It seems I remember in the news a year or two ago a story about a failed parachute deployment that resulted in the deaths of all aboard the plane. Given the nicknames of the old BeechCraft Bonanzas as "doctor's lawndarts", I've been reticent to pursue any flight instruction beyond a few lessons. If these parachutes are good, I'll learn to fly airplanes.
To answer your question, no, there is just not enough data to have any real statistics, and then each accident is so unique in its situation it is very difficult to generalize.
I didn't buy the Cirrus for the parachute, although I'd rather have it than not! It has certainly saved lives. An architect in Dallas had his plane in for annual inspection (not at his home airport). On the flight home, his aileron failed (was not attached properly by the service center) He lost complete flight control, deployed the chute, and walked away. In almost any other aircraft, this would have been fatal.
It's not going to help you in a very low altitude situation such as a stall/spin coming in for landing, one of the most common fatal general aviation accidents. You really need to be at least 1,500 feet above the ground to have a chance of it saving you.
Ultimately you should not make any flight decisions differently because you have the chute, it's just an extra last resort. I wouldn't think coming down under the chute would be too much fun, considering you're still dropping at 1,700 feet per minute, equivalent to dropping the airplane from 10 feet in the air. That;s fast enough to hurt pretty bad, but slow enough to have plently of time to think about the $400,000+ airplane that is about to be considerably damaged, not to mention whatever it is you will land on top of (no flight control under the chute). If you deploy without a very good reason, you're going to have some 'esplaining to do to the FAA, the insurance company, etc.
I believe the fatal chute deployment accident you are referring to was one in which the chute was deployed at too high a speed, and it effectively just ripped off the airplane. The chute certainly has limitations, even in a situation where it should be deployed.
__________________
Matt
2007 Atom - SOLD, WHAT'S NEXT????
2003 GUMBALL!!!! VETERAN
One of my theories about Lidle's crash is that the chute was deployed in a panic at high speed and it damaged the tail, resulting in the 500 ft/min kamakazi dive/turn.
Still have no idea how that happened with a thousand-plus hour instructor on board.
That is one possible negative to the design-- people yanking on the thing when they've reached "hole to China" area of the envelope-- and not realizing that one can only use it in fairly specific situations.
I think I'd still want one, as it's a little extra insurance should you find yourself in several bad situations in which it'll save your life, but I'm guessing some people think it's a total screwup bandaid, which it isn't.
One of my theories about Lidle's crash is that the chute was deployed in a panic at high speed and it damaged the tail, resulting in the 500 ft/min kamakazi dive/turn.
Still have no idea how that happened with a thousand-plus hour instructor on board.
That is one possible negative to the design-- people yanking on the thing when they've reached "hole to China" area of the envelope-- and not realizing that one can only use it in fairly specific situations.
I think I'd still want one, as it's a little extra insurance should you find yourself in several bad situations in which it'll save your life, but I'm guessing some people think it's a total screwup bandaid, which it isn't.
The following is a great graphic explanation of Lidle's crash. The chute did not deploy prior to the accident; the fire from the crash set off the rocket.
Notice in particular the wind direction in slide 5, which would have increased the radius of a turn in that direction.
Where and under the circumstances they were flying were quite dangerous. Low altitude, low cloud ceilings, narrow area, not talking to air traffic control re: traffic. I along with most pilots like to think that hopefully we would have made different decisions.
__________________
Matt
2007 Atom - SOLD, WHAT'S NEXT????
2003 GUMBALL!!!! VETERAN
Where and under the circumstances they were flying were quite dangerous. Low altitude, low cloud ceilings, narrow area, not talking to air traffic control re: traffic. I along with most pilots like to think that hopefully we would have made different decisions.
Indeed. I can see a sub-100 hour pilot making those mistakes in that sequence, but not an instructor. I've flown the corridor a few times, and typically one asks for clearance from ATC well before starting up the east river, usually in the governor's island area.
It's a damn shame either way, but I'm more than cheesed off at the knee-jerk blame-the-GA-aviators nonsense out of the media which followed.
It will also make your insurance significantly cheaper when you do buy your own plane.
Linear Mode
