Russ Blow wrote:
First off I have never flown the SR 20 or any Cirrus. I would have to wonder why not go with a modern version of the Cessna T 41 / 172/ 182 as a trainer. The Cirrus has arguably a worse safety record than the Cessna and it is my understanding has some unusual stall characteristics and that spin recovery is implemented by deploying the ballistic chute. However if airspeed is above 133 kts the chute cords may fail which could easily occur if a inexperienced pilot mistook a spiral from a spin and pulled the chute.
Here is a fairly in depth report posted and updated by an owner who is also a ATP and CFII. I took the liberty to post up a few quotes taken from the article that would concern me using the aircraft in a training role. I understand a good trainer should have at least some " bite " to it but question using any aircraft in that roll that cannot be recovered safely from a spin routinely.
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20Quote:
In terms of avoiding an accident, one problem with the Cirrus is its unforgiving handling compared to other basic four-seaters. For pilots accustomed to learning about an impending stall by feeling reduced airloads on the flight controls, the Cirrus provides much less stall warning. This is due to spring cartridges that continue to resist flight control movement even when the airplane is not moving. In other words, the flight controls feel similar whether you're flying or stalled.
Once a pilot has gotten sloppy with airspeed, the plane is harder to keep level with rudders in a stall than a Cessna or Diamond; if in a deep uncoordinated stall, the Cirrus wants to drop a wing and go into a spin.
Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots.
A Cirrus pilot's only option is to pull the big main CAPS parachute and hope that he or she has not built up too much speed for the cords. A couple of new owners in Parish, NY managed to stall and spin their plane all the way down from 5000' AGL on April 24, 2002.
Cirrus uses wet wings rather than an aluminum fuel tank tucked inside the wing. Any crack in the plastic from an accident turns into a fuel leak, and the planes have had a tendency to catch on fire after crashing
One unusual preflight item are Telatemp patches on the brakes, viewable through a circular hole in the wheel pants. On August 4, 2005 a Cirrus pilot who used his brakes to abort a takeoff taxied off the runway and shut down to inspect his pitot tube. Upon exiting the aircraft, he found "the landing gear engulfed in flames" and a lot of the wing burned up.
Cirrus's theory is that the brake seals fail when overheated, either via aggressive braking on landing or by dragging the brakes during taxi. Upon the next landing, hitting the brakes hard heats them up and results in some fluid leakage. The fluid catches on fire. Cirrus issued an Airworthiness Directive and added the Telatemps (might be nicer to have more robust brakes!).
I always enjoy reading the banter here and generally find plenty of experience and wisdom. In this case however, I can say you guys truly have no idea what you are talking about. I can find you at least one pilot and a dozen non-pilots who have a negative impression of any airplane you can name. As founder of Cirrus Design you can call me predjudiced. As a pilot with over 8500 hrs (4500 in Cirrus aircraft) and many other types you could say I have a little experience on the subject.
I'll take take the argument that the Cessna is safer. Mission? Per mile exposure? Data? Check Flight Aware and compare the number of Cirrus aircraft in "the system" compared to C-172/C182.
No, the stall characteristics are not "unusual" except that you have good aileron authority into the stall.
Yes, it can recover from a spin. Any spin? Probably not, but I am pretty sure that is true of most aircraft. FAA certification rules (cost) and a true belief that for the typical pilot the chute is a better spin recovery solution drove the design. (If you are a bad enough pilot to inadvertently spin an aircraft at low altitude, what would have you think you were good enough to recover at low altitude?)
The only case of parachute shroud lines failing was a near terminal velocity pull seconds before an iced-up, out of control airplane hit a mountain. Several documented "saves" at well over 133kts, but the FAA sets the rules how the limits are described.
Unforgiving handling? Really? How about responsive, predicitable, and benign. You're right, aileron hinge moment is close to zero so the "feel" is though the spring cartridge. And it feels great compared to most aircraft I have flown. Not quite as nice as my Chipmunk, but better than my favorite airplane - Spitfire.
The facts of the Parish, NY accident led the jury to a different conclusion.
"Any crack in the plastic ..." - well I suppose, but any crack or leaky rivet in an aluminum airplane and it leaks also. Phil Greenspun was actually comparing the Cirrus to the (composite) Diamond which has an additional aluminum tubular tank inside the skin as superior crashworthiness. Probably true, but aircraft are compromises that include weight and fuel volume to name a few.
Yup, you can get a brake fire, but only if you "drag" the break for a very long time on the ground. Like a taildragger the Cirrus has no nose wheel steering, so you steer with the brakes or rudder. Proper technique is to stay off the brakes unless you intend to use them. Wheels, tires, and brakes are all standard OEM equipment.
While I am no longer involved with Cirrus (and have my share of disagreements) I still think it is the superior product for its mission and a good choice for the Air Force Academy. Now for another mission I'd take a Super Cub on floats. But as a die hard Warbird fan I still want a Spitfire more than anything ... but a Mosquito sure would be fun ... or maybe a Corsair or a ...
Alan Klapmeier
Kestrel Aircraft
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
