The Cirrus is a fast efficient cross-country machine. As you know, pilots love to debate whether the chute adds safety. Maybe it does, but even if so, the "save" numbers that Cirrus quotes are inflated. Some of those "saves" would otherwise have resulted in clean emergency landings -- as this pilot discovered when he pulled the chute, it didn't work so he landed the airplane. He's lucky the mis-deployed chute didn't wrap around control surfaces and cause the airplane to crash. Some Cirrus "saves" were due to pilots flying themselves into a pickle because they knew the chute was there, taking risks they otherwise wouldn't have taken. Subtract those and you still have some legit "saves" from the chute, which is good. But then the chute also adds extra weight and expensive maintenance.
Who here owns a plane?
- Thread starter dogememe
- Start date
Yes, I edited my statement. As you noted, there are some factors involved. And you are correct, pilots do tend to take risks due to the chute. Risks like long overwater flights. And even CFIT fatal crashes, despite the clear terrain warnings.
Although, the newer systems with a larger chute and more powerful rocket seem to have an 88% survival rate, and a 100% survival rate if deployed within the specified parachute conditions. Such as below 200Kts airspeed, in level flight, and at or above the specified lowest altitude of 500 feet.
I have some time in the Cirrus, and I like it, but don't love it. If I had the ~$900k and buying a new bird (and I do not and am not), I'd be hard pressed to get anything other than a G36 Bonanza.
As my friend who had a Yak, Zlin and a Pitts once said "friends don't let friends fly plastic airplanes"
As my friend who had a Yak, Zlin and a Pitts once said "friends don't let friends fly plastic airplanes"
That’s the thing, the bonanza was the forerunner of the Cirrus. And many people like them more. Unfortunately, there have been around 150 in flight breakups of the Bonanza. The plastic airplanes clearly are not subject to fatigue related failures.I have some time in the Cirrus, and I like it, but don't love it. If I had the ~$900k and buying a new bird (and I do not and am not), I'd be hard pressed to get anything other than a G36 Bonanza.
As my friend who had a Yak, Zlin and a Pitts once said "friends don't let friends fly plastic airplanes"
One of my friends in Florida bought one because he said if he dies flying his wife can pull the chute to land. I told him to get the wife to learn to fly the plane she graduated Med School at 23. She is scary smart , scares me deep down inside she is so smart..
If you like the model 36 Bonanza, realistically, you'd probably get an 80s or 90s era A36 for a fraction of the price of a new G36. It would be just as fast, lighter, more efficient, more payload, and significantly cheaper to insure due to the lower hull value.
A contributing factor is none of the plastic airplanes are 50+ years old. When they are we'll have more data on airframe integrity over extended flight hours and calendar time.
Composites have been used extensively in aerospace since the start, clearly fabric wings hardened with "dope" are a form of composite. Fairings and radomes have been fiberglass for well more than 50 years. And carbon fiber has been used significantly since the 1960's. The Apollo capsule used CF, as did Boeing's 727.
The early composites have a spotty reputation due to the epoxies used. Some getting soft over time, much like older fiberglass boats made with cheap polyester resins, and some retaining 100% of the original rigidity. It is not the strands of glass or carbon that go soft, it is the resin.
Even so, the Extra stunt planes use CF spars (and composite wing/tail) certified to +/- 10G, and have no issues with degradation or fatigue related failures. The oldest are 43 years old now.
Most of those were V-tails or early models, beautiful birds though, especially the earliest ones. There have been a few of the 36 series, but I don't know if their rate is any better or worse than comparable aircraft. My preference is simply aesthetics; the Beech is pretty while, IMHO, the Cirrus looks like a bloated tadpole with wings
They are both variations, or evolution as you noted, on the same theme and are both very nice flying aircraft.
Last edited:
Growing up we had a plane.
My moms long term boyfriend owned a metalworking shop and did all kinds of work on all kinds of planes and I was lucky enough to get tremendous number of flight hours as a young man in many light aircraft.
You'll get all kinds of different answers, but from a practical and usability standpoint if I were to ever go down this road as a "regular" guy the plane I would own would be the plane he had -
A Cessna Centurion P210.
It's easy to fly, no balance issues pack it full and go, great for sightseeing, fast, economical, relatively easy to service. The ultimate " regular" guy plane from my experience.
If I were a baller Id have a Pilatus PC 12.
Last edited:
The original Dentist/ Dr. Killer.
Yes. And similar to the early poor safety record of the Cirrus, not due to any fault of the airplane. It was due to pilots wealthy enough to upgrade to an airplane that was faster yet less forgiving than the trainer they learned in, before they amassed the hours, experience and judgment needed to safety fly them. A pilot might get pencil-whipped endorsements for complex & high performance before being fully ready for them.
Cirrus fixed this with extensive and improved pilot training, eventually becoming one of the safer GA airplanes.
PS: I'll add that the Cirrus good safety record has little or nothing to do with the chute.
Last edited:
Yup - almost all of these accidents were caused people buying more plane than they could actually fly.
Sort of like buying a GSXR-1000 or Hayabusa as your very first motorcycle - not recommended!
In reference to a post above, there are areas of the country where light aircraft ownership makes very little sense. PA is a good example of a location with non stop poor weather, severe icing in fall, winter and spring, an utter lack of well equipped airports and sometimes, insane low level turbulence. Recently flew our PC-12 in to SWF through PA and it was a wildly bumpy ride, with +2G of turb. I tend to enjoy the bumps in small doses, but that got really old.
Contrast that with Florida, where the weather is often really good for flying light aircraft, even with our righteous afternoon thunderstorms as sometimes they are localized and move through fast.
Contrast that with Florida, where the weather is often really good for flying light aircraft, even with our righteous afternoon thunderstorms as sometimes they are localized and move through fast.
Up here in the Puget Sound area is a great place to have a small airplane. Water everywhere, with bridges and ferries. Getting from Seattle to the San Juan Islands takes half a day, hours spent driving and riding a ferry. Flying there in a slow airplane takes 45 minutes.
Of course that is if one can survive the long, grey, dark, wet winters up here.
Did the North American thing for 17 years, had a Citabria for 22 years. Been playing with Bulldogs for the last 10 or so.
For the fun of low and slow flying I own an Hummel Ultralight... for
the fun of yanking and banking an iconic military trainer I own a
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Both airframes are composed of a stress-skinned alloy... Both are
aesthetically pleasing and fit my definition of pure sex with wings.
1952 Chipmunk de Havilland Chipmunk
the fun of yanking and banking an iconic military trainer I own a
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Both airframes are composed of a stress-skinned alloy... Both are
aesthetically pleasing and fit my definition of pure sex with wings.
1952 Chipmunk de Havilland Chipmunk
Last edited:
I took flying lessons almost 50 years ago in Cessna 150/172 but couldn't afford to finish so no plane ownership. If I ever did I'd want either a 150/172 for nostalgia/familiarity, or a Mooney because cool... Mooney, and made in Texas, or a Cessna Skymaster because a twin losing an engine will likely crash you unless it is a Skymaster.
I found some context to my answer in old picts.
My Moms boyfriend (Mike- the Pablo Escobar looking guy) flew us from Peoria, to Palwaukee (now Chicago exec) approx 20 times a year for about 5 years to see my dad. My dad also paid for commercial flights, but Palwaukee was way closer than Ohare and he'd rather pitch in more for private so he didn't have to drive.
I also flew other routes with Mike frequently as a companion and flew as well. I took off and landed the 172 from the right seat 2 years into this.
The preference for the Cessna 210P was built around hundreds of flights over 4 years in these aircraft, plus another model or two that snuck in. Wed occasionally fly a piper something and a mooney 201. Looking back it was not nearly as big a deal as it is today.
Pretty sure it was a Cessna 340, A version(I think) something about superior deicing over the base version I recall.
Fast comfy, a real handful on one engine. Expensive for not a lot of if any safety gain.
Bonanza - fast but harder to deal with in terms of balance and terrible for sight based work like checking fence line. I remember Mike saying it could do scary things occasionally and never wanted to let it get into a spin , I struggled to keep it flying level
172 - nuff said. Never preference but the workhorse of the trips.
210 (oddly Im struggling to find a picture of it) - Was about as fast as the bonanza, and just under 340 - way cheaper than the 340, Its was simply a super machine and I see great ones for 750K+ now.
I have tremendous hours as a young man in the right front seat of these 4 planes.
My Moms boyfriend (Mike- the Pablo Escobar looking guy) flew us from Peoria, to Palwaukee (now Chicago exec) approx 20 times a year for about 5 years to see my dad. My dad also paid for commercial flights, but Palwaukee was way closer than Ohare and he'd rather pitch in more for private so he didn't have to drive.
I also flew other routes with Mike frequently as a companion and flew as well. I took off and landed the 172 from the right seat 2 years into this.
The preference for the Cessna 210P was built around hundreds of flights over 4 years in these aircraft, plus another model or two that snuck in. Wed occasionally fly a piper something and a mooney 201. Looking back it was not nearly as big a deal as it is today.
Pretty sure it was a Cessna 340, A version(I think) something about superior deicing over the base version I recall.
Fast comfy, a real handful on one engine. Expensive for not a lot of if any safety gain.
Bonanza - fast but harder to deal with in terms of balance and terrible for sight based work like checking fence line. I remember Mike saying it could do scary things occasionally and never wanted to let it get into a spin , I struggled to keep it flying level
172 - nuff said. Never preference but the workhorse of the trips.
210 (oddly Im struggling to find a picture of it) - Was about as fast as the bonanza, and just under 340 - way cheaper than the 340, Its was simply a super machine and I see great ones for 750K+ now.
I have tremendous hours as a young man in the right front seat of these 4 planes.
