Maybe this will answer concerns about Cirrus Spin testing.

http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx

Bill,

Sorry you think I was being rude. The FAA changed the requirements to spin prevention not recovery as the primary method for certification.
Here is a nice historical article from AOPA on why FAA made the changes:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... pinning-In

Next, here is Cirrus company answer to the spin question:
http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx

And here is a column by Richard Collins which raises the critical point that Cirrus safety will not change until the attitude of pilots change:
http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dick ... us-pilots/
The change in attitude and ADM I think Cirrus and COPA have made huge inroads on. As a result the safety record for Cirrus has had a dramatic turn around over the past two years, no other model has improved safety in the past couple of years the way Cirrus has. And it comes back to attitude (IMHO).

And here is the EASA report on spins for Cirrus. You will notice when you actually read the report, they completed spin testing and the plane passed normal standards and the ELOS and Spin Prevention standards.
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safet ... 82392.aspx

Tim

Tim

Arlen had written about the Europeans doing spin testing on Cirrus. But this latest information from Bill Hindi's post says about the European testing, "not a complete program". Thus, Bill's own pro Cirrus info comfirms,that as far as we can tell and as for as any facts that I have seen, Cirrus did NOT due a full spin test and recovery program in EITHER the U S or Europe.

The other two parts of the Cirrus propaganda or that most spins are not recoverable because they happen unplanned and too low, and also that the chute makes up the best recovery method.

I would give the chute a 10, not only does it seem a good idea, but has worked really well when needed, doesn't seem to be problems of reliability etc, at least now that they are farily new.

However, the other part is looking at the problem the wrong way. Wouldn;t it be good is Cirrus had the chute, but would also recover from a spin with a normal method and not have to have the controlled crash under the chute as the only method. I don't know how much it would take aerodynamically to make that possible think of an airplane with normally good handling and manners and having the chute as a last resort.

And Tim, I am not the censor on this site, so your rudeness is your own choice, Either way, no amount of propaganda or insults from you is going to own my opinion. As for Cirrus having a good safety record the last 2 years, well time will tell. Let's hope it is true.

Since we are told by you guys how safe the Cirrus design was and how we don't really need a plane that can recover from a spin anyway, I am surprised that Cirrus and COPA had to go to such an intense program to turn around the Cirrus lost rate these last two years. Maybe somebody besides me though there was a problem. Kind of like v tail Bonanzas when Beech and owners wanted to blame it all on bad piloting.

If you are in a spin and did not intend to be in one you most likely will not recover either - especially in IMC. No, it is a BAD idea to try to recover from the spin with a chute because you are likely to screw around long enough to put you into the ground before you pull the chute. Like I said before - there is NO reason to ever be in a spin. If you are that bad of a pilot you should be practicing spin avoidance - NOT how to recover.

You could also peruse FAR 23.221 (2)

Todd, just curious, have you ever done a spin in any plane? Also what do you think would happen if you were flying along in cruise, up high, in a normally loaded C172 and you entered a spin, and you simply closed the throttle and took your hands and feet off the controls?


By the way, anyone want to buy a used B36 TC? You guys have convinced me that a Cirrus is the best thing since, well maybe not since sliced bread, but since the Edsel or certainly since New Coke.
I will be ashamed to be seen in my old Bonanza at Oshkosh.

Had a spin demonstrated to me in a 152 when taking primary training. Spun a 152 a few times as a requirement for my CFI ticket.

My guess with the 172 is that it would do about 3-4 turns before either entering a spiral or may come out of the spin itself. Either way, I have no use for a 172. Whether it will recover from a spin or not is irrelevant to me. I would be more concerned what happens when the engine quits over rough terrain. Most spin accidents are close to the ground when maneuvering. The chute is your only hope there.

Your Bonanza is a fine airplane and is currently one of the few 6-seat singles available; although, I would never have six people in an single short of a TBM or Pilatus. I just think that Cirrus has perfected what they started 15 years ago. The marketing for the Cirrus was horrible until recently. Basically, they marketed the plane as an airplane that was impossible for you to get hurt in with performance that is spectacular. They did what Beech did in 1947. It became the new doctor killer. The plane is now a much better plane and the training and marketing is vastly improved. They now have the best single engine piston on the market IMO. Hundreds of people every year agree.

Bill, whilst Todd may be a little off center with his car choices and driving skills, he's one a hell of a pilot!!

Have you spun (ie put the airplane into a spin ) the Bonanza?

Cirrus sold more SR22s in 2013 than Beechcraft sold using it's entire fleet! Beech has been in business how long?

Beech is focused on building King Airs and that is great. It is a wonderful machine and as far as I am concerned it is the best turboprop out there. The A36 is a great plane, but if you want a modern design and a parachute the Beech is out. People are speaking with their checkbooks.

How about we take this a different direction. I've got a beautiful Bonanza with a high time engine that I'm thinking of Turbo-Normalizing when I overhaul. Also living in northern Minnesota TKS would be awesome. When I put a pen to it, it would make more sense to look at a Cirrus financially (I should have waited and bought Nate's plane). I haven't really researched to hard but in quick searches it seems like I can get a 10-15 year newer Cirrus for the same money as a Bonanza. Were the Cirrus that much cheaper at the time or do they depreciate faster. Before I do my engine overhaul I am going to demo a Cirrus, look at the twin market and do some soul searching on what I want to use the plane for.

Not Todd nor Bill (and not nearly the aviator that Todd is...) but I have entered an inadvertent spin in an Debonaire. Was 20 years ago whilst I was being checked out in a not well rigged rental Deb. Stall series, and power on stall it snapped out amazingly fast. We lost a solid 1500 feet before recovery. I have also noted that my F33A was very twitchy in power on stalls with an important wing-drop every time. No spins tho.

My Cirrus, on the other hand has amazingly good stall manners. In every flight dynamic, the stall can only be described as benign. Deep into a power off stall, the wings can be easily rocked from side to side using the ailerons.

Folks have done low level stall-spins in Cirruses. And they have been killed in them. Folks have done the same in every make of airplane that I am aware of (including King Airs...). I personally have no desire to spin my transportation airplane (which has been placarded against spins). And I would have no issues whatsoever deploying the parachute if I should stumble into a spin. Which is the book response to spins for the Cirrus.

As my wife often says when I point out some small issue: So?

Jim

I would suggest the Cirrus with known icing TKS over updating the Bonanza. Overhauling and turbo will be $100k and TKS is around $40k I believe. You then have to consider the condition of your avionics, paint, and interior.

That's kinda where I end up, I do have a great panel, except an Aspen or G500. I'm just not a fan of Glass panels yet. I do have a GRT EFIS in my RV-4 and I don't see the benefit for the dollars I'd have to spend on certified. To get a loaded Cirrus that you won't have to cut the top to do the chute you have to spend 300 to 400 AMUs. At price I feel I'd be better off buying a twin. When I hit that wall is when I started looking at the depreciation and was surprised that the Cirrus appeared to deprecated faster. The other concern for me is flying out of AG strips.

When I was shopping last year I flew the G3 Cirrus and thought it flew very nicely, seemed easy to land and of course had the chute. For the $ you get quite a lot. I happened to prefer the Cessna 400 in terms of feel and the electric wing over messing around with TKS....just personal choice. Promised pictures: Ramp in Green Bay.