Cirrus vs. Columbia

[mcjohn]

Heeeey Skip! I didn't know you work for SATS. Are you gonna do any tailwheel/banner tow instruction this spring?

 

[FlyingSkip]

I might, but from the sound of it most of the guys flying for Dave are returnees from last year, so they won't need much. Damn the luck---I could use a little extra buckage!!! As far as your post went---I have an idea of who you're talking about---political correctness rears its' ugly head or I'd tell you my opinion! Have a good one John---I hope the flight instructing gig is working out. Don't diss on SATS too much---if things work out they want to have a huge fleet of planes and there are a LOT of worse gigs out there!:beer:

 

[mcjohn]

Hell, from what I hear they already have a huge fleet of planes and I wouldn't mind working for them one bit. All I know is what went down with that fella. So my bad on assuming too much. Gotta remember not to ASSUME 'cause that'll make an ASS of U and ME! Flight instruction gig is going I guess. Still wintery you know so it's a little slow. I usually fly at least once a day though so that's great in my book. Speakin of:beer: I'm headed that way right now. If you get a run to AVL come up stairs at Million Air and say hi. Just don't don't laugh too hard at my epaulettes or whatever they're called! Peace out.

 

[Grumman guy]

Easy, the Cessna 210

 

[mitsdriver]

I have flown both, and hands down the better plane is the 400. What is really cool with the 400 is that you have the option to get either the avidyne display or the G1000 display, the one I flew had the G1000 and it also had the keyboard on it to type rather than having to use the knobs to scroll through letters, made setting up a flight plan much easier. The speed of the 400 blows away the SR-22, the plane feels much more solid, has the speedbrakes, and can get up really high, the layout of the cabin is better, and the seats are more comfortable than the Cirrus.

Thanks for that feedback. Anyone can look at what the spec sheet says but I was specifically looking for info from someone who has test driven both of them.

 

[mitsdriver]

My thanks to everyone for their input so far.

BTW, Why does the SR-22 have such a high accident rate? Is it a relatively diffcult airplane to fly or is it just another example of people with bigger checkbooks than logbooks?

 

[FlyingSkip]

Looking at the NTSB accident log, and factoring in how many of them darn things have been sold and are flying every day, I don't think the accident rate on the SRs is anything exceptional. With that said, several of the incidents/accidents I've read about HAVE been guys who have let the aircraft (which is WICKED easy to fly and CAN instill a false sense of security!) get ahead of their own knowledge. There have been other posts on here with people slamming the SRs, and probably will with the Columbias et al because they want to blame the technology for pilot errors. By that I mean, they wouldn't have made the error if the airplane didn't have all this whiz-bang stuff and let them put themselves into that situation. IMHO, that's a crock! People do stupid stuff every day, whether it's drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car, putting dangerous substances into their bodies (from cocaine through double cheeseburgers!) or flying beyond their experience and training level. You can't blame an aircraft for these incidents---put the blame where it needs to be, squarely on the shoulders of the dumases who made the bad decisions!

Some of the people I run into when I'm on the road are the modern-day followers to the old "Doctor Killer" Bonanza days, as you put it "bigger checkbooks than logbooks". Unfortunately, until we can outlaw stupidity and keep the culprits on the ground, there will be people who will run Cirri and Columbias and Cessnas and Maules and... well, you get the idea. They'll crash perfectly good airplanes because of their own stupidity. Pray for them and try to stay out of their way!

 

[mzaharis]

Totally forgot - here's a comparison review of a Columbia 350 vs a Cirrus SR22 from IFR magazine.

http://www.chesavtraining.com/Cirrus-vs-Lancair.htm

EDIT - just noticed that he updated the article to include some comments on the G-1000.

Here's a review of the SR22 from the same author and magazine:

http://chesavtraining.com/Articles/Dennstaedt_SR22.pdf

Here's a review of the 400 from the same author and magazine:

http://chesavtraining.com/Articles/Dennstaedt_Columbia400.pdf

All were done using Avidyne versions of the Columbias.

 

[MAJIC9]

A friend of mine looked at both (Columbia 300 back then and 22) and bought the Cirrus..... then upgraded to SR-22GTS recently. Not sure what this tells you -- he (and me too!) loves it and isnt' showing any signs of regret

 

[FlyingToIST]

Oh boy,
don't even get me started on insurance companies about Cirrus. They wanted 1000 TT/ 500 Instruction and 250 HP for a Sr20 CFI. I guess they don't know that people are hiring into some regionals with hours lower than that. Also, why request a HP on an aircraft that is not an HP?
This is the underwriter request.. I won't mention any names but the name goes with a rising bird from ashes

 

[groundpointsix]

I think the insurance minimums you were given seem a little high even for the cirrus. We have a customer at our FBO with a cirrus and the open pilot minimums for his plane are 500TT and 10 in type.

 

[FlyingToIST]

I think the insurance minimums you were given seem a little high even for the cirrus. We have a customer at our FBO with a cirrus and the open pilot minimums for his plane are 500TT and 10 in type.

There are some reasons for the higher minimums:
- I have been in business only for 2 years. So that plays against me a lot.
- I have a very bad underwriting company that doesn't even want me to operate high performace or complex airplanes before i can actually show them some history.
- Aviation insurance doesn't work like car insurance. Places that you can go to as an alternative are limited. I currently have only one competitor underwriter and i am not even sure if i switching to them next year will be a good option.
- No insurance company quotes you mid term.
- The underwriter doesn't like Cirrus because of the parachute.

 

[mcjohn]

- The underwriter doesn't like Cirrus because of the parachute.

Yeah, no sh!t. As a CFI, imagine if your student was showing up wearing a chute and harness for a non-aerobatic lesson. You might reconsider signing this wing nut off.

The parachute concept is so strange. I was walking through the lobby of the FBO the other day and a SR22 guy was talking to a group of people about how safe the aircraft is because of the chute and how easy it's gonna be for them to have peace of mind flying it.
My 2 cents: If you're so darn afraid of small GA aircraft that you have to have a chute on a plane then just wear a freakin chute and harness for cryin out loud. Better yet, when you show up to hop on a small regional wear a chute and harness!?

 

[FlyingSkip]

Missing the Point...

J-Mac, I gotta call you out on this one cuz I think you're missing the point.

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute Sytem (CAPS). The rationale behind having this critter on the airplane is quite simple. It isn't a fear of small GA airplanes or an omen that something is going to happen or an opening to fly beyond either the pilot's or the aircraft's capabilities...It's simply a piece of safety equipment that in the right (I guess that should be WRONG!) circumstances could possibly help to save someone's life. It's that simple. It's not a cure for cancer, it's not going to make your grandmother's breasts sag less, it's not a license to go out unprepared for a flight or to fly into conditions that don't warrant it---it's simply another piece of gear that helps to make the flight just that little bit safer. As a pilot, I know that there are very few circumstances where I'm actually going to deploy the parachute, but in those situations (engine failure at night hard IFR over mountains or water, birdstrike through the glass that blinds me, after a midair to name a few I've thought about) it's nice to know it's there. That's as a pilot. Now, look at it from the viewpoint of the passenger/s. We get all excited about multiple engines, etc as safety enhancements, but someone who doesn't fly only knows that if something happens to the guy in the left seat he's done sooner or later, no matter how many engines take him to the scene of the crash. Does this happen frequently...Oh sure, you hear about them every day, right? But you have to realize that in THIS GUY'S mind, it's a possibility and it leaves him with no options. Until the parachute is there... Part of my passenger brief is, and I quote myself: "The Parachute System is now armed (after I take out the safety pin). It will remain under my control at all times unless I am incapacitated. If this occurs and I am unable to respond to you or fly the plane, then you would pull these two levers to the rear (I indicate the throttle and the mixture) and then pull the CAPS handle firmly and steadily until you hear the rocket ignite and the parachute deploys. At that point sit up straight, make sure your seat belt and shoulder harness are as secure as you can make them, and then plan on opening the doors and exiting the aircraft after it is securely on the ground or at rest".

Am I scaring them, giving them nightmares for days or saying in any way that this aircraft is splendiforous because it has this whiz-bang neato system onboard. No. I'm simply giving them an opportunity to....Gawd, I hate to use these liberal, bullsmack politically-correct terms, but here goes!...an opportunity to be empowered that if everything goes to crap they can have some say over whether they live or die. That's it.

Don't be a Luddite and pooh-pooh systems that can keep people alive, simply because some people talk about them in the wrong terms, or even worse other dumases use them as an excuse to fly without using good judgement. Anything, I repeat ANYTHING that I can have onboard my aircraft that might save me, my passengers or somebody on the ground is good gear as far as I'm concerned. As my old USMC Platoon Commander used to say..."Laminate it, take it to the field, might save your life someday".

 

[mtrv]

Don't be a Luddite and pooh-pooh systems that can keep people alive, simply because some people talk about them in the wrong terms, or even worse other dumases use them as an excuse to fly without using good judgement. Anything, I repeat ANYTHING that I can have onboard my aircraft that might save me, my passengers or somebody on the ground is good gear as far as I'm concerned. As my old USMC Platoon Commander used to say..."Laminate it, take it to the field, might save your life someday".

Good points! Just last week, another airplane crashed into a field, but only a few hundred feet from a residence, after the pilot had been in-capacitated for quite some time, and ran out of fuel.

Now imagine a passenger in this scenario with no piloting experience, or a pilot suffering a heart attack, that might have a chance of pulling the BRS system. Two scenarios where the outcome might be better than just diving or spinning full steam into someone's occupied home -------------which just happened to happen in the last two weeks too!