which fast single prop to buy

[ALIMBO]

Its not on an MEL it failed in flight he could continue on to his destination and have it done there.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Never flown a Cirrus, so my vote goes to a Mooney. Sweet plane, as you must well know.

 

[kingairyahoo]

...caravan baby!!!

~170knots, carry as many fruitcakes as you can squash in there, and 5 hours of fuel...sweet

:beer:

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

Its not on an MEL it failed in flight he could continue on to his destination and have it done there.

He could, but if he was only 10 minutes out why not get it on the ground safely rather than hoping it's just the autopilot that is the problem, not something bigger. I'll have to check my POH to see if its on the required equipment list, but I believe it is, as most of the equipment on the essential bus is.

 

[deadstick]

Cirrus does sell technology over ADM and experience. ("It can fly itself!"). As for the chute, doesn't the aircraft have to be slowed to ~130 kts before you can pull the handle? Doesn't it need 1500 ft to deploy? How does it help when cruising at 170 kts or in the base/final stall spin scenario?

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

Cirrus does sell technology over ADM and experience. ("It can fly itself!"). As for the chute, doesn't the aircraft have to be slowed to ~130 kts before you can pull the handle? Doesn't it need 1500 ft to deploy? How does it help when cruising at 170 kts or in the base/final stall spin scenario?

Demonstrated parachute performance is 135 kts. That's just the speed at which the CAPS has been shown to work. If you are above and can't bleed off airspeed, pull the chute anyways. Personally I'm not sure if its ever been pulled above that speed or what the outcome was. As far altitude needed it needs 400 feet in normal flight 800 in a one turn spin.

 

[deadstick]

Demonstrated parachute performance is 135 kts. That's just the speed at which the CAPS has been shown to work. If you are above and can't bleed off airspeed, pull the chute anyways. Personally I'm not sure if its ever been pulled above that speed or what the outcome was. As far altitude needed it needs 400 feet in normal flight 800 in a one turn spin.

After my last post I went back to the book b/c 1500 just didn't seem right. It has 920 ft for a 1-turn. There have been a few crashes that have had either the chute wrapped around the tail or it's been shredded. I think one was in MN or ND. The NTSB site seems to be down right now, or I'd check on that.

I still dislike that they sold aircraft to unlicensed or inexperienced people on the point that because of the level of automation, the aircraft could fly itself. That is irresponsible. It gives them an "out" or a crutch. Now I know that people do stupid things in Cessnas and Pipers, too, but would those people in the Cirruses (Cirri?) made the same (bad) decisions if they didn't have the CAPS? Who knows.

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

I agree flying into a situation that you normally wouldn't because you have CAPS is foolish, and a properly trained pilot should know that. As an attempt to dissuade pilots from doing this there is a personal minimums screen that comes up when you turn on the MFD. It's easily skipped, though, and is no substitute for good judgment.
I can't speak to Cirrus' marketing as I'm unfamiliar with it, but telling people that it will fly itself is irresponsible, just ask the students I've soloed in an SR-20.
I think we've let this thread get off topic. Although the Cirrus isn't perfect for every pilot, that doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. And it sounds like it fits the role the original poster needs. Good speed, good payload, and able to fly in many weather conditions.

 

[deadstick]

Back on point:

I'd go with the 350. I believe part of the Cessna deal was $$ for honoring the warranties. The one problem with Columbia was getting warranty work paid. THe performance numbers are great. I agree that the turbo isn't necessary for hopping around FL. I vote for the Columbia/Cessna over the Cirrus because I wouldn't like to depend on a chute -- it is an airworthiness requirement for the 20/22.

I have heard the airplane is a total loss if you pop the chute, but then again I saw one being rebuilt. I don't know if they bought the hulk for salvage and were hoping to get a 337 signed off, but I don't know what happened with that. Can't x-ray plastic, right?

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

Back on point:

I'd go with the 350. I believe part of the Cessna deal was $$ for honoring the warranties. The one problem with Columbia was getting warranty work paid. THe performance numbers are great. I agree that the turbo isn't necessary for hopping around FL. I vote for the Columbia/Cessna over the Cirrus because I wouldn't like to depend on a chute -- it is an airworthiness requirement for the 20/22.

I have heard the airplane is a total loss if you pop the chute, but then again I saw one being rebuilt. I don't know if they bought the hulk for salvage and were hoping to get a 337 signed off, but I don't know what happened with that. Can't x-ray plastic, right?

Why would you need to depend on the chute?
I've also heard that the aircraft is a write off if the chute is pulled. Then again I've also heard that Cirrus bought back the first plane to have the chute pulled, rebuilt it, and is now using it as a demo.