Dave and I started training around 2pm. We started by meeting our flight instructor Kara who is very good with the sr20. The lesson starts with ground, this can be a long session or a refresher if you have done the work sheets in the training manual that is sent early by wings aloft if you request it.(It seemed to help us a lot!) After ground we started flight training.Pretty straight foward, landing,steep turns,emerg ops,radios.The weather for our training was 800 ovc on a good day. So we went north ro internatioal falls for good weather and trained across the border in canada. On our way to internation falls we flew imc a good portion,this plane is rock solid and a breeze in imc with the garmins and the autopilot. It made me laugh when we got a 20 min hold and all we did was follow the picture on the garmin. If you are rusty on the entry to the hold that is ok the garmin tells you as you approach the hold.(I was waiting for a voice to come from the garmin saying turn left dummy!)The stec 55 coupled the approach and took us to the runway.( just in case we have a c pack,3 blade,leather.)On our way back we lost our transponder and it had to be replaced. Dave and I were concerned because it was the labor day weekend and the factory was closed, but one call to the 800 phone number and they were down replacing it that night. Great job Cirrus, now that what we call customer service! Stay tuned for the next long winded,babbling story about our ride home to ca…Ed
AS I can tell. you’re liking your experience with your Cirrus and the Cirrus people. What dticks in my mind is “We lost the transponder.” That strikes me as a casual expectation of things to break in aviation. This Forum is scores of failures on 50 new planes. In the meanwhile, your our 50 computers, printers,etc at the office hum along year after year. We don’t buy maintenace contracts because failures are so rare.
It seems to me the FAA goes to all sorts or lenghts to certify the planes but must make zero effort to certify the parts…hinges, vacuum pumps, electronics, engines, flap switches, you name it.
Being new to aviation, I’m amazed at the apathy that goes on in this profession. I was also reminded of this when the governor on my recently purchased Cardinal began dropping and regaining RPMs from 2700 down to 2500 and back up again over and over during climb out. Not a nice feeling.
The records showed that the Governor was rebuilt in August 1999 so the shop at my ariport called the company who did the work to find out what they had to say. Here was the response…they had to fire the guy that was doing the governor rebuilds because all he did was flushout the units, repaint the case, and send them back. What we needed was new fly magnets or something.
However, since it was two weeks past the one year waranty he wouldn’t honor the guarantee. Our shop forman thought this seemed like very frank yet odd story but accepting it as legitimate so the parts going back to them for another rebuild and another rebuild bill. What other industry would think this sounds OK? In my view, aircraft owners accept too much as reasonable.
There doesn’t seem to be any way aircraft owers can exert any power to set quality standards. Shouldn’t we expect better?
Does this sound reasonable or am I goofy?
Joe Schubert
Dave and I started training around 2pm. We started by meeting our flight instructor Kara who is very good with the sr20. The lesson starts with ground, this can be a long session or a refresher if you have done the work sheets in the training manual that is sent early by wings aloft if you request it.(It seemed to help us a lot!) After ground we started flight training.Pretty straight foward, landing,steep turns,emerg ops,radios.The weather for our training was 800 ovc on a good day. So we went north ro internatioal falls for good weather and trained across the border in canada. On our way to internation falls we flew imc a good portion,this plane is rock solid and a breeze in imc with the garmins and the autopilot. It made me laugh when we got a 20 min hold and all we did was follow the picture on the garmin. If you are rusty on the entry to the hold that is ok the garmin tells you as you approach the hold.(I was waiting for a voice to come from the garmin saying turn left dummy!)The stec 55 coupled the approach and took us to the runway.( just in case we have a c pack,3 blade,leather.)On our way back we lost our transponder and it had to be replaced. Dave and I were concerned because it was the labor day weekend and the factory was closed, but one call to the 800 phone number and they were down replacing it that night. Great job Cirrus, now that what we call customer service! Stay tuned for the next long winded,babbling story about our ride home to ca…Ed
AS I can tell. you’re liking your experience with your Cirrus and the Cirrus people. What dticks in my mind is “We lost the transponder.” That strikes me as a casual expectation of things to break in aviation. This Forum is scores of failures on 50 new planes. In the meanwhile, your our 50 computers, printers,etc at the office hum along year after year. We don’t buy maintenace contracts because failures are so rare.
Joe, your comments remind me of a fictitious conversation between Bill Gates of Microsoft fame and the CEO of GM. Bill reportedly testifies to Congress that if cars were made like computers with the advances that computers have made over the past 20 years, the average car would get 250 mpg, have virtually no emmisions and drive along the highway at 8,000 mph, while the driver gets to watch TV. The CEO of GM replies, "Yes, that’s true, but, when your are driving if you turn the radio on, the car would quit. You would spend hours a week trying to get it running and anytime you changed the tires, put in seatcovers or changed or upgraded any part, the whole thing wouldn’t run. You would have to wait on hold for hours just to talk to someone who may get it running for you or refers you to the manufacture of the part. To top it off, after two to three years it would be worthless because the new gasolin is upgraded and does not work in your old car.
So, what I am saying is that I think you are comparing apples to oranges. If you compare the SR20 to my wifes Mercedes ML320, you’ll find a different story: She takes it to the shop for warranty repairs about 2-3 times a year. Last week the battery died (all at once without warning) & road service (great folks) replaced it with no charges for the service call or battery, they left when the car started only to be called back when the car wouldn’t accelerate past 2 mph because some part of the fuel computer system had to be recalilbrated.) Sound familiar? (Oh, she loves the car and the service has been great. My 10 year old Jeep wrangler with 135K miles works fine for me.)
Am I thrilled about the squawks? No, but if I really wanted to get a plane with fewer teething problems, I’d wait a couple more years for some minor bugs to be worked out. I think that they have the major safety isseus resolved, just minor stuff remains.
BTW: Does anyone know why the transponders seem to fail so often and so early?
My 2 cents worth
Marty (#119 and buying a heavy coat for duluth in January)
BTW: Does anyone know why the transponders seem to fail so often and so early?
My 2 cents worth
Marty (#119 and buying a heavy coat for duluth in January)
I don’t know why they fail but the local avionics guy I went to just rolled his eyes when I told him it was a Garmin xponder. Mine died at 40 hours at a most inopportune moment; attempting an NDB-A approach to minimums in moderately heavy rain. After I missed (got caught in a scattered layer during the circle to land) ATC asked me to do a series of 30 degree left and right turns “for radar identification”. Ordinarily a no-brainer except my palms are real sweaty as I’m trying to get set up for an ILS at a field about 15 miles from the first one; not a lot of time to get my act together. The good news about the Cirrus: the 430 made it easy to know exactly where I was and after punching up the STEC 55, I let it fly me right down the glideslope to 300 ft DA where all I could see where those gorgeous bright lights of the MALSR.
Garmin may make an unreliable xponder but I still love this airplane.
I’ve been known to make the same comparisons as Joe S when it comes to aircraft reliability. But I’ve come to the conclusion that a more apt comparison is to a racing car, not a sedan. In racers weight is critical, just as it is in aircraft. Racers are engineered to fall apart at the finish line. If they go any farther they are, by definition, over-engineered and could have been made that much lighter!
A good example for aircraft is an engine’s crankcase. Ever hear of a Toyota’s crankcase failing? Not likely. It’s made of cast iron. But many aircraft crankcases fail (mine cracked for the previous owner). Poor engineering? I don’t think so. If Lycoming had used cast iron their crankcases would never fail. But using aluminum gives you another 80-100 lbs of pax, baggage, or fuel and, as the current Cirrus weight woes show (it IS more like a car than most planes, after all), every pound is significant.
That said, however, I agree that this argument doesn’t address the avionics problems very well. I guess the problem there is volume. GA avionics is pretty much a cottage industry compared suppliers for auto makers.
YMMV
Joe Mazza
Former Position Holder
Current TB20 Owner
Remember drum brakes? They were used on Cadillac cars for years after the little low cost toys from overseas started eating their lunch in the marketplace. The high price for Caddy didn’t by youperformance and it didn’t buy you reliability. Suppliers in GA aren’t going to give you anything either no matter how much they charge if the FAA and yes we owner/pilots don’t get togther and demand more. So I guess I respectfully disagree with all you folks who think self distructing parts at low hours is OK quality for GA. Love of the plane is no excuse for junk parts. Sorry, I’d rather squalk for better quality than squalk about failed parts in my flight book.
liability. But I’ve come to the conclusion that a more apt comparison is to a racing car, not a sedan. In racers weight is critical, just as it is in aircraft. Racers are engineered to fall apart at the finish line. If they go any farther they are, by definition, over-engineered and could have been made that much lighter!
A good example for aircraft is an engine’s crankcase. Ever hear of a Toyota’s crankcase failing? Not likely. It’s made of cast iron. But many aircraft crankcases fail (mine cracked for the previous owner). Poor engineering? I don’t think so. If Lycoming had used cast iron their crankcases would never fail. But using aluminum gives you another 80-100 lbs of pax, baggage, or fuel and, as the current Cirrus weight woes show (it IS more like a car than most planes, after all), every pound is significant.
That said, however, I agree that this argument doesn’t address the avionics problems very well. I guess the problem there is volume. GA avionics is pretty much a cottage industry compared suppliers for auto makers.
YMMV
Joe Mazza
Former Position Holder
Current TB20 Owner
I’ve been known to make the same comparisons as Joe S when it comes to aircraft reliability. But I’ve come to the conclusion that a more apt comparison is to a racing car, not a sedan. In racers weight is critical, just as it is in aircraft. Racers are engineered to fall apart at the finish line. If they go any farther they are, by definition, over-engineered and could have been made that much lighter!
A good example for aircraft is an engine’s crankcase. Ever hear of a Toyota’s crankcase failing? Not likely. It’s made of cast iron. But many aircraft crankcases fail (mine cracked for the previous owner). Poor engineering? I don’t think so. If Lycoming had used cast iron their crankcases would never fail. But using aluminum gives you another 80-100 lbs of pax, baggage, or fuel and, as the current Cirrus weight woes show (it IS more like a car than most planes, after all), every pound is significant.
That said, however, I agree that this argument doesn’t address the avionics problems very well. I guess the problem there is volume. GA avionics is pretty much a cottage industry compared suppliers for auto makers.
YMMV
Joe Mazza
Former Position Holder
Current TB20 Owner
What year Toyota are you referring to, 1956 ??
Far as I can recall, the last 5 cars I’ve had including 2 Toyotas have all had cast aluminum cases. They still don’t break though. The fact is aircraft grade stinks !
I spent 7 hours last weekend watching a recently deviated compass , two VORs and 1 ADF tell me 4 different stories as to where the airport was.
Imagine having four roadsigns saying the same thing, New York: 20 miles, eh 15 miles, eh no …16 miles - nope it’s 21 miles …
Whatever … Vacuum pumps rarley last more than 500 hours - why’s that ? And how come a 1940s Plymouth generator fits perfectly on your 300000 $ Piper ? Didn’t it get any better than that ??
From where I’m standing Aircraft grade means approved for flight not necessarily good for flight. You said airplanes can be compared with racing cars. Interesting - I’d like to see a guy who happily rebuilds his car after going back and forth to work. We’re not racing around in the sky - our touring aircraft should last more than an hour or two and we should demand it.
Sorry for spilling my guts out here - I’m just sick and tired of paying for junk ! Love to fly though …
- Krister
We should remember that aircraft engines spend almost all of their time operating at a much higher percentage of rated HP than automobile engines. Vibration is also a more significant factor for an airframe than an automobile (when was the last time you hit the headliner in your car due to a rough road?) I am all for improved reliability in GA, but the engineering challenges are not directly comparable between the two environments, IMHO.
I’ve been known to make the same comparisons as Joe S when it comes to aircraft reliability. But I’ve come to the conclusion that a more apt comparison is to a racing car, not a sedan. In racers weight is critical, just as it is in aircraft. Racers are engineered to fall apart at the finish line. If they go any farther they are, by definition, over-engineered and could have been made that much lighter!
A good example for aircraft is an engine’s crankcase. Ever hear of a Toyota’s crankcase failing? Not likely. It’s made of cast iron. But many aircraft crankcases fail (mine cracked for the previous owner). Poor engineering? I don’t think so. If Lycoming had used cast iron their crankcases would never fail. But using aluminum gives you another 80-100 lbs of pax, baggage, or fuel and, as the current Cirrus weight woes show (it IS more like a car than most planes, after all), every pound is significant.
That said, however, I agree that this argument doesn’t address the avionics problems very well. I guess the problem there is volume. GA avionics is pretty much a cottage industry compared suppliers for auto makers.
YMMV
Joe Mazza
Former Position Holder
Current TB20 Owner
I would have to agree with Joe S. I have posted a similar comment some time back… with very little result.
Two points: Certification doesn’t really guarantee all that much. As any honest Quality-guy can tell you, within all certifications, you can build complete crap as long as it’s documented well.
Secondly, it doesn’t matter whether the comparison with a car is not correct. Fact is, that the number of failures mentioned in the forum is large, and to expect greater reliability not too outragous. You don’t get a check on the car every 50 hours or so either.
Chris
Remember drum brakes? They were used on Cadillac cars for years after the little low cost toys from overseas started eating their lunch in the marketplace. The high price for Caddy didn’t by youperformance and it didn’t buy you reliability. Suppliers in GA aren’t going to give you anything either no matter how much they charge if the FAA and yes we owner/pilots don’t get togther and demand more. So I guess I respectfully disagree with all you folks who think self distructing parts at low hours is OK quality for GA. Love of the plane is no excuse for junk parts. Sorry, I’d rather squalk for better quality than squalk about failed parts in my flight book.
liability. But I’ve come to the conclusion that a more apt comparison is to a racing car, not a sedan. In racers weight is critical, just as it is in aircraft. Racers are engineered to fall apart at the finish line. If they go any farther they are, by definition, over-engineered and could have been made that much lighter!
A good example for aircraft is an engine’s crankcase. Ever hear of a Toyota’s crankcase failing? Not likely. It’s made of cast iron. But many aircraft crankcases fail (mine cracked for the previous owner). Poor engineering? I don’t think so. If Lycoming had used cast iron their crankcases would never fail. But using aluminum gives you another 80-100 lbs of pax, baggage, or fuel and, as the current Cirrus weight woes show (it IS more like a car than most planes, after all), every pound is significant.
That said, however, I agree that this argument doesn’t address the avionics problems very well. I guess the problem there is volume. GA avionics is pretty much a cottage industry compared suppliers for auto makers.
YMMV
Joe Mazza
Former Position Holder
Current TB20 Owner
Chris,
I’m new to aviation. What I see private aviators accepting as normal is outrageous. Think of the discussions on this forum about storm scopes and engine analyzers, and of course the parachute. Wouldn’t you rather see the money go into failure prevention instead of handling emergencies?
The above extra goodies are all hefty cost items. So, cost isn’t all the issue. So why the problem? Why do old hand aviators accept sorry quality including vacuum pumps that fail repeatedly…Note that the SR22 boasts as a big deal “all electric instrumentation.” Am I right in assuming that eliminates the vacuum giros and pump. Isn’t this the year 2000? A vacuum pump isn’t rocket science. I can’t believe that aircraft manufacturers can’t do an order of magnitude better in raising the quality of instrumentation, electronics, relays, etc.
The only explanation to me is that pilot/owners keep sniffing the roses and seem content to squawk, squawk, squawk in their logs! Their squawking though essential is misplaced.
I don’t want to pull that overhead handle. How about you?
As an asside, do you think CD is trying to induce people to switch to the SR22? To most on this that answer would seem like a logical and acceptable hypothesis. Sorry if I don’t agree.
Joe
I would have to agree with Joe S. I have posted a similar comment some time back… with very little result.
Two points: Certification doesn’t really guarantee all that much. As any honest Quality-guy can tell you, within all certifications, you can build complete crap as long as it’s documented well.
Secondly, it doesn’t matter whether the comparison with a car is not correct. Fact is, that the number of failures mentioned in the forum is large, and to expect greater reliability not too outragous. You don’t get a check on the car every 50 hours or so either.
Chris
Remember drum brakes? They were used on Cadillac cars for years after the little low cost toys from overseas started eating their lunch in the marketplace. The high price for Caddy didn’t by youperformance and it didn’t buy you reliability. Suppliers in GA aren’t going to give you anything either no matter how much they charge if the FAA and yes we owner/pilots don’t get togther and demand more. So I guess I respectfully disagree with all you folks who think self distructing parts at low hours is OK quality for GA. Love of the plane is no excuse for junk parts. Sorry, I’d rather squalk for better quality than squalk about failed parts in my flight book.
liability. But I’ve come to the conclusion that a more apt comparison is to a racing car, not a sedan. In racers weight is critical, just as it is in aircraft. Racers are engineered to fall apart at the finish line. If they go any farther they are, by definition, over-engineered and could have been made that much lighter!
A good example for aircraft is an engine’s crankcase. Ever hear of a Toyota’s crankcase failing? Not likely. It’s made of cast iron. But many aircraft crankcases fail (mine cracked for the previous owner). Poor engineering? I don’t think so. If Lycoming had used cast iron their crankcases would never fail. But using aluminum gives you another 80-100 lbs of pax, baggage, or fuel and, as the current Cirrus weight woes show (it IS more like a car than most planes, after all), every pound is significant.
That said, however, I agree that this argument doesn’t address the avionics problems very well. I guess the problem there is volume. GA avionics is pretty much a cottage industry compared suppliers for auto makers.
YMMV
Joe Mazza
Former Position Holder
Current TB20 Owner
Chris,
I’m new to aviation. What I see private aviators accepting as normal is outrageous. Think of the discussions on this forum about storm scopes and engine analyzers, and of course the parachute. Wouldn’t you rather see the money go into failure prevention instead of handling emergencies?
Joe, I have somewhat less than 300 hours. I have never had an inflight failure of anything except once an autopilot that sporadically failed on a x-country flight. Absolutely non-critical.
Things are not as bad as they may seem here. My guess is that some of those issues here are ‘baby illnesses’ as we call it, i.e. problems of new products, new series, essentially due to the fact that some interaction between system components are not yet perfect. You get those in cars too.
The above extra goodies are all hefty cost items. So, cost isn’t all the issue. So why the problem? Why do old hand aviators accept sorry quality including vacuum pumps that fail repeatedly…Note that the SR22 boasts as a big deal “all electric instrumentation.” Am I right in assuming that eliminates the vacuum giros and pump. Isn’t this the year 2000? A vacuum pump isn’t rocket science. I can’t believe that aircraft manufacturers can’t do an order of magnitude better in raising the quality of instrumentation, electronics, relays, etc.
I agree partly. See, stuff like the chute are lifesavers also in situations that don’t result from technical failure, such as an inflight encounter with another plane (‘light’ one, obviously). A stormscope helps you to avoid weather hazards like CB’s, a engine analyser helps to notice problems at an early stage. So, they are not useless even if the plane is a perfect as possible since nothing is 100% failsafe.
As for Vacuum pumps etc. I agree that they aren’t exactly rocket science. And indeed, normally Vacuum failure is rare. I cannot explain the many vacuum failures reported here but I refer back to the baby illnesses. My guess as good as yours.
The only explanation to me is that pilot/owners keep sniffing the roses and seem content to squawk, squawk, squawk in their logs! Their squawking though essential is misplaced.
I don’t want to pull that overhead handle. How about you?
No, neither does anyone else. But as I pointed out above, the chute is useful in other situations. Point is that I couldn’t agree with the statements that pilots don’t care of reliability because they are bit by the flying bug. And as I said earlier, things are not as bad as they look. To come back to the car example, if we had N times more instruments in a plane with the same reliability as instruments in a car, we are also N times more likely to encounter a failure! It’s like flying a twin: you are twice as likely to have an engine failure… Nevertheless, I agree that still more should be done and I agree that a high number of failures have been reported here.
As an asside, do you think CD is trying to induce people to switch to the SR22? To most on this that answer would seem like a logical and acceptable hypothesis. Sorry if I don’t agree.
I don’t know whether they want to entice people to switch to the SR22. From my admittedly european point of view clearly no because 200hp is the limit for most private buyers as well as clubs, it’s a different market. Fuel is way to expensive here, extra weight is extra tax on landing, if the engine happens to be louder too, more tax. There is quite simply no significant market in the over 200hp class in Europe.
Chris
Joe
I would have to agree with Joe S. I have posted a similar comment some time back… with very little result.
Two points: Certification doesn’t really guarantee all that much. As any honest Quality-guy can tell you, within all certifications, you can build complete crap as long as it’s documented well.
Secondly, it doesn’t matter whether the comparison with a car is not correct. Fact is, that the number of failures mentioned in the forum is large, and to expect greater reliability not too outragous. You don’t get a check on the car every 50 hours or so either.
Chris
Remember drum brakes? They were used on Cadillac cars for years after the little low cost toys from overseas started eating their lunch in the marketplace. The high price for Caddy didn’t by youperformance and it didn’t buy you reliability. Suppliers in GA aren’t going to give you anything either no matter how much they charge if the FAA and yes we owner/pilots don’t get togther and demand more. So I guess I respectfully disagree with all you folks who think self distructing parts at low hours is OK quality for GA. Love of the plane is no excuse for junk parts. Sorry, I’d rather squalk for better quality than squalk about failed parts in my flight book.
liability. But I’ve come to the conclusion that a more apt comparison is to a racing car, not a sedan. In racers weight is critical, just as it is in aircraft. Racers are engineered to fall apart at the finish line. If they go any farther they are, by definition, over-engineered and could have been made that much lighter!
A good example for aircraft is an engine’s crankcase. Ever hear of a Toyota’s crankcase failing? Not likely. It’s made of cast iron. But many aircraft crankcases fail (mine cracked for the previous owner). Poor engineering? I don’t think so. If Lycoming had used cast iron their crankcases would never fail. But using aluminum gives you another 80-100 lbs of pax, baggage, or fuel and, as the current Cirrus weight woes show (it IS more like a car than most planes, after all), every pound is significant.
That said, however, I agree that this argument doesn’t address the avionics problems very well. I guess the problem there is volume. GA avionics is pretty much a cottage industry compared suppliers for auto makers.
YMMV
Joe Mazza
Former Position Holder
Current TB20 Owner
I’m an ex-Navy pilot with many hours in everything from T-34’s and T-28’s to P-3’s and C-130’s. I can’t imagine a more demanding customer than the military, and yet military aircraft break down constantly. We used to joke about having to “build an airplane” during pre-flight before we could get it in the air. (My TB20, by contrast, has been dead reliable.)
No, simply “demanding” that aircraft be reliable won’t overcome the environmental factors or repeal the laws of physics that apply to aviation. George was right when he said that, unlike autos, aircraft engines work very hard, all the time – like boat engines which are also expensive and temperamental. (Imagine the postulated Toyota constantly climbing a constant 10% grade at full power for 2000 hours and you get some idea of what an aircraft engine has to endure.)
I refuse to accept the premise that all aircraft manufacturers are tradition-bound simpletons or that pilots are unaware of the wider world beyond aircraft technology. (Some even own ToyotaÂ’s!) There have been numerous attempts to adapt automobile engines to aircraft use and most, if not all, have either failed outright or have been disappointments. The Mooney-Porsche PFM is a recent example. Even CirrusÂ’s brave attempts to emulate the automobile in terms of appointments and luxury have led to negative weight and flexibility impacts (the dash LOOKS nice, but where am I going to put my latest gizmo?).
All this said, I agree that things could be better. But to blame all this on apathy or ignorance is, in my opinion, a too simplistic view.
Joe
Chris,
I’m new to aviation. What I see private aviators accepting as normal is outrageous. Think of the discussions on this forum about storm scopes and engine analyzers, and of course the parachute. Wouldn’t you rather see the money go into failure prevention instead of handling emergencies?
The above extra goodies are all hefty cost items. So, cost isn’t all the issue. So why the problem? Why do old hand aviators accept sorry quality including vacuum pumps that fail repeatedly…Note that the SR22 boasts as a big deal “all electric instrumentation.” Am I right in assuming that eliminates the vacuum giros and pump. Isn’t this the year 2000? A vacuum pump isn’t rocket science. I can’t believe that aircraft manufacturers can’t do an order of magnitude better in raising the quality of instrumentation, electronics, relays, etc.
The only explanation to me is that pilot/owners keep sniffing the roses and seem content to squawk, squawk, squawk in their logs! Their squawking though essential is misplaced.
I don’t want to pull that overhead handle. How about you?
As an asside, do you think CD is trying to induce people to switch to the SR22? To most on this that answer would seem like a logical and acceptable hypothesis. Sorry if I don’t agree.
Joe
I would have to agree with Joe S. I have posted a similar comment some time back… with very little result.
Two points: Certification doesn’t really guarantee all that much. As any honest Quality-guy can tell you, within all certifications, you can build complete crap as long as it’s documented well.
Secondly, it doesn’t matter whether the comparison with a car is not correct. Fact is, that the number of failures mentioned in the forum is large, and to expect greater reliability not too outragous. You don’t get a check on the car every 50 hours or so either.
Chris
Remember drum brakes? They were used on Cadillac cars for years after the little low cost toys from overseas started eating their lunch in the marketplace. The high price for Caddy didn’t by youperformance and it didn’t buy you reliability. Suppliers in GA aren’t going to give you anything either no matter how much they charge if the FAA and yes we owner/pilots don’t get togther and demand more. So I guess I respectfully disagree with all you folks who think self distructing parts at low hours is OK quality for GA. Love of the plane is no excuse for junk parts. Sorry, I’d rather squalk for better quality than squalk about failed parts in my flight book.
liability. But I’ve come to the conclusion that a more apt comparison is to a racing car, not a sedan. In racers weight is critical, just as it is in aircraft. Racers are engineered to fall apart at the finish line. If they go any farther they are, by definition, over-engineered and could have been made that much lighter!
A good example for aircraft is an engine’s crankcase. Ever hear of a Toyota’s crankcase failing? Not likely. It’s made of cast iron. But many aircraft crankcases fail (mine cracked for the previous owner). Poor engineering? I don’t think so. If Lycoming had used cast iron their crankcases would never fail. But using aluminum gives you another 80-100 lbs of pax, baggage, or fuel and, as the current Cirrus weight woes show (it IS more like a car than most planes, after all), every pound is significant.
That said, however, I agree that this argument doesn’t address the avionics problems very well. I guess the problem there is volume. GA avionics is pretty much a cottage industry compared suppliers for auto makers.
YMMV
Joe Mazza
Former Position Holder
Current TB20 Owner
The only explanation to me is that pilot/owners keep sniffing the roses and seem content to squawk, squawk, squawk in their logs! Their squawking though essential is misplaced.
Is it possible, Joe, that you think so little of the pilot population and so much of yourself that you’re the only guy who “gets it”?
As a low-timer who is generally critical of the quality in GA, let me switch sides for one post and offer a few reasons why it is hard to compare aircraft to autos:
#1 – Lateral, vertical, and longitudinal movement: In a car we seldom go flying off of the pavement, and when we do (in movies) invariably things fall off and the car begins to die. In an aircraft the constant change of direction means equipment is moving around no matter how carefully it is placed and secured. Vibration and movement are the enemy of all things mechanical, and the reality of flight means it is going to be a full factor harder to design systems that can withstand this punishment. In this way I think a good comparison to aircraft is not cars or racing cars – it is RALLY VEHICLES, like the ones that go across the desert or through borneo…etc. Watch one of those tv specials and you see what a toll a little river bed and some rough terrain can do on even the most solid of land rovers… they drop like flies!
#2 – lack of hours flown. It is realitvely easy for mercedes to go out and put thousands of hours of wear on a test car in real conditions. All you need is a robot, a test track, a few drivers, some computers… They can easily simulate real driving conditions. Then, lots of people buy the cars and drive them every day by the thousands. Imagine if Cirrus or Piper or Cessna sold 30,000 units and then had them going all the time – (impossible, I know given #1 above, but just imagine) in this world I believe engineers would have the kind of raw data and real world evidence to improve designs. Moreover, they’d have the billions that go into automotive engineering. I believe a single f1 racing team has a budget for one-year greater than the entire budget of the sr-20 project.
My point… I think it is frustrating that we have failures of relatively simple systems, and I agree it could undoubtedly be better, and it will be as $$ an interest flow into GA. HOWEVER, the inhospitable world that is “straight and level in VMC” makes doing this much harder than getting it right in our hondas. When was the last time the fuel injectors in your car had to compensate for a drastic change in pressure in a matter of minutes? Or your car’s alternator had to suffer through a landing where you got a little slow and dropped those last five feet?
No Joe, I’m one of the few who doesn’t get it. Please clue me in!
Joe
The only explanation to me is that pilot/owners keep sniffing the roses and seem content to squawk, squawk, squawk in their logs! Their squawking though essential is misplaced.
Is it possible, Joe, that you think so little of the pilot population and so much of yourself that you’re the only guy who “gets it”?
For the requested clue, you may want to read the previous posts again. (IMHO, they pretty clearly presented the other side of the issue.)
Joe
No Joe, I’m one of the few who doesn’t get it. >Please clue me in!
Joe