Cirrus Lifespan

Reading from the Cirrus SR20/22 Aircraft Type Certificate Data Sheet it states:
SR20’s airframe lifespan is 12,000 hours.
SR22’s airframe lifespan is 4,350 hours.
$73.56 per hour of deprecation.

I noticed that your name wasn’t listed in your profile when you registered. This forum doesn’t pay much attention to anonymous posters.

In my training manual, that I just received from Cirrus, it says on page 26, that
the SR22 airframe is rated to remain airworthy for 12,000 hours. Which number
is the most up to date (4,350 or 12,000)?


I mean no disrespect to the members of this form. My name is Adam Nelson. I have 400 hours of dual given in SR 20/22’s. I provided new owner training 2000-01. I am still active providing instruction in the airplanes. I was well aware of the 20’s lifespan of 12,000 hours but I recently found out about the 4,350 hour limitation on the 22’s. Just trying to add more information to the discussion concerning composites.

There’s a response in the members-only section of the forum on this issue that says that, in order to speed certification, they simply scaled the SR20 numbers based on weight and loading factors, and that they will go back and do the empirical testing to determine a new number, which will doubtlessly be much higher.

In addition, for all but commercial operations, the lifespan limit does not mean anything. If you have an SR22 with 4500 hours on the airframe and it stll passes an annual inspection, it is still insurable and legal to fly part 91 operations.

In addition, for all but commercial operations, the lifespan limit does not mean anything…

I hope this is true, but I’ve been unable to verify it. Does anyone know of a reference in the FARs, or elsewhere, for this statement? I’ve done a web search of the FARs, and found nothing.

I also checked with AOPA. According to the guy manning the phones, the life limit is a hard limit, for all operations. When the time is up, the plane cannot legally fly (though this isn’t to say that the limit won’t ever change). He seemed quite sure of his answer, but didn’t refer to any regs.

I think the fellow at AOPA made that up…I’ve never heard of a reg that says it’s illegal to fly a plane past the life limit. I always assumed the life limit was like an engine TBO…it’s there, may (or may not) be a good rule of thumb, based on treatment and care of the plane, but it’s not binding…only the annual inspection is required.

There are been here previosly posts on this matter.

Sorry if I’m not able to give you when and where.

I just remember that some COPA members reply after discussed this matter with Cirrus that:

Cirrus (SR20 & 22) Lifespan now indicated is because FAA hasn’t indication concerning composite airframe. Cirrus seems say that lifespan-time will be soon increased time after time. I do not remember well but if I didn’t recall bad, from theyr calculation lifespan already calculeted should to excede 20/22.000 h.

Hope this can match your interest.

That is the same limit as the SR20 and seems to be a more realistic number. Why would the lifespan be cut in more than half just putting a different engine in the airframe?