Has a Supercharger on a Cirrus caused accidents before?

Has a Supercharger on a Cirrus caused accidents before?

Jamie from Steel Aviation believes at least two aviation accidents have been attributed to the Supercharger…

She says I can search your list serve for discussion on these accidents but I"m not a member.


The amount of stuff on the Member Side is worth it. Trust me.

Edited until you join the member side

One I know of a steel oil fitting cracked in one (chute pull resulted). After a complete loss of oil the engine seized.

I cannot think of a second one where the SC was causal. I do know of one pulled the chute which there is some reason to believe there were pilot operational issues involved.

I know of several that have run for a long time and the owner is quite happy with it.

As others have said, we have over a million posts on the member side that is cheap to access and search. In addition we have perks for things like databases that pay for the dues many times over making COPA the best value in Cirrus aviation.

But in general you won’t get a lot of good insights on the guest column.


I dont know the answer to your question, but I do know someone on here does…probably 15 of them. Trick is…they ain’t gonna tell you until you join. So join. I did a long time ago and STILL don’t own a plane. But I read almost every day. It’s basically free in aviation units!


If you’re serious about possibly buying a Cirrus aircraft you should join COPA; that’s a no brainer.

Why is that when a guest asks a question the overwhelming majority of the replies is telling them to become a member to get the answers?

I’m aware of 1 case only, which Roger described in his post. Any part can break in an airplane oil line or fitting so I wouldn’t say that the supercharger caused the engine seizure. Dead sticks happen. We’ve seen similar problems in turbocharged airplanes, probably more cases than in supercharged.

I have a supercharger on my SR22 and I’m happy with it.


Maybe because question has been answered so many times before and can be searched as a member. Kinda frustrating to answer very specific questions again and again.

Then why have a guest section at all if we don’t want to answer questions that have already been asked & answered? I would think that providing answers/value on the guest section is a much more effective way to encourage membership than simply telling a potential member that the answers you seek are available and we’re willing to help you; but FIRST you must join…

That’s a reasonable question but this particular poster has started several threads on the possible purchase and I think at least some of us think it would be to his advantage to just join and get access to everything he is asking and more. Additionally, those of us who are active posters get a little tired of the same questions ad infinitum.

The real purpose of the guest section is for an occasional general question from a non member (like a one off question about CAPS) as opposed to a Forum where freeloaders can get everything a member gets but doesn’t have to pay.

I would say it is dependent on the nature of the question. If a non-member has general questions about COPA or questions to help him decide if he should consider a Cirrus, then the Guest section provides a forum. If the non-member represents him/herself as a serious potential owner (like this fellow) or has highly technical questions upon which he/she will decide to spend large sums, then the only proper response is that it would be silly to not spend the $65 to access COPA’s knowledge base.

Membership has its privileges.

Because all the answers are on the members’ side already, obviating the need to type the same stuff over and over.

I agree. IMO we should remove the Guest forum. For one thing, it gives visitors the false impression that the COPA forums are quiet and empty, which is about as far from reality as you can get. [8-)]

Absolutely. Give prospective members a 30 day free trial and let them see the whole site. After that, if they are too cheap to join, well…

As far as I’m concerned, purchasing/flying/owning a Cirrus without being a member of COPA, is like having a law degree, but not joining the Bar…I mean, you got it, but you can’t really use it.

If anyone flys an airplane, ANY AIRPLANE, joining COPA is probably the best investment they could make. Sure, lots of Cirrus specific info, but tons of aviation & even non aviation (ie. Health) information. I haven’t had a Cirrus for the last three years, but check the forums almost every day. Best value I know of !

Join, you’ll be glad you did.

I tend to agree. Is 30 days the right number or is 14 sufficient? One week?

30 is too long,

7 was enough for the world to be created…

14 seems fine…

If it takes more than 14 days to see the value…well…

Next question is going to be how to control the number of trial period given to a person etc etc.

We should perhaps include a retina scan at every attempted log in.

This is an unfortunate thread creep from the original topic.

As a paid member I’d actually really like to hear the discussion about whether superchargers have actually caused incidents.

If I was a non-member reading this (as I believe anyone can since it is in the guest section) - this would not actually sway me to pay up and join; it would likely discourage me from doing so.

After the lashing we gave guest poster David Klasing - I’d be surprised if he did join himself.

Too bad - COPA really is worth the price of admission - however we did not make a convincing argument here…