We work out of a runway that is over 4k ft long but a hard runway to work out of with cross wind and trees.I think what has me thinking better stick with something slower is the act we know a new Cirrus owner who infact just had a prop strike and I think of him as a good pilot. The damage was paid for by the ins company ($75k) and he only paid like $120k for the plane.
Anyone know a flightshool in St Petersburg that flies the 20 ? We are also looking at Diamond C1 as well - not the same but we had one before and are comfortable in it.
The only way you could 75,000 for props strike is to collapsed nose gear trash propeller trash engine wrecked the engine mount and have to do engineering work to repair the firewall
Paul, in all fairness, the only airplane for someone who does not fly a lot is an airplane with a flight instructor on the right seat every time that someone goes back to flying!
I feel the same as I fly 60 -70 hrs a year and from what members say u need a 100 or better. The prop strike I mention smashed the lower cowl, they replaced the prop and tore dn the engine. I wonder how they got to the repair shop wink wink
Some members. Few members, in fact. I, for one, couldn’t agree less.You guys keep forgetting that 100 hours per year is a number that is very, very hard to achieve in this utterly unimportant rest-of-the-world that exists beyond the good ole USofA.
That said, here’s today’s obvious assignment for our statistics buffs. Since the number of flight hours per Cirrus aircraft is so well known:
How many Cirrusses in the worldwide (! - this is important) fleet are flying less than 100 hours per year? This, of course, doesn’t even begin count the many planes that are flown by two or more pilots, each flying less than 100 hours, but I would still bet a quarter or even one-third of the fleet will come in below 100 hours per year.
What percentage of those below-100 aircraft are involved in accidents compared to the rest of the fleet? And, to have a more meaningful metric, what is the accident rate per flight hour for below-100 aircraft and for those above? I seriously doubt there is any meaningful difference.
In other words and with apologies to George Braly: Show me the numbers! When have you last based a 200k plus investment decision on hearsay from some stranger in an Internet forum, without having looked at the product in question yourself at least once? FWIW, that seems to be a peculiar investment strategy to me.
Don’t get me wrong: I believe it is very important for pilots (all pilots, regardless of time flown) to approach flying with the right mindset. But I firmly believe there are completely different factors involved than “you must fly more than x hours to be safe”. That’s just part of the old “mine is bigger than yours” routine, which is nicely illustrated by the fact that x most often happens to be the exact number of hours the person giving that statement has logged.
I dont get the “wink wink”…Landing accidents, prop strikes and porpoising have killed good people. I’m curious as to how the “wink wink” comes into play!
Let me stress again that I’m entirely supportive of anyone’s decision to choose an aircraft in which they feel most comfortable. Unless you’re a test pilot, in flying familiarity breeds content. Having said that, I have gone over this thread. Who are the members who say you need a 100 or better? Paul Peikis, a non-Cirrus pilot, does say he does not “fly a lot”. But he does not specify a level.
Quite apart from trying to understand where an idea that appears to govern Bandit1’s decision arises, let me add the following: I know more than one local CFI who instructs in multiple planes. So they likely fly less than 100 hours annually in a Cirrus. Yet they are well-regarded and, I can personally attest: they’re very good at their job. (Not saying flying less than 100 hours/year is optimal. Simply that this ‘100 hour minimum’ idea seems neither supported by this thread nor by evidence.)
There’s nothing wrong with that decision. They’ll be a Cirrus waiting for you when you’re ready. I think some (or many) of the mishandling incidents with the Cirrus are due to inexperienced pilots. Learn the basics and work your way up.
Just to demonstrate how easy it is to land a Cirrus – a quick story. I bought my first SR20 without even flying one. I had to have it flown to my airport by another pilot, since I couldn’t find an insurance-mandated CSIP right away (thank you Rick McClanahan). On my first flight with the instructor, were about 10 minutes up, just past the DC Bravo, and he pulled power back to idle and said “engine failure”. I don’t think he really expected me to go all the way to landing, but I had a nice airport in range, and bought it in for a near perfect landing (actually perfect, but I was bought up to be modest). A very easy airplane to land.
But, that’s after several thousand hours of flight, and landings, in Cessnas, Pipers, Maules, and a few others.
You do yourself no harm by spending some time in a Cessna, moving around slowly and building skills. The SR 20 and SR22 I owned were the nicest flying, and best performing planes of the 16 I’ve owned. If your load and mission fits, you’ll want one at some time. But I think it’s a great idea to work your way there.
I’d rather fly an airplane that would make me look stupid if I make a crappy landing than one that kills me, barbecues and then covers with a parachute [:)]
Bandit. We have plenty of non-Cirrus fliers as part of Copa. The big thing which is really important is we don’t allow the use of pseudonyms for screen names. I would love to chat you up but I would also love to know who I am chatting with
Compared to a 172 or even a 182 the SR20 is much better in a crosswind. It is also a much smoother ride in turbulence. At 4K’ you are talking a long runway so length isn’t an issue. If you were talking 1800’ then I would recommend a 182 instead.
Bandit. I was 64 hrs. PP when I got my 20. Insurance required 25 hrs. You really should fly one before writing it off as a choice. Prop and tail strikes seem like little issue to me as I trained in a low wing and I had no transition issues at all.