Sorry to be late on this subject, but would someone please confirm or deny that the SR20 has to have the BRS chute to be legal to fly because the aircraft cannot pass the FAA spin tests and is not considered spin resistant ???
If this is the case, how often does the chute have to be removed and inspected to remain legal, and is there a program to redesign the wing to comply with spin resistance or to pass the requirements to allow flight w/o the BRS. ??
Thanks
I once read about a Lancair test pilot named Mike DeHate. Just curious: any relationship? (It stuck in my mind as a distinctive name.) That doesn’t affect the validity of your question, but given the embattled state of parachute discussions between Lancair and Cirrus you can see why I ask. Thanks, Jim Fallows
For what it’s worth, I bet most other potential customers would join me in thinking it would be great if Lancair and Cirrus representatives openly debated this and other design issues, under their real names and with all affiliations disclosed.
The bottom line is what the largest number of customers want. Both the Lancair and Cirrus are fine contributions to the new face of GA, but so far, to the extent that the two planes would attract the same customer base (debatable considering the performance difference, but they probably overlap), the current vote seems to be 6-to-1 in favor of the plane with the 'chute.
This will be debated endlessly I’m sure. The objective value of the BRS will only be clear if some number of Cirrus drivers have to use it and we can assess the outcomes. I hope we never get those data.
Far more important is the subjective value: the BRS reassures nervous spouses & those who are new to GA (or eyeing it warily) that travel by small plane can be made more safe. This will bring more people into GA for sure, which is what we all need, Lancair included.
Even for me personally, I would rather come down into really rough terrain with the BRS than at 75-80 KIAS engine-out approach speed. There’s at least a 15-fold difference in the amount of kinetic energy to be dissipated in coming to a halt.
Kevin Moore #249
Sorry to be late on this subject, but would someone please confirm or deny that the SR20 has to have the BRS chute to be legal to fly because the aircraft cannot pass the FAA spin tests and is not considered spin resistant ???
If this is the case, how often does the chute have to be removed and inspected to remain legal, and is there a program to redesign the wing to comply with spin resistance or to pass the requirements to allow flight w/o the BRS. ??
Thanks
Sorry to be late on this subject, but would someone please confirm or deny that the SR20 has to have the BRS chute to be legal to fly because the aircraft cannot pass the FAA spin tests and is not considered spin resistant ???
Others know a lot more about this airplane than I do, but I don’t think spin testing of the Cirrus has anything to do with the BRS being mandatory. It was certified under FAR 23 and as a part of the certification process the parachute was included. It can no more fly legally without the BRS than it can legally fly without an airspeed indicator or an oil pressure gauge.
and is there a program to redesign the wing to comply with spin resistance or to pass the requirements to allow flight w/o the BRS. ??
Can almost guarantee that no such redesign will ever take place. Again, I do not believe the BRS has anything to do with spin tests. The BRS was a major step taken intentionally by the company in order to create their concept of a present day state-of-the-art airplane. They are pursuing market share and a part of the concept to earn it is the parachute. There are all sorts of opinions pro and con regarding the BRS, but one thing cannot be ignored. The customer has spoken for some 700 of these airplanes and the future looks very bright. There’s no way the BRS is coming out under those circumstances.
Sorry to be late on this subject, but would someone please confirm or deny that the SR20 has to have the BRS chute to be legal to fly because the aircraft cannot pass the FAA spin tests and is not considered spin resistant ???
If this is the case, how often does the chute have to be removed and inspected to remain legal, and is there a program to redesign the wing to comply with spin resistance or to pass the requirements to allow flight w/o the BRS. ??
Thanks
My understanding…and I could be wrong …is that Cirrus was not required to take the “spin test” BECAUSE they had the chute…
Also my understanding i sthat the leading edge cuffs on the wings are said to be an advantage when encountering a spin situation…
excuse my paranoia…but this one looks like a plant…how many would be alive today if chutes existed before now?
just go to BRS website and count all the lives that were saved…
Cirrus …leading the way in safety…
all others are second best.
Sorry to be late on this subject, but would someone please confirm or deny that the SR20 has to have the BRS chute to be legal to fly because the aircraft cannot pass the FAA spin tests and is not considered spin resistant ???
I believe the cuffs on the wings, the first ever to win FAA approval, qualify the airplane spin-resistant, and that the parachute is essentially for use after mid-air collisions (as experienced by one of the plane’s designers early in his aviation career) and for engine out over inhospitable terrain and/or at night.
I also heard, from another pilot who frequents this board, that the Lancair 300 has earned it’s spin resitance rating by the use of a rudder-travel limiting device – though I will find out soon if this is true.
I am very much under the impression that each of these fine aircraft must be spin resistant in order to have been certified under the new FAA regs…
Except for the fact that they are both new, I actually don’t see the Lancair and sr20 as competing products – due to the price difference. I think the sr20 competes with 172,182, Archer…etc. All of which it outperforms handily with the possible exception of the Peterson modified 182. The lancair is up against the Bonanza and Mooneys – and it stacks up well there.
The only real competition will be the sr22 and the lancair 300…
Round one coming soon…
Everyone coming to this board has some interest in what Cirrus is up to. But I believe that most potential customers are also favorably rather than unfavorably inclined to Lancair. Both of these companies are bringing out great new planes that are miles better than what would otherwise be available. To the extent that their products are competitive, each’s efforts should push the other toward better performance. To the extent they are complementary, they can build the GA market as a whole and make more good planes available for more pilots at a lower cost. And where they differ – high-end performance, at a higher price, for the current Lancair; the parachute and other differences for the SR20 – the differences constitute choice for the consumer. As a reporter I’ve interviewed people from both the companies. I like all the things they’re trying to do.
I mention this because there’s a weird dynamic underway between the companies. Officials from both companies read the boards, which is only natural. For Cirrus, it’s feedback; for Lancair, it’s market intelligence. Cirrus officials don’t respond, as a company policy – except for praiseworthy exceptions like the recent “Rick.” That makes things less entertaining but I can understand it as a practical policy. Let them concentrate on boosting production rates. Lancair officials don’t respond officially – but I have reason to believe that they do so unofficially, through representatives, under assumed names, and so on. (To his credit, Mike DeHate used a real name – and perhaps it is just a coincidence that a Lancair test pilot has the same name.) And through these representatives and under these pseudonyms they run down the Cirrus rather that building up the Lancair.
A suggestion: I hope more Cirrus representatives will, like Rick, feel free to weigh in. And I hope Lancair officials would weigh in too – under their real names, saying who they are. This would both put their arguments in perspective AND give the arguments more weight. And it would avoid the otherwise strong impression of duplicity in some postings on the board. Jf.
Sorry to be late on this subject, but would someone please confirm or deny that the SR20 has to have the BRS chute to be legal to fly
Yes, that’s correct. The aircraft was certified with the parachute, and if the chute is removed, it is no longer airworthy because it no longer meets its certified configuration.
because the aircraft cannot pass the FAA spin tests and is not considered spin resistant ???
No, this is not true. The aircraft was given an exemption by the FAA from the full range of spin testing because the parachute was demonstrated to provide an equivalent level of safety. This does not mean that it cannot pass the spin tests (indeed, from the reports I’ve heard, it would probably have little difficulty - it is apparently quite hard to spin).
The benefit to Cirrus of not doing the full range of spin testing is simply cost and time - it saved them having to do quite a lot of work.
If this is the case, how often does the chute have to be removed and inspected to remain legal,
From memory, the chute has to be inspected after 5 years, and the rocket replaced after 10 years. There are no other maintenance requirements.
and is there a program to redesign the wing to comply with spin resistance or to pass the requirements to allow flight w/o the BRS. ??
No there is not (nor would it be necessary, just to demonstrate spin resistance). Why would there be? Who in their right mind would not want to have the chute?
It’s my understanding, and I’m open to knowledgeable correction on this issue, that the Columbia 300 has demonstrated spin resistance, but required both a rudder travel limiter and a restricted CofG range to achieve this.
I did notice on the type certificate data sheet for the Columbia that it, too, has been exempted from certain of the FAR23 stall and spin requirements by an Equivalent Level of Safety determination. I don’t have any details on what that involved.
I also noticed that the http://www.airweb.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/d05bbd046f22c629862568f10044d7c0/$FILE/a00003se.pdfColumbia type certificate data sheet specifies an airframe life limit of 1200 flight hours (yes, 1200!) No need to worry if your engine will make TBO! Surely that’s a typo.
Here’s a good paper on the spin resistance certification testing of the SR20 and the Lancair:
http://bart.netport.com/setp/certification_spinresistant.htm
CERTIFICATION of SPIN RESISTANT AIRCRAFT
Eugene Arnold (M)
Federal Aviation Administration
Seattle ACO Flight Test Branch
A quote:
“Within the past two years, both the Cirrus SR-20 and Lancair Columbia 300 sought some form of Spin Resistant certification. Both received full certification in the fall of 1998, however neither was certified as fully spin resistant… Although both aircraft sought some form of spin resistant certification and both were certified using spin resistance criteria amended into Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 23 in January 1991, neither was certified as fully spin resistant. Both aircraft used an equivalent level of safety approach in achieving full certification. The Cirrus SR20 equivalent level of safety was demonstrated through a combination of spin resistance criteria and the Ballistic Recovery Chute (BRS). The Lancair Colombia 300 (a.k.a. the LC-40) equivalent level of safety methodology was to demonstrate a level of safety, through a combination of spin resistance and one turn spin criteria, that was equivalent or better than that provided by compliance with only the one turn spin recovery option allowed under FAR Part 23.”
This paper goes on to provide detailed coverage of the Lancair spin tests. The author is generally very positive about the Lancair’s spin handling, although there were a couple extreme corners of the envelope that raised questions and necessitated “an electrically operated rudder limiter solenoid [that] mechanically restricts left rudder travel at higher power settings with the stall warning activated”. Other than the statement that the SR20 demonstrated “a combination of spin resistance criteria…”, there’s not much detail on the SR20 spin handling. It does say that both planes use a “cuffed” leading edge design for spin resistance, which was something I hadn’t known about the Lancair.
Gary Fitts, SR20 position #674
In a post a few months ago I mentioned that Lance Niebauer (sp?) himself responded by email to a question I posted about why white is the only color allowed on the Cirrus while the Lancair can be in any color.
Joe
Everyone coming to this board has some interest in what Cirrus is up to. But I believe that most potential customers are also favorably rather than unfavorably inclined to Lancair. Both of these companies are bringing out great new planes that are miles better than what would otherwise be available. To the extent that their products are competitive, each’s efforts should push the other toward better performance. To the extent they are complementary, they can build the GA market as a whole and make more good planes available for more pilots at a lower cost. And where they differ – high-end performance, at a higher price, for the current Lancair; the parachute and other differences for the SR20 – the differences constitute choice for the consumer. As a reporter I’ve interviewed people from both the companies. I like all the things they’re trying to do.
I mention this because there’s a weird dynamic underway between the companies. Officials from both companies read the boards, which is only natural. For Cirrus, it’s feedback; for Lancair, it’s market intelligence. Cirrus officials don’t respond, as a company policy – except for praiseworthy exceptions like the recent “Rick.” That makes things less entertaining but I can understand it as a practical policy. Let them concentrate on boosting production rates. Lancair officials don’t respond officially – but I have reason to believe that they do so unofficially, through representatives, under assumed names, and so on. (To his credit, Mike DeHate used a real name – and perhaps it is just a coincidence that a Lancair test pilot has the same name.) And through these representatives and under these pseudonyms they run down the Cirrus rather that building up the Lancair.
A suggestion: I hope more Cirrus representatives will, like Rick, feel free to weigh in. And I hope Lancair officials would weigh in too – under their real names, saying who they are. This would both put their arguments in perspective AND give the arguments more weight. And it would avoid the otherwise strong impression of duplicity in some postings on the board. Jf.
Everyone coming to this board has some interest in what Cirrus is up to. But I believe that most potential customers are also favorably rather than unfavorably inclined to Lancair. Both of these companies are bringing out great new planes that are miles better than what would otherwise be available. To the extent that their products are competitive, each’s efforts should push the other toward better performance. To the extent they are complementary, they can build the GA market as a whole and make more good planes available for more pilots at a lower cost. And where they differ – high-end performance, at a higher price, for the current Lancair; the parachute and other differences for the SR20 – the differences constitute choice for the consumer. As a reporter I’ve interviewed people from both the companies. I like all the things they’re trying to do.
I mention this because there’s a weird dynamic underway between the companies. Officials from both companies read the boards, which is only natural. For Cirrus, it’s feedback; for Lancair, it’s market intelligence. Cirrus officials don’t respond, as a company policy – except for praiseworthy exceptions like the recent “Rick.” That makes things less entertaining but I can understand it as a practical policy. Let them concentrate on boosting production rates. Lancair officials don’t respond officially – but I have reason to believe that they do so unofficially, through representatives, under assumed names, and so on. (To his credit, Mike DeHate used a real name – and perhaps it is just a coincidence that a Lancair test pilot has the same name.) And through these representatives and under these pseudonyms they run down the Cirrus rather that building up the Lancair.
A suggestion: I hope more Cirrus representatives will, like Rick, feel free to weigh in. And I hope Lancair officials would weigh in too – under their real names, saying who they are. This would both put their arguments in perspective AND give the arguments more weight. And it would avoid the otherwise strong impression of duplicity in some postings on the board. Jf.
just a guess, but i would suspect that the legal department had some say in CD’s level of activity on this message board - but then that’s just a guess.
In a post a few months ago I mentioned that Lance Niebauer (sp?) himself responded by email to a question I posted about why white is the only color allowed on the Cirrus while the Lancair can be in any color.
Joe
given everything that transpires in this forum, the information and misinformation, I really have to commnend Cirrus for staying out.
I’m sure they are very tempted to correct the misstatements that occur here, but by doing so, they only open themselves up to so much additional criticism.
On occaision, I have read something here and calle up CD and gotten the ‘right’ answer. If I thought it relevant & I had not been asked not to repeat it, I’ve gone ahead and posted their comments. I think others including Walt have done the same. So their comments do make it to the site, amid all the other chaff.
Yes, they’ll tell us about the SR22 when they decide to. Yes, they’ll inform us about avionics changes when they feel it’s appropriate.
Let’s all remember what this is, an internet bulletin board. It is very entertaining and a great source of info, but, anyone can post a message and it may or may not be correct. If you’re a position holder or considering a purchase, I strenously recommend that you talk to Cirrus (and Lancair) with any cquestions and concerns before you make a decision based upon anything you read here.
Walt, Clyde, Rick and Jim, keep your comments and stories coming. Chris, Mike and any others who may have an axe to grind or, how about telling us your other relationships?
Marty
Everyone coming to this board has some interest in what Cirrus is up to. But I believe that most potential customers are also favorably rather than unfavorably inclined to Lancair. Both of these companies are bringing out great new planes that are miles better than what would otherwise be available. To the extent that their products are competitive, each’s efforts should push the other toward better performance. To the extent they are complementary, they can build the GA market as a whole and make more good planes available for more pilots at a lower cost. And where they differ – high-end performance, at a higher price, for the current Lancair; the parachute and other differences for the SR20 – the differences constitute choice for the consumer. As a reporter I’ve interviewed people from both the companies. I like all the things they’re trying to do.
I mention this because there’s a weird dynamic underway between the companies. Officials from both companies read the boards, which is only natural. For Cirrus, it’s feedback; for Lancair, it’s market intelligence. Cirrus officials don’t respond, as a company policy – except for praiseworthy exceptions like the recent “Rick.” That makes things less entertaining but I can understand it as a practical policy. Let them concentrate on boosting production rates. Lancair officials don’t respond officially – but I have reason to believe that they do so unofficially, through representatives, under assumed names, and so on. (To his credit, Mike DeHate used a real name – and perhaps it is just a coincidence that a Lancair test pilot has the same name.) And through these representatives and under these pseudonyms they run down the Cirrus rather that building up the Lancair.
A suggestion: I hope more Cirrus representatives will, like Rick, feel free to weigh in. And I hope Lancair officials would weigh in too – under their real names, saying who they are. This would both put their arguments in perspective AND give the arguments more weight. And it would avoid the otherwise strong impression of duplicity in some postings on the board. Jf.
just a guess, but i would suspect that the legal department had some say in CD’s level of activity on this message board - but then that’s just a guess.
I work for a company that sells a medical software app. The people in charge do not allow us to post anything to the listserv, all replies must goes thru the liason to the users group. It allows the company to have a single point of view to the customers and not every person who works for a company know the true vision of the future for a product. That being said, I think the policy stinks.
No, this is not true. The aircraft was given an exemption by the FAA from the full range of spin testing because the parachute was demonstrated to provide an equivalent level of safety. This does not mean that it cannot pass the spin tests (indeed, from the reports I’ve heard, it would probably have little difficulty - it is apparently quite hard to spin).
I just looked up FAR 23.221 which details spin test requirements. For normal and utility category aircraft, Part 23 allows two methods of handling spins for certification. One is to do the spin tests as defined in this section. The other, however, is:
“At the applicant’s option, the airplane may be demonstrated to be spin resistant by the following:” and then goes on to define the flight protocol for demonstrating adequate compliance. Some of this is quite rigorous, for instance having the pitch control to the aft stop with full rudder in for seven seconds, both power on and off, and with full opposite aileron, etc. and still have no spin develop.
I think that Cirrus and Lancair both opted to go for this second method of approval rather than the first. After all, spins have historically killed a lot of people, so maintaining a very high degree of spin resistance would seem to be the best way to go for a manufacturer seeking to hit the state of the art and avoid as much liability exposure as possible. (Frankly, I have still never figured out how anyone could stall an airplane accidently, let alone spin it, but that is another subject.)
So according to part 23, it appears that the BRS had no bearing on spin approval. The alternative means of compliance was to establish a high degree of spin resistance, and evidently Lancair has also done this without the BRS. The BRS is just Cirrus’ approach to a higher degree of flying safety and to a resulting higher market share. As I said before, it seems to be working out for them based on sales figures.
The airframe limit is 12000 hours, not 1200. Otherwise that’d make for some pretty interesting flying.
So according to part 23, it appears that the BRS had no bearing on spin approval. The alternative means of compliance was to establish a high degree of spin resistance, and evidently Lancair has also done this without the BRS. The BRS is just Cirrus’ approach to a higher degree of flying safety and to a resulting higher market share. As I said before, it seems to be working out for them based on sales figures.
To take those sales figures a little further. Cessna just recently touted the delivery of their 2000 aircraft and 1000 Skyhawk since production resumed. Cirrus has already sold between 600 to 800 units. That’s amazing considering how much of Cessna’s Skyhawk sales were to training organizations who’s planes were ready to fall apart and would take anything they would sell to them.
To take those sales figures a little further. Cessna just recently touted the delivery of their 2000 aircraft and 1000 Skyhawk since production resumed. Cirrus has already sold between 600 to 800 units. That’s amazing considering how much of Cessna’s Skyhawk sales were to training organizations who’s planes were ready to fall apart and would take anything they would sell to them.
well, let’s be a little less subjective:
The Cessna figures are for DELIVERIES, cirrus’s are for sales contracts. you have to give Cessna credit for actually manufacturing that many planes. Cirrus is up to 40 what? they still have some challenges.
Let’s also rememmber that the Skyhawk has the reptuation for being sturdy, reasonlably simple to fly, inexpensive to maintain and about as forgiving an airplane as you can get. Just about everything you could want in a trainer. If I had to purchase a training fleet today, I’d still have to give Cessna a serious look just for their ability to deliver, the plane’s flying and maintenance reputation. Companies that took chances on Katanas and bought a fleet have had some problems, and at least one has returned them.
I am very enthusiastic about the new planes manufactured with new technologies, but there is still a long way to go. Let’s encourage the competition as it is clearly the best way to spur development and enjoy the friuts of innovation.