I am pro chute, and have seen many discussion from guys saying they dont like the chute, makes you an unsafe pilot because you push the limits more.(that is pilot dependant and not airplane ).
The planes I fly, one is modified for the backcountry Cessna 182, many flights over mountains and terrain where a forced landing would be bad, I wish it had a parachute, but half of the time I am so low over rivers and gravel bars it wont work, also would not be able to put my Mt bikes inside like I do know (straight in no disassembly).
Other plane I fly is a warbird, and on that one I really wish it had a chute, stall speed is 60kts, I avoid flying it over mountains, although I do wear a parachute, jumping its a scary thought, its for sure not the same as having a chute for the plane.
If I ever buy a travelling airplane, I will want a chute, the Cirrus also has no retractable landing gear , which is less maintenance and less worry for a gear up landing. I will be flying soon and let you guys know how I liked it.
When I transitioned in 2007, the parachute was not a selling point for me. It was still a relative novelty. And, had I had access to a shared ownership program for the Corvalis, like now-defunct Airshares was for the Cirrus, I might have gone in that direction instead.
Fast-forward, the parachute is a key reason why my next SEP will be another Cirrus. I think about it before every takeoff while briefing engine failure, and again during climb out, looking down and contemplating emergency off-airport landing sites should the engine go TU.
I bought in 2006. I didnât know Cirrus even existed as a company - Diamond was my first composite airframe exposure. But I needed a composite airframe for mounting a lot of antennas without drilling holes and Diamond was too small. The parachute did not factor into the decision. Today, it still does not factor into the decision.
+1. My wife and I discussed many options before deciding on an SR22. She listened patiently to pros and cons but would not consider a plane without a chute.
I bought my first SR22 without the parachute in mind at all. Didnt care about it. Reason i bought it was because for $155k, it was by far the best bang for the buck in terms of⌠everything. Better interior, more room, more modern avionics than a comparable Bo.
Like others, after flying with the parachute for 5 years, its absolutely why i stay with cirrus and do not switch. I would have seriously looks at a Bonanza 36 for the extra room/ seats. But i just couldnt do it without the chute, so i got a g2 SR22.
Absolutely not. I would have purchased a TTX, which does not have the significant flight control and trim issues the SR22 has. But the TTX does not have the chute, which is the bigger safety of flight deficiency in my opinion.
Man, did I love my V35B. That wouldâve been my last plane ever, IF I could have added BRS.
I lost friends to crashes, and one in a particularly bad ICU burn unit, so decided it was twin or Cirrus.
So⌠CAPS was THE reason. Didnât even fly one before I bought it.
With that said, I love the plane for many other reasons, and am very happy with it. But the TTX might win out in a composite plane, or back to the v-tail. Maybe.
Iâm feeling extremely blessed to contemplate such questions, and nobody is a bigger Cirrus fan than me.
Cirrus w/o a chute is not better than TTX in avionics, speed brakes, knots and etc. I was almost about to close the deal on TTX with Vanbortel, unfortunately we could not work on the price. However Iâm more happier with my 2015 SR22 G5.
Iâd be very interested to know how many of the people that say the TTx was a consideration have flown both the Cirrus and the TTx. Not just sat in it at a show, but flown. Anyone? Thanks!
I have flown in both the SR 22 and the TTX. At the time though, what I flew was called a Columbia 400. That was back in the day before Cessna had acquired the product line.
I found the two planes very similar in performance with the 400 going a tad faster. I did not like the âwoodenâ yoke quite as much but not a real bother. The Cirrus back seat had more room and, of course, the Columbia had no chute.
At the time, the additional thing I noted was the marked difference in the sales force. The Cirrus folks were far more friendly and willing to give you a demo ride. It seems the Columbia sales folks had to âpay their own wayâ to have a plane to demo so many wanted to charge a fee for a demo ride. I honestly do not remember if I paid for my demo or not as it was more than 10 years ago. In addition, the Cirrus folks only wanted to talk about how good the Cirrus was. The Columbia guy wanted to talk half the time about how âbadâ the Cirrus was including the notion that the Columbia was rated in the utility category. It was an obviously different experience with the two companies.
I came away feeling far better about the Cirrus. I think it is not just the chute that explains why, after almost 20 years, the Cirrus sales are exponentially higher than the Columbia/TTX line.
my experience with the salesforce matches yours. I found the visibility out of the TTx really bad in comparison, especially out front. I also didnât like the ergonomics: that embarrassing afterthought of a leather strap to pull the door down, the inside latch then being well behind the seating position and virtually unreachable, no keypad on the G1000 until the end of production IIRC, zero leg room in the back seats.
âAt the time, the additional thing I noted was the marked difference in the sales force. The Cirrus folks were far more friendly and willing to give you a demo ride. It seems the Columbia sales folks had to âpay their own wayâ to have a plane to demo so many wanted to charge a fee for a demo ride. I honestly do not remember if I paid for my demo or not as it was more than 10 years ago. In addition, the Cirrus folks only wanted to talk about how good the Cirrus was. The Columbia guy wanted to talk half the time about how âbadâ the Cirrus was including the notion that the Columbia was rated in the utility category. It was an obviously different experience with the two companiesâ
I completely agree Brian. I was so turned off by the Columbia folks I never went any further than sit in the 400. I found its visibility and seating not to my liking, but I could have gotten past that. The other problem back then was availability. You could actually write a check and get a Cirrus. The Columbia was ramping so slow it was a multi year wait.
I bought the airplane for the parachute. After flying for over 50 years and getting up in age I began to think about what happened to my passengers if I had a health event. So I sold my beloved TBM (my second one) after flying them for 20 years and bought a Cirrus six weeks ago.
Its perfect for our infrequent missions with no schedule demands.
Guilty, and good posts following yours. I did sit in one, but never flew it. Not sure I ever even closed the door, and I never considered one - it was only to compare to the Cirrus I had just bought. They are a beautiful airplane to look at, but after I posted, I also remembered seeing the dismal UL. Seems very short sighted to certify in Utility, rather than give an increase in UL.
Thereâs also an often overlooked yet vast difference between MTOW and max landing weight. Basically, if you take off fully loaded and want to return immediately, someone (and not a supermodel) will have to jump out if you want to remain legal.
This poll is very skewed. Looked at whom is posting in it.
I wonder if we could ask the last 500 folks that bought a new Cirrus if the chute was a factor. I wouldnât be surprised if itâs 90+ % due to the chute in particular for folks that are buying a plane for the first time, itâs gotta be closer to 95%.