Mine is due to be repacked in 2027. This years they are going for £19,800 (VAT included) in the UK.
So yes, I’m already stealing a few coins from my daughters’ piggy bank every now and then :)
Snoopy wrote:
Simple answer. The BRS of Cirrus is certified, much bigger (1542/1633kg) and distributed by Cirrus, which is (like pretty much all manufacturers) not exactly known for bargain pricing.To compare it with UL/microlight prices is pointless. It’s a different world.
My current steed has a BRS 1350 installed. A replacement costs between 6 and 7k, depending on whether I want high speed deployment or not, Add to that replacement costs, maybe 3k, then I’m at 10k all in; early SR20s had an MTOW 1338 until raised to 1363 – their chutes are not that much bigger, the 25k quoted is just excessive and soon enough, will reach 40 or even 50k…..
To me this sounds like “if you want to be part of the family, got to pay that prices”.
When I drove a convertible I was just amazed about what plain simple parts and labor was billed at. Yes there are parts that are different from an Opel Corsa (Vauxhall in some countries), but e.g. the engine cooler is not. Mine broke, not the hose, the cooler itself, and that was just insanely expensive to have it fixed. You either accept this and are part of the family or you look for something different. Where the engine cooler doesn’t break. 
Cirrus wrote:
Modern production airplanes are, in general, not tested or certified for spins.Aerobatic designs such as Extra and Sukhoi products are, of course, tested and certified for spins – but mainstream general aviation four-seat designs such as Cirrus, Cessna (182, 350/400), Diamond, Piper etc. are not certified for spins. Few 4-seat designs have ever been certified for spins.
For most pilots recognizing the early stages of a spin, or recovering a developed spin, is unlikely in any kind of airplane. Spins were eliminated from basic flight training decades ago; recovery from a developed spin is long gone from certification tests; and FAA data suggests less than 3% of inadvertent spins are recovered (regardless of the airplane), and probably none at low altitude. As such, from a general aviation point of view spins are a “loss of control.”
That is such disingenuous BS, but I would expect nothing less from marketing material.
Yes, most are not certified for intentional spinning. But they are certainly rigorously tested around the edges of the envelope, and their behaviour either needs to be up to snuff or they need to have a BRS installed instead.
It is simply not true that most pilots would neither recognise an incipient spin nor be able to recover from a developed one. Spins were removed from basic flight training because the training killed more people than the real thing, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important to know what the standard spin recovery actions are and any good instructor should ensure their students can recite them whilst asleep.
Very few inadvertent spins are recovered because they nearly all happen too low to recover, so that 3% is a really misleading use of a statistic. If spins were to be considered an irrecoverable loss of control, we wouldn’t practice stalling at all. But we do, with sufficient height to recover should the stall lead to an inadvertent spin.
This defensive “spins are irrelevant in the modern world” marketing BS can be combined with the fact that the aircraft is not airworthy without a serviceable and in-date BRS system to give you all the confirmation you need about why the BRS system is required.
Graham wrote:
This defensive “spins are irrelevant in the modern world” marketing BS can be combined with the fact that the aircraft is not airworthy without a serviceable and in-date BRS system to give you all the confirmation you need about why the BRS system is required.
I’ll disagree with you there to some extent. The intention of Cirrus was to make their aircraft spin-resistant according to FAR 23.221. However, an aircraft which is spin resistant is ultimately more difficult to recover, in case of an inadvertent spin…..
The rules state:
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one- turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.
The Cirrus won’t meet those requirements hence the ’chute is used as an alternative means of compliance….The question is: Why one turn?
A further, for me more relevant question would be: What would I prefer?
An aircraft which is easier to put into a spin but will recover within one turn of correct anti-spin inputs?
or
An aircraft which is harder to spin but needs an alternative means of compliance to meet FAA requirements of exiting a spin within one additional turn, however it will exit said spin within 2 – 3 turns after application of anti-spin inputs?
Personally speaking, I’d like as much protection from spins as possible – if I wanted to fly aerobatics, I’d buy an aerobatic plane – I don’t, however, hence I’d prefer the spin-resistant aircraft….
Let’s be serious, if FAR23.221 requirement was (e.g.) recovery within 3 turns, the chute wouldn’t have been necessary, thus it could be labeled “inop” and the aircraft remained airworthy – however even then, the Klapmeiers would have still fitted BRS as protection in case of a mid-air – Alan Klapmeier survived a fatal (to the other pilot) mid-air collision hence they wanted BRS to be incorporated as a safety feature.
The fact that it becomes unairworthy when the ’chute expires is not a negative statement of the aircraft but a fact solely due to the need to comply with said directive from the FAA – see this article for more information.
Does someone know what document specifies the chute as an airworthiness requirement for the SR ? I went through the AFM once and didn’t see it in the airworthiness limitations.
Steve6443 wrote:
Personally speaking, I’d like as much protection from spins as possible – if I wanted to fly aerobatics, I’d buy an aerobatic plane – I don’t, however, hence I’d prefer the spin-resistant aircraft….
We differ there. I’d much prefer an aeroplane which I know will recover with the appropriate inputs over assurances from someone about ‘spin resistance’, especially if it comes with the rider that, although it may be harder to spin, it does not display acceptable recovery characteristics when it does spin.
You really have to try to make most aeroplanes spin, thus I’m not really looking for extra protection from inadvertent spin entry.
Each to their own
Steve6443 wrote:
The fact that it becomes unairworthy when the ’chute expires is not a negative statement of the aircraft but a fact solely due to the need to comply with said directive from the FAA – see this article for more information.
A significant five-figure sum every (10?) years just to be able to keep flying the thing seems pretty negative to me. But again, each to their own.
Jujupilote wrote:
Does someone know what document specifies the chute as an airworthiness requirement for the SR ? I went through the AFM once and didn’t see it in the airworthiness limitations.
For the AFM, it is simply part of the aircraft, same as wings, control surfaces, undercarriage etc; so it is not mentioned as a limitation. It has to be there and not obviously damaged for the aircraft to be airworthy.
The repack interval and the requirement that it has to be done at an authorised facility is contained in the maintenance manual as an airworthiness limitation.
Interestingly enough, the CAPS is listed as “special condition” in the EASA TCDS (alongside spins) which means that there is an addition to / deviation from the EASA certification standards for these aircraft.
