---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 07/26/06: 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:43 AM - Re: Cirrus Killer? (mark.t.mueller@comcast.net) 2. 07:12 AM - Re: Re: Cirrus Killer? (Bruce Smith) 3. 09:15 AM - Re: Re: Cirrus Killer? (FLYaDIVE@aol.com) 4. 03:20 PM - Re: Re: Cirrus Killer? (James Courtney) 5. 03:39 PM - Fuel contamination (Kevin) 6. 05:21 PM - Re: Fuel contamination (Bob Steward) 7. 08:32 PM - Re: Re: Cirrus Killer? (flyv35b) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:13 AM PST US From: mark.t.mueller@comcast.net Subject: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer? I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna certainly COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the emphasis on the word "COULD"... Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will make an impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)... BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at $10K less than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in range, payload, and speed, I think they will have a winner. Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than my Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it myself. I have researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and mission. I think Cirrus has some serious flaws, and I have not heard too many positive comments on out-of-warrantee maintenance. That's not to say if I can pick up a used SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it, but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick. I think the Columbia is a much better, more robust design. It is also certified in the Utility category, not Normal, better stressed airframe, better trim control, and the lightning mitigation built into the structure appears superior to Cirrus. I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues as well, it seems moreso than the Columbia. But the Columbia carries a higher price, even for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300 and 350 vs. SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s can be upgraded with model improvements (like A/C), t he 300 s cannot. The jury is out whether older SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo system or the new wingtips... So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they would have to provide the following: 1) TAS 180+kts 2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity 3) ~1000nm range 4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt slightly more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big proponent of not rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to spend that kind of $$$!) 5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard horror stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.) 6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the extremely poor customer service I receive in GA these days. I have heard grumblings here and there regarding the reliability and quality of service from "Cirrus Service Centers", seems to be pretty hit-or-miss. And 'out-of-warrantee' issues could be a bear. Spare parts must be easy to get and inexpensive relative to the rest... I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more expensive and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't think the stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for Cirrus' side of the value equation. We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor marketing, and no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales support (INCLUDING parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items. Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps used to working on their older products, and a spare parts distribution network. If they can even come close to the performance and comfort of an SR-22 with superior after-sales support, I think they will be stealing some lunch-money... Mark Tiger N1533R Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised the high wing faithful. http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/ Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course.
I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna certainly COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the emphasis on the word "COULD"...
 
Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will make an impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)...
 
BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at $10K less than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in range, payload, and speed, I think they will have a winner.
 
Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than my Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it myself.  I have researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and mission.  I think Cirrus has some serious flaws, and I have not heard too many positive comments on out-of-warrantee maintenance.  That's not to say if I can pick up a used SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it, but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick.  I think the Columbia is a much better, more robust design.  It is also certified in the Utility category, not Normal, better stressed airframe, better trim control, and the lightning mitigation built into the structure appears superior to Cirrus.  I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues as well, it seems moreso than the Columbia.  But the Columbia carries a higher price, even for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300 and 350 vs. SR-22).  Columbia claims that 350s can be up graded with model improvements (like A/C), the 300s cannot.  The jury is out whether older SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo system or the new wingtips...
 
So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they would have to provide the following:
1)  TAS 180+kts
2)  Four seats AND fuel payload capacity
3)  ~1000nm range
4)  Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt slightly more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in...  My wife is a big proponent of not rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to spend that kind of $$$!)
5)  Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard horror stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.)
6)  SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!!  I am always amazed at the extremely poor customer service I receive in GA these days.  I have heard grumblings here and there regarding the reliability and quality of service from "Cirrus Service Centers", seems to be pretty hit-or-miss.  And 'out-of-warrantee' issues could be a bear.  Spare parts must be easy to get and inexpensive relative to the rest...
 
I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more expensive and poorly marketed and supported in the field.  I don't think the stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for Cirrus' side of the value equation.
 
We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor marketing, and no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales support (INCLUDING parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items.
 
Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps used to working on their older products, and a spare parts distribution network.  If they can even come close to the performance and comfort of an SR-22 with superior after-sales support, I think they will be stealing some lunch-money...
 
Mark
Tiger N1533R
 
 
 
Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cirrus Killer?

Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised 
the  high wing faithful.

http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/

Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the 
other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just 
sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or 
designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course.
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:12:57 AM PST US From: Bruce Smith Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer? --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Bruce Smith Mark, Well said! There are two SR-22s on my field. They are always viewed with a mixture of awe and admiration. While they do perform well, no one talks about the negative aspect of Cirrus ownership. It's always "well, it's a new design". If you bring up the Columbia 300/350/400 to the local hangar fliers, you see eyes glaze over and hear, well, it doesn't have the BPS, yada, yada, yada. Cirrus, rightly or wrongly, has achieved the exalted status of being able to deflect all criticism, at least for the time being. Bruce mark.t.mueller@comcast.net said the following on 7/26/2006 9:41 AM: > I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna > certainly COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the > emphasis on the word "COULD"... > > Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will > make an impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)... > > BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at > $10K less than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in > range, payload, and speed, I think they will have a winner. > > Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than > my Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it > myself. I have researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and > mission. I think Cirrus has some serious flaws, and I have not heard > too many positive comments on out-of-warrantee maintenance. That's > not to say if I can pick up a used SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it, > but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick. I think the Columbia is a > much better, more robust design. It is also certified in the Utility > category, not Normal, better stressed airframe, better trim control, > and the lightning mitigation built into the structure appears superior > to Cirrus. I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues as well, it > seems moreso than the Columbia. But the Columbia carries a higher > price, even for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300 > and 350 vs. SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s can be up graded with > model improvements (like A/C), the 300s cannot. The jury is out > whether older SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo > system or the new wingtips... > > So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they > would have to provide the following: > 1) TAS 180+kts > 2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity > 3) ~1000nm range > 4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt > slightly more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big > proponent of not rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to > spend that kind of $$$!) > 5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard > horror stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.) > 6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the extremely > poor customer service I receive in GA these days. I have heard > grumblings here and there regarding the reliability and quality of > service from "Cirrus Service Centers", seems to be pretty > hit-or-miss. And 'out-of-warrantee' issues could be a bear. Spare > parts must be easy to get and inexpensive relative to the rest... > > I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more > expensive and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't > think the stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for > Cirrus' side of the value equation. > > We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor > marketing, and no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales > support (INCLUDING parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items. > > Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps > used to working on their older products, and a spare parts > distribution network. If they can even come close to the performance > and comfort of an SR-22 with superior after-sales support, I think > they will be stealing some lunch-money... > > Mark > Tiger N1533R > > > > Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US > Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cirrus Killer? > > Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised > the high wing faithful. > > http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/ > > Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the > other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just > sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or > designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:15:32 AM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer? --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 7/26/06 9:44:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mark.t.mueller@comcast.net writes: > Mark > Tiger N1533R ========================= Mark: Thank you for your post, it was very informative and well laid out. You can add this to your NOT column on the Cirrus: There is a Cirrus dealer at Morristown AP (KMMU) in NJ. I understand in one day or one week they had two Cirrus collapse their nose strut. The funny part about it was the dealer had them parked right under his FOB/Cirrus Dealership Sign ... Not a good choice for advertising. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 03:20:34 PM PST US From: "James Courtney" Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer? With no disrespect to Cirrus or Columbia as I really don't think any of the GA planes available these days are bad designs and my friend really likes his Cirrus if you want something with Cirrus performance, in the utility category, with a TATubo upgrade path look no further than a Bonanza. Most A36's also have far more useful load than a Cirrus and I can get 165-170 KTAS lean of peak burning 11-12 GPH in the low teens. The TATurbo guys see 200KTAS by the mid-teens burning 17 GPH with a 400 lb. gross weight increase. You can't beat it in my book. Jamey BE36 N7218R @ KSQL (okay, so I'm biased) -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of mark.t.mueller@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:41 AM I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna certainly COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the emphasis on the word "COULD"... Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will make an impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)... BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at $10K less than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in range, payload, and speed, I think they will have a winner. Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than my Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it myself. I have researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and mission. I think Cirrus has some serious flaws, and I have not heard too many positive comments on out-of-warrantee maintenance. That's not to say if I can pick up a used SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it, but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick. I think the Columbia is a much better, more robust design. It is also certified in the Utility category, not Normal, better stressed airframe, better trim control, and the lightning mitigation built into the structure appears superior to Cirrus. I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues as well, it seems moreso than the Columbia. But the Columbia carries a higher price, even for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300 and 350 vs. SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s can be up graded with model improvements (like A/C), the 300s cannot. The jury is out whether older SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo system or the new wingtips... So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they would have to provide the following: 1) TAS 180+kts 2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity 3) ~1000nm range 4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt slightly more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big proponent of not rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to spend that kind of $$$!) 5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard horror stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.) 6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the extremely poor customer service I receive in GA these days. I have heard grumblings here and there regarding the reliability and quality of service from "Cirrus Service Centers", seems to be pretty hit-or-miss. And 'out-of-warrantee' issues could be a bear. Spare parts must be easy to get and inexpensive relative to the rest... I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more expensive and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't think the stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for Cirrus' side of the value equation. We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor marketing, and no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales support (INCLUDING parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items. Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps used to working on their older products, and a spare parts distribution network. If they can even come close to the performance and comfort of an SR-22 with superior after-sales support, I think they will be stealing some lunch-money... Mark Tiger N1533R Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised the high wing faithful. http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/ Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 03:39:37 PM PST US From: Kevin Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Fuel contamination Oh, the joys of ownership. I've found some kind of contamination in my right tank. It looks like small bits of black plastic. There is some black sealant around the inside of the filler, possibly this is flaking off in the tank? In the back of my mind, I recall some mention of the fuel float dissolving but I can't find anything in the archives. Any thoughts, condolences? Thanks, Kevin ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:21:52 PM PST US From: Bob Steward Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Fuel contamination --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Bob Steward >I've found some kind of contamination in my right tank. It looks like small >bits of black plastic. There is some black sealant around the inside of the >filler, possibly this is flaking off in the tank? In the back of my mind, I >recall some mention of the fuel float dissolving but I can't find anything >in the archives. If its an AA-5x, then it is quite possibly the fuel sender float. They fail by wearing at the metal pivot and when the hole in the float gets large enough, the float comes off the metal arm and the gauge reads Empty all the time. The sender can be rebuilt with a new float, and can be changed from the outside on all but the very earliest AA-5s. However if the float has come off in the tank, you'll need to take the access cover(s) off the bottom and remove the float from the tank. :-( The ground up bits of the float look like black sand, and will sump out with your fuel sample. Bob Steward, A&P IA Birmingham, AL ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:32:46 PM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer? MessageAfter owning numerous Cessnas and lots of Grummans over many years, I guess I am biased also after owning my Bonanza and several others for about 9 years now. The Bonanza does many things as well as the newer SR22 and Columbia and several things much better. One thing that stuck in my mind from a recent conversation with a Garmin test pilot who has flown many hours in both the SR22 as well as the Columbia 350 and 400 and an A36 Bonanza. He said that the controls are heavy in both the SR22 and Columbia and both planes are not as fast as their advertised speeds, especially the SR22. All three of the normally aspirated planes are pretty close to the same speed but the Bonanza is a much nicer flying plane when it comes to control effort and response. I haven't see any SR22's in the back country strips in Idaho where I take the Bonanza. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: James Courtney To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer? With no disrespect to Cirrus or Columbia as I really don't think any of the GA planes available these days are bad designs and my friend really likes his Cirrus if you want something with Cirrus performance, in the utility category, with a TATubo upgrade path look no further than a Bonanza. Most A36's also have far more useful load than a Cirrus and I can get 165-170 KTAS lean of peak burning 11-12 GPH in the low teens. The TATurbo guys see 200KTAS by the mid-teens burning 17 GPH with a 400 lb. gross weight increase. You can't beat it in my book. Jamey BE36 N7218R @ KSQL (okay, so I'm biased) -----Original Message----- From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of mark.t.mueller@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:41 AM To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com Subject: TeamGrumman-List: RE: Cirrus Killer? I am not a "high-wing" guy, and fly a Tiger, but I have to say Cessna certainly COULD produce a "Cirrus AND Columbia-killer", but the emphasis on the word "COULD"... Let's not forget the market forces of ever-higher fuel prices will make an impact even on Cirrus at some point (soon)... BUT, if Cessna can produce this bird and price it for the market at $10K less than an SR-22 with equivalent or better performance in range, payload, and speed, I think they will have a winner. Depending upon the markets, I am looking at something much faster than my Tiger in the next 3 years or so, even if I have to build it myself. I have researched both Columbia and Cirrus for value and mission. I think Cirrus has some serious flaws, and I have not heard too many positive comments on out-of-warrantee maintenance. That's not to say if I can pick up a used SR-22 for a song I wouldn't do it, but Cirrus is definitely NOT my #1 pick. I think the Columbia is a much better, more robust design. It is also certified in the Utility category, not Normal, better stressed airframe, better trim control, and the lightning mitigation built into the structure appears superior to Cirrus. I heard early Cirrus have had motor issues as well, it seems moreso than the Columbia. But the Columbia carries a higher price, even for equivalently equipped used models (looking at the 300 and 350 vs. SR-22). Columbia claims that 350s can be up graded with model improvements (like A/C), the 300s cannot. The jury is out whether older SR-22s will be able to be retrofitted with the TAT turbo system or the new wingtips... So, for Cessna to truly steal market share from Cirrus I think they would have to provide the following: 1) TAS 180+kts 2) Four seats AND fuel payload capacity 3) ~1000nm range 4) Wide cabin comfort equivalent to the Cirrus (the Columbia felt slightly more cramped than the SR-22 I sat in... My wife is a big proponent of not rubbing shoulders when we fly if you are going to spend that kind of $$$!) 5) Reliability - better dispatch rate than an SR-22 (I have heard horror stories about some of the early glass-panel installations.) 6) SERVICE, SERVICE, SERVICE!!! I am always amazed at the extremely poor customer service I receive in GA these days. I have heard grumblings here and there regarding the reliability and quality of service from "Cirrus Service Centers", seems to be pretty hit-or-miss. And 'out-of-warrantee' issues could be a bear. Spare parts must be easy to get and inexpensive relative to the rest... I truly think Columbia is a "Cirrus-killer" design, but they are more expensive and poorly marketed and supported in the field. I don't think the stats on the BRS bear it out as a 'safety feature' for Cirrus' side of the value equation. We have seen from "New Tiger" that "old-style management", poor marketing, and no product innovation along with sketchy after-sales support (INCLUDING parts) don't sell $200,000+ line items. Cessna has brand recognition, a wide product line, thousands of A&Ps used to working on their older products, and a spare parts distribution network. If they can even come close to the performance and comfort of an SR-22 with superior after-sales support, I think they will be stealing some lunch-money... Mark Tiger N1533R Time: 04:15:46 PM PST US Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cirrus Killer? Well, it finally flew. The Cirrus killer that Cessna has promised the high wing faithful. http://www.cardinalflyers.com/images/xbatch/newcessna/ Part of me wants to go and visit John Rock and show him this, and the other part of me (perhaps the more rational part) is willing to just sigh and wonder what if Grumman had developed the turbo Tiger, or designed a six-place version, sans canopy, of course.