Pilots-tell me about this SR22

2007 Cirrus SR22-G2 2401 C-GCUP for Sale: Specs, Price | ASO.com

So, my pilot has been thinking of moving to an SR22. Not interested in buying brand new, and have been casually looking. This popped up today on ASO. Low hours, nice looking, seems to be loaded with what she would need, etc. Flies a 172 now with 500 hours over 6 years. Of course there would be tons of training, etc, and she is working on her IFR. Very, very careful pilot I might add.

With that said, do you see anything that this is missing? Any difficulties with getting it out of Canada? Taxes, fees, etc. Thoughts are appreciated. FYI have briefly considered 182 as step up, but it would be nice to have just a little more speed and the dreaded.... by real burly men pilots...parachute!

Avidyne Entegra Primary Flight Display
Avidyne FlightMax EX5000c Multifunction Display
Avidyne Flight Director
Garmin GMA-340 Audio Panel
Dual Garmin GNS-430 GPS/Comm/Nav/Moving Map Units
EMAX Engine and Fuel Monitoring System
CMAX Electronic Approach Charts
S-Tec 55x Autopilot With Altitude Preselect
L-3 SkyWatch Traffic Advisory System
L-3 WX-500 Stormscope
E-TAWS Enhanced Terrain Awareness System
Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
406 ELT
XM Weather Datalink (Canada and USA)
Satellite Radio Entertainment
Optional Equipment
CAPS – Cirrus Airframe Parachute System
TKS Ice Protection
Tinted Windows
AmSafe – Airbag Seat Restraints (front seats)
Four Place Built In Precise Flight Oxygen 77 Cubic Feet
Dual Electric Systems
Tanis Engine Pre-Heater
Air Wolf Oil Separator
Polished Spinner
Two Bose & Two David Clark Noise Cancelling Head Sets
Two Oxygen Microphone Masks
Flightstat Pulse Oximeter
Spidertracks Tracker
Lil Sherman Tug
Wing and Canopy Covers
Survival Kit
Startpac Portable 24 Volt Power Supply
Interior
Rosen Sun Visors
Soft Touch Interior With Slate/Black Perforated Leather Seats
Leather Wrapped Side-Yoke, Throttle Lever and Grab Handles
Fan Powered Ventilation System
Floor Mats
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Love the 400, flew a good bit with Austin in his, but for Julie the Parachute is important, and it has saved lives. I've had plenty of pilots tell me they'd rather fly to the ground, but they are professionals, and also, there may be no chance to do so. I think one of the Ferrari club members was saved by the chute, in fact, he was one of the first ones. Jeff I? Why us the Cirrus not spin rated?

 

So I found this about spins and the Cirrus from their marketing material.

I have read stories about student/instructors being a NTSB report practicing spin recovery. Have most of you practiced spin recovery? Is is true that most mainstream general aviation four-seat designs are not spin certified?

Why Cirrus (CAPS & Stall/Spin)



Why Cirrus works so hard at spin prevention.

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.

“The spin” is a subject that often raises strong emotions. Some embrace it with an almost-religious fervor; others see uncharted land – “Here be Dragons.” The reality is simple in principle (one wing is flying, the other stalled) but subtle differences in aircraft design can create very different entry and recovery characteristics.

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.”

In short, modern general aviation airplanes are not certified for spins, nor are pilots equipped to recover them.

At Cirrus, our focus on spins is about prevention.

A more complete description of the stall/spin prevention research discussed here is available in this paper from NASA Langley Research Center
Air Flow over a stalled Cirrus Wing
AIR FLOW OVER A STALLED CIRRUS WING


How does this wing design work?

The outboard section of the Cirrus wing flies with a lower angle of attack than the inboard section. When the inboard section, which produces much of the lift, stalls the outboard section, where the ailerons are, is still flying. The result is that a stalled Cirrus airplane can be controlled intuitively using aileron.

What is this "ELOS Authority?"

When formulating design regulations, the FAA anticipated that new technologies might come along that don't meet the rules - because they were not anticipated - but otherwise have significant potential to improve safety. FAA engineers have two tools to enable benefit from such advances:

Special Conditions can be used to define acceptable standards for a new, unanticipated technology. This avenue is used to require consideration of HIRF (High Intensity Radio Fields) that was historically not considered significant. It was also used to define the standards for whole-aircraft parachutes, which Cirrus used for CAPS.

ELOS (Equivalent Level of Safety) findings are used when a traditional rule must be broken to realize some new benefit. The idea is that pursuing this new approach makes an aircraft, on balance, potentially safer than the Part 23 “hypothetical.” This is not waiving a rule – which only occurs in extraordinary circumstances – but making tradeoffs for the greater good.

Spin Prevention

Cirrus chose, in the very earliest stages of designing the SR20 to take on the challenge: to minimize the risks associated with inadvertently stalling an airplane. The approach chosen was to employ wing technology developed by NASA reducing the potential for spin entry after an inadvertent stall. The most visible aspect is the discontinuous leading edge dividing the wing into distinct parts.

Passive technology like this is highly regarded in safety circles since no skill or training is needed to gain the benefits. In the automotive world “traction control” is reported to reduce (single vehicle) accidents up to 67%. And the drivers involved never knew they were saved from an accident.

At the time Cirrus was not the only company looking at this approach: The then Lancair Company used this technology on the Columbia 300 (later, with an avionics change, the Columbia 350). The now Cessna 350 still has the benefit of this technology; but strangely enough the Cessna 400 has abandoned this technology (the wing "cuffs" on the C-400 have stall strips that negate the effect of the cuffs).

It was clearly understood by NASA, Cirrus, Lancair and FAA engineers that these features could affect spin recovery. The challenge for Cirrus, Lancair and the FAA was that a new certification environment would be needed. FAA engineers accepted the challenge, worked with Cirrus and Lancair, and used their ELOS (Equivalent Level of Safety) authority to develop new standards that accommodated both the Cirrus line of (SR20/SR22) airplanes and the Lancair/Columbia/Cessna 300-series.

In the Cirrus case CAPS was being developed independently. Combined with enhanced stall characteristics the FAA found that the whole package was potentially much safer than traditional standards. The "ELOS" was a very straightforward analysis: beyond any other discussion CAPS was a way to deal with the off-chance that a spin was allowed to develop. All understood that pilot skill could not be relied upon.

As a footnote, when Cirrus applied for European certification, the authorities there(initially JAA, later EASA), when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had further questions. A series of spins were performed on their initiative. While not a complete program they reported no unusual characteristics.

 

There there is this:

The Spin Debate | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine

 

I'm assuming from two things: too low or too fast?

 

Does that include the 300 and 350?

Is there a reference guide that allows you to compare planes in vertical columns? It would be interesting to know the differences. I think most of it is electronics and perhaps power plant on like manufacturer? Saw 300 vs 350?vs 400 vs 400xx etc. same for Cirrus. I think I've heard there is a sweet spot in year of manufacture on the Columbia?