Last month the FAA issued an emergency Airworthiness Directive that grounded several of the Cessna Corvalis 400 aircraft. The agency said the aircraft in question “suffered a significant structural failure”, which included a disbonding of a 2.1m (7ft) section of wing skin from the upper forward wing spar. The failure could result “in a catastrophic failure of the wing,” says the FAA, adding that it may take “additional AD action as necessary”.
Cessna has now says that it understands the root cause and has a solution, but has not said what that solution is.
Cessna builds the wing and fuselage composite structures in Chihuahua, Mexico. It’s Sky Catcher aircraft are being built in China. We are all aware of the quality issues on the many products coming from these countries. Do you really want to trust your life to structural components built in Mexico? While you consider that thought remember that, by the way, the Cessna 400 does not have a parachute.
I have flown Cessna 400′s and to me there is a lot not to like about them. That said, if the Corvalis was your only choice it is a great improvement over the older Cessna product line that has remain stagnant for over 40 years. The problem for Cessna is that the Corvalis is not the only choice to a new aircraft buyer in this market. This latest major structural failure is just one more reason that I think the gap has widened even further for aircraft buyers weighing the decision to purchase either a Cirrus or a Cessna Corvalis.
URA5T5NTK3AK
I got over 400 hrs in my 400, I really like it, and have not had any real issues, maybe you ought to fly it for a few more hours, then you wouldn’t need a parachute
Hi Sam,
Thanks for your input on our blog. I really appreciate intelligent comments.
I have flown the Cessna for several hours. Another very high time instructor here has taught in them as well and is not a fan. Our Director of Maintenance and another A&P / IA here has lots of experience with them as well.
I am not only a flight instructor, but a businessman as well. Cessna knows that the buyers for the Corvalis are not at the Cessna pilot centers, but here at our facilities because we attract the high net worth individuals. They have tried very hard to have us put the Corvalis on our rental line. The truth of the matter is that if the Corvalis would rent and there was a demand I would replace the entire Cirrus fleet today. I don’t care … for me it’s all about the business. The fact is, there is no demand for the Corvalis for many reasons.
If the Cirrus had never existed and you had been flying say a 206 and the Corvalis came to market …. it would be remarkable! The problem is that the Cirrus does exist and is far superior in many ways.
Have you ever flown one? Have you flown the new 22T? Have you flown the FIKI version in ice? I have …. I took off in a blizzard just his week in the storm that past through the country. The FIKI plane is REMARKABLE!
I don’t need a parachute, nor does any Cirrus pilot. But …. there are many people alive today that would not have been alive had there not been one. Why not? It’s not in the way now is it?
The real truth of the matter is that the chute allows a lot of businessmen to fly that could not have before. Their wives had said, “are you crazy ….. you have kids. You are not going to fly!” That argument is gone now. No Cirrus pilot “needs” the parachute.
Thanks for your input. I hope you will continue to follow our posts. If you have not flown a Cirrus, I invite you to try. Ask for me personally. Call the office and tell Marc Fontaine at the front desk that I said to put you with me. I will fly with you. I am one of the most experienced Cirrus instructors available. I would be happy to show you the plane. If you have an open mind, I think you will see the light.
Kerry Hackney
Vice President – Platinum Aviation
I was told at this weeks Sun & Fun Show that the only reason that the Cirrus has a parachute, is because the Cirrus could not recover from a spin per the FAA
minimum requirements!
Hi John,
My guess is that you were told this at the Cessna display. This is one of the most common myths that Cessna likes to put out there. When they are up against such strong competition, myths are about their only defense.
Here is the truth …
Alan and Dale Klapmeier, the designers of the Cirrus use to build and sell kit planes like the Cirrus VK30. They grew up around aircraft of all types. Alan was once in a mid air collision. The other pilot died, but Alan was fortunate enough to be able to land his crippled aircraft. After that he told his brother Dale, that if they ever built a certified aircraft it would have a parachute. The original Cirrus SR20 was designed to have a chute from day one. Because of this, the FAA did not require spin testing.
So …. now you know the truth to Cessna’s myth about the Cirrus. However, the wing de-lamination of the Corvalis still remains fact.
According to the SR-22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook:
“The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft ‘departs controlled flight,’ the CAPS must be deployed.
The quote from the SR22 POH is not a myth from Cessna. Anyone can find it in the fatal NTSB report dated 04/24/02. Now who is the source of bum dope. Not Cessna.
http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx
Quoted from Cirrus website above:
The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics.
Cirrus: Yes it was necessary: Regardless of anything in the spin area, future designs (from Cirrus and others) need to disregard spins:
The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training – and from the record of prior generations it wouldn’t matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher “passive safety” standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all “loss of control” situations – including spins.
John,
You can see further info on this here.
http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx
I have over 400 hours on my cessna 400. I’ve flown this plane from coast to coast and I haven’t had any problems with the airplane. I do wish cessna would make a pressurized version of the airplane.
Thanks for following our blog Wayne. We Cirrus pilots wish for a pressurized version of the Cirrus as well. If you are ever in South Florida, I welcome you to stop by our FXE facility. Platinum Aviation Service has A&P/IA’s that are experienced and familiar with your aircraft.
I actually worked in the wing department for 4 years and am pretty sure I did work on #1162. I would be very interrested in hearing want Cessna says the problem was and the solution. I also have been to the plant in Chihuahua, Mexico during the attemped start up.
Hi Lewis,
Very interesting. I have not heard much more about this issue have you? Interesting that you mentioned the “attempted start up.” Did Cessna abandon that idea?
I had read that Cessna pulled the infomation about the corvallis off web site. I do not see very many people I use to work with and I no longer have ties with Cessna since Mexico 2009. I ran into a worker two days ago at the store and he was the one that inform me about the disbond. Not being one to believe hear say I started web surfing and found out about it. I know they had shut down production and releasted the workers that did move there from Bend, Oregon.Some have returned back. I have seen some of them in town and said hello.
They are redesigning the aircraft and they are NOT available for delivery for about two years. This was the story from Cessna at Sun and Fun. There will not be significant differences other than the interior and the avionics. The new version will have some sort of icing package as an option. With icing, I was told it will be north of 800K. It’s gonna be hard to compete with a Cirrus at that price. I just wonder if the new Cessna leadership will stick with a loosing program.
They really aren’t redesigning the airplane. They are going through the process to re designate it as a T240, to make it in line with their other aircraft. The redesign is just interior and avionics. The problem with the wing delam was humidity control. This has been addressed, but going through the FAA’s PC processes are tough.
Both Cirrus and the Corvalis are great aircraft.
Cennsa must have realized that it is not so easy to train a entire work force with no composite experience in a factory that was nowhere near ready to manufacture FAA certified aircraft.
Yes the last few wings we produced had the icing feature built for installation and a couple were installed on finished aircraft for further testing.
You neglected to let people know that none of the affected aircraft were ever sold as production units. I admit that the issue isn’t a good sign, but why go out of your way to only tell part of the story? Parachutes are fine, but in the end the Cessna is simply a better built and stronger airplane than the Cirrus, that’s why it is certified under the more demanding utility category. Each of the two wing spars in the Cessna is capable of supporting the entire airframe alone. There are many intelligent comparisons to make between the Cessna and the Cirrus, but to imply that the Cirrus is better built simply not correct.
The real story remains to be told. When Cessna made the decision to move production from Bend, Oregon to Mexico, they lost the quality that the American craftsman offered. It’s more than temperature and humidity control, it’s an entire culture of craftsmanship, pride, and responsibility that was lost in outsourcing to Mexico.
Yes, these airplanes were not sold, but they were in test flight for certification. That means this was a completed aircraft only one step away from delivery. With the completion of a successful test flight, it would have been signed off and in a customer’s hands in a matter of days. It’s fortunate that this failure occurred at that time, and not a few weeks later.
Utility category can be misleading and does not mean an airplane is inherently stronger. It only defines the limits the manufacturer chose to demonstrate for certification. For example, Piper certified many of its’ planes in both categories. The easiest way, is to limit the gross weight and CG range when operating at the higher G’s permitted in utility. That’s how Piper did it, not by strengthening the plane, but by limiting the weight. 3.8 G’s are the limit in normal, versus 4.4 utility, and when applied to a Cirrus, would mean the 3400 lb airplane could withstand 14,960 lbs at 4.4 G’s, versus 12,920 at 3.8 in normal category. Realistically, where would the average pilot need that extra 14% demonstrated edge? We’re not talking about double strength with the two spars, we are talking about a 14% increase.
As a practical matter, if the Cessna were truly a superior product, they would out-number the Cirrus since they have been on the market for almost the same duration. As it stands, the market has spoken, and Cirrus has sold over 5,000 planes, versus a few hundred of the Columbias/Corvalis, Cessna 300, 350, 400.
Better built means many things. The Cessna has many rough edges since it was an adaptation of an experimental plane, rather than a clean-sheet design. I find the Cessna has a few quirks compared to the Cirrus: the pop-rivets on the control tabs look like a hold-over from the experimental days, engine servicing takes more time due to the combination of piano-hinges & many counter-sunk screws holding the cowl in place, there is limited visibility out of the windows due to window placement and size, a tall panel obstructing forward views, the door handles are awkward because they are behind your arm, there is random switch placement such as: the a/c controls are almost hidden below the center panel, the ignition switch is behind the control grip, some switches are overhead, some are on the panel, the baggage compartment is much smaller, it has nearly no rear-seat legroom, the cabin is narrow, the back seat is narrower yet, it is difficult to access the back seat because the door is small and the threshold is high, headroom is limited in all seats, and I’m just the average 5’10″ 175 pound guy.
Let’s wait and see how this transpires. If Cessna moves production back to Oregon, or to Wichita, and embraces continuous improvements, it could be a worthy competitor in time.
hello can you tell me where I can find the airworthiness directive of the Cessna Corvalis since in the FAA’s website I could not find thanks