1. Did anybody say it is different?
2. Still the installation, especially the design of the cowling (cooling) can make a big difference.
I only had the Cirrus numbers, so I used those.
IMHO the biggest difference will be due to engine [mis]management.
And one can imagine there will be correlations between specific engine management practices, and populations of pilots operating particular types… as there are obvious ones in the motor vehicle business but in a different way… it gets a bit controversial 
The cowling design is likely to be a big factor, too.
But I still think the SR22 engine MTBF figure is way too high. It would be very desirable to see the actual data.
Yes, agree, that seems way too high. It was from an article on COPA. By that time in 2007 the whole fleet had about 2.000.000 hours, and the guy took all the known engine failures for which there was an NTSB report, and that’s how he came to that number.
The real data is hard to find, but others speak about 100.000 hours. But I have no idea how realistic that is.
The Cirrus data would be very interesting because it appears to be based on complete data i.e. a chute pull isn’t exactly going to not be noticed 
The previous figures of 50-80k hrs don’t seem to be based on anything I have seen, and are suspect anyway because the existence of the independent engine shop scene – while a being a brilliant advantage of the Lyco/Conti engines – makes data collection almost impossible.
But, for a fact, Lyco do get a little piece of parts business every time an engine is opened up and maybe (can anyone comment?) they ask about the engine S/N to be filled-in on some form.
But no matter how you shake this, an MTBF of just 50k hrs means that very few pilots will get an engine failure in their entire flying life.
What is a lot more likely (how do I know? ) is a loss of power due to fuel system icing, and if the pilot was inept, or flying very low, that would be bad news. But then the stats work massively in GA’s favour: almost nobody flies above say 3000ft and in much of the world GA spends the winter in the hangars.
Chute pull – who is quicker a man or a woman
I found this very amusing:
Whats your opinion?
Who was so stupid as to fly into the HV line? She or he?
BTW you seem to have a queer idea of what is “amusing” – but to each their own, of course.
Well, unless this power line goes over some very deep ravine, it probably qualifies as the lowest successful chute pull ever (Flyer59 will confirm, I’m sure ). Now as to ‘encounctering’ a power line…….
At the moment it looks like the chute got caught in the power line and that’s why the plane didn’t hit the ground too hard. I guess this does not qualify as a “CAPS save”, i think it was pure luck that they survived that stunt.
The pilot was a USAF trained pilot with a lot of experience. Which supports my opinion that anybody can do something completey stupid …
My amusement was in the statement which in bold.
, had begun their descent into Lancaster Regional Airport, south of Dallas, when they say they knew something wasn’t right.
I wonder what tipped them off that something wasnt right? At what point did they wake up?
Then in the fact that she pulled the chute before he had a chance to.
Which brings me to a question what happens if a right seater panics and pulls the chute without permission of the pilot?
That happened once too … the passenger saw fuel streaming over the wing (fuel cap open) and pulled the chute :-)
Airplane was totaled … and i bet there was some nice argument on the way down …
