More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer"

[[email protected]]

Read Thursday morning on AvWeb

>>AVweb has learned that those in attendance at a recent Cessna dealer's meeting were encouraged to pore over Columbia and Cirrus aircraft -- but also were introduced to renderings of what could become Cessna's new aircraft. We're told attendees learned that the aircraft's basic design would incorporate a strutless high-wing planform built of composite material. Attendees were told the craft would be pulled by a 350-hp powerplant with speed, comfort and ... speed ... as high priorities. Rear-door entry was included in the design, as was fixed gear -- which would cut down on complexity and cater to the aerodynamic reality that, while at cruising altitudes, retractable gear offers precious little advantage over properly faired fixed gear. Plus, fixed gear generally incurs lower maintenance, insurance, production cost and weight penalties.<<

Interesting, wonder how fast it'll go? No real surprise about including
fixed gear though.

[Marco Leon]

I bet it will look surprisingly like a Cardinal with its already
aggressively-swept windshield. I wonder if they will incorporate a BRS chute
to take away one of Cirrus' main selling points.

Marco Leon



> > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Read Thursday morning on AvWeb
>
> >>AVweb has learned that those in attendance at a recent Cessna dealer's
meeting were encouraged to pore over Columbia and Cirrus aircraft -- but
also were introduced to renderings of what could become Cessna's new
aircraft. We're told attendees learned that the aircraft's basic design
would incorporate a strutless high-wing planform built of composite
material. Attendees were told the craft would be pulled by a 350-hp
powerplant with speed, comfort and ... speed ... as high priorities.
Rear-door entry was included in the design, as was fixed gear -- which would
cut down on complexity and cater to the aerodynamic reality that, while at
cruising altitudes, retractable gear offers precious little advantage over
properly faired fixed gear. Plus, fixed gear generally incurs lower
maintenance, insurance, production cost and weight penalties.<<
>
> Interesting, wonder how fast it'll go? No real surprise about including
> fixed gear though.
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[[email protected]]

Yeah, I'd pictured a 'glass Cardinal before reading this today.
Previously I wouldn't have though Cessna would consider composites
because of the development cost vs the size of the market - doesn't
seem big enough to warrant the cost of molds and tooling IMO. My guess
is it'll be a 200kt cruiser with 350hp... *Baron* speed with only one
engine to feed & maintain and no gear to fuss about.

[Lakeview Bill]

Sounds almost like an Extra 400 with permagear...


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Yeah, I'd pictured a 'glass Cardinal before reading this today.
> Previously I wouldn't have though Cessna would consider composites
> because of the development cost vs the size of the market - doesn't
> seem big enough to warrant the cost of molds and tooling IMO. My guess
> is it'll be a 200kt cruiser with 350hp... *Baron* speed with only one
> engine to feed & maintain and no gear to fuss about.
>

[[email protected]]

Sure does except for the pull-up gear and the wet Continental..

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

> I bet it will look surprisingly like a Cardinal with its already
> aggressively-swept windshield. I wonder if they will incorporate a BRS chute
> to take away one of Cirrus' main selling points.
>
> Marco Leon

God, I HOPE not! IMHO, a BRS is more liability than asset, with
recurring (expensive maintenance, the ongoing hazard of pyrotechnics,
etc.

Also, remember that the reason FAA finally prohibited flare
installations is that there were too many mishaps with flares (hangar
fires, burned mechanics, etc.) that the risks outweighed the benefits.




> > > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Read Thursday morning on AvWeb
> >
> > >>AVweb has learned that those in attendance at a recent Cessna dealer's
> meeting were encouraged to pore over Columbia and Cirrus aircraft -- but
> also were introduced to renderings of what could become Cessna's new
> aircraft. We're told attendees learned that the aircraft's basic design
> would incorporate a strutless high-wing planform built of composite
> material. Attendees were told the craft would be pulled by a 350-hp
> powerplant with speed, comfort and ... speed ... as high priorities.
> Rear-door entry was included in the design, as was fixed gear -- which would
> cut down on complexity and cater to the aerodynamic reality that, while at
> cruising altitudes, retractable gear offers precious little advantage over
> properly faired fixed gear. Plus, fixed gear generally incurs lower
> maintenance, insurance, production cost and weight penalties.<<
> >
> > Interesting, wonder how fast it'll go? No real surprise about including
> > fixed gear though.
> >
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
t...
> Sounds almost like an Extra 400 with permagear...

And no pressurization.

At 350hp, I'm assuming a turbocharger, but I suppose even that might be
missing?

In reality, it sounds a lot more like an SR22 or Columbia 400 to me. The
high wing might invite comparisons to the Extra 400, but it's pretty obvious
the similarity is strictly aesthetic.

Pete

[[email protected]]

>>>>At 350hp, I'm assuming a turbocharger, but I suppose even that might be
missing? In reality, it sounds a lot more like an SR22 or Columbia 400
to me. The
high wing might invite comparisons to the Extra 400, but it's pretty
obvious
the similarity is strictly aesthetic. <<<<

My guess is the Lyc TIO-540 from the Chieftain. I can't think of a
normally aspirated engine with that kind of power (a detuned IO-720?)
As far as the comparisons to the SR22 or Columbia, I think that was
pretty much their target, seeing as Cessna & Cirrus are essentially
tied for piston single production.

[Marco Leon]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...

> God, I HOPE not! IMHO, a BRS is more liability than asset, with
> recurring (expensive maintenance, the ongoing hazard of pyrotechnics,
> etc.

Apparently it's been very good for the aircraft's public perception of
safety. Also, there are more than a handful of pilots that have used the
chute "in anger" who will beg to differ with you.

From a marketing perspective, incorporating the BRS system will seriously
curtail Cirrus' differentiation strategy.

Marco Leon





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[John]

But where is there a singe valid report of such an incident in any BRS
system . . . anywhere? Not just the Cirrus community but in the
ultralight community . . .

John

[Stefan]

John wrote:

> But where is there a singe valid report of such an incident in any BRS
> system . . . anywhere? Not just the Cirrus community but in the
> ultralight community . . .

The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)

Stefan

[Cecil Chapman]

I'm with you... beyond the maintenance issues I think most people forget
that the reason the Cirrus came with a chute was because it couldn't pass
spin certification so in order to be certificated it had to be made with the
chute - at least that's what I've heard....

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:

> Yeah, I'd pictured a 'glass Cardinal before reading this today.

Picture a 210-sized single with the best features of a Cardinal:
windshield ahead of the wing, big doors, low entry threshold, wide
cabin.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Darrel Toepfer]

Dan Luke wrote:

> Picture a 210-sized single with the best features of a Cardinal:
> windshield ahead of the wing, big doors, low entry threshold, wide
> cabin.

I can, I'm just afraid of the price...

[Kyle Boatright]

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
et...
> I'm with you... beyond the maintenance issues I think most people forget
> that the reason the Cirrus came with a chute was because it couldn't pass
> spin certification so in order to be certificated it had to be made with
> the chute - at least that's what I've heard....
>

Couldn't pass or didn't try?

Just curious.

KB

[Michael Ware]

I'll tell ya' where they can pack that 'chute.

[Sylvain]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Picture a 210-sized single with the best features of a Cardinal:
> windshield ahead of the wing, big doors, low entry threshold, wide
> cabin.
>

you mean something like this?

http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea500.asp

--Sylvain

[john smith]

> > Picture a 210-sized single with the best features of a Cardinal:
> > windshield ahead of the wing, big doors, low entry threshold, wide
> > cabin.

> I can, I'm just afraid of the price...

Bonanza G36 range?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bonanza G36 range?
>

What's a Bonanza G36?

[Morgans]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
> > Picture a 210-sized single with the best features of a Cardinal:
> > windshield ahead of the wing, big doors, low entry threshold, wide
> > cabin.
> >
>
> you mean something like this?
>
> http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea500.asp

I helped push the Extra (400?) out on the flight line 3 years ago at OSH,
when it was just being released. My impression was that it was ugly, and
really, really heavy. It is no surprise to me that they added a turboprop
to it.
--
Jim in NC

[Happy Dog]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> John wrote:
>
>> But where is there a singe valid report of such an incident in any BRS
>> system . . . anywhere? Not just the Cirrus community but in the
>> ultralight community . . .
>
> The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
> airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)

Cites? I agree that a chute is near-useless as a safety device. There are
better ways to spend the money. Especially for the sport pilot. Spending
the equivalent amount on recurring training comes to mind. But, it's *such*
a pax pacifier. Nothing but a stiff martini and a tranquilizer beats it. I
suspect that it also makes pilots prone to anxiety (panic) attacks less
likely to experience them. I'm presently buying an ultralight (Challenger
582). I'm getting a parachute about 99.9% for pax comfort. As stated
above, I can think of many other safety-related things the same amount could
be spent on (and is - sigh). But almost every non-pilot pax I know is in
love with the idea. Reality is often like that.

moo

[Michael 182]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:51:30 GMT, "Cecil Chapman"
> wrote:

>I'm with you... beyond the maintenance issues I think most people forget
>that the reason the Cirrus came with a chute was because it couldn't pass
>spin certification so in order to be certificated it had to be made with the
>chute - at least that's what I've heard....
>
>--

You heard wrong, at least according to Alan Klapmeier.

You need to be an AOPA member for the link to work...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2005/cirrus0511.html

[Aluckyguess]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>At 350hp, I'm assuming a turbocharger, but I suppose even that might be
> missing? In reality, it sounds a lot more like an SR22 or Columbia 400
> to me. The
> high wing might invite comparisons to the Extra 400, but it's pretty
> obvious
> the similarity is strictly aesthetic. <<<<
>
> My guess is the Lyc TIO-540 from the Chieftain. I can't think of a
> normally aspirated engine with that kind of power (a detuned IO-720?)
> As far as the comparisons to the SR22 or Columbia, I think that was
> pretty much their target, seeing as Cessna & Cirrus are essentially
> tied for piston single production.
>
Its probably a Toyota or Nissan engine. I think they made one around that
horspower.

[Scott Skylane]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
>
> What's a Bonanza G36?
>
>

Beechcraft calls the A-36 equipped with the Garmin G-1000 the "G-36".
Skipped right past the C's, D's, E's, and F's just so they could give it
the clever "G" moniker.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Stefan]

Happy Dog wrote:

>> The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
>> airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)

> Cites?

Can you spell irony? Could I have been any clearer?

Stefan

[Dan Luke]

"Sylvain" wrote:

>> Picture a 210-sized single with the best features of a Cardinal:
>> windshield ahead of the wing, big doors, low entry threshold, wide
>> cabin.
>>
>
> you mean something like this?
>
> http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea500.asp

Let's hope not--what a big, ugly slug that thing is!

Also, the Cessna will not be a retract.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Cecil Chapman]

> You heard wrong, at least according to Alan Klapmeier.

Here's the clip....

"And yet we get constant criticism about whether our airplane has gone
through FAA spin training. The fact of the matter is we looked at the
statistics, made a conscious choice during the design certification of the
airplane to say we can save more lives if we prevent the stall-spin event
from happening than if we allow it to happen and teach people how to recover
from it. If the airplane can't recover in the altitude available, then it
doesn't matter if you have shown the FAA that the airplane can recover.
So our approach was to prevent the accident from happening. We went to the
FAA and said we want the [equivalent level of safety - an alternate means of
complying with FAA certification criteria] for our improved stall
characteristics. In addition to the improved stall characteristics we wanted
them to include the parachute as an equivalent level of safety - in part
because we already had it on there and in part we had demonstrated that the
parachute could recover the airplane in less altitude loss in a spin than a
pilot could recover the airplane through normal recovery techniques."

Once again, in order to meet certification requirements since they wouldn't
or couldn't demonstrate spin recovery properties Cirrus had to come up with
an 'equivalent level of safety' which was the parachute.

I spoke with a Cirrus rep at a static display and they said the same thing,,
although he couched it in the guise of making the plane 'safer' he DID
indicate that the parachute was done as an alternative to
showing/demonstrating appropriate spin/stall characteristics.
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:51:30 GMT, "Cecil Chapman"
> > wrote:
>
>>I'm with you... beyond the maintenance issues I think most people forget
>>that the reason the Cirrus came with a chute was because it couldn't pass
>>spin certification so in order to be certificated it had to be made with
>>the
>>chute - at least that's what I've heard....
>>
>>--
>

>
> You need to be an AOPA member for the link to work...
>
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2005/cirrus0511.html

[Cecil Chapman]

Here's some more on the subject:

According to the SR22 POH, the airplane is not approved for spins, and the
only method of spin recovery is activating the CAPS. If the airplane departs
controlled flight, the CAPS must be deployed immediately. Spin entry is
unlikely with proper airmanship, including the caveat never to abuse "the
flight controls with accelerated inputs close to the stall." An abrupt wing
drop in this case may lead to a spin or spiral, and it may be difficult to
determine which. The POH notes that the minimum demonstrated altitude loss
for a CAPS deployment is 920 feet from a one-turn spin, and pilots are
cautioned not to "waste time and altitude trying to recover from a
spiral/spin before activating CAPS."


--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Dan Luke]

"Michael Ware"wrote:

>
> I'll tell ya' where they can pack that 'chute.
>
Amen.

Doesn't the 'chute have to be dug out of the fiberglass every few years and
inspected/overhauled?

[Happy Dog]

"Stefan" > wrote in
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>>> The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
>>> airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)
>
>> Cites?
>
> Can you spell irony? Could I have been any clearer?

Well, yes. You never know when someone will miss the near-obvious. :-)

moo

[Andrew Gideon]

Happy Dog wrote:

> But*almost*every*non-pilot*pax*I*know*is*in
> love with the idea.

Because of the role I play in my club, I think a lot about failure scenarios
and backups. If only the statistics for twins were better...<laugh>.

One scenario for the flying family is the incapacitated pilot. My
"solution" was to get my wife into PPL training. But would it not be
easier (and, perhaps even safer) to train someone to use a BRS?

I'm curious: has anyone trained a spouse (or other "frequent flying
companion") in chute operation for this purpose?

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

Not having the BRS must make selling a Columbia against a Cirrus a
tough proposition I'll bet. I don't feel any safer flying in a Cirrus
because of the chute, but like a previous poster said it's probably
more for the (non-pilot) passengers' comfort

[Stefan]

wrote:

> I don't feel any safer flying in a Cirrus
> because of the chute, but like a previous poster said it's probably
> more for the (non-pilot) passengers' comfort

I have lost friends in a midair. Had they had a BRS, then they would
most probably still live.

Stefan

[buttman]

"most probably"...

If the collision had taken place on the wing or anywhere other than the
fuselage, then maybe. But a direct hit to where the pilot was sitting,
no parachute could have helped any.

The chances of surviving a mid air is just about the same as the
chances to survive a car accident. Except most cars have re-inforced
steel girders, crumple zones, airbags, etc. An airplane is just a piece
of flimsy light-weight alumnium.

[Michael 182]

On 11 Nov 2005 17:02:48 -0800, "buttman" > wrote:


>
>The chances of surviving a mid air is just about the same as the
>chances to survive a car accident.

All right, we have a new winner for most ridiculous statistic of the
year...

Michael

[Happy Dog]

"Andrew Gideon" >

>> But almost every non-pilot pax I know is in
>> love with the idea.
>
> Because of the role I play in my club, I think a lot about failure
> scenarios
> and backups. If only the statistics for twins were better...<laugh>.
>
> One scenario for the flying family is the incapacitated pilot. My
> "solution" was to get my wife into PPL training. But would it not be
> easier (and, perhaps even safer) to train someone to use a BRS?
>
> I'm curious: has anyone trained a spouse (or other "frequent flying
> companion") in chute operation for this purpose?

I intend to. It's a pretty straight forward procedure and way easier than
landing. Although I know of a case where a passenger, with no previous
training, in a 172 (I think), was talked down to a successful landing.
(That being one which one walks away from.)

There was a SR-22 pilot who pulled the chute over the Hudson after he
briefly lost consciousness. He sustained serious back injuries because the
landing gear doesn't take its share of the impact in a ditching. Wonder if
Cirrus thought of that before?

moo

[Stefan]

buttman wrote:

> "most probably"...

Yes, most probably. Still much better than no chance, in my opinion.

Stefan

[Happy Dog]

"Stefan" > wrote
> wrote:
>
>> I don't feel any safer flying in a Cirrus
>> because of the chute, but like a previous poster said it's probably
>> more for the (non-pilot) passengers' comfort
>
> I have lost friends in a midair. Had they had a BRS, then they would most
> probably still live.

That's possible. But unlikely. As I said before, I'm light a few grand and
heavy 35 pounds just to make some passengers happy and I'm not sacrificing
any other safety option in favour of it. (Single button activated autopilot
to the nearest suitable airport / emergency communication with ATC /
autoland isn't available yet.) I don't feel that it's a good cost vs.
benefit measure if safety is the only concern. For the sport pilot, just
spending the same amount on recurring training would likely yield better
accident and survival stats.

moo

[Michael Ware]

I'm sure it's similar to a chute that a 'meat missile wears. Depending on
the material, human 'chutes have to be repacked every 60 to 120 days. And, I
have seen how the 'chutes on a Cirrus has to be packed, it's a ram that
shoves it into it's tube. It can't be packed by hand because they have put
such a large 'chute into such a small container. Just seems like it would be
more of a liability and a PITA than anything.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Ware"wrote:
>
> >
> > I'll tell ya' where they can pack that 'chute.
> >
> Amen.
>
> Doesn't the 'chute have to be dug out of the fiberglass every few years
and
> inspected/overhauled?
>
>

[buttman]

If a car going 120 MPH hits another car going 120 MPH, you're dead. Two
planes going the same speed hitting each other is no diffrent,
parachute or not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If a car going 120 MPH hits another car going 120 MPH, you're dead. Two
> planes going the same speed hitting each other is no diffrent,
> parachute or not.
>

Pilots of combat aircraft have survived midairs at much higher speeds than
that.

[Happy Dog]

"Michael Ware" > wrote in
> I'm sure it's similar to a chute that a 'meat missile wears. Depending on
> the material, human 'chutes have to be repacked every 60 to 120 days. And,
> I
> have seen how the 'chutes on a Cirrus has to be packed, it's a ram that
> shoves it into it's tube. It can't be packed by hand because they have put
> such a large 'chute into such a small container. Just seems like it would
> be
> more of a liability and a PITA than anything.

http://brsparachutes.com/lifesave.html

[Ken Reed]

> I'm curious: has anyone trained a spouse (or other "frequent flying
> companion") in chute operation for this purpose?

It is part of the standard passenger briefing in a Cirrus.
---
Ken Reed
N960CM

[Michael 182]

On 11 Nov 2005 18:27:09 -0800, "buttman" > wrote:

>If a car going 120 MPH hits another car going 120 MPH, you're dead. Two
>planes going the same speed hitting each other is no diffrent,
>parachute or not.


No argument there, however, your original statement was "The chances
of surviving a mid air is just about the same as the chances to
survive a car accident." Nothing in there about going 120 miles an
hour.

Michael

[Matt Whiting]

Marco Leon wrote:

> I bet it will look surprisingly like a Cardinal with its already
> aggressively-swept windshield. I wonder if they will incorporate a BRS chute
> to take away one of Cirrus' main selling points.

If they do, I sure hope they make it an option and don't force everyone
to pay for one. I don't consider the BRS to be a selling point at all.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>>> The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
>>> airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)
>
>
>> Cites?
>
>
> Can you spell irony? Could I have been any clearer?

You were clear, just no correct.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Cecil Chapman wrote:

>>You heard wrong, at least according to Alan Klapmeier.
>
>
> Here's the clip....
>
> "And yet we get constant criticism about whether our airplane has gone
> through FAA spin training. The fact of the matter is we looked at the
> statistics, made a conscious choice during the design certification of the
> airplane to say we can save more lives if we prevent the stall-spin event
> from happening than if we allow it to happen and teach people how to recover
> from it. If the airplane can't recover in the altitude available, then it
> doesn't matter if you have shown the FAA that the airplane can recover.
> So our approach was to prevent the accident from happening. We went to the
> FAA and said we want the [equivalent level of safety - an alternate means of
> complying with FAA certification criteria] for our improved stall
> characteristics. In addition to the improved stall characteristics we wanted
> them to include the parachute as an equivalent level of safety - in part
> because we already had it on there and in part we had demonstrated that the
> parachute could recover the airplane in less altitude loss in a spin than a
> pilot could recover the airplane through normal recovery techniques."
>
> Once again, in order to meet certification requirements since they wouldn't
> or couldn't demonstrate spin recovery properties Cirrus had to come up with
> an 'equivalent level of safety' which was the parachute.
>
> I spoke with a Cirrus rep at a static display and they said the same thing,,
> although he couched it in the guise of making the plane 'safer' he DID
> indicate that the parachute was done as an alternative to
> showing/demonstrating appropriate spin/stall characteristics.

This is certainly what I'd say if my design couldn't meet the FAA
stall/spin certification standards. :-)

Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> Doesn't the 'chute have to be dug out of the fiberglass every few years and
> inspected/overhauled?
>

Every six or twelve. And the new gen Cirrii have an inspection cover for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> Once again, in order to meet certification requirements since they
>> wouldn't or couldn't demonstrate spin recovery properties Cirrus had to
>> come up with an 'equivalent level of safety' which was the parachute.
>>
>> I spoke with a Cirrus rep at a static display and they said the same
>> thing,, although he couched it in the guise of making the plane 'safer'
>> he DID indicate that the parachute was done as an alternative to
>> showing/demonstrating appropriate spin/stall characteristics.
>
> This is certainly what I'd say if my design couldn't meet the FAA
> stall/spin certification standards. :-)

And why should anyone give a **** about that? Really. I think the above
quote is crap. And I invite anyone to show me otherwise. In the meantime,
are 172s etc. for pussies because any idiot can recover them from a spin?
So many people here whine that a BRS is an unnecessary safety device. I
agree. But at what level or performance are you OK with spin recovery not
meeting FAA standards? Why does it matter in a 172 and not a 747?

moo

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> I don't consider the BRS to be a selling point at all.

You and I may not, but many Cirrus owners report that their wives
definitely do.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM