Neat experience today.

[Matt Whiting]

I decided to stop by my local airport today (N38) as I hadn't been by in
a while. While I was there, a Cirrus SR20 pulled up to the pumps.
Never having seen one in person, I walked over and asked the pilot if he
minded me walking around and taking a closer look. He said, "how about
going for a ride?" I said sure.

He asked if I was a pilot, and I told him I was. After we buckled in
and he briefed me on the chute system (how much to slow down before
deployment, etc.), he asked me if I wanted to taxi out and perform the
takeoff. I said sure again.

The Cirrus was tricky to taxi for someone used to Cessnas and Pipers. I
don't know much about this airplane, but I'm guessing it has a castering
nosewheel and pusing the rudder pedals had basically no affect
directionally. You had to keep tapping the brakes to change course left
or right. It was pretty tricky at first, but I finally got the weaving
down to the "slightly less than embarrasing" level.

The rudder came alive pretty quickly on the takeoff roll, but
acceleration was sluggish compared to a 182, but probably similar to the
club Arrow I know fly, which I also consider sluggish. I don't know the
typical weight of the SR20, but it probably is nearly as heavy as the
182 with 30 less HP. The rotation speed is similar to the Arrow (65
knots was what the owner recommended) and a fair bit higher than the
182. Climb was sluggish, again much like the Arrow and at a similar
speed (90K). Once at 3500' I leveled off and the speed built up nicely.

The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
Arrow.

The airplane has the Avidyne EFIS and dual 430s. I could get to like
this setup very quickly. After tooling around for 10 minutes or so, the
pilot set up the GPS 28 approach into N38 and engaged the autopilot and
let it fly the approach. The moving map was amazing from a situational
awareness perspective. The advantage over the KLN89B in the club Arrow
was tremendous. It was obvious this setup would take some study and
familiarization, but its usefulness in the soup was eminently obvious.

The thing that struck me most about the airplane was its quietness, both
from engine noise and air noise. It was equipped with Bose ANR headsets
for all occupants so I don't know how much was due to the headsets and
how much was due to the airframe. I'd planned to remove the headsets
once at cruise to have a listen, but got so engrossed in the EFIS that I
completely forgot about doing that. The seats were also much more
comfortably than anything I've sat in in an airplane, other than those
in the corporate jets my employer operates. This is an airplane that
one could easily fly all day with little fatigue.

I'm still not sure I'd choose a Cirrus over a new Skylane with similar
avionics, but it certainly was a neat opportunity to get to fly one.
Unfortunately, the owner didn't have any business cards with him and I
can't now remember his name. I'm terrible with names and didn't write
it down before I left the airport. He said he'd call me when it was in
the area again (he's from Wellsboro and his mother still lives there) if
I wanted to take a more extensive ride, and he has my business card so
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main thing
with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered, just like the Arrow. After
flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance,
particularly on takeoff.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
> found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
> Arrow.

That's the first time I've ever heard that before, Matt. I've not flown a
Cirrus, but in the magazines SR-20 handling is usually described as "crisp"
and "responsive".

If the controls are more sluggish than your 182 -- one of the most stable
aircraft every built -- I don't think I'd like a Cirrus much.

Thanks for the PIREP.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
>>found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
>>Arrow.
>
>
> That's the first time I've ever heard that before, Matt. I've not flown a
> Cirrus, but in the magazines SR-20 handling is usually described as "crisp"
> and "responsive".

I haven't read many magazine tests on the SR20, but that is how it felt
to me. Part of it may be that I was flying from the right seat using my
right hand, whereas I'm used to flying with my left hand normally. It
just didn't feel like I had the leverage I do with standard controls,
especially in roll. Rotating the wrist isn't one of the strongest
actions a human can do. I have much more strength with the rotation is
combined with an up or down action so that your biceps and triceps can
get into the action along with the rotation from your forearm.


> If the controls are more sluggish than your 182 -- one of the most stable
> aircraft every built -- I don't think I'd like a Cirrus much.

Actually, I don't see this as being a bad thing at all. And don't
confuse sluggish controls with stability. The good thing is that it as
less sluggish than anything Piper has built, other than the Tomahawk.
It seemed to have a fair bit of stiction in the column like most Pipers
have unless you have just lubed the control column. It certainly wasn't
like the RV-6 I flew many moons ago. But then I'd not want to fly that
in IMC. Whereas the Cirrus felt like it would be a good IMC platform.

> Thanks for the PIREP.

It was really a hoot to get to fly one. Never thought it would happen
this quickly. Some times you are just in the right place at the right time!

It will be hard to be happy with steam gauges again, that is for sure...


Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main thing
> with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered, just like the Arrow. After
> flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance, particularly
> on takeoff.

The SR-22 I flew surprised me with its relatively sluggish takeoff
performance. It did not seem notably quicker than my 180-horse Cutlass on
initial power application, even with all that hp out front. I can well
imagine that the SR-20 is no rocket ship--same airframe; much less
horsepower. Definitely not short field airplanes.

(I still liked the SR-22 a lot, though.)

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[john smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> stiction

The what???

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main thing
>>with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered, just like the Arrow. After
>>flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance, particularly
>>on takeoff.
>
>
> The SR-22 I flew surprised me with its relatively sluggish takeoff
> performance. It did not seem notably quicker than my 180-horse Cutlass on
> initial power application, even with all that hp out front. I can well
> imagine that the SR-20 is no rocket ship--same airframe; much less
> horsepower. Definitely not short field airplanes.

Yes, I didn't try to gauge the ground roll precisely, but we used at
last half of Wellsboro's runway. It was a warm day yesterday (upper
80s) and we had three people onboard and I don't know how much fuel.
Even so, it was pretty sluggish on takeoff, but probably not much worse
than the Arrow I fly. Both have three blade props which doesn't help
take-off performance.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

B A R R Y wrote:

> On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:40:45 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
>>>found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
>>>Arrow.
>>
>>That's the first time I've ever heard that before, Matt. I've not flown a
>>Cirrus, but in the magazines SR-20 handling is usually described as "crisp"
>>and "responsive".
>
>
> I read a pirep by a Beech Aero Club member that described it as
> "truck-like" handling with a heavy feel. BE23-24's aren't exactly
> sprightly, but they have a light but positive control feel. I haven't
> flown a 182, so I can't compare a BE23-24 to it. I'd like to try a
> Cirrus myself at one of the traveling demos.

I've never had the opportunity to fly a Beech of any type so I can't
make a comparison there. Yes, definitely try a Cirrus if you get a
chance. Heck, I'll try ANY airplane given the chance!! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>stiction
>
>
> The what???

Commonly used term for static friction. Static friction is generally
higher than dynamic friction. It is what makes moving mechanisms take
more force to get moving than to keep moving. Makes for jerky controls
and makes very find control adjustments difficults. Cessnas rarely have
this problem, but the Pipers I've flown with those fat control columns
seem very prone to stiction. It makes it hard to do a smooth flare for
instance. You apply back pressure ... and nothing happens. A little
more pressure ... still nothing. A little more pressure ... and the
controls "break free" and you get a 1/2" of control motion.

Often when flying Pipers I know slowly "pump" the controls during the
flare. One of the aviation columnists recently wrote about using this
technique and the advantages of it. I never needed it much in my 182 as
I could gradually pull back the wheel in it. The Arrow isn't nearly as
smooth and a low amplitude, high frequency "pumping" of the wheel tends
to allow smoother arrivals at closer to stall speed.


Matt

[john smith]

Longer (relative term) ground runs are the result of the Cirrus wing
design. It is optimized for cruise, not climb.

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> Longer (relative term) ground runs are the result of the Cirrus wing
> design. It is optimized for cruise, not climb.

I'm sure that is true as well, but the acceleration was sluggish and
that has nothing to do with the wing ... well, other than the weight of
the wing! :-)


Matt

[.Blueskies.]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
> I decided to stop by my local airport today (N38) as I hadn't been by in a while. While I was there, a Cirrus SR20
> pulled up to the pumps. Never having seen one in person, I walked over and asked the pilot if he minded me walking
> around and taking a closer look. He said, "how about going for a ride?" I said sure.
>
....snip...
>
> I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main thing with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered,
> just like the Arrow. After flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance, particularly on takeoff.
>
>
> Matt

Didja log the flight time?

[john smith]

> Often when flying Pipers I know slowly "pump" the controls during the
> flare. One of the aviation columnists recently wrote about using this
> technique and the advantages of it. I never needed it much in my 182 as
> I could gradually pull back the wheel in it. The Arrow isn't nearly as
> smooth and a low amplitude, high frequency "pumping" of the wheel tends
> to allow smoother arrivals at closer to stall speed.

I ususally wiggle the yoke (roll axis) as I pull or push to overcome the
"stiction". :-))

[john smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
> > Longer (relative term) ground runs are the result of the Cirrus wing
> > design. It is optimized for cruise, not climb.
>
> I'm sure that is true as well, but the acceleration was sluggish and
> that has nothing to do with the wing ... well, other than the weight of
> the wing! :-)

Is the SR-20 fixed or constant speed prop? A cruise prop will produce a
sluggish ground run on takeoff.

[Viperdoc]

While it sounds like you had a great experience, I question your decision to
go and fly with someone you didn't know at all. Personally, I never would
fly with anyone unless they had a reputation as a cautious and safe pilot,
and had a well maintained airplane. I would never fly with a stranger in an
unknown airplane.

It can generate behavior like: the airplane can do six vertical rolls (even
though I've never tried it before), or "watch how the spin recovery is easy
(even though I've never spun the plane before), or "let's do a high speed
pass down the runway and show everyone what the plane can do!" Famous last
words are :"let me show you this!"

In general people (including myself) are proud of their new shiny toys, and
like to show people what the airplane can do, even if it exceeds their own
skills, experience, or common sense. It's a perfect formula for an accident.

Just a thought.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> That's the first time I've ever heard that before, Matt. I've not flown a
> Cirrus, but in the magazines SR-20 handling is usually described as "crisp"
> and "responsive".
>

First time for me, too. Personally, I found the Cirrus's control harmony even
beats the Bo - a hard thing to top. A 182? No comparison at all.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[john smith]

> While it sounds like you had a great experience, I question your decision to
> go and fly with someone you didn't know at all. Personally, I never would
> fly with anyone unless they had a reputation as a cautious and safe pilot,
> and had a well maintained airplane. I would never fly with a stranger in an
> unknown airplane.
> It can generate behavior like: the airplane can do six vertical rolls (even
> though I've never tried it before), or "watch how the spin recovery is easy
> (even though I've never spun the plane before), or "let's do a high speed
> pass down the runway and show everyone what the plane can do!" Famous last
> words are :"let me show you this!"
> In general people (including myself) are proud of their new shiny toys, and
> like to show people what the airplane can do, even if it exceeds their own
> skills, experience, or common sense. It's a perfect formula for an accident.

Doc, having been involve with the acro community for the past 25 years,
I can speak from experience that it sometimes takes years for some
pilots to show their true alter-ego. An acro mount usually brings it out
in short order, though.

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Rotating the wrist isn't one of the strongest actions a human can do. I
> have much more strength with the rotation is combined with an up or down
> action so that your biceps and triceps can get into the action along with
> the rotation from your forearm.

Huh. When I flew the SR20 (granted, this was one of the test planes, before
they finished certification...but it WAS one of the conforming prototypes,
so surely it's not that different from the one you were in), I didn't use a
rotating motion to control the side-yoke. My forearm was not in line with
the axis of the yoke, and aileron control was more of a push-right,
pull-left (from the left seat) affair.

Still different from the use of a center-mounted yoke, granted...but I had
plenty of leverage and found the controls quite natural and easy to use.
Certainly compared to the 182s I'd been flying, the SR20 seemed more
responsive.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

..Blueskies. wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
>>I decided to stop by my local airport today (N38) as I hadn't been by in a while. While I was there, a Cirrus SR20
>>pulled up to the pumps. Never having seen one in person, I walked over and asked the pilot if he minded me walking
>>around and taking a closer look. He said, "how about going for a ride?" I said sure.
>>
>
> ...snip...
>
>>I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main thing with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered,
>>just like the Arrow. After flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance, particularly on takeoff.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Didja log the flight time?
>
>

No, but that is a good idea! Probably only had 3 tenths, but hey, it is
time in a Cirrus no matter what. And I was sole manipulator at the time
so it should be legal, even if I was in the right (wrong!) seat.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Longer (relative term) ground runs are the result of the Cirrus wing
>>>design. It is optimized for cruise, not climb.
>>
>>I'm sure that is true as well, but the acceleration was sluggish and
>>that has nothing to do with the wing ... well, other than the weight of
>>the wing! :-)
>
>
> Is the SR-20 fixed or constant speed prop? A cruise prop will produce a
> sluggish ground run on takeoff.

He said it was constant speed, but you wouldn't know it flying it as it
has just the throttle lever. No prop control, no mixture control (at
least I didn't see a traditional mixture control).


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Viperdoc wrote:

> While it sounds like you had a great experience, I question your decision to
> go and fly with someone you didn't know at all. Personally, I never would
> fly with anyone unless they had a reputation as a cautious and safe pilot,
> and had a well maintained airplane. I would never fly with a stranger in an
> unknown airplane.
>
> It can generate behavior like: the airplane can do six vertical rolls (even
> though I've never tried it before), or "watch how the spin recovery is easy
> (even though I've never spun the plane before), or "let's do a high speed
> pass down the runway and show everyone what the plane can do!" Famous last
> words are :"let me show you this!"
>
> In general people (including myself) are proud of their new shiny toys, and
> like to show people what the airplane can do, even if it exceeds their own
> skills, experience, or common sense. It's a perfect formula for an accident.
>
> Just a thought.

I was waiting for one of your kind to jump in. I'm only surprised it
took as long as it did.

He also had his mother in the back seat as she hadn't ridden in the
airplane either. I wasn't too worried.

I guess you don't fly the airlines then, eh? That would mean flying
with a stranger in an unknown (to you anyway) airplane.

Hey, I could have always pulled the chute! :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Jay,
>
>
>>That's the first time I've ever heard that before, Matt. I've not flown a
>>Cirrus, but in the magazines SR-20 handling is usually described as "crisp"
>>and "responsive".
>>
>
>
> First time for me, too. Personally, I found the Cirrus's control harmony even
> beats the Bo - a hard thing to top. A 182? No comparison at all.

I've never flown a Bo, so I can't make a comparison there.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>Rotating the wrist isn't one of the strongest actions a human can do. I
>>have much more strength with the rotation is combined with an up or down
>>action so that your biceps and triceps can get into the action along with
>>the rotation from your forearm.
>
>
> Huh. When I flew the SR20 (granted, this was one of the test planes, before
> they finished certification...but it WAS one of the conforming prototypes,
> so surely it's not that different from the one you were in), I didn't use a
> rotating motion to control the side-yoke. My forearm was not in line with
> the axis of the yoke, and aileron control was more of a push-right,
> pull-left (from the left seat) affair.

Well, I was in the right seat using my right hand. My forearm was on
the armrest and I simply rotated my wrist for ailerons and pushed and
pulled for elevator. The control travel was much less than in my 182,
but the forces were at least similar and felt higher, especially in roll.

Matt

[JJS]

>> In article >,
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
snip
>
> Often when flying Pipers I know slowly "pump" the controls during the
> flare. One of the aviation columnists recently wrote about using this
> technique and the advantages of it. I never needed it much in my 182 as I
> could gradually pull back the wheel in it. The Arrow isn't nearly as
> smooth and a low amplitude, high frequency "pumping" of the wheel tends to
> allow smoother arrivals at closer to stall speed.
>
>
> Matt

Okay, survey time. We have a lot of Piper pilots on the newsgroups. How
many of you find it necessary to "pump the yoke"to get a smooth low speed
landing? I'll go first... not me. Is something wrong with my airplane or
just every other Piper in the world?

Joe Schneider
N8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Matt Whiting]

JJS wrote:
>>>In article >,
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>Often when flying Pipers I know slowly "pump" the controls during the
>>flare. One of the aviation columnists recently wrote about using this
>>technique and the advantages of it. I never needed it much in my 182 as I
>>could gradually pull back the wheel in it. The Arrow isn't nearly as
>>smooth and a low amplitude, high frequency "pumping" of the wheel tends to
>>allow smoother arrivals at closer to stall speed.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Okay, survey time. We have a lot of Piper pilots on the newsgroups. How
> many of you find it necessary to "pump the yoke"to get a smooth low speed
> landing? I'll go first... not me. Is something wrong with my airplane or
> just every other Piper in the world?

I've flown four different Pipers, a Tomahawk, where I didn't notice
excessive stiction. It was very light on the controls, much like the
C150s I learned in.

I've flown two different Cherokee 180s. Both had substantial stiction,
but both were hard used FBO aircraft. My instructor sprayed some
silicon on it one time as it was so bad. This helped for a few hours,
but was short-lived.

I currently fly a Piper Arrow. It has excessive stiction. I don't know
how often the column gets lubed. I'll ask our maintenance officer at
our next club meeting.

Matt

[Viperdoc]

Just because someone has their mother in the back doesn't make them a good
pilot as far as I can tell. If you're that trusting there's some ocean front
property in Arizona for sale that you'd probably like.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"JJS" <jschneider@re movecebridge.net> wrote:

> Okay, survey time. We have a lot of Piper pilots on the newsgroups. How
> many of you find it necessary to "pump the yoke"to get a smooth low speed
> landing? I'll go first... not me.

Not me (cherokee 140).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

In article >,
"JJS" <jschneider@re movecebridge.net> wrote:

> Okay, survey time. We have a lot of Piper pilots on the newsgroups. How
> many of you find it necessary to "pump the yoke"to get a smooth low speed
> landing? I'll go first... not me. Is something wrong with my airplane or
> just every other Piper in the world?

If properly maintained and lubricated, the shaft should move freely,
without binding.

[Kyle Boatright]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "JJS" <jschneider@re movecebridge.net> wrote:
>
>> Okay, survey time. We have a lot of Piper pilots on the newsgroups. How
>> many of you find it necessary to "pump the yoke"to get a smooth low speed
>> landing? I'll go first... not me. Is something wrong with my airplane
>> or
>> just every other Piper in the world?
>
> If properly maintained and lubricated, the shaft should move freely,
> without binding.

Bingo. On my old Tomahawk, I had to dip the tip of my index finger into
engine oil and spread it on both yoke shafts about once every six months to
keep everything moving easily. The difference between pre and post-lube
stiction was noticable.

KB

[Matt Whiting]

Viperdoc wrote:

> Just because someone has their mother in the back doesn't make them a good
> pilot as far as I can tell. If you're that trusting there's some ocean front
> property in Arizona for sale that you'd probably like.

Some of us are timid, some aren't. I watched him land on the way in and
the FBO manager obviously knew him from their conversation, and I know
the FBO manager well. It simply wasn't a high risk undertaking, but for
timid folks like you, I certainly wouldn't recommend it.


Matt

[Viperdoc]

I don't consider myself particularly timid- I routinely fly my own plane
between -4 and +8 g, although it's rated for a lot more, and am pretty
comfortable flying upside down equally well. I also have quite a few hours
flying in the back of F-16's with live ordinance hung off the wings as well,
sitting in a hot ejection seat with a rocket motor. This has nothing to do
with timidity.

I just choose not to jump in any stranger's plane for a joy ride. In
particular there seems to be a disproportionate number of Cirrus crashes
where the pilots apparently had more money than judgment.

If he sounded like he was mature and was known and respected by the FBO
owner, then perhaps this was good enough for you. On the other hand, there
are two pilots on our field who had just purchased new planes- an SU-29 and
a brand new Pitts, and both damaged their planes significantly in landing
accidents within the first 10 hours of ownership (one of them also had an
SR-22). Both are experienced and mature individuals, and not risk takers.
Would you have wanted to be on board for a joy ride during one of those
flights?

Don't mistake good judgment or cautiousness for a lack of macho.

[Dave]

Nope, not me either...

'79 Warrior..... no "stiction"...flare is a two finger exercise.

If my yoke is back, a slight push, it will "coast" all the way to the
panel with the engine stopped..

I would check the lubricant situation on the yoke tube...or something
ia REALLY out of whack....

Dave


On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:11:30 -0500, "JJS" <jschneider@re
movecebridge.net> wrote:

>
>
>>> In article >,
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>snip
>>
>> Often when flying Pipers I know slowly "pump" the controls during the
>> flare. One of the aviation columnists recently wrote about using this
>> technique and the advantages of it. I never needed it much in my 182 as I
>> could gradually pull back the wheel in it. The Arrow isn't nearly as
>> smooth and a low amplitude, high frequency "pumping" of the wheel tends to
>> allow smoother arrivals at closer to stall speed.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>Okay, survey time. We have a lot of Piper pilots on the newsgroups. How
>many of you find it necessary to "pump the yoke"to get a smooth low speed
>landing? I'll go first... not me. Is something wrong with my airplane or
>just every other Piper in the world?
>
>Joe Schneider
>N8437R
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Skywise]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in news:byMeg.7634$GM.2024
@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:

You sound like one of those folks who argues for the sake of
argument. Your post contradicts itself.

If those "experienced and mature individuals, and not risk takers"
still managed to damage their planes, it sounds like a case of
"**** happens". If you are lowering the threshold to that level,
what's to say that in any situation we go through life won't
end up killing us in a "**** happens" type situation? What's to
say that on Matt's flight that some manufacturing defect decided
to rip one of hte wings off? **** happens. Would Matt's presence
on the flight or not have had any bearing?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Morgans]

>
> Bingo. On my old Tomahawk, I had to dip the tip of my index finger into
> engine oil and spread it on both yoke shafts about once every six months
> to keep everything moving easily. The difference between pre and
> post-lube stiction was noticable.

I'll bet a little lithium grease would work better, longer, and be less
mess.

Of course, you seldom will have a bit of lithium grease on your dipstick,
when you need it! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> but the acceleration was sluggish and
> that has nothing to do with the wing
>

If you want acceleration on the ground, get a sports car ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Viperdoc,

> I would never fly with a stranger in an
> unknown airplane.
>

And you fly alone a lot? What I'm trying to get at is: How would you
ever get a passenger to fly with you if they all thought like that?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jjs,

> I'll go first... not me.
>

Me neither.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> He said it was constant speed, but you wouldn't know it flying it as it
> has just the throttle lever. No prop control, no mixture control
>

It is CS, but the speed is linked to the throttle position. Not something
I like, but a try at simplification. Mixture is normal, there should have
been a second lever as usual.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Still different from the use of a center-mounted yoke, granted...but I had
> plenty of leverage and found the controls quite natural and easy to use
>

Concur.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>
>>but the acceleration was sluggish and
>>that has nothing to do with the wing
>>
>
>
> If you want acceleration on the ground, get a sports car ;-)

To tow the Cirrus to rotation speed?
:-)

Matt

[Cary Mariash]

Matt,

I recently sold my C310 (after about 650 hours in it). The C310 was a
joy to fly, when trimmed it almost flew hands off. The plane had no
autopilot, so all those hours where hand flown.

I joined OurPlane and have been flying a SR22G for the last 6 months. I
found that the ground roll is about the same as my twin Cessna, but the
climb performance is probably better.

I also found that there was very little effort in transitioning from the
yoke to the side stick. However, the SR22 does not like to be hand flown
because the trim controls are not responsive enough. It only has an
electric trim, no hand trims. The plane likes to flown on autopilot.
With all this in mind, it remains a wonderful plane to fly.

Cary

Matt Whiting wrote:
snip
> The rudder came alive pretty quickly on the takeoff roll, but
acceleration was sluggish compared to a 182, but probably similar to the
club Arrow I know fly, which I also consider sluggish. I don't know the
typical weight of the SR20, but it probably is nearly as heavy as the
182 with 30 less HP. The rotation speed is similar to the Arrow (65
knots was what the owner recommended) and a fair bit higher than the
182. Climb was sluggish, again much like the Arrow and at a similar
speed (90K). Once at 3500' I leveled off and the speed built up nicely.
>
> The side stick would take some getting used to, but it wasn't bad. I
found the controls to be more sluggish than my 182, but less so than the
Arrow.
>
snip
>
> I suspect that flying an SR22 might change my opinion as the main
thing with the SR20 is that it felt underpowered, just like the Arrow.
After flying a Skylane for 6 years, I really miss the performance,
particularly on takeoff.
>
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Cary Mariash wrote:

> Matt,
>
> I recently sold my C310 (after about 650 hours in it). The C310 was a
> joy to fly, when trimmed it almost flew hands off. The plane had no
> autopilot, so all those hours where hand flown.
>
> I joined OurPlane and have been flying a SR22G for the last 6 months. I
> found that the ground roll is about the same as my twin Cessna, but the
> climb performance is probably better.

That is really amazing that an SR22 can outclimb a C310. I thought the
310 was a pretty nice performing twin ... with both turning anyway.

Matt

[soxinbox]

79 P28RT201T. count me in the positive stiction category. I brought the
topic up in rec.aviation.owners before and many people replied that they had
similar problems and similar remedies to what is seen here.

"JJS" <jschneider@re movecebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
>>> In article >,
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> snip
>>
>> Often when flying Pipers I know slowly "pump" the controls during the
>> flare. One of the aviation columnists recently wrote about using this
>> technique and the advantages of it. I never needed it much in my 182 as
>> I could gradually pull back the wheel in it. The Arrow isn't nearly as
>> smooth and a low amplitude, high frequency "pumping" of the wheel tends
>> to allow smoother arrivals at closer to stall speed.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> Okay, survey time. We have a lot of Piper pilots on the newsgroups. How
> many of you find it necessary to "pump the yoke"to get a smooth low speed
> landing? I'll go first... not me. Is something wrong with my airplane or
> just every other Piper in the world?
>
> Joe Schneider
> N8437R
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[JJS]

"soxinbox" > wrote in message ...
> 79 P28RT201T. count me in the positive stiction category. I brought the topic up in rec.aviation.owners before and
> many people replied that they had similar problems and similar remedies to what is seen here.

So you pump the yoke on every landing?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[soxinbox]

No, I guess I misread the question. I have the stiction problem, but do not
pump the yoke.

"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "soxinbox" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 79 P28RT201T. count me in the positive stiction category. I brought the
>> topic up in rec.aviation.owners before and many people replied that they
>> had similar problems and similar remedies to what is seen here.
>
> So you pump the yoke on every landing?
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[Aluckyguess]

"JJS" <jschneider@re movecebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
>>> In article >,
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> snip
>>
>> Often when flying Pipers I know slowly "pump" the controls during the
>> flare. One of the aviation columnists recently wrote about using this
>> technique and the advantages of it. I never needed it much in my 182 as
>> I could gradually pull back the wheel in it. The Arrow isn't nearly as
>> smooth and a low amplitude, high frequency "pumping" of the wheel tends
>> to allow smoother arrivals at closer to stall speed.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> Okay, survey time. We have a lot of Piper pilots on the newsgroups. How
> many of you find it necessary to "pump the yoke"to get a smooth low speed
> landing? I'll go first... not me. Is something wrong with my airplane or
> just every other Piper in the world?
>
> Joe Schneider
> N8437R
A dap of oil fixes the problem my 180 is as smooth as silk.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[Aluckyguess]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Just because someone has their mother in the back doesn't make them a good
> pilot as far as I can tell. If you're that trusting there's some ocean
> front property in Arizona for sale that you'd probably like.
>
>
I would of went. I would love to fly in Cirrus. Ill take my chances with a
stranger.

[Matt Whiting]

Aluckyguess wrote:

> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Just because someone has their mother in the back doesn't make them a good
>>pilot as far as I can tell. If you're that trusting there's some ocean
>>front property in Arizona for sale that you'd probably like.
>>
>>
>
> I would of went. I would love to fly in Cirrus. Ill take my chances with a
> stranger.

You daredevil, you!! :-)


Matt