Nuther SR-22 crash/incident?

[Roger]

I see in the local paper a plane "crashed" over at Mt Pleasant (MOP).
There's not a lot of information available, but we had thunderstorms
throughout the area with winds varying from calm to gusting over 40
along with hail and torrential rains. Here which is about 16 miles
east of the MOP runway I had 2 inches of rain in 15 minutes.

"As I understand" (which means more than second hand) it was his first
flight after being checked out in a new SR-22. There's nothing yet on
the specific weather conditions at that location at that time. Landed
about 250 feet short of the runway, wiped out the gear, and walked
away.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Wendy]

How long was the runway?


"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>I see in the local paper a plane "crashed" over at Mt Pleasant (MOP).
> There's not a lot of information available, but we had thunderstorms
> throughout the area with winds varying from calm to gusting over 40
> along with hail and torrential rains. Here which is about 16 miles
> east of the MOP runway I had 2 inches of rain in 15 minutes.
>
> "As I understand" (which means more than second hand) it was his first
> flight after being checked out in a new SR-22. There's nothing yet on
> the specific weather conditions at that location at that time. Landed
> about 250 feet short of the runway, wiped out the gear, and walked
> away.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[tony roberts]

Length wasn't an issue - it just needed to be 250ft closer :)

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article t>,
"Wendy" > wrote:

> How long was the runway?
>
>
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I see in the local paper a plane "crashed" over at Mt Pleasant (MOP).
> > There's not a lot of information available, but we had thunderstorms
> > throughout the area with winds varying from calm to gusting over 40
> > along with hail and torrential rains. Here which is about 16 miles
> > east of the MOP runway I had 2 inches of rain in 15 minutes.
> >
> > "As I understand" (which means more than second hand) it was his first
> > flight after being checked out in a new SR-22. There's nothing yet on
> > the specific weather conditions at that location at that time. Landed
> > about 250 feet short of the runway, wiped out the gear, and walked
> > away.
> >
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Whiting]

Wendy wrote:

> How long was the runway?
>
>
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I see in the local paper a plane "crashed" over at Mt Pleasant (MOP).
>>There's not a lot of information available, but we had thunderstorms
>>throughout the area with winds varying from calm to gusting over 40
>>along with hail and torrential rains. Here which is about 16 miles
>>east of the MOP runway I had 2 inches of rain in 15 minutes.
>>
>>"As I understand" (which means more than second hand) it was his first
>>flight after being checked out in a new SR-22. There's nothing yet on
>>the specific weather conditions at that location at that time. Landed
>>about 250 feet short of the runway, wiped out the gear, and walked
>>away.

It doesn't matter if you land short of it! :-)

Matt

[Morgans]

"tony roberts" > wrote

> Length wasn't an issue - it just needed to be 250ft closer :)

Sure it was. The runway needed a 260 foot extension, in their direction!
--
Jim in NC

[Roger]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:36:23 GMT, "Wendy" > wrote:

>How long was the runway?

5000'

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>I see in the local paper a plane "crashed" over at Mt Pleasant (MOP).
>> There's not a lot of information available, but we had thunderstorms
>> throughout the area with winds varying from calm to gusting over 40
>> along with hail and torrential rains. Here which is about 16 miles
>> east of the MOP runway I had 2 inches of rain in 15 minutes.
>>
>> "As I understand" (which means more than second hand) it was his first
>> flight after being checked out in a new SR-22. There's nothing yet on
>> the specific weather conditions at that location at that time. Landed
>> about 250 feet short of the runway, wiped out the gear, and walked
>> away.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Roger]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:56:25 GMT, tony roberts >
wrote:

>Length wasn't an issue - it just needed to be 250ft closer :)

Actually, IF he stalled in on hard enough to remove the gear in the
dirt it's probably just as well that the runway didn't start 250 feet
sooner. I haven't seen it yet, but they say it wiped out the gear and
slid up to the runway. Whether it removed all three, or just bent one
or all I guess it's probably going to be considered a hard landing.
<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Denny]

Low time pilot...
High time wallet....
"And, it's the safest airplane made, Sir... It has a PARACHUTE!."


denny

[Matt Barrow]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-CABFF6.16580604062006@shawnews...
> Length wasn't an issue - it just needed to be 250ft closer :)

Yes, but if it was 250 feet longer, he would have made it.

>
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE
>
>
> In article t>,
> "Wendy" > wrote:
>
>> How long was the runway?
>>

[Cary Mariash]

Roger wrote:
> I see in the local paper a plane "crashed" over at Mt Pleasant (MOP).
> There's not a lot of information available, but we had thunderstorms
> throughout the area with winds varying from calm to gusting over 40
> along with hail and torrential rains. Here which is about 16 miles
> east of the MOP runway I had 2 inches of rain in 15 minutes.
>
> "As I understand" (which means more than second hand) it was his first
> flight after being checked out in a new SR-22. There's nothing yet on
> the specific weather conditions at that location at that time. Landed
> about 250 feet short of the runway, wiped out the gear, and walked
> away.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

I have been flying an SR22 for about 7 months. My checkout took about 14
hours. I found that landing this plane was very tricky, control of
airspeed is critical. I am not a low time pilot. I have 1150 total hours
in planes ranging from a C150 to C310. The SR22 and the Mooney Bravo
are the 2 planes that have given me the most trouble trying to land.

Cary

[john smith]

In article >,
Cary Mariash > wrote:

> I found that landing this plane was very tricky, control of
> airspeed is critical.

I have been saying this all along. I believe the airfoil is optimized
for high speed cruise. Does anyone know of a published independent study
about the wing and airfoil Cirrus uses?

[Dan Luke]

"Cary Mariash" wrote:

>
> I have been flying an SR22 for about 7 months. My checkout took about 14
> hours. I found that landing this plane was very tricky, control of airspeed
> is critical. I am not a low time pilot. I have 1150 total hours in planes
> ranging from a C150 to C310. The SR22 and the Mooney Bravo are the 2 planes
> that have given me the most trouble trying to land.

Interesting.

I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
difficult about it.

I have about 1100 hours also, but nowhere near the variety of experience you
have--almost all of mine is in high wing Cessnas.

What did you find tricky about it?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:nospam-CABFF6.16580604062006@shawnews...
>
>>Length wasn't an issue - it just needed to be 250ft closer :)
>
>
> Yes, but if it was 250 feet longer, he would have made it.

Depends on which end was longer. :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Cary Mariash > wrote:
>
>
>>I found that landing this plane was very tricky, control of
>>airspeed is critical.
>
>
> I have been saying this all along. I believe the airfoil is optimized
> for high speed cruise. Does anyone know of a published independent study
> about the wing and airfoil Cirrus uses?

No, but the stall speed is quite high, which suggests that the airfoil
isn't optimized for slow speed flight. At least I consider 59K with
flaps to be reasonably high having flown mostly Cessna singles. If you
are a Mooney pilot, then this wouldn't be considered high.

What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are. Given the cuffs
and such on the wings, I suspect the airfoil isn't as docile as a 182 or
a Bonanza.

Matt

[Cary Mariash]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Cary Mariash" wrote:
>
>> I have been flying an SR22 for about 7 months. My checkout took about 14
>> hours. I found that landing this plane was very tricky, control of airspeed
>> is critical. I am not a low time pilot. I have 1150 total hours in planes
>> ranging from a C150 to C310. The SR22 and the Mooney Bravo are the 2 planes
>> that have given me the most trouble trying to land.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
> difficult about it.
>
> I have about 1100 hours also, but nowhere near the variety of experience you
> have--almost all of mine is in high wing Cessnas.
>
> What did you find tricky about it?
>
Airspeed control is the tricky element. It should be flown 80 kts all
the way down final. If much faster than 80 kts it can bounce
tremendously with serious porpoising afterward (believe me, I know from
experience). At much less than the 80 kts it is subject to stalling out
too soon. Both the high wing Cessnas (152, 172, 182) and my C310 where
much forgiving. They allowed a wider range of airspeed on final approach
with the ability to still have a reasonable landing.

Cary

[Stefan]

> Airspeed control is the tricky element.

So flying an approach within a knot is "tricky" to you? Hmmm...

Stefan

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
> difficult about it.
>

Me neither. In fact, I found it easy to land. Speed control is important
landing any airplane, IMHO. Allowing a wide range of speeds, whether in
a Cessna or a Cirrus, is sloppy airmanship, except when adaption to wind
requires different airspeeds.

FWIW, I have but 450 hours, 70 of which in Bonanzas.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
>

Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Maule Driver]

Stefan wrote:
>> Airspeed control is the tricky element.
>
> So flying an approach within a knot is "tricky" to you? Hmmm...
>

Uncalled for.

Flying an approach within a knot requires concentration and more than 3
TO/Landings in 90.

An aircraft that *requires* it in this GA space is not going far. But I
don't think plus/minus 1knot is required nor that this is aircraft is
too "tricky". I believe that it may be more challenging than most SELs
most of us are flying.

Of course you are TW qualified....

[Dan Luke]

"Cary Mariash" wrote:

>> What did you find tricky about it?
>>
> Airspeed control is the tricky element. It should be flown 80 kts all the
> way down final. If much faster than 80 kts it can bounce tremendously with
> serious porpoising afterward (believe me, I know from experience). At much
> less than the 80 kts it is subject to stalling out too soon. Both the high
> wing Cessnas (152, 172, 182) and my C310 where much forgiving. They allowed
> a wider range of airspeed on final approach with the ability to still have
> a reasonable landing.

The Cirrus rep. had me to use 80 KIAS on final, but I don't recall paying
very close attention to holding it exactly. He told me not to try to
full-stall the land it like a 172, but rather to fly it on nose-high with a
little power. That worked fine for me: I didn't have any excessive float or
bounce.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Cary Mariash]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Cary Mariash" wrote:
>
>>> What did you find tricky about it?
>>>
>> Airspeed control is the tricky element. It should be flown 80 kts all the
>> way down final. If much faster than 80 kts it can bounce tremendously with
>> serious porpoising afterward (believe me, I know from experience). At much
>> less than the 80 kts it is subject to stalling out too soon. Both the high
>> wing Cessnas (152, 172, 182) and my C310 where much forgiving. They allowed
>> a wider range of airspeed on final approach with the ability to still have
>> a reasonable landing.
>
> The Cirrus rep. had me to use 80 KIAS on final, but I don't recall paying
> very close attention to holding it exactly. He told me not to try to
> full-stall the land it like a 172, but rather to fly it on nose-high with a
> little power. That worked fine for me: I didn't have any excessive float or
> bounce.
>
Dan, that is how I was taught as well. But, I have learned that the 80
KIAS is critical because much above that speed has caused me to bounce,
and much below that speed it really wants to stall. I have some of my
very best landings in the SR22 (real greasers that I have not had in
other planes), but I have also had a few of my worst landings in that
SR22. I am still not comfortable with the landings in that plane (after
about 40 hours), but that may be because I am not a very good pilot.

Cary

[Matt Whiting]

Cary Mariash wrote:
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "Cary Mariash" wrote:
>>
>>>> What did you find tricky about it?
>>>>
>>> Airspeed control is the tricky element. It should be flown 80 kts all
>>> the way down final. If much faster than 80 kts it can bounce
>>> tremendously with serious porpoising afterward (believe me, I know
>>> from experience). At much less than the 80 kts it is subject to
>>> stalling out too soon. Both the high wing Cessnas (152, 172, 182) and
>>> my C310 where much forgiving. They allowed a wider range of airspeed
>>> on final approach with the ability to still have a reasonable landing.
>>
>>
>> The Cirrus rep. had me to use 80 KIAS on final, but I don't recall
>> paying very close attention to holding it exactly. He told me not to
>> try to full-stall the land it like a 172, but rather to fly it on
>> nose-high with a little power. That worked fine for me: I didn't have
>> any excessive float or bounce.
>>
> Dan, that is how I was taught as well. But, I have learned that the 80
> KIAS is critical because much above that speed has caused me to bounce,
> and much below that speed it really wants to stall. I have some of my
> very best landings in the SR22 (real greasers that I have not had in
> other planes), but I have also had a few of my worst landings in that
> SR22. I am still not comfortable with the landings in that plane (after
> about 40 hours), but that may be because I am not a very good pilot.

Yes, 80 knots is what the pilot I flew with last week approached at.
Seemed pretty fast to me as I approached at 80 mph in my Skylane. :-)


Matt

[john smith]

> Yes, 80 knots is what the pilot I flew with last week approached at.
> Seemed pretty fast to me as I approached at 80 mph in my Skylane. :-)

80 kts in a Skylane is about 35 kts above stall, which means you are
still at flying speed when the SR22 is already at landing speed.

[Newps]

Cary Mariash wrote:


>>
> Dan, that is how I was taught as well. But, I have learned that the 80
> KIAS is critical because much above that speed has caused me to bounce,
> and much below that speed it really wants to stall.

By reg it can't stall at more than 61 knots. At gross. You were
probably 500 or so under gross which would put the stall at around 56
knots. The standard approach speed of 1.3 Vso would make that 73 knots.
80 knots just burns up runway.

[Stefan]

Maule Driver schrieb:

> Flying an approach within a knot requires concentration and more than 3
> TO/Landings in 90.

You mean, flying unconcentrated is SOP? :-/

The instructors in my club don't solo students who can't nail the
approach speed to -0/+2 knots and touch down within 150 feet of the
designed point (weather permitting, of course).

> An aircraft that *requires* it in this GA space is not going far. But I
> don't think plus/minus 1knot is required

Nor do I.

> Of course you are TW qualified....

Sorry, I have no idea what this means.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Newps schrieb:

> By reg it can't stall at more than 61 knots.

And so sais the manual (61 knots, at gross, with flaps).

Stefan

[Happy Dog]

"Cary Mariash" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Cary Mariash" wrote:
>>
>>> I have been flying an SR22 for about 7 months. My checkout took about 14
>>> hours. I found that landing this plane was very tricky, control of
>>> airspeed is critical. I am not a low time pilot. I have 1150 total hours
>>> in planes ranging from a C150 to C310. The SR22 and the Mooney Bravo are
>>> the 2 planes that have given me the most trouble trying to land.
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
>> difficult about it.
>>
>> I have about 1100 hours also, but nowhere near the variety of experience
>> you have--almost all of mine is in high wing Cessnas.
>>
>> What did you find tricky about it?
>>
> Airspeed control is the tricky element. It should be flown 80 kts all the
> way down final. If much faster than 80 kts it can bounce tremendously with
> serious porpoising afterward (believe me, I know from experience). At much
> less than the 80 kts it is subject to stalling out too soon.

Crap.

> Both the high wing Cessnas (152, 172, 182) and my C310 where much
> forgiving. They allowed a wider range of airspeed on final approach with
> the ability to still have a reasonable landing.

They stalled at a lower speed. So what? Your inability to deal with
something that stalls at a faster speed is of no interest.

moo

[Bob Moore]

Newps wrote
> By reg it can't stall at more than 61 knots. At gross.

It can stall at more than 61 kts if, by that same reg,
the seats and supporting structure are designed to withstand
the greater deceleration forces of a crash.

Bob Moore

[Maule Driver]

Stefan wrote:
> Maule Driver schrieb:
>
>> Flying an approach within a knot requires concentration and more than
>> 3 TO/Landings in 90.
>
>
> You mean, flying unconcentrated is SOP? :-/
No, I'm saying that you can't fly whatever SEL thru an entire approach to
plus/minus 1 knot at 1:00 pm on any sunny day in NC

Actually what I'm saying is that you were being rude to an honest poster
with an informative post. For no good reason. So I decided to do same.
>
>> Of course you are TW qualified....

> Sorry, I have no idea what this means.
>
That means tailwheel. In otherwords, can you hit the speed, hit the spot,
*and keep it straight* at 1:00 pm on a sunny day?

[Stefan]

Maule Driver schrieb:

> Actually what I'm saying is that you were being rude to an honest poster
> with an informative post.

All I said was that if nailing a certain airspeed is a challenge, then
the pilot is not ready to solo that particular plane. Sometimes, the
truth is rude. But then, better angry than dead, don't you agree?

> So I decided to do same.

Actually, I didn't catch that you tried to be rude... probably a
cultural thing.

>>> Of course you are TW qualified....
> That means tailwheel.

Well, I've learnt in gliders, which taught me to use the rudder right on
day one and to hit the landing spot every time, because there simply was
no option to go around. Actually, to include that option into my
decition making was quite a challenge for me, when I added the noise
rating later.

When finally I decided to get that license to waste fuel, of course I
did this in a TW long before I even saw a nose pusher from the inside.
(The reason is that I did that rating mainly to be able to tow gliders
in the club, all towing planes being TW.) So...

> can you hit the speed,
yes
> hit the spot,
yes
> *and keep it straight*
yes
> at 1:00 pm on a sunny day?

Depends. As I said in my former post (the part which you snipped): If
weather permitting.

Stefan

[Michael]

Stefan wrote:
> The instructors in my club don't solo students who can't nail the
> approach speed to -0/+2 knots and touch down within 150 feet of the
> designed point (weather permitting, of course).

There is a fairly significant difference between holding -0/+2 kts in a
training glider with spoilers available for glideslope control and
doing it at 40-50 kts, and doing the same in a slippery airplane at 80
kts with no spoilers. The realistic standard for such an airplane is
-0/+5, and not at the student pilot level (not that a student pilot is
even insurable in such a plane). I say this having instructed both in
training gliders and slippery high performance airplanes (Bonanzas,
Mooneys, Twin Comanches, and even the odd Cirrus).

The Cirrus DOES NOT require -0/+2 to land well. It doesn't even
require -0/+5 (though this is entirely attainable). What it requires
is that you not put it on the ground until the excess speed has bled
off. If you simply hold it a few inches above the ground in the flare,
continuously increasing back pressure, the speed will bleed off
eventually and a good landing will be made. Interestingly enough, it
is closest in this regard to the Mooneys, the later Mooneys being more
critical in that regard. I find it interesting that Mariash reported
problems there as well. Probably a technique issue with regard to the
flare - most likely allowing the plane to settle onto the runway at too
high a speed due to insufficient backpressure as the elevator forces
get heavier. This is none too rare on the heavier airplanes, and
something an instructor won't catch unless he is specifically looking
for it (as he should be). My personal solution for the problem (what I
do and teach) is the use of electric trim in the flare (most such
planes have it) to relieve control pressure and allow for more precise
control.

By contrast, almost every Cessna I've flown (including the 310, but
excluding the 140, the only tailwheel Cessna I've flown) can make
decent landings at a wide variety of touchdown speeds so holding it off
the runway isn't terribly critical. Same for all the Bonanzas. Thus a
technique issue that is really minor for some airplanes can bite the
Cirrus pilot on landing.

Michael

[Stefan]

Michael schrieb:

> There is a fairly significant difference between holding -0/+2 kts in a
> training glider with spoilers available for glideslope control and
> doing it at 40-50 kts, and doing the same in a slippery airplane at 80
> kts with no spoilers.

Where did I say I was talking gliders? I know that the cirrus isn't
exactly a beginner's plane. However, I stay with my statement that,
whether you need it or not, a pilot who cannot nail the airspeed (in
whichever plane) isn't ready to solo (this particular plane). Can't do
it in a Cirrus? Fly Cessnae. Want to fly Cirri? Practice.

> The realistic standard for such an airplane is -0/+5,

Ok. I think the crucial thing is attitude: Good enough is not good
enough. Always aim for perfect.

> The Cirrus DOES NOT require -0/+2 to land well. It doesn't even
> require -0/+5 (though this is entirely attainable). What it requires
> is that you not put it on the ground until the excess speed has bled
> off. If you simply hold it a few inches above the ground in the flare,
> continuously increasing back pressure, the speed will bleed off
> eventually and a good landing will be made.

Agreed, and I would add this is good technique for every plane. But as,
where I fly, the typical airstrip is around 2000ft or even shorter, this
translates pretty directly in nailed airspeed.

Stefan

[Maule Driver]

Where did you fly gliders (or tow)? I used to fly them a bit out of NJ
and other places.

Stefan wrote:
> Well, I've learnt in gliders, which taught me to use the rudder right on
> day one and to hit the landing spot every time, because there simply was
> no option to go around. Actually, to include that option into my
> decition making was quite a challenge for me, when I added the noise
> rating later.
>
> When finally I decided to get that license to waste fuel, of course I
> did this in a TW long before I even saw a nose pusher from the inside.
> (The reason is that I did that rating mainly to be able to tow gliders
> in the club, all towing planes being TW.) So...
>
> > can you hit the speed,
> yes
> > hit the spot,
> yes
>
>> *and keep it straight*
>
> yes
>
>> at 1:00 pm on a sunny day?
>
>
> Depends. As I said in my former post (the part which you snipped): If
> weather permitting.
>
> Stefan

[Cary Mariash]

Michael wrote:
Interestingly enough, it
> is closest in this regard to the Mooneys, the later Mooneys being more
> critical in that regard. I find it interesting that Mariash reported
> problems there as well. Probably a technique issue with regard to the
> flare - most likely allowing the plane to settle onto the runway at too
> high a speed due to insufficient backpressure as the elevator forces
> get heavier. This is none too rare on the heavier airplanes, and
> something an instructor won't catch unless he is specifically looking
> for it (as he should be). My personal solution for the problem (what I
> do and teach) is the use of electric trim in the flare (most such
> planes have it) to relieve control pressure and allow for more precise
> control.
>
> By contrast, almost every Cessna I've flown (including the 310, but
> excluding the 140, the only tailwheel Cessna I've flown) can make
> decent landings at a wide variety of touchdown speeds so holding it off
> the runway isn't terribly critical. Same for all the Bonanzas. Thus a
> technique issue that is really minor for some airplanes can bite the
> Cirrus pilot on landing.
>
> Michael
>

Michael,

I think you have accurately described the situation. Landing was never a
problem for me in single engine pipers or cessnas, or my 310. However,
the Mooney and the SR22 were more "challenging". In the SR22 it is made
even worse by the electric trim which is very sensitive (small bumps
lead to large changes in the trim). The other difference with the SR22
and Mooney versus the pipers and cessnas is that the former land
relatively flat, while the latter land well with a nose high flare. The
transition (to learn how to land) from the 310 to the SR22 took much
more time than the transition from a single engine Cessna (172 and 182)
to the 310 (or a Duchess).

Cary

[Roger]

On 5 Jun 2006 03:55:46 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>
>Low time pilot...
>High time wallet....
>"And, it's the safest airplane made, Sir... It has a PARACHUTE!."

130 MPH mind in a 220 MPH airplane.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>denny

[Michael]

Cary Mariash wrote:
> I think you have accurately described the situation.

I thought as much, but your reply makes it certain. Specifically,
this:

> The other difference with the SR22
> and Mooney versus the pipers and cessnas is that the former land
> relatively flat, while the latter land well with a nose high flare.

In reality, almost everything lands well with a nose high flare -
including Cessnas and Pipers. The difference is not so much that the
common Pipers and Cessnas land relatively flat - they land just fine
nose high - but that they land acceptably even if flat. The Mooneys
and the SR22 do not.

When my primary instructor criticised me for landing flat, I thought he
was simply being a sadist. After all, the landings he criticised were
on the mains, not on all three or the nosewheel, and no significant
braking was required even on the 2600 ft runway to stop. I also
couldn't see why he made such a big deal of holding the exact speed on
final - anything between 50 and 70 seemed to work fine. I had no
indications from the airplane that I was doing anything wrong. Of
course this was in a Cessna 150.

In the end, I learned to do it his way, not because he explained to me
why it was important (I'm not sure he knew himself, and he wasn't much
of a communicator) but because I didn't have a lot of good choices for
instruction (as far as I knew then) and I needed his signature to solo
and take the checkride. It was not until I started flying airplanes
that were not nearly as forgiving in this regard that I appreciated
what he was trying to do.

> The
> transition (to learn how to land) from the 310 to the SR22 took much
> more time than the transition from a single engine Cessna (172 and 182)
> to the 310 (or a Duchess).

The planes you mention are, in my experience, some of the most docile
and forgiving on landing (in terms of the pitch control precision
required), surpassed in that regard only by the Bonanzas. If you ever
want to experience humility, try an unmodified Twin Comanche - if you
can find one. Most of them, including mine, have been modified (often
in more ways than one) to smooth out the worst of the landing
characteristics.

Michael

[Roger]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:45:00 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Maule Driver schrieb:
>
>> Flying an approach within a knot requires concentration and more than 3
>> TO/Landings in 90.
>
>You mean, flying unconcentrated is SOP? :-/

Should be. Concerned yes, but by the time someone qualifies to fly one
of these hot rods they should not have to spend time concentrating on
getting things right when landing. It should be second nature.

>
>The instructors in my club don't solo students who can't nail the
>approach speed to -0/+2 knots and touch down within 150 feet of the
>designed point (weather permitting, of course).

Lordy, I'm happy to hit the right runway at the right airport let
alone the speed.

My motto is: Don't land long on short runways and don't land short on
long runways.

OTOH I rarely fly a stabilized pattern. I do on occasion, but normally
I vary the pattern from a close in slipping U-turn outbound from the
end of the runway to the runway to a normal stabilized rectangular
pattern. Landings from all of these patterns will be soft field, short
field, and no flap. Most landings take power as power off landings
take too much runway as final is noticeably faster without power and
can be as much as 15 MPH faster in the Deb. OTOH I don't have near
the wing loading as the SR-22. That has a long high aspect ratio,
laminar flow wing.

>
>> An aircraft that *requires* it in this GA space is not going far. But I
>> don't think plus/minus 1knot is required
>
>Nor do I.

The SR-22 really isn't quite that finicky. However they do teach not
to come in nose high and drop the gear on in a full stall landing.

I figure that airspeed management is the airplane, not me. On an
absolutely calm day I can trim to any desired airspeed and take it all
the way to the round out, hands off the yoke without being able to
detect movement of the ASI from that spot. That includes making minor
adjustments to the power if necessary. Actually you can make a
substantial power adjustment without changing the airspeed as long as
it's not abrupt.

If it's not a calm day, which is most of the time, the airspeed will
jump around quite a bit.

>
>> Of course you are TW qualified....

Let's see... I flew one of those contraptions back in about 1956.
Haven't flown one since.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Sorry, I have no idea what this means.
>
>Stefan

[Roger]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:45:08 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Dan,
>
>> I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
>> difficult about it.
>>
>
>Me neither. In fact, I found it easy to land. Speed control is important
>landing any airplane, IMHO. Allowing a wide range of speeds, whether in
>a Cessna or a Cirrus, is sloppy airmanship, except when adaption to wind
>requires different airspeeds.
>
>FWIW, I have but 450 hours, 70 of which in Bonanzas.

Yah, but you shouldn't count that as they are one of the easiest
planes to land out there. <:-)) They are big, fast, slippery, (Until
you put the gear down) and have a light wing loading that's about the
same as a Cherokee.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Matt,
>
> > What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> >
>
> Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.

FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.

The SR22 has only given me one serious surprise. I am in the habit of
coming in a little high and hot (the thing sinks like a brick without
power, and I want to have a little extra margin if I lose the engine on
final), chopping the last bit of power at 100' AGL and bleeding off the
last bit of airspeed on the way down to the ground. (Also, my home base
is VNY which has an 8000 foot runway, so overshooting is pretty unlikely
:-)

I was trying to land from the right seat one day (with an instructor)
and so I was being really careful to nail all my airspeeds. I was
dead-on at 80 knots but I still chopped the power at 100' as was my
habit. The plane felt perfectly normal all the way down except that it
didn't settle into ground effect. Instead, it slammed hard onto the
runway and bounced up about 20 feet. (My instructor didn't notice
anything amiss until we hit either.) I recovered by adding power and
going around. The stall horn never went off. And this was after three
good landings immediately before, and hundreds of prior good landings
from the left seat. To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
a lot worse.

rg

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Garret wrote:

> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>
>>Matt,
>>
>>
>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
>>>
>>
>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
>
>
> FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.

What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?

Matt

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Matt,
> >>
> >>
> >>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
> >
> >
> > FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> > C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
>
> What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
> wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?

I'm not entirely certain. This was a long time ago. All I can remember
is bouncing along the runway cursing up a blue streak. It was probably
wheelbarrowing because I finally fixed the problem by figuring out that
I needed to really haul back on the yoke in the flare. Landing a 182
can really bulk up those biceps. (My instructor recommended that I trim
it nose high, but I decided that was a really, really bad idea because
if you had to go around you'd need to push forward awfully hard to avoid
a power on stall. If it's a choice between a bounced landing or a POS
close to the ground, well, you decide.)

rg

[john smith]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
> wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
> far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
> a lot worse.

You probably pulled the nose up too quickly instead of easing it back
and maintaining pitch attitude.

[Ron Garret]

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
> > wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
> > far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
> > a lot worse.
>
> You probably pulled the nose up too quickly instead of easing it back
> and maintaining pitch attitude.

Could be, but the thing that bothers me is that the sink rate seemed to
stay more or less constant all the way down to impact. That was the
surprising thing. It usually takes very little elevator to arrest the
sink and settle in to ground effect. If I pulled up too quickly I
should have either arrested the sink rate or stalled or both. But
neither one seemed to happen. That's why both I and my instructor were
surprised.

rg

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Garret wrote:

> In article
> >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>> Ron Garret > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
>>>wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
>>>far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
>>>a lot worse.
>>
>>You probably pulled the nose up too quickly instead of easing it back
>>and maintaining pitch attitude.
>
>
> Could be, but the thing that bothers me is that the sink rate seemed to
> stay more or less constant all the way down to impact. That was the
> surprising thing. It usually takes very little elevator to arrest the
> sink and settle in to ground effect. If I pulled up too quickly I
> should have either arrested the sink rate or stalled or both. But
> neither one seemed to happen. That's why both I and my instructor were
> surprised.

What was your approach speed? The only time this would happen in a 182
is if you were approaching at very nearly stall speed. I approached at
80 until short final, slowed to 70 before crossing the fence, and then
gradually slowed to probably 65 before the flare. This is with full
flaps and no power. A two-finger pull on the yoke would nicely bring
the nose to landing attitude. Then a slow and steady pull on the yoke
to hold the nose at that attitude and maintain about 6" above the runway
as the airplane slowed, and you'd be rewarded with the stall horn
sounding shortly before the mains touched down.

I only bounced my 182 in any significant way (more than say a foot) one
time. And that was during a landing at a cg farther reward than I was
used to (lots of weight in the back seat and cargo area). The flare
pressure was much less than normal and I over rotated a little on the
round-out. I ballooned up, then lowered the nose enough to touch down
with flying speed just as I was correcting back to the proper landing
attitude. This resulted in a bounce of probably a couple of feet.
Fortunately, I corrected properly the second time and landed correctly.


Matt

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
> > Matt,
> >
> > > What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> > >
> >
> > Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
>
> FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
>
> The SR22 has only given me one serious surprise. I am in the habit of
> coming in a little high and hot (the thing sinks like a brick without
> power, and I want to have a little extra margin if I lose the engine on
> final), chopping the last bit of power at 100' AGL and bleeding off the
> last bit of airspeed on the way down to the ground. (Also, my home base
> is VNY which has an 8000 foot runway, so overshooting is pretty unlikely
> :-)
>
> I was trying to land from the right seat one day (with an instructor)
> and so I was being really careful to nail all my airspeeds. I was
> dead-on at 80 knots but I still chopped the power at 100' as was my
> habit. The plane felt perfectly normal all the way down except that it
> didn't settle into ground effect. Instead, it slammed hard onto the
> runway and bounced up about 20 feet. (My instructor didn't notice
> anything amiss until we hit either.) I recovered by adding power and
> going around. The stall horn never went off. And this was after three
> good landings immediately before, and hundreds of prior good landings
> from the left seat. To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
> wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
> far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
> a lot worse.
>
> rg

It sounds like wind shear. I just about always make power-off
approaches/landings in my Johnson Rocket. Over the fence at 80 mph (not
knots, BTW), with a 2500 fpm sink rate (dirty). That leaves just enough
smash to flare to a (very) nose-high landing.

I have encountered wind shear, where it feels as if the bottom has
dropped away. One time I had to add full power to arrest the sink, about
50 ft AGL.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron Garret wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Matt,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> >>>C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
> >>
> >>What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
> >>wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?
> >
> >
> > I'm not entirely certain. This was a long time ago. All I can remember
> > is bouncing along the runway cursing up a blue streak. It was probably
> > wheelbarrowing because I finally fixed the problem by figuring out that
> > I needed to really haul back on the yoke in the flare. Landing a 182
> > can really bulk up those biceps. (My instructor recommended that I trim
> > it nose high, but I decided that was a really, really bad idea because
> > if you had to go around you'd need to push forward awfully hard to avoid
> > a power on stall. If it's a choice between a bounced landing or a POS
> > close to the ground, well, you decide.)
>
> No offense, rg, but if this is the case then you need some serious
> weight training. I could flare my 182 with two fingers and hold enough
> forward pressure for a full-flap (and this was with the full 40 degree
> flaps available in 1967) with the thumb of my left hand.

This was a 1978 182RG. Coincidentally I've actually flown a 1960's
vintage non-RG 182 as well. Theoretically they are supposed to be the
same airplane, but the two handle very differently in the flare.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > john smith > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article >,
> >> Ron Garret > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
> >>>wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
> >>>far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
> >>>a lot worse.
> >>
> >>You probably pulled the nose up too quickly instead of easing it back
> >>and maintaining pitch attitude.
> >
> >
> > Could be, but the thing that bothers me is that the sink rate seemed to
> > stay more or less constant all the way down to impact. That was the
> > surprising thing. It usually takes very little elevator to arrest the
> > sink and settle in to ground effect. If I pulled up too quickly I
> > should have either arrested the sink rate or stalled or both. But
> > neither one seemed to happen. That's why both I and my instructor were
> > surprised.
>
> What was your approach speed? The only time this would happen in a 182
> is if you were approaching at very nearly stall speed.

Well, this is an SR-22 we're talking about where this happened. I had
it nailed at 80 knots (I was very proud of myself until the very last
second) all the way to 100 AGL, at which point I took my eyes off the
airspeed indicator.

rg

[Roger]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:51:06 -0700, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> > What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
>> >
>>
>> Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
>
>FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
>C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.

There's something that bothers me about this "nailing the 80 knots".
If the plane is that sensitive then the landing speed should change
with loading. Even the Bo changes 1 MPH for each 100# under gross.
Following that logic the 22 with one person and half fuel would be a
good 500# (or more) light and about 5 knots( or more) fast. So if
the airplane is that sensitive I'd expect to have to calculate the
speed for every landing.
BTW they made us do that in Bo specific training.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:04:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Ron Garret wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt,
>>>
>>>
>>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
>>
>>
>> FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
>> C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
>
>What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
>wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?

No, Landing on the nose wheel results in the nose rebounding up about
the time the mains hit and then rebound. On the next one the nose is
coming down even steeper with the resulting rebound being even higher.

Wheelbarrow is when you land faster than the plane wants to and then
hold it on. This results in an inability to get the mains to stay on
and you go down the runway riding on the nose gear with the mains
still in the air. That is a true wheelbarrow.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Matt

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >
> > > Matt,
> > >
> > > > What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
> >
> > FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> > C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
> >
> > The SR22 has only given me one serious surprise. I am in the habit of
> > coming in a little high and hot (the thing sinks like a brick without
> > power, and I want to have a little extra margin if I lose the engine on
> > final), chopping the last bit of power at 100' AGL and bleeding off the
> > last bit of airspeed on the way down to the ground. (Also, my home base
> > is VNY which has an 8000 foot runway, so overshooting is pretty unlikely
> > :-)
> >
> > I was trying to land from the right seat one day (with an instructor)
> > and so I was being really careful to nail all my airspeeds. I was
> > dead-on at 80 knots but I still chopped the power at 100' as was my
> > habit. The plane felt perfectly normal all the way down except that it
> > didn't settle into ground effect. Instead, it slammed hard onto the
> > runway and bounced up about 20 feet. (My instructor didn't notice
> > anything amiss until we hit either.) I recovered by adding power and
> > going around. The stall horn never went off. And this was after three
> > good landings immediately before, and hundreds of prior good landings
> > from the left seat. To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
> > wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
> > far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
> > a lot worse.
> >
> > rg
>
> It sounds like wind shear.

Yes, it does, but the winds were light and steady that day.

rg

[Thomas Borchert]

Roger,

> Yah, but you shouldn't count that as they are one of the easiest
> planes to land out there.
>

I know. I mentioned it because they were mentioned in the thread. I
could add tailwheel time, gliders and other stuff. Whatever it is, I
found the Cirrus easy to land.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-07, Michael > wrote:
> By contrast, almost every Cessna I've flown (including the 310, but
> excluding the 140, the only tailwheel Cessna I've flown) can make
> decent landings at a wide variety of touchdown speeds

The C140 will land quite happily at cruise speed if you wheel land it
(the C140 is very easy to wheel land). No, I never landed mine that fast
(nor would I land anyone else's that fast) - it wouldn't be very good
for the tires.

Of course, if you want a nice three point landing you must touch down at
the same speed each time.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Garret wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article
>,
>>> john smith > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Ron Garret > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
>>>>>wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
>>>>>far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
>>>>>a lot worse.
>>>>
>>>>You probably pulled the nose up too quickly instead of easing it back
>>>>and maintaining pitch attitude.
>>>
>>>
>>>Could be, but the thing that bothers me is that the sink rate seemed to
>>>stay more or less constant all the way down to impact. That was the
>>>surprising thing. It usually takes very little elevator to arrest the
>>>sink and settle in to ground effect. If I pulled up too quickly I
>>>should have either arrested the sink rate or stalled or both. But
>>>neither one seemed to happen. That's why both I and my instructor were
>>>surprised.
>>
>>What was your approach speed? The only time this would happen in a 182
>>is if you were approaching at very nearly stall speed.
>
>
> Well, this is an SR-22 we're talking about where this happened. I had
> it nailed at 80 knots (I was very proud of myself until the very last
> second) all the way to 100 AGL, at which point I took my eyes off the
> airspeed indicator.

That is odd. The landing I rode along on recently in the SR-20 wasn't
like this at all. The pilot approached at 80K (which I thought was way
too fast, but that's just me) and flew it right on landing at probably
65-70K. He had no problem at all arresting the sink rate during the flare.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:04:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
>>>
>>>
>>>FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
>>>C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
>>
>>What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
>>wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?
>
>
> No, Landing on the nose wheel results in the nose rebounding up about
> the time the mains hit and then rebound. On the next one the nose is
> coming down even steeper with the resulting rebound being even higher.
>
> Wheelbarrow is when you land faster than the plane wants to and then
> hold it on. This results in an inability to get the mains to stay on
> and you go down the runway riding on the nose gear with the mains
> still in the air. That is a true wheelbarrow.

Yes, that is why I was asking. Landing on the nosewheel and bouncing
off the nosewheel are, to me anyway, different.

Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-07, Ron Garret > wrote:
> dead-on at 80 knots but I still chopped the power at 100' as was my
> habit. The plane felt perfectly normal all the way down except that it
> didn't settle into ground effect. Instead, it slammed hard onto the
> runway and bounced up about 20 feet. (My instructor didn't notice

The docile, mushing type stall may give you a bit of idea. I'm guessing
here having never flown an SR-22.

At 80 knots and no power you probably didn't have any lift reserve. So
when you pulled back on the stick to flare, the nose came up, the AoA
increased, but the amount of lift only increased a little. So basically,
you got the nose up but didn't arrest the descent rate - so you just hit
the runway at whatever rate of descent you had.

I'm willing to bet the lift curve of an SR-22 wing gets relatively flat
at slow airspeeds before it even stalls - so at low airspeeds,
increasing the AoA doesn't increase lift that much.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Roger wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:04:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron Garret wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Matt,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> >>>C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
> >>
> >>What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
> >>wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?
> >
> >
> > No, Landing on the nose wheel results in the nose rebounding up about
> > the time the mains hit and then rebound. On the next one the nose is
> > coming down even steeper with the resulting rebound being even higher.
> >
> > Wheelbarrow is when you land faster than the plane wants to and then
> > hold it on. This results in an inability to get the mains to stay on
> > and you go down the runway riding on the nose gear with the mains
> > still in the air. That is a true wheelbarrow.
>
> Yes, that is why I was asking. Landing on the nosewheel and bouncing
> off the nosewheel are, to me anyway, different.
>
> Matt

Landing nosewheel first is a sure symptom of poor training! You should
*NEVER* land nosewheel first!

[john smith]

In article >,
Roger > wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:51:06 -0700, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >
> >> Matt,
> >>
> >> > What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
> >
> >FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> >C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
>
> There's something that bothers me about this "nailing the 80 knots".
> If the plane is that sensitive then the landing speed should change
> with loading. Even the Bo changes 1 MPH for each 100# under gross.
> Following that logic the 22 with one person and half fuel would be a
> good 500# (or more) light and about 5 knots( or more) fast. So if
> the airplane is that sensitive I'd expect to have to calculate the
> speed for every landing.
> BTW they made us do that in Bo specific training.


Roger, as I have pointed out before, primary instructors (normally) do
not teach how to calculate the different speeds. That is a Commercial
requirement. As a practicle matter, those of us who know it and use it
wish it had been taught earlier in our training.

Remember that your Vx and Vy speeds on your Bo are different when the
gear is up or down. How many of us were taught that when we did our
first retract training?

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Roger wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:04:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron Garret wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Matt,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> >>>C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
> >>
> >>What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
> >>wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?
> >
> >
> > No, Landing on the nose wheel results in the nose rebounding up about
> > the time the mains hit and then rebound. On the next one the nose is
> > coming down even steeper with the resulting rebound being even higher.
> >
> > Wheelbarrow is when you land faster than the plane wants to and then
> > hold it on. This results in an inability to get the mains to stay on
> > and you go down the runway riding on the nose gear with the mains
> > still in the air. That is a true wheelbarrow.
>
> Yes, that is why I was asking. Landing on the nosewheel and bouncing
> off the nosewheel are, to me anyway, different.

Oh, this was definitely a bounce. (Well, not A bounce... many, many
bounces.)

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > Roger wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:04:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Ron Garret wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>In article >,
> > >>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Matt,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> > >>>C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
> > >>
> > >>What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
> > >>wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?
> > >
> > >
> > > No, Landing on the nose wheel results in the nose rebounding up about
> > > the time the mains hit and then rebound. On the next one the nose is
> > > coming down even steeper with the resulting rebound being even higher.
> > >
> > > Wheelbarrow is when you land faster than the plane wants to and then
> > > hold it on. This results in an inability to get the mains to stay on
> > > and you go down the runway riding on the nose gear with the mains
> > > still in the air. That is a true wheelbarrow.
> >
> > Yes, that is why I was asking. Landing on the nosewheel and bouncing
> > off the nosewheel are, to me anyway, different.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Landing nosewheel first is a sure symptom of poor training! You should
> *NEVER* land nosewheel first!

It wasn't intentional.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron Garret wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article
> >,
> >>> john smith > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article >,
> >>>>Ron Garret > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
> >>>>>wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
> >>>>>far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
> >>>>>a lot worse.
> >>>>
> >>>>You probably pulled the nose up too quickly instead of easing it back
> >>>>and maintaining pitch attitude.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Could be, but the thing that bothers me is that the sink rate seemed to
> >>>stay more or less constant all the way down to impact. That was the
> >>>surprising thing. It usually takes very little elevator to arrest the
> >>>sink and settle in to ground effect. If I pulled up too quickly I
> >>>should have either arrested the sink rate or stalled or both. But
> >>>neither one seemed to happen. That's why both I and my instructor were
> >>>surprised.
> >>
> >>What was your approach speed? The only time this would happen in a 182
> >>is if you were approaching at very nearly stall speed.
> >
> >
> > Well, this is an SR-22 we're talking about where this happened. I had
> > it nailed at 80 knots (I was very proud of myself until the very last
> > second) all the way to 100 AGL, at which point I took my eyes off the
> > airspeed indicator.
>
> That is odd. The landing I rode along on recently in the SR-20 wasn't
> like this at all. The pilot approached at 80K (which I thought was way
> too fast, but that's just me) and flew it right on landing at probably
> 65-70K. He had no problem at all arresting the sink rate during the flare.

Yep, that's pretty much what the other 200 landings I've logged in the
Cirrus have been like.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron Garret wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron Garret wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Matt,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
> >>>>>C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
> >>>>
> >>>>What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
> >>>>wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'm not entirely certain. This was a long time ago. All I can remember
> >>>is bouncing along the runway cursing up a blue streak. It was probably
> >>>wheelbarrowing because I finally fixed the problem by figuring out that
> >>>I needed to really haul back on the yoke in the flare. Landing a 182
> >>>can really bulk up those biceps. (My instructor recommended that I trim
> >>>it nose high, but I decided that was a really, really bad idea because
> >>>if you had to go around you'd need to push forward awfully hard to avoid
> >>>a power on stall. If it's a choice between a bounced landing or a POS
> >>>close to the ground, well, you decide.)
> >>
> >>No offense, rg, but if this is the case then you need some serious
> >>weight training. I could flare my 182 with two fingers and hold enough
> >>forward pressure for a full-flap (and this was with the full 40 degree
> >>flaps available in 1967) with the thumb of my left hand.
> >
> >
> > This was a 1978 182RG. Coincidentally I've actually flown a 1960's
> > vintage non-RG 182 as well. Theoretically they are supposed to be the
> > same airplane, but the two handle very differently in the flare.
>
> No doubt. My 182 handled quite differently when loaded towards forward
> cg vs. rear

Yep, that made a big difference too. My instructor weighed about 300
pounds, so flying with him an no one in the back seat was pretty much a
worst case scenario in CG terms.

> And usually you can get
> a good feel for the control force requirements during the takeoff so
> what is required to flare shouldn't be a big surprise.

Not really. During takeoff you've got it trimmed for climb.

> But even if it
> is a surprise, get over it quickly and pull as hard as you need to pull
> to get the nose into the proper attitude for landing.

Yeah, well, I finally did figure that out.

FWIW, I'm not the only one who had trouble landing that plane. We had
to replace the tires every few weeks because people kept putting bald
spots on them (I think there might also have been problems with the
brakes as well, but there was considerably controversy over this). One
person landed so hard they had a prop strike. Amazingly, they actually
landed successfully, parked, and then FLEW BACK HOME with the tips of
the prop (about four inches worth) bent backwards at 90 degrees! I
would love to have been a fly on the wall when the club flight director
learned about that.

rg

[john smith]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> We had
> to replace the tires every few weeks because people kept putting bald
> spots on them (I think there might also have been problems with the
> brakes as well, but there was considerably controversy over this).

Free castering nosewheel?
The only way to turn is using the brakes.
That is why they had brake fires on several aircraft.

[Ron Garret]

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > We had
> > to replace the tires every few weeks because people kept putting bald
> > spots on them (I think there might also have been problems with the
> > brakes as well, but there was considerably controversy over this).
>
> Free castering nosewheel?
> The only way to turn is using the brakes.
> That is why they had brake fires on several aircraft.

There are two airplanes under discussion here. There's a 1978 C182RG
and a 2005 Cirrus SR22. The Cirrus has a free castering nosewheel, but
the C182RG is the one everyone (including me) had a hard time landing,
the one whose tires kept getting bald spots, and the one whose prop get
bent. The SR22 (in my experience) is very easy to land by comparison,
except for one episode where the bottom dropped out on me unexpectedly.

rg

[Peter Duniho]

...> On 2006-06-07, Ron Garret
> wrote:
> At 80 knots and no power you probably didn't have any lift reserve.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Even with the relatively high stall speed
(though, as has been pointed out, at lower than max weight, so is the stall
speed lowered), there's a good 20 knots plus of airspeed to convert to lift.

> [...]
> I'm willing to bet the lift curve of an SR-22 wing gets relatively flat
> at slow airspeeds before it even stalls - so at low airspeeds,
> increasing the AoA doesn't increase lift that much.

What lift curve are you talking about? Lift is proportional to airspeed and
angle of attack, regardless of the wing. Up to the point of the stall, you
need more lift, you just increase the angle of attack. It's a linear
change.

Pete

[john smith]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> The Cirrus has a free castering nosewheel, but
> the C182RG is the one everyone (including me) had a hard time landing,
> the one whose tires kept getting bald spots, and the one whose prop get
> bent.

Bald spots on landing are usually the result of having ones toes on the
brakes instead of the rudder pedals. This comes from pushing the rudder
pedals by flexing the foot so that the ball pushed against the toe
brakes instead of sliding the heels for and aft to control direction of
the ground roll by pushing the lower rudder pedal portion.

[Peter Duniho]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> Lift is proportional to the square of speed and directly
> proportional to the coefficient of lift (CL) CL is
> typically close to linearly proportional to angle of attack
> (AOA) over a range from about 0 to 15 or 16 degrees and then
> departs from the linear relationship as it approaches CL max
> which is at the stall AOA.

Yes, I know all that.

> It's quite possible to be at low
> speed, high AOA and find that increasing AOA more gives very
> little extra lift as you approach stall.

But 80 knots isn't "at low speed". That's my point. And the idea of a
"flat lift curve" makes no sense to me. Except just above the stalling AOA,
every wing's AOA-to-CL graph looks pretty much the same.

Pete

[Roger]

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:22:47 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> Roger > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:51:06 -0700, Ron Garret >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Matt,
>> >>
>> >> > What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
>> >
>> >FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
>> >C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
>>
>> There's something that bothers me about this "nailing the 80 knots".
>> If the plane is that sensitive then the landing speed should change
>> with loading. Even the Bo changes 1 MPH for each 100# under gross.
>> Following that logic the 22 with one person and half fuel would be a
>> good 500# (or more) light and about 5 knots( or more) fast. So if
>> the airplane is that sensitive I'd expect to have to calculate the
>> speed for every landing.
>> BTW they made us do that in Bo specific training.
>
>
>Roger, as I have pointed out before, primary instructors (normally) do
>not teach how to calculate the different speeds. That is a Commercial
>requirement. As a practicle matter, those of us who know it and use it
>wish it had been taught earlier in our training.
>
>Remember that your Vx and Vy speeds on your Bo are different when the
>gear is up or down. How many of us were taught that when we did our
>first retract training?

Or on short field take offs to leave the gear alone until *after*
clearing the obstacles and lowering the nose to reach Vy. Cycling the
gear adds a lot of drag and at Vx the doors have little if any effect
on climb.

Gear up it has about twice the glide ratio of a 172 albeit at 120
(give or take) and makes a Cherokee look absolutely slippery with the
gear down.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:27:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

...> On 2006-06-07, Ron Garret
> wrote:
>> At 80 knots and no power you probably didn't have any lift reserve.
>
>Huh? That doesn't make sense. Even with the relatively high stall speed
>(though, as has been pointed out, at lower than max weight, so is the stall
>speed lowered), there's a good 20 knots plus of airspeed to convert to lift.

Welllll... In the Deb Vso is about 63 MPH at gross. I fly final at 80
minus 1 MPH for each 100# under gross. However if I kill the power
it'll drop like a rock. Pull the nose up and it'll just go down faster
and I have about 17 MPH over stall.

>
>> [...]
>> I'm willing to bet the lift curve of an SR-22 wing gets relatively flat
>> at slow airspeeds before it even stalls - so at low airspeeds,
>> increasing the AoA doesn't increase lift that much.
>
>What lift curve are you talking about? Lift is proportional to airspeed and
>angle of attack, regardless of the wing. Up to the point of the stall, you
>need more lift, you just increase the angle of attack. It's a linear
>change.

I think this idea may be what's getting some SR-22 pilots into
trouble. Stop thinking of the SR-22 as a fast Cherokee or Cessna.
Things are not as you think. It varies from plane to plane but is
quite common for high performance aircraft. Some where around 20
knots above stall speed (give or take) you reach a point where the
drag is so high that although raising the nose may give more lift it
is more than offset by the increased drag. So raising the nose results
in a faster rate of descent instead of slowing it. Pulling the power
to idle in this range is likely to put you on the express elevator
down.

This is why there is a substantial difference in my power off and
power on landing speeds with the power on being the slower of the two.
Plus I'm flying a plane with relatively low wing loading and low stall
speed. The Bo/Deb is very good at short field landings and take offs
when flown by the numbers.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Pete
>

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2006-06-07, Ron Garret > wrote:
>
>>dead-on at 80 knots but I still chopped the power at 100' as was my
>>habit. The plane felt perfectly normal all the way down except that it
>>didn't settle into ground effect. Instead, it slammed hard onto the
>>runway and bounced up about 20 feet. (My instructor didn't notice
>
>
> The docile, mushing type stall may give you a bit of idea. I'm guessing
> here having never flown an SR-22.
>
> At 80 knots and no power you probably didn't have any lift reserve. So
> when you pulled back on the stick to flare, the nose came up, the AoA
> increased, but the amount of lift only increased a little. So basically,
> you got the nose up but didn't arrest the descent rate - so you just hit
> the runway at whatever rate of descent you had.
>
> I'm willing to bet the lift curve of an SR-22 wing gets relatively flat
> at slow airspeeds before it even stalls - so at low airspeeds,
> increasing the AoA doesn't increase lift that much.
>

Wow, it isn't often that the misinformation density is this high even on
usenet!


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:04:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron Garret wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Matt,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
>>>>>C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
>>>>wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, Landing on the nose wheel results in the nose rebounding up about
>>>the time the mains hit and then rebound. On the next one the nose is
>>>coming down even steeper with the resulting rebound being even higher.
>>>
>>>Wheelbarrow is when you land faster than the plane wants to and then
>>>hold it on. This results in an inability to get the mains to stay on
>>>and you go down the runway riding on the nose gear with the mains
>>>still in the air. That is a true wheelbarrow.
>>
>>Yes, that is why I was asking. Landing on the nosewheel and bouncing
>>off the nosewheel are, to me anyway, different.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Landing nosewheel first is a sure symptom of poor training! You should
> *NEVER* land nosewheel first!

No kidding.

Matt

[Ron Garret]

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > The Cirrus has a free castering nosewheel, but
> > the C182RG is the one everyone (including me) had a hard time landing,
> > the one whose tires kept getting bald spots, and the one whose prop get
> > bent.
>
> Bald spots on landing are usually the result of having ones toes on the
> brakes instead of the rudder pedals. This comes from pushing the rudder
> pedals by flexing the foot so that the ball pushed against the toe
> brakes instead of sliding the heels for and aft to control direction of
> the ground roll by pushing the lower rudder pedal portion.

That was one theory. Trick is, all the same pilots were flying all the
planes in the fleet and only the 182 was getting bald spots. Also,
after landing, the brakes would be partially engaged for a while until
they cooled down (very annoying as it made it next to impossible to move
the plane back into its parking space). There was no one in the cockpit
so this after-landing lockup was manifestly not caused by someone
applying the brakes inadvertently.

We had long arguments about this for many years. The matter had still
not been resolved when I left the club.

rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> Welllll... In the Deb Vso is about 63 MPH at gross. I fly final at 80
> minus 1 MPH for each 100# under gross. However if I kill the power
> it'll drop like a rock. Pull the nose up and it'll just go down faster
> and I have about 17 MPH over stall.

There's no reason to pull the nose up until you're ready to flare, and with
17 mph there's absolutely no reason you should not have the ability to
arrest your descent and land without "dropping like a rock".

My own plane is very "draggy", without power it glides very steeply, and if
you're too slow when flaring power-off, the flare does need to be fairly
rapid. Otherwise, the airspeed drops more quickly than you can increase the
AOA to account for the reduced airspeed.

But that doesn't mean that the lift isn't available. It just means it
requires correct piloting technique to take advantage of the lift, at the
right moment and with the correct control input.

Beyond that, your own anecdote isn't very germane, considering that you're
talking a 5 knot smaller margin, in an airplane with a LOT more drag. With
20 knots or more above stall, the Cirrus has plenty of airspeed to have a
nice comfortable flare, even power off.

>>What lift curve are you talking about? Lift is proportional to airspeed
>>and
>>angle of attack, regardless of the wing. Up to the point of the stall,
>>you
>>need more lift, you just increase the angle of attack. It's a linear
>>change.
>
> I think this idea may be what's getting some SR-22 pilots into
> trouble.

What idea?

> Stop thinking of the SR-22 as a fast Cherokee or Cessna.

Who's thinking of the SR-22 as a fast Cherokee or Cessna?

> Things are not as you think.

What things are not as I think?

> It varies from plane to plane but is
> quite common for high performance aircraft.

What is quite common for high performance aircraft?

> Some where around 20
> knots above stall speed (give or take) you reach a point where the
> drag is so high that although raising the nose may give more lift it
> is more than offset by the increased drag.

Drag counteracts thrust, not lift. How can the lift be "more than offset by
the increased drag"?

> So raising the nose results
> in a faster rate of descent instead of slowing it.

Not until the airspeed drops. An airplane does not slow immediately when
the AOA is increased. The increase in drag takes time to cause an airplane
to slow, and assuming the pilot is not increasing the AOA at an
inappropriate moment (say, 100' above the touchdown elevation), the primary
effect of increasing AOA is to increase lift and thus reduce the rate of
descent.

This is true for any airplane.

> Pulling the power
> to idle in this range is likely to put you on the express elevator
> down.

All that pulling the power to idle will require is a lowered AOA in order to
compensate for the reduced thrust. Yes, descent rate will increase. But
airspeed can easily be kept the same, and with 20 knots above the stall
speed, there is plenty of energy left for a proper flare and touchdown at
the appropriate moment.

> This is why there is a substantial difference in my power off and
> power on landing speeds with the power on being the slower of the two.

Actually, the reason there is a substantial difference in your power-off and
power-on landing speeds is the amount of power available. It has nothing to
do with some oddball idea of a "flat lift curve".

> Plus I'm flying a plane with relatively low wing loading and low stall
> speed. The Bo/Deb is very good at short field landings and take offs
> when flown by the numbers.

Um, that statement simply reinforces my point. Even your "drop like a rock"
airplane has no trouble if the pilot does things correctly.

Pete

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:01 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

snip

>Yah, but you shouldn't count that as they are one of the easiest
>planes to land out there. <:-)) They are big, fast, slippery, (Until
>you put the gear down) and have a light wing loading that's about the
>same as a Cherokee.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

You wrote it, I was thinking it... Dopey me, had made quite a few
laps around the patch in various M20whatevers until somebody told me
they were tricky to land. Still haven't figured out what I was doing
wrong (never noticed a problem during approach thru landing).

One of 'em had speed brakes, totally forgot about them until after I
was on the ground. Oh well.

TC

[Maule Driver]

Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
another.

I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring
over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
landing. Go figure.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> ...
> could add tailwheel time, gliders and other stuff. Whatever it is, I
> found the Cirrus easy to land.
>

[Matt Whiting]

Maule Driver wrote:

> Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
> another.
>
> I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
> M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring
> over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
> landing. Go figure.

Become one with the Maule, Grasshopper. :-)


Matt

[Maule Driver]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Maule Driver wrote:
>> Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy
>> for another.
>>
>> I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early
>> Mooney M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to
>> bring over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
>> landing. Go figure.
>
> Become one with the Maule, Grasshopper. :-)
>
You know, I'm going to go out and do just that.... sure beats work. Thanks!

I should add that I meant it's a bear to do without a big fat slip.

[john smith]

In article >,
Maule Driver > wrote:

> Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
> another.
> I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
> M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring
> over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
> landing. Go figure.

I found that with the Champ, 55 mph, power off, puts the wheels at the
aim point with medium firm arrival. Higher than normal sink rate, but
not so high as to cause damage. Excellent short field/obstacle procedure.

[Morgans]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
> another.
>
> I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
> M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring over
> an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance landing. Go
> figure.

Trade planes with someone? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> The only way to turn is using the brakes.
> That is why they had brake fires on several aircraft.
>

No, that's not why. The reason for that is utter pilot incompetence.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> The only way to turn is using the brakes.
>> That is why they had brake fires on several aircraft.
>>
>
> No, that's not why. The reason for that is utter pilot incompetence.

I'm not convinced that's a fair assessment. Utter instructor incompetence,
perhaps, or maybe utter manufacturer incompetence.

It's true that operated correctly, the free-castoring nosewheel is no
trouble at all. But it's also true that otherwise competent pilots,
unfamiliar with the design, need a proper introduction to taxiing
techniques. If the manufacturer of the airplane is not correctly
emphasizing this issue to new owners, or if the instructors introducing
these new owners to their airplanes are not pointing out the necessary
techniques, then how should the pilot be held entirely to blame for the
consequences of their incorrect use of the brakes?

There are a number of factors that led to the brake fires, and the fact is
that the root factor -- the one factor that led to all the others -- is
indeed the design of the airplane. That's not to say that the design is
inherently faulty, but it IS to say that one cannot discount the influence
of the design itself in the problems that arise from that.

Owning an airplane with a free-castoring nosewheel myself, I am very
familiar with the training issues surrounding the proper use of brakes while
taxiing. Taxiing an airplane without a steerable nosehweel requires a
certain amount of planning, sometimes delicate technique, sometimes
forceful, and above all a certain degree of experience before it becomes
natural.

I myself had my brakes smoking once the first day I was training in it.
Thankfully, in my airplane one can actually see the wheels, and my
instructor let the problem get just bad enough so he could show me why taxi
technique was so important. Did I lack complete competence? Of course...I
was still learning the airplane. Do I think calling me "utterly
incompetent" would be fair? Absolutely not...that implies a degree of
ineptitude that goes far beyond simple lack of training, as does your
accusation do so as well when applied to all Cirrus pilots who had brake
fires.

And in a Cirrus (as opposed to an airplane like mine where an instructor can
watch the wheels), it's much harder for an instructor to monitor the pilot's
brake use and resulting effect on the wheels. Brakes can overheat and catch
stuff on fire, with no visible evidence until things have gotten WAY out of
hand.

I realize that, for whatever reason, you have set yourself up as the
defender of the Cirrus no matter the accusation. But in this case, you go
too far. You unfairly malign pilots who are guilty of nothing more than not
having been properly trained (and possibly who were actually in the process
of being properly trained), and you entirely ignore the very real causative
effects due to the design of the airplane (and of course, lack of any
warning devices to alert the pilot to a hazardous condition).

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-09, john smith > wrote:
> I found that with the Champ, 55 mph, power off, puts the wheels at the
> aim point with medium firm arrival.

Oh, I like the Auster. I can fly final at 50mph and WHEEL LAND it
without any drama. Good job too because the brakes are hopelessly bad -
cable operated drum brakes. With the 160hp engine it gets off the ground
in about 3 plane lengths too.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Maule Driver > wrote:
>
>
>>Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
>>another.
>>I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
>>M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring
>>over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
>>landing. Go figure.
>
>
> I found that with the Champ, 55 mph, power off, puts the wheels at the
> aim point with medium firm arrival. Higher than normal sink rate, but
> not so high as to cause damage. Excellent short field/obstacle procedure.

What is a Champ's stall speed?

Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> It's true that operated correctly, the free-castoring nosewheel is no
> trouble at all. ... how should the pilot be held entirely to blame for the
> consequences of their incorrect use of the brakes?

Well, no offense meant, but that's a very American way of looking at it. Put the blame where the blame
is, please. As you say yourself, those brakes need to be operated correctly. They are operated by the
pilot. End of story - from my POV, at least. That breaking a lot will heat the brakes a lot is, well,
kind of obvious to any pilot...

> There are a number of factors that led to the brake fires, and the fact is
> that the root factor -- the one factor that led to all the others -- is
> indeed the design of the airplane.

The root factor of any airplane crash is the design of an airplane - in that it flies. Does that mean
all those stupid lawsuits against the manufacturer when someone crashes are right? I don't think so.

> I realize that, for whatever reason, you have set yourself up as the
> defender of the Cirrus no matter the accusation.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. But I like to call them as I see them. And there's a lot
misinformation being spread about the Cirrii.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[john smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Maule Driver > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
> >>another.
> >>I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
> >>M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring
> >>over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
> >>landing. Go figure.
> >
> >
> > I found that with the Champ, 55 mph, power off, puts the wheels at the
> > aim point with medium firm arrival. Higher than normal sink rate, but
> > not so high as to cause damage. Excellent short field/obstacle procedure.

> What is a Champ's stall speed?

38 MPH

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Well, no offense meant, but that's a very American way of looking at it.
> Put the blame where the blame is, please.

You seem to be of the opinion that only one person can be held in blame.

> As you say yourself, those brakes need to be operated correctly. They are
> operated by the pilot.

So it is your assertion that ANY aircraft design should be held 100%
blameless, provided there is some known way of operating that design to
achieve the desired outcome?

I suppose you would have been perfectly happy for airplane design to not
have progressed beyond the Wright Flyer then.

> End of story - from my POV, at least.
> That breaking a lot will heat the brakes a lot is, well,
> kind of obvious to any pilot...

You would be surprised how many people, including pilots, really have NO
idea how the mechanicals of their airplane operates. Does that make them
lacking in important skills? Sure. Does it make them "utterly
incompetent"? No. It's silly of you to claim that it does.

> The root factor of any airplane crash is the design of an airplane -
> in that it flies.

Yes, indeed. And some designs are more intuitive and/or forgiving to
operate than others. Inasmuch as one design is less intuitive or less
forgiving, the design shares some blame for events that occur *due to those
design aspects*.

> Does that mean
> all those stupid lawsuits against the manufacturer when someone
> crashes are right? I don't think so.

No one's talking about who should win a lawsuit. The only question here is
whether the label "utterly incompetent" is a reasonable one.

> And there's a lot
> misinformation being spread about the Cirrii.

Be that as it may, the FACT that the Cirrus design leads to a higher
incidence of wheel fires is not misinformation.

You aren't correcting misinformation here. You're making insulting and
ill-informed judgments about people whom you've never even met.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
>>But 80 knots isn't "at low speed". That's my point.
>
> I'm sure you will agree that whether 80 knots is close to
> stall or not depends strongly on airfoil, wing loading, etc.

Yes, I agree that it does. However, there's no reason to believe that the
SR22 is in that category.

> For the SR-22, given that it has a published stall of 59
> knots w/flaps, I can't see how 80 knots could be anywhere
> near stall.

It's obviously not. Not during a normal approach, that is.

> However, I've never flown an SR-22, and I've
> learned enough over the years to strongly temper my own
> theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
> a pilot report.

Well, I *have* flown the SR20, which lands essentially the same (elevator
forces might be slightly higher in the SR22 for a pilot who doesn't know how
to use the trim). I found absolutely no tendency for it to be unresponsive
to an increase in AOA during the approach and flare.

More to the point, the person to whom I was responding also has NOT flown
the SR22 (probably not an SR20 either). He's purely speculating, and in
doing so inventing some pretty odd concepts of aerodynamics.

Pete

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> Well, I *have* flown the SR20, which lands essentially the same (elevator
> forces might be slightly higher in the SR22 for a pilot who doesn't know how
> to use the trim). I found absolutely no tendency for it to be unresponsive
> to an increase in AOA during the approach and flare.

Quite the contrary in fact: the SR22 tends to be a little overly
sensitive to elevator forces during flare. They had problems with tail
strikes in the early days.

rg

[Matt Whiting]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> I'm sure you will agree that whether 80 knots is close to
> stall or not depends strongly on airfoil, wing loading, etc.
> For the SR-22, given that it has a published stall of 59
> knots w/flaps, I can't see how 80 knots could be anywhere
> near stall. However, I've never flown an SR-22, and I've
> learned enough over the years to strongly temper my own
> theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
> a pilot report.

Interesting, I've learned just the opposite. I've learned to temper my
belief in pilot reports when they conflict with aerodynamic principles
and facts. I've found the latter much more reliable than the former.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Peter,
>
>
>>It's true that operated correctly, the free-castoring nosewheel is no
>>trouble at all. ... how should the pilot be held entirely to blame for the
>>consequences of their incorrect use of the brakes?
>
>
> Well, no offense meant, but that's a very American way of looking at it. Put the blame where the blame
> is, please. As you say yourself, those brakes need to be operated correctly. They are operated by the
> pilot. End of story - from my POV, at least. That breaking a lot will heat the brakes a lot is, well,
> kind of obvious to any pilot...

Well, no offense, but that isn't an American way of looking at it. That
is a liberals way of looking at it. To a liberal, everything that goes
wrong is someone else's fault. However, all Americans aren't liberals
by any stretch of the imagination.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I found that with the Champ, 55 mph, power off, puts the wheels at the
>>>aim point with medium firm arrival. Higher than normal sink rate, but
>>>not so high as to cause damage. Excellent short field/obstacle procedure.
>>
>>What is a Champ's stall speed?
>
>
> Mine is 33 knots ~ 38mph.
>

Then there is certainly no reason for a firm arrival at 55 MPH. 17 MPH
above stall in an airplane like a champ means there is a LOT of excess
energy that can be converted into leveling the flight path properly
before touchdown.

Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Well, no offense, but that isn't an American way of looking at it. That
> is a liberals way of looking at it. To a liberal, everything that goes
> wrong is someone else's fault.

Wow. Of all the idiotic things I've seen, this ranks right up there. I
knew no thread in r.a.piloting is safe from politicization, but the leap you
took right there...that takes the cake.

How in the world did this become "liberal vs conservative" thing? It's bad
enough Thomas seems to think we're talking about lawsuits here, but now you
jump in with your obvious anti-liberal bias? Stuffing words into my mouth
in the process, at that.

If it's your position that the conservatives are the ones going around
calling people "utterly incompetent", while the liberals acknowledge that
one can be poorly informed without being "utterly incompetent", well...I
have to say, that's not a very complimentary view of conservatives you've
got there.

If that's not your position, then your reply is just stupid as it doesn't
conform to your position. No, scratch that. It was stupid
regardless...even if you do think conservatives are of the mind to judge
people "utterly incompetent" without even reviewing the facts, I'd say this
is hardly the place to bring it up.

Next thing we know, you'll be posting something that triggers Godwin's Law.
Dude, we're talking about piloting technique, not politics. Get a grip.

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, no offense, but that isn't an American way of looking at it.
>> That is a liberals way of looking at it. To a liberal, everything
>> that goes wrong is someone else's fault.
>
> Wow. Of all the idiotic things I've seen, this ranks right up there.
> I knew no thread in r.a.piloting is safe from politicization, but the
> leap you took right there...that takes the cake.
>
> How in the world did this become "liberal vs conservative" thing?

A liberal, a conservative and a horse walk into a bar, and the bartender
says, "What is this, a joke?"

(This being an aviation forum, I thought a little levity might help take
the edge off. And if it doesn't, no loss - my predilection toward
libertarianism means I can enjoy the spectacle without being a target.
Being part of an insignificant political minority takes the edge off the
rare attacks. ;-)

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Well, no offense, but that isn't an American way of looking at it. That
>>is a liberals way of looking at it. To a liberal, everything that goes
>>wrong is someone else's fault.
>
>
> Wow. Of all the idiotic things I've seen, this ranks right up there. I
> knew no thread in r.a.piloting is safe from politicization, but the leap you
> took right there...that takes the cake.

You need to get out more as you haven't seen much then.


> How in the world did this become "liberal vs conservative" thing? It's bad
> enough Thomas seems to think we're talking about lawsuits here, but now you
> jump in with your obvious anti-liberal bias? Stuffing words into my mouth
> in the process, at that.

It is simply a statement of fact. How did I stuff words in your mouth?
I was replying to Thomas, not to you.

Yes, I'm proudly anti-liberal and make no attempt to hide that. Thank
you for noticing. :-)


> If it's your position that the conservatives are the ones going around
> calling people "utterly incompetent", while the liberals acknowledge that
> one can be poorly informed without being "utterly incompetent", well...I
> have to say, that's not a very complimentary view of conservatives you've
> got there.

Funny, I don't recall making any statement about being utterly
incompetent. Can you point it out?


> If that's not your position, then your reply is just stupid as it doesn't
> conform to your position. No, scratch that. It was stupid
> regardless...even if you do think conservatives are of the mind to judge
> people "utterly incompetent" without even reviewing the facts, I'd say this
> is hardly the place to bring it up.

Again, I don't know where you are getting this "utterly incompetent"
stuff from.


> Next thing we know, you'll be posting something that triggers Godwin's Law.
> Dude, we're talking about piloting technique, not politics. Get a grip.

No, Thomas was talking about taking responsibility for one's actions or
the lack thereof, actually, and claiming that was an American way of
looking at things. I was simply point out that it wasn't an American
way of looking at things. Are you having a hard time following the thread?

Matt

[Montblack]

("Jim Logajan" wrote)
> A liberal, a conservative and a horse walk into a bar, and the bartender
> says, "What is this, a joke?"


A termite walks into a bar and says, "Where's the Bartender?"


Montblack

[Matt Whiting]

Montblack wrote:

> ("Jim Logajan" wrote)
>
>> A liberal, a conservative and a horse walk into a bar, and the
>> bartender says, "What is this, a joke?"
>
>
>
> A termite walks into a bar and says, "Where's the Bartender?"

Groan...


Matt

[LWG]

The response seemed on point to me. I, for one, share the view that the
liberal position is often little more than hysterical whining about the
perceived wrongs of others. There is no concept of self-reliance or
introspection in what I hear from liberals.

In fact, until today, I thought that all liberals were humorless drones. I
saw a great bumper sticker which convinced me there a at least a vestigial
sense of humor. It said, "Democrats are Hot! (Did you ever hear of a fine
piece of Elephant.?)"

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, no offense, but that isn't an American way of looking at it. That
>> is a liberals way of looking at it. To a liberal, everything that goes
>> wrong is someone else's fault.
>
> Wow. Of all the idiotic things I've seen, this ranks right up there. I
> knew no thread in r.a.piloting is safe from politicization, but the leap
> you took right there...that takes the cake.
>

[Jim Logajan]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Yes, I'm proudly anti-liberal and make no attempt to hide that.

I'm proudly anti-off-topic-divisive posts and make no attempt to hide that.
The common bond on these groups is an interest in aviation - not politics.
Some off topic drift is harmless, but some tends to poison forums, so if
you (and others) could suppress those proud urgings, I'm sure everyone
would appreciate it! Thanks!

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> No, Thomas was talking about taking responsibility for one's actions or
> the lack thereof, actually, and claiming that was an American way of
> looking at things. I was simply point out that it wasn't an American way
> of looking at things. Are you having a hard time following the thread?

No, but it seems you are. With your reference to the previous comments and
the reuse of their pronouns, rather than starting a new train of thought,
you necessarily framed your comments directly with respect to my original
statement, as did Thomas.

He's the one who used "utterly incompetent", and my point in responding was
to address that misuse. The entire thread at that point is about the
accusation of "utterly incompetent", and if you choose to insert yourself
into that thread without understanding it, that's your fault.

Through your reply to Thomas's post, you directly addressed the very
comments I made (which had *nothing* to do with one's political leanings
until you stuck your nose in), and indirectly (and incorrectly) affirmed
Thomas's view of them.

You, of course, will reply with, essentially, "no I didn't". Don't bother.
I can well believe you had no idea what it was you were actually replying to
(happens often enough on Usenet), but to claim that your reply didn't
actually wind up saying what it really did just digs your hole deeper.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
> The response seemed on point to me. I, for one, share the view that the
> liberal position is often little more than hysterical whining about the
> perceived wrongs of others.

Regardless of your view, it has NOTHING to do with what I wrote, and only
slightly more to do with what Thomas wrote (given that he missed the point
completely, being relevant to his point makes little sense).

> There is no concept of self-reliance or introspection in what I hear from
> liberals.

Irrelevant. Though, perhaps you should take a moment to consider that many
liberals see no concept of other admirable traits in what they hear from
conservatives.

Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, doesn't matter...they all
have something negative and ignorant to say about the other, and NONE of
that crap has any place here.

Pete

[Montblack]

("Jim Logajan" wrote)
>> Yes, I'm proudly anti-liberal and make no attempt to hide that.

> I'm proudly anti-off-topic-divisive posts and make no attempt to hide
> that. The common bond on these groups is an interest in aviation - not
> politics.


Wow. All I was hoping for was - "Trim your posts, please."


Montblack :-)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-10, Peter Duniho > wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, no offense, but that isn't an American way of looking at it. That
>> is a liberals way of looking at it. To a liberal, everything that goes
>> wrong is someone else's fault.
>
> Wow. Of all the idiotic things I've seen, this ranks right up there. I
> knew no thread in r.a.piloting is safe from politicization, but the leap you
> took right there...that takes the cake.

I've been guilty of replying to political threads in rec.aviation.* in
the past - I hereby take a pledge to never reply to political posts
in r.a.*. It's the only way to kill off these long threads that spiral into
nothing but invective and ad-hominen and have nothing to do with
aviatoin.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Morgans]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote


> I've been guilty of replying to political threads in rec.aviation.* in
> the past - I hereby take a pledge to never reply to political posts
> in r.a.*. It's the only way to kill off these long threads that spiral
> into
> nothing but invective and ad-hominen and have nothing to do with
> aviatoin.


Good luck.

There will always be a few that have no similar feelings, and will continue
the thread. All it takes is two.

I started skipping over this thread long ago. I just read you post by
accident.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Yes, I'm proudly anti-liberal and make no attempt to hide that.
>
>
> I'm proudly anti-off-topic-divisive posts and make no attempt to hide that.
> The common bond on these groups is an interest in aviation - not politics.
> Some off topic drift is harmless, but some tends to poison forums, so if
> you (and others) could suppress those proud urgings, I'm sure everyone
> would appreciate it! Thanks!

I considered my post completely on-topic. I was pointing out that the
behavior that the one poster attributed to Americans in general simply
wasn't correctly attributed to all Americans, just liberal Americans.
That was completely on-topic and in context.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>No, Thomas was talking about taking responsibility for one's actions or
>>the lack thereof, actually, and claiming that was an American way of
>>looking at things. I was simply point out that it wasn't an American way
>>of looking at things. Are you having a hard time following the thread?
>
>
> No, but it seems you are. With your reference to the previous comments and
> the reuse of their pronouns, rather than starting a new train of thought,
> you necessarily framed your comments directly with respect to my original
> statement, as did Thomas.

A reply to a message is a reply to a message, not a reply to every
message in the thread preceding it. If I had wanted to reply to YOUR
message I would have. I intended to reply to Thomas' and did reply to
Thomas'. That fact that you don't understand that is unfortunate, but
not my problem.

Matt

[Roger]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:26:08 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Dylan Smith" > wrote
>
>
>> I've been guilty of replying to political threads in rec.aviation.* in
>> the past - I hereby take a pledge to never reply to political posts
>> in r.a.*. It's the only way to kill off these long threads that spiral
>> into
>> nothing but invective and ad-hominen and have nothing to do with
>> aviatoin.
>
>
>Good luck.
>
>There will always be a few that have no similar feelings, and will continue
>the thread. All it takes is two.

It really only takes one as some of us talk to ourselves...more so as
we get older.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>I started skipping over this thread long ago. I just read you post by
>accident.

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> You seem to be of the opinion that only one person can be held in blame.
>

Well, what can I say? Yes, if someone breaks enough to set the breaks on
fire, I do indeed believe blame is simple to assign. And yes, I do see a
strong connection between the mindset shining up in your post and the
silly law suits so common in the US.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. However, I see no reason to
start personal attacks the way you have against me in follow-up posts. Sad
that you see the need to represent yourself this way...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Peter,
>
>
>>You seem to be of the opinion that only one person can be held in blame.
>>
>
>
> Well, what can I say? Yes, if someone breaks enough to set the breaks on
> fire, I do indeed believe blame is simple to assign. And yes, I do see a
> strong connection between the mindset shining up in your post and the
> silly law suits so common in the US.
>
> I guess we just have to agree to disagree. However, I see no reason to
> start personal attacks the way you have against me in follow-up posts. Sad
> that you see the need to represent yourself this way...

Thomas,

Please don't ascribe Peter's sense of personal responsibility (or lack
thereof) to all Americans. That couldn't be farther from the truth.


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> [...] And yes, I do see a
> strong connection between the mindset shining up in your post and the
> silly law suits so common in the US.

You see a connection that does not exist. I have a strong disagreement with
the various liability lawsuit abuses that occur in the US, and yet I am
open-minded enough to see that there is a direct relation between airplane
design and the various problems to which it can lead.

> I guess we just have to agree to disagree. However, I see no reason to
> start personal attacks the way you have against me in follow-up posts. Sad
> that you see the need to represent yourself this way...

Uh...you are really a piece of work. You opened the personal invectives
with a direct accusation of my "American attitude", insulting both Americans
and myself personally, and you are now taking offense at *my* "personal
attacks"?

Pretty funny. Hope you don't think anyone can take you seriously.

Pete

[Morgans]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote

> Well, what can I say? Yes, if someone breaks enough to set the breaks on
> fire, I do indeed believe blame is simple to assign.

Since English is your second language, I'll give you a "heads up" on this.

The things that stop cars and airplanes are called brakes, not breaks.

Your welcome. <g>
--
Jim (ain't the English language wonderful) in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote
>
>
>>Well, what can I say? Yes, if someone breaks enough to set the breaks on
>>fire, I do indeed believe blame is simple to assign.
>
>
> Since English is your second language, I'll give you a "heads up" on this.
>
> The things that stop cars and airplanes are called brakes, not breaks.
>
> Your welcome. <g>

That would be "you're" welcome as in "you are" welcome. Correctly
someone's English is always dangerous as you almost always make a
mistake of your own in the process. The preceeding contains "your"
used correctly.


Matt

P.S. I'm sure someone better in English than me can find at least one
mistake in what I wrote above. :-)

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Please don't ascribe Peter's sense of personal responsibility (or lack
> thereof) to all Americans. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Please don't ascribe Thomas' perception of my sense of personal
responsibility to me. It couldn't be farther from the truth.

[Montblack]

(Matt Whiting wrote)
> That would be "you're" welcome as in "you are" welcome. Correctly
> someone's English is always dangerous as you almost always make a mistake
> of your own in the process. The preceeding contains "your" used
> correctly.

> P.S. I'm sure someone better in English than me can find at least one
> mistake in what I wrote above. :-)


All procedes from the preceeding post will go to the National Spelling Bee.


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> That would be "you're" welcome as in "you are" welcome. Correctly
> someone's English is always dangerous as you almost always make a mistake
> of your own in the process. The preceeding contains "your"
> used correctly.

That was also a joke. See the <g> ???

Try to keep up.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Please don't ascribe Peter's sense of personal responsibility (or lack
>>thereof) to all Americans. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
>
>
> Please don't ascribe Thomas' perception of my sense of personal
> responsibility to me. It couldn't be farther from the truth.

Not so. You clearly wrote that a pilot who was using the brakes
incorrectly wasn't completely to blame for wearing out the brakes and
the maker of the airplane should bear some of the blame. I disagree
completely. That is the attitude that Thomas was ascribing to all
Americans and I am an American and I don't share that attitude at all.
If there is a correct means provided by the manufacturer to use the
brakes, and the pilot isn't using that method, then the pilot is 100% to
blame.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>
>>That would be "you're" welcome as in "you are" welcome. Correctly
>>someone's English is always dangerous as you almost always make a mistake
>>of your own in the process. The preceeding contains "your"
>>used correctly.
>
>
> That was also a joke. See the <g> ???
>
> Try to keep up.

As was mine. Did you see the smiley? Try to keep up.

Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> Please don't ascribe Thomas' perception of my sense of personal
>> responsibility to me. It couldn't be farther from the truth.
>
> Not so.

Yes so.

> You clearly wrote that a pilot who was using the brakes incorrectly wasn't
> completely to blame for wearing out the brakes and the maker of the
> airplane should bear some of the blame.

So what? What does that have to do with the question of liability lawsuits
and a sense of personal responsibility?

> I disagree completely.

Yes, of course you do.

> That is the attitude that Thomas was ascribing to all Americans and I am
> an American and I don't share that attitude at all.

The problem here is that the "attitude" that you're making ignorant
generalizations about has nothing to do with what I wrote. This thread had
nothing to do with "liberals" or "conservatives" until you stuck your "take
any chance to bash the other side" nose into it.

> If there is a correct means provided by the manufacturer to use the
> brakes, and the pilot isn't using that method, then the pilot is 100% to
> blame.

I refer you to my question to Thomas about the satisfactory nature of the
Wright Flyer for the personal aircraft market (which he conveniently
ignored).

You've started yourself down a slipperly slope, and the logical conclusion
of your black & white view is ridiculous.

Pete

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> As was mine. Did you see the smiley? Try to keep up.

Nice attempt at a save, but I'm not buying it. The smiley was in your P.S.,
after you make a joke about someone else finding a problem in you post.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>>As was mine. Did you see the smiley? Try to keep up.
>
>
> Nice attempt at a save, but I'm not buying it. The smiley was in your P.S.,
> after you make a joke about someone else finding a problem in you post.

That's OK as I wasn't selling anything.

Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> The things that stop cars and airplanes are called brakes, not breaks.
>

Sorry, that one got mixed up. Now, gimme a brake, will ya? <g>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,


> You see a connection that does not exist.

Again: We disagree on that. And that's ok, for me. Apparently, it's not for you
(see below). Tough luck.

You may recall the lawsuit against the maker of vacuum pumps after the crash of
an airplane. Same thing as your brake theory: The inherent design...

> Uh...you are really a piece of work. You opened the personal invectives
> with a direct accusation of my "American attitude",

I didn't realize that saying "that's a very American way of looking at it" is
an accusation or a personal insult. If so, I apologize - while being amazed.

> Hope you don't think anyone can take you seriously.

Who's the piece of work now? Get used to the fact that there are ways to see
things beyond yours. Oh, and you are indeed representing yourself quite nicely
here.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Morgans,
>
>
>>The things that stop cars and airplanes are called brakes, not breaks.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, that one got mixed up. Now, gimme a brake, will ya? <g>
>

Disk or drum?

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Morgans,
>>
>>
>>>The things that stop cars and airplanes are called brakes, not breaks.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, that one got mixed up. Now, gimme a brake, will ya? <g>
>>
>
> Disk or drum?

No fair picking on the non native speaker!

--
Dan

'Gut feeling'

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational
thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.

[Morgans]

>>>>The things that stop cars and airplanes are called brakes, not breaks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, that one got mixed up. Now, gimme a brake, will ya? <g>
>>>
>>
>> Disk or drum?
>
> No fair picking on the non native speaker!

Are you talking about Thomas, or me? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> You see a connection that does not exist.
>
> Again: We disagree on that. And that's ok, for me. Apparently, it's not
> for you

You don't have the luxury of disagreeing. It's my post, and it means what
it means, not what you'd like it to mean. Nothing in my post said anything
about liability lawsuits, nor does it have anything to do with liability
lawsuits.

You can keep trying to imagine that it does all you want, you're still wrong
and being okay with "disagreeing" about it is just stupid.

> You may recall the lawsuit against the maker of vacuum pumps after the
> crash of > an airplane. Same thing as your brake theory: The inherent
> design...

Again, who said anything about lawsuits? You keep bringing that up. It has
*nothing* to do with what I wrote.

>> Uh...you are really a piece of work. You opened the personal invectives
>> with a direct accusation of my "American attitude",
>
> I didn't realize that saying "that's a very American way of looking at it"
> is
> an accusation or a personal insult.

You are either really stupid or being intentionally obtuse. You pick.

Here's a clue: the insult is when you tie an insulting behavior (such as the
liability lawsuits you're talking about) to a particular group or individual
(such as Americans generally, or myself personally).

Be amazed as much as you want, you are still being insulting.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> You don't have the luxury of disagreeing.
>

This view on how you seem to think civilized discussions work ends any
further discussion with you quite nicely, thank you very much.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Disk or drum?
>

Cleveland.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Denny]

I will be the spoil sport here and return to the original topic... I
went to the people involved and got the facts...

The pilot states he had full power on and the stick back and the plane
continued to sink until it hit the ground... (think fully through the
ramifications of that statement before jumping on your keyboard)
He is a relatively low time pilot...
He is a professional person...
He is (was?) scheduled to buy a new SR-22 and was building time in a
rental airplane...
He has since flown another SR-22 with a check pilot...

In addition I interviewed a CFI who has some 40 hours in giving dual in
the Cirrus airplanes, who does not own a Cirrus, and says that he would
buy other planes over the Cirrus if he were in the market for another
plane for his flight school... Having established that he is not a
poster boy for Cirrus aircraft we discussed their flight
characteristics...
He is of the opinion that it is a fine airplane, it flies nicely, it
has outstanding performance for fixed gear, and it does not have bad
habits...
He does note that the laminar flow wing requires you to fly the
airplane by the numbers, especially on final (true also of Bonanzas,
Barons, Mooney 231's, etc)...
The parachute is a non issue for him - it happens to be there and if he
had to use it he would... Other than that he doesn't care one way or
the other about the parachute...

He mirrored my opinion (smart fella) about the crash record of the
Cirrus line... That it is attractive to pilots who are relatively low
time, who are business people or professionals of some sort or other
and have spent many years being trained and building their business,
who now have relatively high incomes and can afford a rather expensive,
slippery and fast, airplane... This combination tends to have a higher
percentage of accidents early on with a high performance airplane
compared to pilots who have spent more years flying and built up more
flight time, even if it is in lower performance aircraft... He does
not blame the airplane... We agreed that if the pilot who has a crash
in a Cirrus had spent a year or two in something like a Skylane, P210,
Mooney, etc., before going to the Cirrus that the Cirrus crash rate
would then be the same as for any high performance light plane...
Most airplane crashes are caused by a loose nut on the yoke...

denny

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Denny" > wrote:

[snip]
> He mirrored my opinion (smart fella) about the crash record of the
> Cirrus line... That it is attractive to pilots who are relatively low
> time, who are business people or professionals of some sort or other
> and have spent many years being trained and building their business,
> who now have relatively high incomes and can afford a rather expensive,
> slippery and fast, airplane... This combination tends to have a higher
> percentage of accidents early on with a high performance airplane
> compared to pilots who have spent more years flying and built up more
> flight time, even if it is in lower performance aircraft... He does
> not blame the airplane... We agreed that if the pilot who has a crash
> in a Cirrus had spent a year or two in something like a Skylane, P210,
> Mooney, etc., before going to the Cirrus that the Cirrus crash rate
> would then be the same as for any high performance light plane...
> Most airplane crashes are caused by a loose nut on the yoke...

In short... Thurman Munson Syndrome

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> You don't have the luxury of disagreeing.
>>
>
> This view on how you seem to think civilized discussions work ends any
> further discussion with you quite nicely, thank you very much.

lol...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given your previously demonstrated
arrogance, that you think a "civilized discussion" involves you putting
whatever words into someone's mouth you like.

That you believe you can disagree with my statement about what I actually
said is quite telling.

[Ron Garret]

In article . com>,
"Denny" > wrote:

> I will be the spoil sport here and return to the original topic... I
> went to the people involved and got the facts...
>
> The pilot states he had full power on and the stick back

Ah, there's the problem.

> and the plane
> continued to sink until it hit the ground... (think fully through the
> ramifications of that statement before jumping on your keyboard)

Seems pretty clear that he was behind the power curve and needed to
lower the nose. You should *never* have the "stick back" when landing a
Cirrus, not even during the flare.

rg

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "Denny" > wrote:
>
> > I will be the spoil sport here and return to the original topic... I
> > went to the people involved and got the facts...
> >
> > The pilot states he had full power on and the stick back
>
> Ah, there's the problem.
>
> > and the plane
> > continued to sink until it hit the ground... (think fully through the
> > ramifications of that statement before jumping on your keyboard)
>
> Seems pretty clear that he was behind the power curve and needed to
> lower the nose. You should *never* have the "stick back" when landing a
> Cirrus, not even during the flare.
>
> rg

I find THAT hard to believe! If you have enough speed over the fence,
you should have enough smash to arrest the sink and flare.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > "Denny" > wrote:
> >
> > > I will be the spoil sport here and return to the original topic... I
> > > went to the people involved and got the facts...
> > >
> > > The pilot states he had full power on and the stick back
> >
> > Ah, there's the problem.
> >
> > > and the plane
> > > continued to sink until it hit the ground... (think fully through the
> > > ramifications of that statement before jumping on your keyboard)
> >
> > Seems pretty clear that he was behind the power curve and needed to
> > lower the nose. You should *never* have the "stick back" when landing a
> > Cirrus, not even during the flare.
> >
> > rg
>
> I find THAT hard to believe! If you have enough speed over the fence,
> you should have enough smash to arrest the sink and flare.

How is that different from what I said? I think the pilot who landed
short *didn't* have enough speed *because* he had the "stick back" and
he was trying to compensate with power when he should have lowered the
nose instead.

rg

[Matt Whiting]

Denny wrote:
> I will be the spoil sport here and return to the original topic... I
> went to the people involved and got the facts...
>
> The pilot states he had full power on and the stick back and the plane
> continued to sink until it hit the ground... (think fully through the
> ramifications of that statement before jumping on your keyboard)

I can't think of many explanations other than:

1. Severe wind shear.
2. The airplane was stalled.

What is your or his explanation?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>You don't have the luxury of disagreeing.
>>>
>>
>>This view on how you seem to think civilized discussions work ends any
>>further discussion with you quite nicely, thank you very much.
>
>
> lol...
>
> I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given your previously demonstrated
> arrogance, that you think a "civilized discussion" involves you putting
> whatever words into someone's mouth you like.
>
> That you believe you can disagree with my statement about what I actually
> said is quite telling.

Yes, it is telling. It says he is an analytical and intelligent reader.

Matt

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> In article >,
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Ron Garret > wrote:
> >
> > > In article . com>,
> > > "Denny" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I will be the spoil sport here and return to the original topic... I
> > > > went to the people involved and got the facts...
> > > >
> > > > The pilot states he had full power on and the stick back
> > >
> > > Ah, there's the problem.
> > >
> > > > and the plane
> > > > continued to sink until it hit the ground... (think fully through the
> > > > ramifications of that statement before jumping on your keyboard)
> > >
> > > Seems pretty clear that he was behind the power curve and needed to
> > > lower the nose. You should *never* have the "stick back" when landing a
> > > Cirrus, not even during the flare.
> > >
> > > rg
> >
> > I find THAT hard to believe! If you have enough speed over the fence,
> > you should have enough smash to arrest the sink and flare.
>
> How is that different from what I said? I think the pilot who landed
> short *didn't* have enough speed *because* he had the "stick back" and
> he was trying to compensate with power when he should have lowered the
> nose instead.
>
> rg

Quite different! In a "three point attitude," you have the stick all the
way back at touchdown. Ideally, it should reach full deflection at the
moment of touchdown.

He, it appears, had it all the way back well before touchdown.

[john smith]

In article >,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Ron Garret > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > "Denny" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I will be the spoil sport here and return to the original topic... I
> > > > > went to the people involved and got the facts...
> > > > >
> > > > > The pilot states he had full power on and the stick back
> > > >
> > > > Ah, there's the problem.
> > > >
> > > > > and the plane
> > > > > continued to sink until it hit the ground... (think fully through
> > > > > the
> > > > > ramifications of that statement before jumping on your keyboard)
> > > >
> > > > Seems pretty clear that he was behind the power curve and needed to
> > > > lower the nose. You should *never* have the "stick back" when landing
> > > > a
> > > > Cirrus, not even during the flare.
> > > >
> > > > rg
> > >
> > > I find THAT hard to believe! If you have enough speed over the fence,
> > > you should have enough smash to arrest the sink and flare.
> >
> > How is that different from what I said? I think the pilot who landed
> > short *didn't* have enough speed *because* he had the "stick back" and
> > he was trying to compensate with power when he should have lowered the
> > nose instead.
> >
> > rg
>
> Quite different! In a "three point attitude," you have the stick all the
> way back at touchdown. Ideally, it should reach full deflection at the
> moment of touchdown.
>
> He, it appears, had it all the way back well before touchdown.

Ah yes, the common mistake of the inexperienced... pull back to arrest
the rate of descent! Fortunately, he was close enough that the ground
caught him before he crashed.

[Ron Lee]

T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>>But 80 knots isn't "at low speed". That's my point.
>
However, I've never flown an SR-22, and I've
>learned enough over the years to strongly temper my own
>theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
>a pilot report.
>
And a pilot report where he screwed up is to be considered unbiased?

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> temper my own
>>>theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
>>>a pilot report.
>>>
>>And a pilot report where he screwed up is to be considered unbiased?
>
>You'd ignore pilot reports that involved a screw up? Heck,
>some of the most valuable lessons I've ever learned came
>from my own screw-ups or a report from someone else of their
>screw-up.
>
Your point is valid Todd. Mine was meant to mean that sometimes a
pilot does not own up to a mistake.

Ron Lee

[Matt Whiting]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>> temper my own
>>>theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
>>>a pilot report.
>>
>>Interesting, I've learned just the opposite. I've learned to temper my
>>belief in pilot reports when they conflict with aerodynamic principles
>>and facts. I've found the latter much more reliable than the former.
>
>
> Your comment is not inconsistent with mine. I agree, pilot
> reports can be wrong. However, aerodynamics is a complex
> subject and a theoretical analysis without real world
> testing can be just as wrong.

I'm talking about well proven and generally accepted aerodynamic principles.

Matt

[Roger]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:38:09 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:

>T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>>>But 80 knots isn't "at low speed". That's my point.
>>
> However, I've never flown an SR-22, and I've
>>learned enough over the years to strongly temper my own
>>theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
>>a pilot report.
>>
>And a pilot report where he screwed up is to be considered unbiased?

Some times, yes.

Guy I know was on a ferry flight. He'd calculated out the fuel needed
plus reserves, but left absolutely no wiggle room. He'd planned on
staying up high and keeping the fuel burn down. ATC had other ideas
and put him considerably lower than he wanted so he burned a lot more
fuel. He figured even with the extra fuel burn it'd be close, but he'd
make it. Then the last few minutes they ran into a head wind that
wasn't supposed to be there. He only had one hill left to clear and he
could glide to the airport if the engine quit. Unfortunately the
engine quit before he made it over the hill.

The FAA investigator interviewed him from his hospital bed. Of course
the first question was, "What happened". Rather than blaming ATC,
head winds, or any thing else his simple answer was: "I screwed up!".
The investigator made a note, closed his book, said that takes care of
the paper work, you'll probably only get a couple hours of retraining
if that as you already have proven to me you know where you went
wrong... and by the way, I think this is the first time I've received
such a direct and honest answer".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Ron Lee

[Al]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:38:09 GMT, (Ron Lee)
> wrote:
>
>>T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>>>>But 80 knots isn't "at low speed". That's my point.
>>>
>> However, I've never flown an SR-22, and I've
>>>learned enough over the years to strongly temper my own
>>>theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
>>>a pilot report.
>>>
>>And a pilot report where he screwed up is to be considered unbiased?
>
> Some times, yes.
>
> Guy I know was on a ferry flight. He'd calculated out the fuel needed
> plus reserves, but left absolutely no wiggle room. He'd planned on
> staying up high and keeping the fuel burn down. ATC had other ideas
> and put him considerably lower than he wanted so he burned a lot more
> fuel. He figured even with the extra fuel burn it'd be close, but he'd
> make it. Then the last few minutes they ran into a head wind that
> wasn't supposed to be there. He only had one hill left to clear and he
> could glide to the airport if the engine quit. Unfortunately the
> engine quit before he made it over the hill.
>
> The FAA investigator interviewed him from his hospital bed. Of course
> the first question was, "What happened". Rather than blaming ATC,
> head winds, or any thing else his simple answer was: "I screwed up!".
> The investigator made a note, closed his book, said that takes care of
> the paper work, you'll probably only get a couple hours of retraining
> if that as you already have proven to me you know where you went
> wrong... and by the way, I think this is the first time I've received
> such a direct and honest answer".
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>
>>Ron Lee


Our mechanics used to say that if the pilot survived, they would never find
out what happened.

Al G

[Roger]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:10:23 -0700, "Al"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:38:09 GMT, (Ron Lee)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>>>>>But 80 knots isn't "at low speed". That's my point.
>>>>
>>> However, I've never flown an SR-22, and I've
>>>>learned enough over the years to strongly temper my own
>>>>theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
>>>>a pilot report.
>>>>
>>>And a pilot report where he screwed up is to be considered unbiased?
>>
>> Some times, yes.
>>
>> Guy I know was on a ferry flight. He'd calculated out the fuel needed
>> plus reserves, but left absolutely no wiggle room. He'd planned on
>> staying up high and keeping the fuel burn down. ATC had other ideas
>> and put him considerably lower than he wanted so he burned a lot more
>> fuel. He figured even with the extra fuel burn it'd be close, but he'd
>> make it. Then the last few minutes they ran into a head wind that
>> wasn't supposed to be there. He only had one hill left to clear and he
>> could glide to the airport if the engine quit. Unfortunately the
>> engine quit before he made it over the hill.
>>
>> The FAA investigator interviewed him from his hospital bed. Of course
>> the first question was, "What happened". Rather than blaming ATC,
>> head winds, or any thing else his simple answer was: "I screwed up!".
>> The investigator made a note, closed his book, said that takes care of
>> the paper work, you'll probably only get a couple hours of retraining
>> if that as you already have proven to me you know where you went
>> wrong... and by the way, I think this is the first time I've received
>> such a direct and honest answer".
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>>
>>>Ron Lee
>
>
>Our mechanics used to say that if the pilot survived, they would never find
>out what happened.

Last week as I was taxiiying to the end of 22 to bring the Deb back
after its annual, the mechanic who had just finished the annual
calmly asked over the radio... Do you know why mechanics never crash.
I replied, Because they have the owner do the first flight after the
annual? His response...Right on the first guess.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Al G
>

[Matt Whiting]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm talking about well proven and generally accepted aerodynamic principles.
>
>
> So am I. The problem is that the real world is so complex
> that sometimes you can't figure out which well tested and
> generally accepted aerodynamic principle to apply in a real
> world situation reported by a pilot.

I guess I haven't had that problem very often. Which one's have you had
trouble figuring out?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>>So am I. The problem is that the real world is so complex
>>>that sometimes you can't figure out which well tested and
>>>generally accepted aerodynamic principle to apply in a real
>>>world situation reported by a pilot.
>>
>>I guess I haven't had that problem very often. Which one's have you had
>>trouble figuring out?
>
>
> OK, how about this one: The pilot reports the following:
>
> We were practicing stalls. We decided to try an accelerated
> stall spin entry from a full slip, bringing the nose well
> above the horizon, while slipping with stick full back and
> left and full right rudder, holding that attitude then
> allowing speed to decay. We expected to stall and enter a
> spin. Instead, the aircraft slowed, then remained in that
> nose high attitude with a high descent rate, stick full back
> and right, rudder full left. We remained in that attitude
> for more than 30 seconds, and it seemed we could go on until
> we hit the ground.
>
> Now when you apply "well tested and generally accepted
> aerodynamic principles" you conclude that the wings were
> above the critical AOA and should have stalled. The
> aircraft should have dropped its nose and spun or at least
> entered a spiral dive. Should we conclude the pilot is
> lying because a theoretical aerodynamic analysis says the
> aircraft should have done something other than what he says
> it did?

No, you simply need to know more. Some aircraft have limited elevator
travel such at stalling is virtually impossible.

Matt

[john smith]

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> >> So am I. The problem is that the real world is so complex
> >> that sometimes you can't figure out which well tested and
> >> generally accepted aerodynamic principle to apply in a real
> >> world situation reported by a pilot.
> >
> >I guess I haven't had that problem very often. Which one's have you had
> >trouble figuring out?
>
> OK, how about this one: The pilot reports the following:
>
> We were practicing stalls. We decided to try an accelerated
> stall spin entry from a full slip, bringing the nose well
> above the horizon, while slipping with stick full back and
> left and full right rudder, holding that attitude then
> allowing speed to decay. We expected to stall and enter a
> spin. Instead, the aircraft slowed, then remained in that
> nose high attitude with a high descent rate, stick full back
> and right, rudder full left. We remained in that attitude
> for more than 30 seconds, and it seemed we could go on until
> we hit the ground.
>
> Now when you apply "well tested and generally accepted
> aerodynamic principles" you conclude that the wings were
> above the critical AOA and should have stalled. The
> aircraft should have dropped its nose and spun or at least
> entered a spiral dive. Should we conclude the pilot is
> lying because a theoretical aerodynamic analysis says the
> aircraft should have done something other than what he says
> it did?

Why would you expect a spin when you are in a slip?

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So am I. The problem is that the real world is so complex
>>>>that sometimes you can't figure out which well tested and
>>>>generally accepted aerodynamic principle to apply in a real
>>>>world situation reported by a pilot.
>>>
>>>I guess I haven't had that problem very often. Which one's have you had
>>>trouble figuring out?
>>
>>OK, how about this one: The pilot reports the following:
>>
>>We were practicing stalls. We decided to try an accelerated
>>stall spin entry from a full slip, bringing the nose well
>>above the horizon, while slipping with stick full back and
>>left and full right rudder, holding that attitude then
>>allowing speed to decay. We expected to stall and enter a
>>spin. Instead, the aircraft slowed, then remained in that
>>nose high attitude with a high descent rate, stick full back
>>and right, rudder full left. We remained in that attitude
>>for more than 30 seconds, and it seemed we could go on until
>>we hit the ground.
>>
>>Now when you apply "well tested and generally accepted
>>aerodynamic principles" you conclude that the wings were
>>above the critical AOA and should have stalled. The
>>aircraft should have dropped its nose and spun or at least
>>entered a spiral dive. Should we conclude the pilot is
>>lying because a theoretical aerodynamic analysis says the
>>aircraft should have done something other than what he says
>>it did?
>
>
> Why would you expect a spin when you are in a slip?

If you stall with full rudder deflection, a spin is likely no matter
where the ailerons are.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>No, you simply need to know more. Some aircraft have limited elevator
>>travel such at stalling is virtually impossible.
>
>
> The aircraft has plenty of elevator travel and stalls
> easily.
>

Then, I'd like to know which model airplane it is. You can always find
odd exceptions, but if this is a Cessna single, then, yes, I think the
pilot is full of it. :-)


Matt

[john smith]

> >>We decided to try an accelerated stall spin entry from a full
> >>slip, bringing the nose well above the horizon, while slipping
> >>with stick full back and left and full right rudder, holding
> >>that attitude then allowing speed to decay.
> >>We expected to stall and enter a spin.
> >>Instead, the aircraft slowed, then remained in that nose high
> >>attitude with a high descent rate, stick full back and right,
> >>rudder full left. We remained in that attitude for more than 30
> >>seconds, and it seemed we could go on until we hit the ground.

> > Why would you expect a spin when you are in a slip?

> If you stall with full rudder deflection, a spin is likely no matter
> where the ailerons are.

But you cannot stall from a slip unless you force the stall by
aggressively moving the controls. As Todd wrote, he moved the controls
slowly/gradually, never entering a stall because the wing never exceeded
critical AOA.
If one is very smooth, one can transition from a full slip one direction
to a full slip in the other without stalling when passing the wings
level point.

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

>>>>We decided to try an accelerated stall spin entry from a full
>>>>slip, bringing the nose well above the horizon, while slipping
>>>>with stick full back and left and full right rudder, holding
>>>>that attitude then allowing speed to decay.
>>>>We expected to stall and enter a spin.
>>>>Instead, the aircraft slowed, then remained in that nose high
>>>>attitude with a high descent rate, stick full back and right,
>>>>rudder full left. We remained in that attitude for more than 30
>>>>seconds, and it seemed we could go on until we hit the ground.
>
>
>>>Why would you expect a spin when you are in a slip?
>
>
>>If you stall with full rudder deflection, a spin is likely no matter
>>where the ailerons are.
>
>
> But you cannot stall from a slip unless you force the stall by
> aggressively moving the controls. As Todd wrote, he moved the controls
> slowly/gradually, never entering a stall because the wing never exceeded
> critical AOA.

Where did you get that idea? You can't do an ACCELERATED stall with
slow or gradual movement of the controls.


> If one is very smooth, one can transition from a full slip one direction
> to a full slip in the other without stalling when passing the wings
> level point.

With the stick full back? I'd like to see that demonstration.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Then, I'd like to know which model airplane it is. You can always find
>>odd exceptions, but if this is a Cessna single, then, yes, I think the
>>pilot is full of it. :-)
>
>
> Blanik L-13 glider, 2-place tandem, forward swept wings, two
> pilots aboard, both reporting the same thing.

I'm not familiar with the Blanik glider or its aerodynamics so I can't
comment.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not familiar with the Blanik glider or its aerodynamics so I can't
>>comment.
>
>
> Isn't that the subject we are discussing? - whether general
> aerodynamic principles are sufficiently well understood that
> we can not only predict what happens aerodynamically in the
> real world, but also use that prediction to determine
> whether we should disregard a pilot report that conflicts
> with our prediction?

Sure, but you need to know the specifics of the aircraft in order to
know which principles to apply. For example, a powered airplane at high
angles of attack derives some lift from the propulsion system as the
thrust is vectored downward from the horizontal. This can be a big
factor for powered airplanes, but doesn't apply to gliders. That
doesn't change the underlying aerodynamic principles, it just means you
have to apply the appropriate principles.

Matt

[Jose]

> That doesn't change the underlying aerodynamic principles, it just means you have to apply the appropriate principles.

It's not the principles in question, it is one's understanding of them
in the light of apparantly conflicting empirics.

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is
no difference. In practice, there is.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:

> What I said was that they entered via an "accelerated
> stall" and that they brought "the nose well above the
> horizon, while slipping ... holding that attitude then
> allowing speed to decay." The stick was full back and in
> one corner, with the rudder to the opposite side. They
> expected from the nose high attitude that the critical AOA
> would be exceeded as their initial upward path became a
> downward path (as speed decayed) and the attitude relative
> to the horizon remained unchanged.

Not to split hairs, but... what you originally wrote was:

"We decided to try an accelerated stall spin entry from a full
slip, bringing the nose well above the horizon, while slipping
with stick full back and left and full right rudder, holding
that attitude then allowing speed to decay."

A big difference in
"...decided to try an accellerated stall spin entry..."
and
"...they entered via an "accelerated stall..."

[john smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> With the stick full back? I'd like to see that demonstration.

Can be done in a Citabria.
When I took my first acro lesson, this was one of the first maneuvers I
was taught. Another was a "falling leaf", where the aircraft is fully
stalled with the stick full aft and rudder is used to keep the nose
"centered", thereby preventing a spin from developing.

[john smith]

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:

> In this case, the stall entry was brought about by bringing
> the nose up very high at speed in an initial accelerated
> maneuver so that the unpowered aircraft was in a steady
> climb.

Remember my use of the word "agressively"? You have to force the
accellerated stall (that's why it is called "accellerated"!).
Another name for an accellerated stall is a snap/flick roll.

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>With the stick full back? I'd like to see that demonstration.
>
>
> Can be done in a Citabria.
> When I took my first acro lesson, this was one of the first maneuvers I
> was taught. Another was a "falling leaf", where the aircraft is fully
> stalled with the stick full aft and rudder is used to keep the nose
> "centered", thereby preventing a spin from developing.

I don't think that is what was claimed. The claim was going from full
rudder one way to full rudder the opposite side without entering a spin.
Then again, the original claim about entering a acclerated stall
seemed to morph in later messages so I don't know about this claim. :-)

Matt

[john smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> I don't think that is what was claimed. The claim was going from full
> rudder one way to full rudder the opposite side without entering a spin.

That is correct.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-16, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Then, I'd like to know which model airplane it is. You can always find
> odd exceptions, but if this is a Cessna single, then, yes, I think the
> pilot is full of it. :-)

Think again!
When I first got my Cessna 140, we tried all kinds of manoevres to see
what was likely to bite and what was not.

One of them was stalling in a maximum effort slip. All that happens is
the plane shakes like a wet dog and develops a high sink rate. No spin.
The yoke was all the way on its back stop and the rudder was to the
floor. Note that something entirely different happens if you try this
from a SKID rather than a slip. At least in the C140, we couldn't get it
to spin from a slip whatever we tried (and the C140 has plenty enough
elevator to properly stall the plane and to enter a spin from a skid).

I suspect that the Blanik L13 (the only aircraft I have access to that
is approved for spins) will do the same if I stall it in a slip - I'll
have to try it and see what happens.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[[email protected]]

http://sr22shop.com
Peter Duniho wrote:
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>But 80 knots isn't "at low speed". That's my point.
> >
> > I'm sure you will agree that whether 80 knots is close to
> > stall or not depends strongly on airfoil, wing loading, etc.
>
> Yes, I agree that it does. However, there's no reason to believe that the
> SR22 is in that category.
>
> > For the SR-22, given that it has a published stall of 59
> > knots w/flaps, I can't see how 80 knots could be anywhere
> > near stall.
>
> It's obviously not. Not during a normal approach, that is.
>
> > However, I've never flown an SR-22, and I've
> > learned enough over the years to strongly temper my own
> > theoretical aerodynamic musings whenever they conflict with
> > a pilot report.
>
> Well, I *have* flown the SR20, which lands essentially the same (elevator
> forces might be slightly higher in the SR22 for a pilot who doesn't know how
> to use the trim). I found absolutely no tendency for it to be unresponsive
> to an increase in AOA during the approach and flare.
>
> More to the point, the person to whom I was responding also has NOT flown
> the SR22 (probably not an SR20 either). He's purely speculating, and in
> doing so inventing some pretty odd concepts of aerodynamics.
>
> Pete