Cirrus and maneuvering

[Peter Dohm]

I received this link from a friend who is building an RV-8 and subscribes to
the RV-Lists.

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

It is a rather detailed review of the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22. I was
reminded of some inpressions that I had sitting in one at an AOPA
convention, and there is a lot of additional information that I did not
know.

Suffice it to say that I would not want to turn a Cirrus about over the east
river without a lot of practice. I do not feel that way about a lot of
airplanes generally regarded as "hot"; but which have more typical control
forse gradients. (Remember that my earlier comments, in the "east river
turning radius" thread, still stand regarding the ease of turning the PA-38
Tomahawk by trading airspeed for altitude and then altitude for airspeed.)

The article is long, but a good read.

I am curious what others think.

Peter

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...


(Remember that my earlier comments, in the "east river
>turning radius" thread, still stand regarding the ease of turning the PA-38
>Tomahawk by trading airspeed for altitude and then altitude for airspeed.)


How does it go for the Tomahawk again?
Something like "maintain all control surfaces neutral, and the metal fatigue
induced through the next three minutes of flight should be sufficient to
induce a gentle turn to the left..."


Sorry ;-)

[Peter Dohm]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
> (Remember that my earlier comments, in the "east river
> >turning radius" thread, still stand regarding the ease of turning the
PA-38
> >Tomahawk by trading airspeed for altitude and then altitude for
airspeed.)
>
>
> How does it go for the Tomahawk again?
> Something like "maintain all control surfaces neutral, and the metal
fatigue
> induced through the next three minutes of flight should be sufficient to
> induce a gentle turn to the left..."
>
>
> Sorry ;-)
>
Kidding aside, my point was this: After reading the long review of the
Cirrus, I did not think I would be comfortable with the maneuvers that I
routinely performed as a student pilot in the Tomahawk as well as three
Cessna models. I have not flown a Cirrus, so I acknowledge that the
controls may not feel as "numb" as implied; but I would certainly want to
practice under a variety of conditions (including a U-turn away from the
wind) before I might trust the control feel.

Not to spoil a good joke, but there was a serious subject regarding the East
River Corridor specifically and canyon turns generally.

Peter

P.S.: The Tomahawk was a good, although somewhat quirky and demanding
trainer. I have never flown one with only the outboard stall strips
installed (much higher CLmax and more dramatic stall), so I don't know
whether some of the other quirks would have been better or worse. BTW, some
could be exploited to considerable effect.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Dohm > posted:
>
> P.S.: The Tomahawk was a good, although somewhat quirky and
> demanding trainer. I have never flown one with only the outboard
> stall strips installed (much higher CLmax and more dramatic stall),
> so I don't know whether some of the other quirks would have been
> better or worse. BTW, some could be exploited to considerable effect.
>
Our club used to have a Tomahawk, and I logged about 60 hours in it. It
had the outboard stall strips, and it definitely had a more dramatic stall
than the Warriors or Archers I've flown. I think the Tomahawk is an
excellent trainer, but I declined to buy it from the club for the same
reason: you have to constantly fly the plane to keep it airborne.

Back on topic, I completely agree that such maneuvers as canyon turns
should be practiced somewhere other than in do-or-die environments.

Neil