Skycatcher crashes again

[vaughn]

Is this plane snakebit? Or is Cessna really testing their product better
than the other LSA manufacturers?

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2009/090319skycatcher.html?WT.mc_id=090320epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

Vaughn

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"vaughn" wrote:

> Is this plane snakebit? Or is Cessna really testing their product better
> than the other LSA manufacturers?
>

To soon to tell.

Wait until we know why it crashed.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

[vaughn]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "vaughn" wrote:
>
>> Is this plane snakebit? Or is Cessna really testing their product better
>> than the other LSA manufacturers?
>>
>
> To soon to tell.
>
> Wait until we know why it crashed.

We have no need to know the reasons for the most recent crash to discuss
any differences between the testing program of the Skycatcher vs. that of
other LSAs.

Vaughn

[Darkwing]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
> Is this plane snakebit? Or is Cessna really testing their product better
> than the other LSA manufacturers?
>
> http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2009/090319skycatcher.html?WT.mc_id=090320epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts
>
> Vaughn
>

Cessna Lawn Dart!

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> "vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Is this plane snakebit? Or is Cessna really testing their product better
> > than the other LSA manufacturers?
> >
> > http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2009/090319skycatcher.html?WT.mc_id=09
> > 0320epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts
> >
> > Vaughn
> >
>
> Cessna Lawn Dart!

It will be interesting to see whether the cause of the crash was pilot
error, manufacturing defect, design flaw, or what else.

Are the prototypes being built by Cessna here, or in Shengyang, by the
way?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> "vaughn" wrote:
>>
>>> Is this plane snakebit? Or is Cessna really testing their product
>>> better than the other LSA manufacturers?
>>>
>>
>> To soon to tell.
>>
>> Wait until we know why it crashed.
>
> We have no need to know the reasons for the most recent crash to discuss
> any differences between the testing program of the Skycatcher vs. that of
> other LSAs.

And we know how much about that, exactly?

Are you privy to the testing syllibi of Cessna and "other LSAs?"

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

[vaughn]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> And we know how much about that, exactly?

We know the Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required under
the LSA Industry Standards. It that biting them on the ass?
>
> Are you privy to the testing syllibi of Cessna and "other LSAs?"

No, but given the range of folks that post here, I would not be surprised
to get a useful answer. Do you have anything useful to add yourself?

Vaughn

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And we know how much about that, exactly?
>
> We know the Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required under
> the LSA Industry Standards. It that biting them on the ass?
>>
>> Are you privy to the testing syllibi of Cessna and "other LSAs?"
>
> No,

Then how do you know "Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required
under the LSA Industry Standards"

> but given the range of folks that post here, I would not be surprised to
> get a useful answer.

Perhaps, but that is beside the point.

> Do you have anything useful to add yourself?

Never claimed I did. I questioned your assertion that "Cessna is claiming
to do more testing than is required under the LSA Industry Standards."

What is your basis for that assertion?

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

[vaughn]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
m...
>
> What is your basis for that assertion?

Cessna's claims.

Vaughn

[Dan Camper]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:16:23 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

> "vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> And we know how much about that, exactly?
>>
>> We know the Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required under
>> the LSA Industry Standards. It that biting them on the ass?
>>>
>>> Are you privy to the testing syllibi of Cessna and "other LSAs?"
>>
>> No,
>
> Then how do you know "Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required
> under the LSA Industry Standards"
>
>> but given the range of folks that post here, I would not be surprised to
>> get a useful answer.
>
> Perhaps, but that is beside the point.
>
>> Do you have anything useful to add yourself?
>
> Never claimed I did. I questioned your assertion that "Cessna is claiming
> to do more testing than is required under the LSA Industry Standards."
>
> What is your basis for that assertion?

Cessna - the new GM
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

[Darkwing]

"Dan Camper" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:16:23 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "vaughn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> And we know how much about that, exactly?
>>>
>>> We know the Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required
>>> under
>>> the LSA Industry Standards. It that biting them on the ass?
>>>>
>>>> Are you privy to the testing syllibi of Cessna and "other LSAs?"
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>> Then how do you know "Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is
>> required
>> under the LSA Industry Standards"
>>
>>> but given the range of folks that post here, I would not be surprised to
>>> get a useful answer.
>>
>> Perhaps, but that is beside the point.
>>
>>> Do you have anything useful to add yourself?
>>
>> Never claimed I did. I questioned your assertion that "Cessna is
>> claiming
>> to do more testing than is required under the LSA Industry Standards."
>>
>> What is your basis for that assertion?
>
> Cessna - the new GM
> --

No, FORD made the Pinto.

[Dan Camper]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:43:18 -0400, Darkwing wrote:

> "Dan Camper" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:16:23 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>> "vaughn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> And we know how much about that, exactly?
>>>>
>>>> We know the Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required
>>>> under
>>>> the LSA Industry Standards. It that biting them on the ass?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you privy to the testing syllibi of Cessna and "other LSAs?"
>>>>
>>>> No,
>>>
>>> Then how do you know "Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is
>>> required
>>> under the LSA Industry Standards"
>>>
>>>> but given the range of folks that post here, I would not be surprised to
>>>> get a useful answer.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but that is beside the point.
>>>
>>>> Do you have anything useful to add yourself?
>>>
>>> Never claimed I did. I questioned your assertion that "Cessna is
>>> claiming
>>> to do more testing than is required under the LSA Industry Standards."
>>>
>>> What is your basis for that assertion?
>>
>> Cessna - the new GM
>> --
>
> No, FORD made the Pinto.

Ill buy into that. Regardless, Cessna has got a hyooge problem with this
bird when you have two crashes with the best of the best test pilots on
board. Got to wonder what their doing with those depositors.

[Darkwing]

"Dan Camper" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:43:18 -0400, Darkwing wrote:
>
>> "Dan Camper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:16:23 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>>> "vaughn" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we know how much about that, exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>> We know the Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required
>>>>> under
>>>>> the LSA Industry Standards. It that biting them on the ass?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you privy to the testing syllibi of Cessna and "other LSAs?"
>>>>>
>>>>> No,
>>>>
>>>> Then how do you know "Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is
>>>> required
>>>> under the LSA Industry Standards"
>>>>
>>>>> but given the range of folks that post here, I would not be surprised
>>>>> to
>>>>> get a useful answer.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but that is beside the point.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have anything useful to add yourself?
>>>>
>>>> Never claimed I did. I questioned your assertion that "Cessna is
>>>> claiming
>>>> to do more testing than is required under the LSA Industry Standards."
>>>>
>>>> What is your basis for that assertion?
>>>
>>> Cessna - the new GM
>>> --
>>
>> No, FORD made the Pinto.
>
> Ill buy into that. Regardless, Cessna has got a hyooge problem with this
> bird when you have two crashes with the best of the best test pilots on
> board. Got to wonder what their doing with those depositors.

Here's your new Skycatcher! Uh, don't try to spin it.

[george]

On Mar 26, 7:58*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dan Camper" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:43:18 -0400, Darkwing wrote:
>
> >> "Dan Camper" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:16:23 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>
> >>>> "vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>>>> And we know how much about that, exactly?
>
> >>>>> * We know the Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is required
> >>>>> under
> >>>>> the LSA Industry Standards. *It that biting them on the ass?
>
> >>>>>> Are you privy to the testing syllibi of Cessna and "other LSAs?"
>
> >>>>> * No,
>
> >>>> Then how do you know "Cessna is claiming to do more testing than is
> >>>> required
> >>>> under *the LSA Industry Standards"
>
> >>>>> but given the range of folks that post here, I would not be surprised
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> get a useful answer.
>
> >>>> Perhaps, but that is beside the point.
>
> >>>>> Do you have anything useful to add yourself?
>
> >>>> Never claimed I did. *I questioned your assertion that "Cessna is
> >>>> claiming
> >>>> to do more testing than is required under *the LSA Industry Standards."
>
> >>>> What is your basis for that assertion?
>
> >>> Cessna - the new GM
> >>> --
>
> >> No, FORD made the Pinto.
>
> > Ill buy into that. Regardless, Cessna has got a hyooge problem with this
> > bird when you have two crashes with the best of the best test pilots on
> > board. Got to wonder what their doing with those depositors.
>
> Here's your new Skycatcher! Uh, don't try to spin it.

they are calling it a basic trainer.
Basically stay away from stalling exercises and you'll get your
training

[Flaps_50!]

On Mar 21, 1:50*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> Is this plane snakebit? *Or is Cessna really testing their product better
> than the other LSA manufacturers?
>
> http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2009/090319skycatcher.html?WT.m...
>
> Vaughn

I can imagine the problem resides in a refusal of the plane to drop
its nose properly and build airspeed when one wing is more deeply
stalled than the other. I'd guess a tendency to be too flat in the
spin and adding more rudder is not the solution. One thing that stops
yaw increasing is body section and the center of aerodynamic
resistance as the spin progresses. It may be that the skinny aft
section and a lack of boxiness to increase drag for yaw (and a low
inertial nose) makes things worse in that regard. As yaw rate
increases the spin starts to flatten...

My 2c.

Cheers

[Morgans[_2_]]

I can imagine the problem resides in a refusal of the plane to drop
its nose properly and build airspeed when one wing is more deeply
stalled than the other. I'd guess a tendency to be too flat in the
spin and adding more rudder is not the solution. One thing that stops
yaw increasing is body section and the center of aerodynamic
resistance as the spin progresses. It may be that the skinny aft
section and a lack of boxiness to increase drag for yaw (and a low
inertial nose) makes things worse in that regard. As yaw rate
increases the spin starts to flatten...

My 2c.


I'll add another 1cent. worth.

Notice that most new designs that are spin resistant have their vertical tail
members well in front of the horizontals. That configuration places the fin
into clean air as the airplane is spinning and descending..

Where the fin is you could double it, and it would not do much better. It needs
to be out in clean air, not blanketed by the horizontal, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Helen wrote:
> Unlike most of the other LSA manufacturers, Cessna hasn't designed a
> piston single in more than 40 years and I doubt any of the engineers
> involved in their last design are still working for them.
>
> Helen
>

But one would think they would have left some notes around.