Skycatcher crashes again

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

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article....mc_ sect=tts

Vaughn

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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" 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/article....mc_ sect=tts

Vaughn


Cessna Lawn Dart!

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/article...ml?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?

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/article...cher.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

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