![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Snowbird" wrote in message om... Prior to Cirrus, the FAA requires all planes certified in the normal category to be able to recover from the initial phase of a spin (incipient spin) -- the first turn or 3 seconds, whichever is *longer* -- using normal control inputs, within one additional turn. The only exception is if they are certified as spin *resistant*. Okay,but... An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to recover than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal category, it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at the controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft, including those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to recover from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern. 1000 feet does not sounds like "3 seconds/ first turn".... Bruce Lansburg wrote an article for AOPA regarding alternate certification adopted for Cirrus and Columbia: http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html Basically, the rationale was to make the Cirrus more spin resistant (although it is not certified as spin resistant) and then to install the ballistic chute, which is supposed to take about 1000 ft. Reading the NTSB accident reports, it sounds like they've had quite a few spin accidents (some fatal, some not...I'm looking at ALL accidents/incidents, not just the FATAL ones), given the relatively few numbers in operation (denying the connection because Cirrus' has only been in opeation a few years is a non-issue and lacks understanding of statistics. This is not *less* than most normal-category aircraft would take to recover from an incipient spin; it is comparable. A few, docile spinning aircraft with proficient pilots at the controls, could recover in less altitude. Maybe a few hundred feet, but that's not typical of normal-category aircraft which aren't certified for spins. It's more typical of utility or aerobatic aircraft with *good* spin characteristics (and note that even aircraft which are certified for spins may have lousy recovery characteristics outside the utility CG envelope). Hope this helps, It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's amazing. I saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the F33 has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air. The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have been successful. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|