Marketing and the Cirrus Sales Pitch

"Robert Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Did you compair with a Lancair / Columbia? I can't understand why
anyone would pick a Cirrus over a Columbia except fpr the chute.
The chute was actually designed into the airframe to circumvent
difficulties with spin recovery requirements was it not?

Not necessary spin problems, but as a suitable alternative to spin testing, and
because the aircraft designers believed in the parachute as an increase to
safety.

With the chute, they did not have to FAA spin test it for certification.
--
Jim in NC

Recently, Morgans posted:

"Robert Dorsey" wrote:
The chute was actually designed into the airframe to circumvent
difficulties with spin recovery requirements was it not?

Not necessary spin problems, but as a suitable alternative to spin
testing, and because the aircraft designers believed in the parachute
as an increase to safety.

With the chute, they did not have to FAA spin test it for
certification.

The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft? Surely, the increased
cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
recover from a spin? If I were in a position to spend that kind of money
on a plane, I'd want to know that it could be flown within all normal
parameters, and my opinion is that spin recovery is a normal parameter.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft? Surely, the increased
cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
recover from a spin?

Assuming that potential buyers ask about it, which they might not.

If I were in a position to spend that kind of money
on a plane, I'd want to know that it could be flown within all normal
parameters, and my opinion is that spin recovery is a normal parameter.

Is the Cirrus line expensive, in comparison to other GA aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Neil,

The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft?

Money.

Surely, the increased
cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
recover from a spin?

It can. The certified method for that is to pull the chute.

Why use a chute rather than certify traditional spin recovery? They
wanted the chute anyway, so they saved money. Why build in a chute? Look
at the sales numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Recently, Thomas Borchert posted:

Neil,

The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft?

Money.

Surely, the increased
cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
recover from a spin?

It can. The certified method for that is to pull the chute.

That's "flight abandonment", not spin recovery, as "recovery" implies that
one is flying afterwards... ;-)

Why use a chute rather than certify traditional spin recovery? They
wanted the chute anyway, so they saved money. Why build in a chute?
Look at the sales numbers.

I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion of
traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball type of
pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the injuries and deaths
that have resulted from its use.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote

I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion of
traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball type of
pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the injuries and deaths
that have resulted from its use.

Are you aware of any fatal accidents where the chute was deployed at sufficient
altitude for proper opening?
--
Jim in NC

Recently, Morgans posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote

I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion
of traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball
type of pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the
injuries and deaths that have resulted from its use.

Are you aware of any fatal accidents where the chute was deployed at
sufficient altitude for proper opening?

So, now you want to qualify the conditions of its use? ;-)

I almost excluded the "...deaths..." part when I wrote my opinion, but
then I figured that if the plane is capable of spin recovery, it could
possibly do so below the altitude that the 'chute would work. If so, then
those moments would be better spent trying to recover from the spin.

Neil

Neil,

I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion of
traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball type of
pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the injuries and deaths
that have resulted from its use.


As some others have posted here, traditional spin recovery was tested for
European certification. I have not been able to verify that yet, however.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Recently, Thomas Borchert posted:

Neil,

I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion
of traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball
type of pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the
injuries and deaths that have resulted from its use.


As some others have posted here, traditional spin recovery was tested
for European certification. I have not been able to verify that yet,
however.

Yes, I've read that here many times, and like you have seen no real
evidence of it. One would think that such an accomplishment would be
"broadcast", at least through European aviation magazines. I also suspect
that the process would somewhat offset the costs involved in US
certification, as the requirements shouldn't be all that different. So,
it's a curious ommission.

Neil