More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer"

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
John wrote:

But where is there a singe valid report of such an incident in any BRS
system . . . anywhere? Not just the Cirrus community but in the
ultralight community . . .

The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)

Cites? I agree that a chute is near-useless as a safety device. There are
better ways to spend the money. Especially for the sport pilot. Spending
the equivalent amount on recurring training comes to mind. But, it's *such*
a pax pacifier. Nothing but a stiff martini and a tranquilizer beats it. I
suspect that it also makes pilots prone to anxiety (panic) attacks less
likely to experience them. I'm presently buying an ultralight (Challenger
582). I'm getting a parachute about 99.9% for pax comfort. As stated
above, I can think of many other safety-related things the same amount could
be spent on (and is - sigh). But almost every non-pilot pax I know is in
love with the idea. Reality is often like that.

moo

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:51:30 GMT, "Cecil Chapman"
wrote:

I'm with you... beyond the maintenance issues I think most people forget
that the reason the Cirrus came with a chute was because it couldn't pass
spin certification so in order to be certificated it had to be made with the
chute - at least that's what I've heard....

--

You heard wrong, at least according to Alan Klapmeier.

You need to be an AOPA member for the link to work...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...irrus0511.html

wrote in message
oups.com...
At 350hp, I'm assuming a turbocharger, but I suppose even that might be
missing? In reality, it sounds a lot more like an SR22 or Columbia 400
to me. The
high wing might invite comparisons to the Extra 400, but it's pretty
obvious
the similarity is strictly aesthetic.

My guess is the Lyc TIO-540 from the Chieftain. I can't think of a
normally aspirated engine with that kind of power (a detuned IO-720?)
As far as the comparisons to the SR22 or Columbia, I think that was
pretty much their target, seeing as Cessna & Cirrus are essentially
tied for piston single production.

Its probably a Toyota or Nissan engine. I think they made one around that
horspower.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:



What's a Bonanza G36?



Beechcraft calls the A-36 equipped with the Garmin G-1000 the "G-36".
Skipped right past the C's, D's, E's, and F's just so they could give it
the clever "G" moniker.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Happy Dog wrote:

The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)

Cites?

Can you spell irony? Could I have been any clearer?

Stefan

"Sylvain" wrote:

Picture a 210-sized single with the best features of a Cardinal:
windshield ahead of the wing, big doors, low entry threshold, wide
cabin.


you mean something like this?

http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea500.asp

Let's hope not--what a big, ugly slug that thing is!

Also, the Cessna will not be a retract.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

You heard wrong, at least according to Alan Klapmeier.

Here's the clip....

"And yet we get constant criticism about whether our airplane has gone
through FAA spin training. The fact of the matter is we looked at the
statistics, made a conscious choice during the design certification of the
airplane to say we can save more lives if we prevent the stall-spin event
from happening than if we allow it to happen and teach people how to recover
from it. If the airplane can't recover in the altitude available, then it
doesn't matter if you have shown the FAA that the airplane can recover.
So our approach was to prevent the accident from happening. We went to the
FAA and said we want the [equivalent level of safety - an alternate means of
complying with FAA certification criteria] for our improved stall
characteristics. In addition to the improved stall characteristics we wanted
them to include the parachute as an equivalent level of safety - in part
because we already had it on there and in part we had demonstrated that the
parachute could recover the airplane in less altitude loss in a spin than a
pilot could recover the airplane through normal recovery techniques."

Once again, in order to meet certification requirements since they wouldn't
or couldn't demonstrate spin recovery properties Cirrus had to come up with
an 'equivalent level of safety' which was the parachute.

I spoke with a Cirrus rep at a static display and they said the same thing,,
although he couched it in the guise of making the plane 'safer' he DID
indicate that the parachute was done as an alternative to
showing/demonstrating appropriate spin/stall characteristics.
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:51:30 GMT, "Cecil Chapman"
wrote:

I'm with you... beyond the maintenance issues I think most people forget
that the reason the Cirrus came with a chute was because it couldn't pass
spin certification so in order to be certificated it had to be made with
the
chute - at least that's what I've heard....

--



You need to be an AOPA member for the link to work...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...irrus0511.html

Here's some more on the subject:

According to the SR22 POH, the airplane is not approved for spins, and the
only method of spin recovery is activating the CAPS. If the airplane departs
controlled flight, the CAPS must be deployed immediately. Spin entry is
unlikely with proper airmanship, including the caveat never to abuse "the
flight controls with accelerated inputs close to the stall." An abrupt wing
drop in this case may lead to a spin or spiral, and it may be difficult to
determine which. The POH notes that the minimum demonstrated altitude loss
for a CAPS deployment is 920 feet from a one-turn spin, and pilots are
cautioned not to "waste time and altitude trying to recover from a
spiral/spin before activating CAPS."


--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Michael Ware"wrote:


I'll tell ya' where they can pack that 'chute.

Amen.

Doesn't the 'chute have to be dug out of the fiberglass every few years and
inspected/overhauled?

"Stefan" wrote in
Happy Dog wrote:

The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)

Cites?

Can you spell irony? Could I have been any clearer?

Well, yes. You never know when someone will miss the near-obvious. :-)

moo