Nuther SR-22 crash/incident?

"Cary Mariash" wrote:

What did you find tricky about it?

Airspeed control is the tricky element. It should be flown 80 kts all the
way down final. If much faster than 80 kts it can bounce tremendously with
serious porpoising afterward (believe me, I know from experience). At much
less than the 80 kts it is subject to stalling out too soon. Both the high
wing Cessnas (152, 172, 182) and my C310 where much forgiving. They allowed
a wider range of airspeed on final approach with the ability to still have
a reasonable landing.

The Cirrus rep. had me to use 80 KIAS on final, but I don't recall paying
very close attention to holding it exactly. He told me not to try to
full-stall the land it like a 172, but rather to fly it on nose-high with a
little power. That worked fine for me: I didn't have any excessive float or
bounce.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Cary Mariash" wrote:

What did you find tricky about it?

Airspeed control is the tricky element. It should be flown 80 kts all the
way down final. If much faster than 80 kts it can bounce tremendously with
serious porpoising afterward (believe me, I know from experience). At much
less than the 80 kts it is subject to stalling out too soon. Both the high
wing Cessnas (152, 172, 182) and my C310 where much forgiving. They allowed
a wider range of airspeed on final approach with the ability to still have
a reasonable landing.

The Cirrus rep. had me to use 80 KIAS on final, but I don't recall paying
very close attention to holding it exactly. He told me not to try to
full-stall the land it like a 172, but rather to fly it on nose-high with a
little power. That worked fine for me: I didn't have any excessive float or
bounce.

Dan, that is how I was taught as well. But, I have learned that the 80
KIAS is critical because much above that speed has caused me to bounce,
and much below that speed it really wants to stall. I have some of my
very best landings in the SR22 (real greasers that I have not had in
other planes), but I have also had a few of my worst landings in that
SR22. I am still not comfortable with the landings in that plane (after
about 40 hours), but that may be because I am not a very good pilot.

Cary

"Cary Mariash" wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:
"Cary Mariash" wrote:

I have been flying an SR22 for about 7 months. My checkout took about 14
hours. I found that landing this plane was very tricky, control of
airspeed is critical. I am not a low time pilot. I have 1150 total hours
in planes ranging from a C150 to C310. The SR22 and the Mooney Bravo are
the 2 planes that have given me the most trouble trying to land.

Interesting.

I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
difficult about it.

I have about 1100 hours also, but nowhere near the variety of experience
you have--almost all of mine is in high wing Cessnas.

What did you find tricky about it?

Airspeed control is the tricky element. It should be flown 80 kts all the
way down final. If much faster than 80 kts it can bounce tremendously with
serious porpoising afterward (believe me, I know from experience). At much
less than the 80 kts it is subject to stalling out too soon.

Crap.

Both the high wing Cessnas (152, 172, 182) and my C310 where much
forgiving. They allowed a wider range of airspeed on final approach with
the ability to still have a reasonable landing.

They stalled at a lower speed. So what? Your inability to deal with
something that stalls at a faster speed is of no interest.

moo

Dan,

I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
difficult about it.


Me neither. In fact, I found it easy to land. Speed control is important
landing any airplane, IMHO. Allowing a wide range of speeds, whether in
a Cessna or a Cirrus, is sloppy airmanship, except when adaption to wind
requires different airspeeds.

FWIW, I have but 450 hours, 70 of which in Bonanzas.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:45:08 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Dan,

I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
difficult about it.


Me neither. In fact, I found it easy to land. Speed control is important
landing any airplane, IMHO. Allowing a wide range of speeds, whether in
a Cessna or a Cirrus, is sloppy airmanship, except when adaption to wind
requires different airspeeds.

FWIW, I have but 450 hours, 70 of which in Bonanzas.

Yah, but you shouldn't count that as they are one of the easiest
planes to land out there. :-)) They are big, fast, slippery, (Until
you put the gear down) and have a light wing loading that's about the
same as a Cherokee.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger,

Yah, but you shouldn't count that as they are one of the easiest
planes to land out there.


I know. I mentioned it because they were mentioned in the thread. I
could add tailwheel time, gliders and other stuff. Whatever it is, I
found the Cirrus easy to land.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:01 -0400, Roger
wrote:

snip

Yah, but you shouldn't count that as they are one of the easiest
planes to land out there. :-)) They are big, fast, slippery, (Until
you put the gear down) and have a light wing loading that's about the
same as a Cherokee.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

You wrote it, I was thinking it... Dopey me, had made quite a few
laps around the patch in various M20whatevers until somebody told me
they were tricky to land. Still haven't figured out what I was doing
wrong (never noticed a problem during approach thru landing).

One of 'em had speed brakes, totally forgot about them until after I
was on the ground. Oh well.

TC