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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
LOL! That's the best possible response to that post.
Mike Murdock wrote: I tried flying other planes, but only the Cirrus had enough room for the cooler full of quiche, and the Martha Stewart cookware I use to warm it up. A thermos full of latte' and you're good to go, girlfriend. -Mike "jd-10" wrote in message ... I don't know why you dorks won't face facts: A Cirrus is for a pilot with a very small penis. No real man would be caught dead in that Lexus-looking POS. "d00d, it's lie having a 'vette, man." PUSSIES! In fact, men with large penises ONLY fly single-engine Cessnas. They are the finest example of great airplane design in the world. They can take you where a Cirrus would BREAK UP ON LANDING! Real men don't need a ballistic parachute either. If you **** up, shut up and die like an aviator. I repeat, Cirri are for men with very small penises. That is all. -- JD-10 |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
I bet the G1000 helps out the new Mooney's with weight. Anyone compared to
see how much less it weighs than a full stack? "John Harper" wrote in message news:1083090163.753660@sj-nntpcache-3... I was really thinking of the Bravo, which is a bit heavier than the Ovation (obviously). "Guideline" useful load for the Bravo seems to be around 950-1000 but I've seen them on ASO etc in the 850-900 range by the time they get TKS and fancy avionics. So with 60 gals that gets you to around 500 lbs, not even 3 normal people with some baggage. John "Aaron Coolidge" wrote in message ... John Harper wrote: : Won't carry 4 people (with useful fuel) though. The new : Mooneys are wonderful planes but if you even occasionally : need to carry four people then they don't work out. Shame, : because the recent Bravo is a really lovely plane to : fly. I beg to differ, here. With 60 Gal of fuel, you have 700 Lbs of useful load left. 60 gal gets you ~500 nm with a 1 hour reserve. (This is in the Ovation2 that I borrowed a couple months ago. Your mileage may vary.) If you fill it up to 90 gal of fuel, yes, it's a 2 place + luggage plane. You have 5 hours of range (~850 nm), with a 1 hour reserve. According to the Cirrus web site, useful load of an SR22 is 1150 lbs (about the same as the Ovation2). Fuel capacity is 81 gal. 1150 - (81 * 6) = 664 lbs useful load with full fuel. This gives ~670 nm range with a 1 hour reserve, assuming 17 GPH. (I don't know how Cirrus gets a 1000 nm range, that would imply 14.5 GPH to dry tanks, which would imply about 60% power.) I would say that the two airplanes are very comparable in terms of power, speed, range, price, payload flexability, etc. -- Aaron Coolidge |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
ignore
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Dude" wrote in message ... Are you a COPA member Peter? No, why should I be? I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all the bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then you let anyone buy a membership). By whom? People who have done extensive testing and actually know? Or one or two irate owners who have had unusual problems with their airplanes? If you have the posts, make them publicly available. The root of the problem is suspected to be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. Suspected by whom? Anyone who ought to know? Or random armchair mechanics like those of posting to this thread? They give the reason for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them. I've flown the SR20. I had no trouble at all using partial power reductions to slow the airplane. I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. Then why do you keep writing "phony FADEC"? Sure looks like a claim to me. However, they have commented on how "simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. It *is* simple. The unintended consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the engine and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more problematic. What "sweet spot"? A reduction in power is a reduction in power. Less power means less thrust which means less speed. There's absolutely no reason for vertical planning to be "more problematic", no more so than all the other low-drag airframes out there that also don't have speed brakes. Nothing about the engine control is relevant here. Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you should not log on. Log on to what? Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you do the same. I have no idea what you're talking about. You show up here spouting all sorts of nonsense about how the Cirrus airplanes need speed brakes, and then you accuse me of having my "level of positive thinking and optimism" bothered? All I'm doing is pointing out how stupid your claims are. I'm not bothered at all. Pete |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote: They were unable to demonstrate spin recovery because the plane will not recover from a spin. And they really tried to make it do that. I sure would like to see some definitive cites on this question, because I have "heard" quite a different story: that the Cirrus requires some extraodinary control inputs to force it to spin, but it will, and factory pilots have recovered without pulling the 'chute. Anybody have any reliable references to testimony on this subject? -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:28:36 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:
aircraft, e.g. the Bonanza. And in that case, that point does NOT remain. Yes, yes. I read the thread. I guess I don't understand why the point doesn't remain and why the rest of my post was ignored. Did I not explain my self very well? Especially in light of the fact that I asked questions which, in my mind, directly relate to the validity of the comparison. Furthermore, I offered that it's a corner case that really doesn't matter. Especially if I'm right about CAPS, as explained. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Dude,
I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have missed one or two Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me the date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding the posts you mentioned. I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going to go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is still small since the fleet is still young. Thanks, -Mike "Dude" wrote in message ... Are you a COPA member Peter? I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all the bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected to be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the reason for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them. I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on how "simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the engine and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more problematic. Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you do the same. "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Dude" wrote in message ... I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination will slow my plane Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too. without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an argument about shock cooling. Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock cooling exists. Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it. So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle power settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing as shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless of what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through the prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine as shock cooling, if not more so. Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid something that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why would an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some psychological need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to doing so? In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card", you'd better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real. The Cirrus does not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec) It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly be a "phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first place. Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging louder than the ones that think it works just fine. I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even if it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort complaining about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks who have had engine problems? Pete |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ... "Michael" wrote in message om... "C J Campbell" wrote Therefore, the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can. Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL. The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs more than 900 feet to deploy? |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs more than 900 feet to deploy? They have the same hope any occupant of any similar aircraft has of surviving a spin from 900' AGL. The parachute is an irrelevant red herring in this particular example. Pete |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:11 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs more than 900 feet to deploy? Ya, that's the point I brought up in another subthread here, which went unanswered. Maybe you can help. If the deployment requires 920, does that mean after 920 you can safely touchdown or does that mean it requires 920 + however long it takes to slow your velocity to proper touchdown velocity? I ask because, I don't think a chute opening 10 AGL is going to help much. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
I see so many Bonanzas with newly rebuilt engines at lower than 700 hrs, it
makes my head spin so much bull**** on this site "Mike Murdock" wrote in message ... Dude, I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have missed one or two Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me the date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding the posts you mentioned. I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going to go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is still small since the fleet is still young. Thanks, -Mike "Dude" wrote in message ... Are you a COPA member Peter? I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all the bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected to be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the reason for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them. I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on how "simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the engine and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more problematic. Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you do the same. "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Dude" wrote in message ... I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination will slow my plane Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too. without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an argument about shock cooling. Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock cooling exists. Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it. So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle power settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing as shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless of what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through the prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine as shock cooling, if not more so. Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid something that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why would an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some psychological need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to doing so? In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card", you'd better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real. The Cirrus does not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec) It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly be a "phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first place. Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging louder than the ones that think it works just fine. I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even if it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort complaining about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks who have had engine problems? Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
New Cirrus SR22 Lead Time | Lenny Sawyer | Owning | 4 | March 6th 04 09:22 AM |
Fractional Ownership - Cirrus SR22 | Rich Raine | Owning | 3 | December 24th 03 05:36 AM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |