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 |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Stu,
Agree! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Dan,
Volunteering more than is asked for is always dangerous with the feds. and it makes aircraft more expensive,too. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Pete,
troll feeding can be so much fun. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Flynn,
total agreement. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom S." wrote:
Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Which is why the insurance is so high. Baloney. That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more careful in snipping previous comments. Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is baloney. Perhaps you meant something else. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Thats apples and oranges. You said if I was going to spend 300K? I
own a V35 Bonanza and I can tell you there are no V tail Bonanzas that cost 300K. I bought mine about 6 months ago, with new engine, paint, interior, avionics and maintained to perfection by a member of the technical staff of the american bonaza society for a thirs of what you are saying. Why buy a Bonanza over a new Cirrus, answer they cost about a third less and do the same thing, thats why. Money no object? Buy a King Air or lear |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message ... Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea? Who you callin' wacko? Uhhh, I was saying your IDEA was wacko. I can't say anything about you. "On the internet no one knows you're a dog." Actually, it wasn't my IDEA, it was my QUESTION??? You know, an interrogative statement used to gain knowledge...". And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing gear' nod to the Navion. Why? I'm no expert on the Navion, so Ron or Margie is going to have to correct me here but... 1) Larger tires 2) Larger gear struts 3) more travel in the oleos 4) most (all?) linkages are larger Indeed most everything on a Navion is larger/stronger than on a Bonanza. Its also a heck of a lot heavier. And gross weight/useful load? |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Tom S." wrote: Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Which is why the insurance is so high. Baloney. That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more careful in snipping previous comments. Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is baloney. Perhaps you meant something else. The whole PIECE wasn't me; I have no idea what Cirrus insurance rates are. You snipped my response to which someone else added the comment about insurance rates. Since I don't fly my own plane, I don't know what either insurance rate would be. I fly only our company planes and would have to ask the controller what the insurance costs were. :~) I'm looking to buy my own (first time) right after New Years, so it would be interesting as my first choice right now is a F33A. However, if I was going to go _new_, I'm thinking more Lancair rather than Cirrus. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
"Flynn" wrote in message news:jZetb.3278$Dw6.24546@attbi_s02...
I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country strips either! For that, give me a Cessna 182... Hi Flynn, Well, I don't know what performance you felt you could get from your Tiger (yours evidently differed from mine in several respects), but my reason for not taking on back country strips in my Tiger isn't the price of the machine. It's the fact that the Tiger just isn't (IMO) a good back country plane. It'll land short enough, but with normal aspiration and a fixed prop typically pitched for cruise, it just isn't a good climber at high DA. I love my Tigger-plane, but I try to be honest about his weaknesses as well as his strengths. I know a number of 'Bo owners who are former Tiger owners and are happy to take their 'Bos into and out of fields I'm not comfortable taking my Tiger. Cliff Hansen and Andreas come to mind. They tell me the 'Bo is a much better short/ rough plane than the Tiger (and again, it's not the price tag that's the issue, obviously). My point is, I just haven't heard much about how Columbia and Cirrus fair as short/rough or high DA planes. I don't know if that's because people who buy these planes just don't want to do that kind of flying, or whether, like the Tiger, that's just not their forte'. So, Flynn, now that you're a Cirrus owner, tell us what the gear is like and about the climb performance at high DA? How does it handle at low speeds? What would you consider a comfortable, consistantly achieveable landing distance? If you wanted to hit some back country strips, would it do the job? Cheers, Sydney |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom S." wrote in message ...
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".... Hi Tom, The catch, if you read the Part 23 certification standards, is that after 3 seconds or the first turn (whichever is LONGER), the plane must recover "w/in one additional turn". IOW, 1000-1500 ft may actually represent more than one turn of spin, if the plane in question really snaps around quickly, PLUS an additional turn to recover. Hope this clarifies? In his excellent out-of-print book "Stalls Spins and Safety", Sammy Mason points out that a plane which takes a full turn to recover after proper control inputs are applied has *lousy* spin characteristics. Well, apparently there are a number of planes certified in the normal category, which have just such *lousy* spin characteristics. My point is don't bet the rent that a plane certified in the normal category can recover from an incipient spin in less than 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) I defer to you here. I'm not familiar with the spin accident record of the Cirrus. My point was to direct attention to the actual certification requirements, and to correct any misapprehension that planes certified in the "normal" category to recover from an incipient spin with normal control inputs, necessarily have a realistic chance to recover from a low-altitude spin (say, at traffic pattern altitude) Hopefully I've done that. 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. This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports; does this seem plausible? Regards, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|