Cirrus or Lancair?

Ben,

Glad to be of service!

Well, you weren't. But you are playing nice little tricks.

I posted "Not again. Please" twice. Once here

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...sg/64cab0e92ea
b8e64

as you say. But that's not the post you were originally referring to.
You were referring to:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...sg/c059b24e787
ec71f

as shown by your original post he

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...sg/abfdfe62222
dcae4

Glad to be of service to YOUR memory. Are we having fun yet? Ah, the
little games people play on Usenet...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Hi Thomas,

To clear up a little misunderstanding, I'm responding directly to your
thread here. Sorry you didn't follow the conversation elsewhere in the
thread, but that's ok, some people have trouble tracking what they've
said, and I'm glad to help out when you get lost.

On July 7, you wrote (in response to another):
Xyzzy wrote:
That impression may be driven by the fact that the only approved way to
recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to deply the parachute.
Not again. Please

You are in error. Despite your 'Not again' statement, the only
approved method from Cirrus to recover from a spin in their aircraft is
to deploy the CAPS.

Here are some excerpts from the POH, quoted for your information:
"Spins
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or
certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and
demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus
Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section).
Because of this, if the aircraft "departs controlled flight," the CAPS
must be deployed."

also

"Do not waste time and altitude trying to
recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.
Inadvertent Spin Entry
1=2E CAPS ..............................=AD...........=AD.Ac tivate
Revision A1"

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding, I am sorry for making
things too complicated for you. I usually write for a more experienced
audience and sometimes I'm just not sensitive to the special needs some
others have.

Best regards,

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Reference Message:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...328f04e69dba6=
7?hl=3Den&

Ben,

You are in error. Despite your 'Not again' statement, the only
approved method from Cirrus to recover from a spin in their aircraft is
to deploy the CAPS.


I'm not in error. I never doubted that with one word.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ben,

You are in error. Despite your 'Not again' statement, the only
approved method from Cirrus to recover from a spin in their aircraft
is
to deploy the CAPS.


I'm not in error, since I never stated anything even remotely saying I doubt that.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding, I am sorry for making
things too complicated for you. I usually write for a more
experienced
audience and sometimes I'm just not sensitive to the special needs
some
others have.

Well, whoever you normally write for, I hope you're showing a remotely civilized
attitude to them. You sure don't here. Thanks for giving a clear impression of what
kind of person you are.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Hi Thomas,

When you said 'Not again. Please.' in response to Xyzzy's post that
the approved Cirrus spin recovery was via the CAPS, I guess I took that
to mean that you disagreed with the statement. When I posted the
manual excerpt in another branch of this thread, it seemed to me that
you were denying your post existed because I responded to a different
branch. I tried to clarify by responding to your original one. Thread
lawyers are a pain, but it appeared that you decided to adopt that
role.

Sorry for any offense, just trying to clarify a misunderstanding. If
by 'Not again. Please.' you meant something other then implying that
Xyzzy was in error, let me know. You used the exact same text to
respond to the suggestion that a spin was unrecoverable in the SR-22,
so the implication was that you found both to be incorrect. I don't
think I was the only person who read your post that way. Please keep
in mind that on Usenet, all we have to go on is what you write. Vocal
tone, facial expression, hand gestures... all of the unconscious cues
we use to decipher meaning in conversation are gone, so the typed
message is all we have. ...and yours appeared to say that the approved
Cirrus spin method was not chute deployment.

Best regards,

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Ben,

Sorry for any offense, just trying to clarify a misunderstanding.


No, you aren't. You're trying to be condescending - and you succeed. If
that's to be your role here, so be it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Sandstone" wrote in message
...

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.



I have just recently demo'ed both the SR22 gts and the Columbia 350 & 400.
I agree-- the Columbia is a better product! The Columbia has a bigger fuel
capacity & better range vs payload capability. What I do NOT like about the
SR22 is that it is neutrally stable -- i.e. if you put it in a bank, dive,
climb, etc., it tends to stay in that configuration. Not very safe for when
you are in the soup and have no visual clues. The Columbia has a better
control feel and balance with it side "stick" vs. the SR22's side "yoke".

Cameron

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:56:25 -0400, "cameron"
wrote:


"Sandstone" wrote in message
.. .

Having flown both the SR22 and 350 quite a bit, the answer is clear:
Lancair Columbia 350 or 400. Go fly both and see for yourself. It's kind
of like the old Beta vs VHS or Mac vs PC issue. The better product isn't
always the most popular one.



I have just recently demo'ed both the SR22 gts and the Columbia 350 & 400.
I agree-- the Columbia is a better product! The Columbia has a bigger fuel
capacity & better range vs payload capability. What I do NOT like about the
SR22 is that it is neutrally stable -- i.e. if you put it in a bank, dive,

You just described a good portion of the high performance aircraft
available including Bonanzas. That's why you find nearly any one of
them that is going to be used IFR has a good autopilot.

It does take some getting used to, but after a while the near neutral
stability feels quite natural. Makes 1702s and Cherokees feel down
right slugish though.:-))

climb, etc., it tends to stay in that configuration. Not very safe for when
you are in the soup and have no visual clues. The Columbia has a better
control feel and balance with it side "stick" vs. the SR22's side "yoke".

This one feature alone would send me to the Columbia. the side stick
feels natural, the side yoke (half a yoke) doesn't, at least to me.

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


Cameron

i have flown a Cirrus 500+ hrs and find it to be very passenger
friendly / pilot neutral. what i mean is that non-aviation passengers
like the interior, the parachute, xm radio in the headsets - you get
the picture. as a pilot the plane is OK to fly but difficult to keep
in trim unlike several other planes i have flown. The discussion about
Cirrus and spins is not current. Cirrus has shown spin recovery in
doing their JAA flight tests but chose not to go that route in the US
where it was not necessary.

i currently fly a Lancair Legacy discussed earlier in this forum. The
plane is kit-built so the best glide speeds vary but the 13.3 to 1
glide ratio is respectable ( a little better than 2 nm per 1000 ft
altitude lost ) this is nowhere near the 2000 ft per minute descent
rate erroneously described. many owners have installed full feathering
props (like used in twins) and have glide ratios over 20 to 1. These
planes climb between 2 - 3K ft/min and cruise at 235 kts so there is
not alot of time spent under 10,000 ft.