Nuther SR-22 crash/incident?

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:
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.

Yes, 80 knots is what the pilot I flew with last week approached at.
Seemed pretty fast to me as I approached at 80 mph in my Skylane. :-)


Matt

Yes, 80 knots is what the pilot I flew with last week approached at.
Seemed pretty fast to me as I approached at 80 mph in my Skylane. :-)

80 kts in a Skylane is about 35 kts above stall, which means you are
still at flying speed when the SR22 is already at landing speed.

Cary Mariash wrote:



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.

By reg it can't stall at more than 61 knots. At gross. You were
probably 500 or so under gross which would put the stall at around 56
knots. The standard approach speed of 1.3 Vso would make that 73 knots.
80 knots just burns up runway.

Maule Driver schrieb:

Flying an approach within a knot requires concentration and more than 3
TO/Landings in 90.

You mean, flying unconcentrated is SOP? :-/

The instructors in my club don't solo students who can't nail the
approach speed to -0/+2 knots and touch down within 150 feet of the
designed point (weather permitting, of course).

An aircraft that *requires* it in this GA space is not going far. But I
don't think plus/minus 1knot is required

Nor do I.

Of course you are TW qualified....

Sorry, I have no idea what this means.

Stefan

Newps schrieb:

By reg it can't stall at more than 61 knots.

And so sais the manual (61 knots, at gross, with flaps).

Stefan

"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

Newps wrote
By reg it can't stall at more than 61 knots. At gross.

It can stall at more than 61 kts if, by that same reg,
the seats and supporting structure are designed to withstand
the greater deceleration forces of a crash.

Bob Moore

Stefan wrote:
Maule Driver schrieb:

Flying an approach within a knot requires concentration and more than
3 TO/Landings in 90.


You mean, flying unconcentrated is SOP? :-/
No, I'm saying that you can't fly whatever SEL thru an entire approach to
plus/minus 1 knot at 1:00 pm on any sunny day in NC

Actually what I'm saying is that you were being rude to an honest poster
with an informative post. For no good reason. So I decided to do same.

Of course you are TW qualified....

Sorry, I have no idea what this means.

That means tailwheel. In otherwords, can you hit the speed, hit the spot,
*and keep it straight* at 1:00 pm on a sunny day?

Maule Driver schrieb:

Actually what I'm saying is that you were being rude to an honest poster
with an informative post.

All I said was that if nailing a certain airspeed is a challenge, then
the pilot is not ready to solo that particular plane. Sometimes, the
truth is rude. But then, better angry than dead, don't you agree?

So I decided to do same.

Actually, I didn't catch that you tried to be rude... probably a
cultural thing.

Of course you are TW qualified....
That means tailwheel.

Well, I've learnt in gliders, which taught me to use the rudder right on
day one and to hit the landing spot every time, because there simply was
no option to go around. Actually, to include that option into my
decition making was quite a challenge for me, when I added the noise
rating later.

When finally I decided to get that license to waste fuel, of course I
did this in a TW long before I even saw a nose pusher from the inside.
(The reason is that I did that rating mainly to be able to tow gliders
in the club, all towing planes being TW.) So...

can you hit the speed,
yes
hit the spot,
yes
*and keep it straight*
yes
at 1:00 pm on a sunny day?

Depends. As I said in my former post (the part which you snipped): If
weather permitting.

Stefan