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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Before I get flamed, remember this is a seies of questions, not a
statement... In my 182 I slow the plane, assuming gear is already down, by reducing power and pitching up. On a laminar flow wing (does the Cirrus have a laminar flow wing?) I understand that the wing stall happens pretty abruptly - either you are flying or your not. If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed. All right, I'm done. Have at it... Michael "Newps" wrote in message ... "Dude" wrote in message ... Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks. This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system. How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at which a wing stalls. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
I'm still going to take a look at the Rochester fly-in, bit the salesman
might throw me out after I hit him with all these questions.. I thought about getting a Bonanza, but without partners, I couldn't afford it.. My old boss had a 33 and then a 35, I use to be able to fly it at will (work and pleasure). Dennis N3868J MyAirplane.com "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Dennis, The simple fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker. I wouldn't worry about that. It's bound to change. Talk to Cirrus about it. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54... [...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed. I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me. But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method. Assuming you use either method to slow an equal amount, from the same initial airspeed, the resulting airspeed will be the same, and will be just as "close to the stall speed", assuming neither method changes the stall speed (which is the case when comparing speed brakes versus pitching up). Pete |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Michael 182" wrote in message news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54... [...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed. I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me. But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method. Hmmm - I agree - I meant that the use of speed brakes would allow slowing without using as much pitch - does that make sense? Michael |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Dennis" wrote in message ... I'm still going to take a look at the Rochester fly-in, bit the salesman might throw me out after I hit him with all these questions.. I thought about getting a Bonanza, but without partners, I couldn't afford it.. My old boss had a 33 and then a 35, I use to be able to fly it at will (work and pleasure). Dennis, Why not a Bo'? You said in another post you had 200+ hours in that. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Dude" wrote in message ... Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks. This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system. Popping the speed brakes at approach speeds would aggravate the stall condition, not alleviate it. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
.. .. The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and fatality rates of any small airplane. This is an outrageous statement! Can you post any facts showing the accident and fatality rates of Cirrus airplanes vs. comparable aircraft? If you examine the real numbers you will find that your statement is patently false. No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of Cirrus airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because the 182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for purposeful personal transportation." Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft. -Mike |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Dude, This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none. Yet. Don't get so frigging defensive. My point is that the Cirrus can be hard to slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes because it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag. If you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle. Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly slow because he can shed speed whenever needed. It would also reduce the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system. So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else who can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"? Presently, according to some COPA members, there are many people having excessive engine wear and needing lots of cylinder work early. One suspected reason is shock cooling due to pilots cutting throttle to get the plane down without gaining too much speed. The cirrus design simply adds more penalty to poor vertical planning than most planes, and so the engine is often asked to pay the price. Another theory is that the engines are constanlty being run at set rpm's that may not be the best rpm's or the smoothest. The pilot cannot control it. Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
According to Aviation Safety, the SR20 is nearly 4 times more dangerous than
the 182s/182t I would really like someone to tell me how you can look at these stats and see something less than 4 fatalities every 100,000 hours? The Cirrus fleet has enough hours now that the stats actually mean something. They have not found and corrected any major flaw except to fix the parachute. If I am going to buy a plane with a parachute, I certainly don't want it to be because the plane would be otherwise unsafe. The best way for us to see if chutes add safety would be for Cessna to add it as an option on the 182. Unless someone else other than Cirrus puts them on a plane, I am afraid the chute may get a bad name. Mr. Collins may be a well respected expert, but if he disagrees with the basic numbers, he is in error. "Mike Murdock" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message .. . The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and fatality rates of any small airplane. This is an outrageous statement! Can you post any facts showing the accident and fatality rates of Cirrus airplanes vs. comparable aircraft? If you examine the real numbers you will find that your statement is patently false. No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of Cirrus airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because the 182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for purposeful personal transportation." Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft. -Mike |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Murdock
wrote: No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of Cirrus airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because the 182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for purposeful personal transportation." Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft. You are forgetting that Collin's article was written in January (three month lead time for publishing), prior to the current rash of accidents. |
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 |