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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.
"Doug Vetter" wrote in message et... The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed revolutionary) design. I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to verify the rep's claims. However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots with more money than skill flying them. Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a design flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying them. In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus with the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is unlimited. The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description of "more money than skill." The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are 900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft. And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of the Cirrus accidents so far. Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to add up to a lot of trouble. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
C,
The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus with the first rash of accidents. Any source to prove that statement? I doubt it is true. The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description of "more money than skill." So? The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Oh? So you did the certification flights that the company didn't do? Or how do you know that? Sorry, but while the Cirrus might well prove to be less safe than other planes, I just can't stand this cheap propaganda. The Cirrus CAN recover from a spin - it's a certification requirement! It is fulfilled by pulling the chute. No other methods of recovery were officially tested. The FAA was satisfied. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. I believe I have seen Cirrus claim the plane can be revovered from a spin normally, but experience to date has so far shown that may not be that easy. "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Doug Vetter" wrote in message et... The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed revolutionary) design. I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to verify the rep's claims. However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots with more money than skill flying them. Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a design flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying them. In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus with the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is unlimited. The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description of "more money than skill." The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are 900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft. And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of the Cirrus accidents so far. Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to add up to a lot of trouble. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dude,
This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none. 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"? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54... [...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed. I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me. But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method. Assuming you use either method to slow an equal amount, from the same initial airspeed, the resulting airspeed will be the same, and will be just as "close to the stall speed", assuming neither method changes the stall speed (which is the case when comparing speed brakes versus pitching up). Pete |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Michael 182" wrote in message news:MkUic.32804$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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Advice and experts with 400 series Cessnas (414 and 421), purchase and training | [email protected] | Owning | 36 | January 9th 05 02:32 AM |
Air Shares Elite and Cirrus Sr22 | Teranews \(Daily\) | Owning | 4 | September 5th 04 05:28 PM |
Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed. | Dennis | Owning | 170 | May 19th 04 04:44 PM |
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 |