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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Oh I think my Tiger would get in and out of some pretty short fields (I
wasn't comfortable say going in and out of Ken Blackmans 1600' grass strip...but he did all the time). It was more my comfort in my abilities. In a high DA situation, you're right it was not a great performer at all. Cliff did tell me that he thought the Bonanza was stout as all get out and faster on nearly the same fuel as the Tiger. The Cirrus, with only 35 hours in her, is an awesome climber in just about everything I've hit so far. Highest DA for takeoff so far was around 5500' in Helena. 2 aboard and full fuel we climbed out at well more than 1000' per minute. Typically around here on anything approaching standard days to say 1000' DA I'll sometimes hit close to 2000' fpm. Gear's pretty stout and I believe built like the Tiger's...with the same nose wheel pluses and minuses. Slow flight was surprising in that you've got aileron authority so deep into the stall. I'm comfortable with 2000' feet as a minimum strip depending on load, DA, etc etc. But that'll get me out in 1/2 or less. The only thing I'd be real concerned about on a back country strip are the wheel pants. The come down so low on the wheels that I'd worry about cracking 'em. All in all the transition for a Tiger driver is very easy. Sight lines are similar, same care with landing speeds, same don't spin 'em....oh wait, that started this monster thread didn't it? Heavier bird in feel but that also smooths out the bumps. Lots o'fun. "Snowbird" wrote in message om... "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. 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 |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Before I bought the Cirrus I did a search of all reported accidents in the
database. In fact, I was only able to find two spins. The rest were normal pilot errors, normal in the sense that they happen in every type flown by Part 91. Maybe there's another database but I used the link off the ASF site. I do think that the real risk factor has nothing at all to do with spin or stall characteristics. Sydney you pointed out the certification requirements and the recovery up to and into the incipient is normal. Beyond that, pull the chute. And you're absolutely right....in the pattern if you stall and flip it over you have one and only one correction available in my opinion and experience (see Rich Stowell's site). The real risk is all the gadgetry in the panel. That's the upshot of the TAA study as well. So I'm off to practice! "Snowbird" wrote in message om... "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 |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom S." wrote in message ...
And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear types. In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist. There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system. The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time in make and model. Here is a link: http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control. There was no correlation between loss of control and overall experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between recurrent training. Just to inject some facts. Cheers, Sydney |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
"Snowbird" wrote in message om... Hopefully I've done that. Yes...I was thinking "stall". Haven't done spins in YEARS!! 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? Considering the Cirrus production numbers are only about three years old, it may be a new learning experience, both for individual pilots, as well as pilots in general, learning the quirks of the new design. If you do a search in the NTSB database on "Cirrus", there's an astonishing number of accidents in just the last three years (including a seemingly high number of fatals) when considering the number of SR-20/22's in the fleet. I have no desire to play test pilot, so I'll stick with the "known quantity" when I buy (right after Jan. 1). |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
"Snowbird" wrote in message om... "Tom S." wrote in message ... And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear types. In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist. There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system. The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time in make and model. Is that a factor that it's easier to lose control of a Porsche at 150 than a Honda Accord at 65? Here is a link: http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control. There was no correlation between loss of control and overall experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between recurrent training. Just to inject some facts. In a certain respect, I think we're comparing apples and oranges (or Honda's and Porsche's) :~) IAC, I stand corrected (sorta). |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
At what point do people in these situations lose control?
Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear? I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not fixed. Snowbird wrote: "Tom S." wrote in message ... And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear types. In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist. There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system. The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time in make and model. Here is a link: http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control. There was no correlation between loss of control and overall experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between recurrent training. Just to inject some facts. Cheers, Sydney |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
I dont understand the big difference. markjen wrote: BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but mostly Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would be lower in a fixed-gear 182. Why would that be so? Look up the fatal accident rates of fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes/Saratogas vs. retractable-gear Lances/Saratogas. The airplanes are essentially identical except for the landing gear. The rate of the retract is about double. Both airplanes go out of control in clouds but the fixed-gears are more forgiving. Let's let this go. I have no interest in arguing over something that is widely known and accepted. - Mark |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff" wrote in message ... At what point do people in these situations lose control? Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear? I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not fixed. A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin will happen much more quickly. In much the same way, one needs closer attention (seeing ahead) doing 75 on a freeway than on a side street doing 25. Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not necessarily in that same category. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|