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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Dude" wrote in message
... I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination will slow my plane Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too. without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an argument about shock cooling. Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock cooling exists. Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it. So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle power settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing as shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless of what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through the prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine as shock cooling, if not more so. Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid something that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why would an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some psychological need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to doing so? In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card", you'd better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real. The Cirrus does not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec) It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly be a "phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first place. Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging louder than the ones that think it works just fine. I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even if it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort complaining about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks who have had engine problems? Pete |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
: The 300 hp IO-550 is an option on at least the S-model Bonanza (and : probably many others). A friend of mine has one and I've flown it - : it's a great airplane, and it will comfortably cruise at 180 kts on : 16-17 gph. : Michael The 300HP IO-550, derated to 280HP, is in the Mooney Ovation2. The Ovation2 cruises in the 175 to 190 KT range on 15-16 GPH. You can get a very nice one from the 2000 or 2001 model year for about $300K, if you look around. -- Aaron Coolidge (N9376J) |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Won't carry 4 people (with useful fuel) though. The new
Mooneys are wonderful planes but if you even occasionally need to carry four people then they don't work out. Shame, because the recent Bravo is a really lovely plane to fly. The SR22 will carry 4 people and a good fuel load. Just be careful to avoid (a) clouds (unless IFR) (b) mountains (c) the temptation to say, gee, wonder what happens if I pull this big red handle (d) confusing it with the SR20, which won't. John "Aaron Coolidge" wrote in message ... Michael wrote: : The 300 hp IO-550 is an option on at least the S-model Bonanza (and : probably many others). A friend of mine has one and I've flown it - : it's a great airplane, and it will comfortably cruise at 180 kts on : 16-17 gph. : Michael The 300HP IO-550, derated to 280HP, is in the Mooney Ovation2. The Ovation2 cruises in the 175 to 190 KT range on 15-16 GPH. You can get a very nice one from the 2000 or 2001 model year for about $300K, if you look around. -- Aaron Coolidge (N9376J) |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper
wrote: At this point in just about any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait). "EDR" wrote in message ... NOT TRUE!!! Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.In article 1083006290.499387@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper wrote: What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the first place... Then what did you base your comment on? (I have the original three articles.) |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
What I read elsewhere. However I did have the technique
wrong, it seems (after a bit of surfing). I thought you took your feet off the pedals, and that's not so, just your hands off the stick. (Before everybody rushes in and says "you terrible incompetent inept pilot, glad I'm not sharing the airspace with you, etc etc etc" - I do practice spin recoveries quite often, but using the "full" technique). I guess I should try my "modified" M-B technique sometime in the incipient phase. After all M-B are talking about a fully developed spin, i.e. after 3 turns, and in the original context of this thread, if you haven't spotted that something is wrong after three turns of a spin (and tried to do something about it) then your piloting skills are probably not your greatest concern. Trouble is while my head finds spins fascinating, my stomach feels otherwise, so I never do more than a couple in a single flight - generally as I'm leaving the practice area, which in turn is generally because my stomach is already suggesting it's time to go home. John "EDR" wrote in message ... In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper wrote: At this point in just about any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait). "EDR" wrote in message ... NOT TRUE!!! Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.In article 1083006290.499387@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper wrote: What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the first place... Then what did you base your comment on? (I have the original three articles.) |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Borchert wrote: As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference. Bull. That's no difference at all. George Patterson If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
John Harper wrote: At this point in just about any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait). Try that in a Maule with some load configurations, and you're gonna die. George Patterson If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
... [...] As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference. Bull. That's no difference at all. Bull? Bull yourself. It's a huge difference. I have never demonstrated that I am capable of driving a car into a brick wall. Does that mean that I am actually not capable of driving a car into a brick wall? No, of course it doesn't. Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability. Pete |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability. True, but in the case of Cirrus they really did try to spin the airplane. It used to be on their web site while the airplane was still in development. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote: Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability. You are confusing common usage English with FAA-speak. They were unable to demonstrate spin recovery because the plane will not recover from a spin. And they really tried to make it do that. George Patterson If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said. |
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 |