"cjcampbell" wrote\

It was cheaper to design, test and certify a BRS than it was to take
the plane up and do a couple of spins? I think not. The CAPS tests
themselves required the destruction of at least one airframe. Spin
testing just has to show recovery after a couple times around.

I wouldn't know for sure about the cost. It was my impression that it was
very expensive and time consuming to spin certify , and spin resistance
certify a new design.

The reason the Cirrus was not spin tested is because it is very stall
resistant. Any maneuver that could throw this plane into a spin might
be so violent as to be unrecoverable. There have been accidents
attributed to people trying deliberately to spin the Cirrus. There is
no reason to attempt to spin the airplane anyway. It is unlikely to
enter a spin accidentally, so it is not as if it is a needed emergency
procedure.

Granted about the spin resistance. I think the other thing that some people
are overlooking is the brother's goals in a new GA airplane, which was to
make it safer than all other GA craft, in giving an out in continued VFR
into IMC, departures, loss of engine and a dozen other problems that
sometimes come up. That was real important to them.

Some people claim the airplane will successfully recover from at least
an initial spin. Fine. But why bother? Cirrus strongly discourages it.
It is not really certified for it. There is no training advantage to
it. If I want to do spins then give me an airplane where they will be
fun; even Aerobat. Doing spins in a Cirrus would be like doing
motocross in a Ferrari.

Chuckle How true!
--
Jim in NC