Cirrus spin recovery was tested. Was: Why does airspeed change when I adjust the prop?

"Kev" wrote:
I did run across one quote from the Cirrus president, who said he
"wished they'd demonstrated a normal spin recovery to the FAA".
That's interesting, because it sounds like it's at least possible.

Mark Twain once noted "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
truth is putting on its shoes." The idea that "Cirrus aircraft can't be
recovered from a spin" seems to be the kind of thing that Twain had in
mind. So here's a link to a Cirrus web page stating that spin recovery was
accomplished on both the SR20 and SR22:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/pilotswo...cle_06_03.aspx

"Question: Has any spin testing been conducted in the CIRRUS airplanes?

CIRRUS Engineer: Yes, CIRRUS has done spin testing in both the SR20 and the
SR22, and we've done a variety of spins in both models. But, that's
different than saying we've completed the entire spin matrix in each plane
in every conceivable condition and configuration - because we haven't.
Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the
key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane
spin-certified would just muddy the waters."

Much of the article discusses the engineering tradeoffs Cirrus chose and
why they chose them. I found it interesting and useful.

Hopefully with its shoes on, the truth can make up some ground.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:53:27 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

"Kev" wrote:
I did run across one quote from the Cirrus president, who said he
"wished they'd demonstrated a normal spin recovery to the FAA".
That's interesting, because it sounds like it's at least possible.

Mark Twain once noted "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
truth is putting on its shoes." The idea that "Cirrus aircraft can't be
recovered from a spin" seems to be the kind of thing that Twain had in
mind. So here's a link to a Cirrus web page stating that spin recovery was
accomplished on both the SR20 and SR22:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/pilotswo...cle_06_03.aspx

"Question: Has any spin testing been conducted in the CIRRUS airplanes?

CIRRUS Engineer: Yes, CIRRUS has done spin testing in both the SR20 and the
SR22, and we've done a variety of spins in both models. But, that's
different than saying we've completed the entire spin matrix in each plane
in every conceivable condition and configuration - because we haven't.
Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the
key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane
spin-certified would just muddy the waters."

Much of the article discusses the engineering tradeoffs Cirrus chose and
why they chose them. I found it interesting and useful.

Hopefully with its shoes on, the truth can make up some ground.

I have no axe to grind regarding the aircraft in question but the real
question is how much altitude is lost in the recovery?

it is pointless allowing a spin to develop in the belief that it is
recoverable only to find in the accident investigation that a spin
recovery typically takes 3,000ft (which it does in some aircraft) and
you were turning on to final in turbulence.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

Stealth,

and
you were turning on to final in turbulence.


None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
spin on final will be difficult.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I would agree that getting a fully developed spin on final would be
difficult, but if someone gets themselves in a circumstance where a
wing falls off (that's pilot talk -- I don't mean the wing fell off the
airplane, but that it stalled) because the PIC is turning too steeply
at too slow an airspeed, well I say if he's dumb enough to do that,
he's too dumb to recover and he's going to die and take an innocent
airplane with him.



..
On Jan 22, 5:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Stealth,

and
you were turning on to final in turbulence.None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
spin on final will be difficult.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:00:07 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Stealth,

and
you were turning on to final in turbulence.


None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
spin on final will be difficult.

you follow my discussion too literally.
anything below 4,000 ft in some aircraft will see you recover into the
ground.

parachutes as a failsafe mechanism. utter baloney.
you are aware that we have just had an accident in australia where the
two pilots popped the recovery parachute and died when it delivered
the aircraft upside down to the ground?
just think what it would be like to land on your head in a parachute
fall.

bandaids are a poor substitute to good design.
Stealth Pilot

Stealth,

parachutes as a failsafe mechanism. utter baloney.

Well, the world's aircraft certification authorities differ from your
view. Better clue them in...

you are aware that we have just had an accident in australia where the
two pilots popped the recovery parachute and died when it delivered
the aircraft upside down to the ground?

No. You got a link to an accident report?

bandaids are a poor substitute to good design.

And the connection to our discussion is?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Stealth,

and
you were turning on to final in turbulence.


None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
spin on final will be difficult.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


In the article referenced at the beginning of this thread segment, the
"CIRRUS Engineer" mentioned his own first spin experience--in which he
really didn't know which direction he was spinning. That mirrors my own
first spin experience, with one very important difference--my first spin was
part of spin training which I received after I demanded it, while his first
spin was inadvertant and he was lucky enough to push the rudder the correct
direction and survive.

My point is that, recovery from the initail stall--or, in the worst case,
the incipient spin--requires recognition, which in turn requires recent
experience.

BTW, those spins looked pretty slow and lazy, in a C-152, after enough
practice.
Peter

Stealth Pilot wrote:


it is pointless allowing a spin to develop in the belief that it is
recoverable only to find in the accident investigation that a spin
recovery typically takes 3,000ft (which it does in some aircraft) and
you were turning on to final in turbulence.


Base to final spin? Fatal in everything.

Jim,

Thanks, very interesting.

The idea that "Cirrus aircraft can't be
recovered from a spin" seems to be the kind of thing that Twain had in
mind.

smart ass mode on
And of course it can be recovered - by pulling the chute. It's a
certification requirement, remember? ;-)
smart ass mode off

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Jim Logajan" wrote

"Question: Has any spin testing been conducted in the CIRRUS airplanes?

CIRRUS Engineer: Yes, CIRRUS has done spin testing in both the SR20 and
the
SR22, and we've done a variety of spins in both models.

That's interesting. I wonder who the "test pilot(s)" were that thought that
it was "virtually unrecoverable", and why they made that comment.

BDS