Nuther SR-22 crash/incident?

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:


Ron Garret wrote:


In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:



Ron Garret wrote:



In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:




Matt,




What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.


Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.


FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.

What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?


I'm not entirely certain. This was a long time ago. All I can remember
is bouncing along the runway cursing up a blue streak. It was probably
wheelbarrowing because I finally fixed the problem by figuring out that
I needed to really haul back on the yoke in the flare. Landing a 182
can really bulk up those biceps. (My instructor recommended that I trim
it nose high, but I decided that was a really, really bad idea because
if you had to go around you'd need to push forward awfully hard to avoid
a power on stall. If it's a choice between a bounced landing or a POS
close to the ground, well, you decide.)

No offense, rg, but if this is the case then you need some serious
weight training. I could flare my 182 with two fingers and hold enough
forward pressure for a full-flap (and this was with the full 40 degree
flaps available in 1967) with the thumb of my left hand.


This was a 1978 182RG. Coincidentally I've actually flown a 1960's
vintage non-RG 182 as well. Theoretically they are supposed to be the
same airplane, but the two handle very differently in the flare.

No doubt. My 182 handled quite differently when loaded towards forward
cg vs. rear

Yep, that made a big difference too. My instructor weighed about 300
pounds, so flying with him an no one in the back seat was pretty much a
worst case scenario in CG terms.

And usually you can get
a good feel for the control force requirements during the takeoff so
what is required to flare shouldn't be a big surprise.

Not really. During takeoff you've got it trimmed for climb.

But even if it
is a surprise, get over it quickly and pull as hard as you need to pull
to get the nose into the proper attitude for landing.

Yeah, well, I finally did figure that out.

FWIW, I'm not the only one who had trouble landing that plane. We had
to replace the tires every few weeks because people kept putting bald
spots on them (I think there might also have been problems with the
brakes as well, but there was considerably controversy over this). One
person landed so hard they had a prop strike. Amazingly, they actually
landed successfully, parked, and then FLEW BACK HOME with the tips of
the prop (about four inches worth) bent backwards at 90 degrees! I
would love to have been a fly on the wall when the club flight director
learned about that.

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

We had
to replace the tires every few weeks because people kept putting bald
spots on them (I think there might also have been problems with the
brakes as well, but there was considerably controversy over this).

Free castering nosewheel?
The only way to turn is using the brakes.
That is why they had brake fires on several aircraft.

In article
,
john smith wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

We had
to replace the tires every few weeks because people kept putting bald
spots on them (I think there might also have been problems with the
brakes as well, but there was considerably controversy over this).

Free castering nosewheel?
The only way to turn is using the brakes.
That is why they had brake fires on several aircraft.

There are two airplanes under discussion here. There's a 1978 C182RG
and a 2005 Cirrus SR22. The Cirrus has a free castering nosewheel, but
the C182RG is the one everyone (including me) had a hard time landing,
the one whose tires kept getting bald spots, and the one whose prop get
bent. The SR22 (in my experience) is very easy to land by comparison,
except for one episode where the bottom dropped out on me unexpectedly.

rg

... On 2006-06-07, Ron Garret
wrote:
At 80 knots and no power you probably didn't have any lift reserve.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Even with the relatively high stall speed
(though, as has been pointed out, at lower than max weight, so is the stall
speed lowered), there's a good 20 knots plus of airspeed to convert to lift.

[...]
I'm willing to bet the lift curve of an SR-22 wing gets relatively flat
at slow airspeeds before it even stalls - so at low airspeeds,
increasing the AoA doesn't increase lift that much.

What lift curve are you talking about? Lift is proportional to airspeed and
angle of attack, regardless of the wing. Up to the point of the stall, you
need more lift, you just increase the angle of attack. It's a linear
change.

Pete

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

The Cirrus has a free castering nosewheel, but
the C182RG is the one everyone (including me) had a hard time landing,
the one whose tires kept getting bald spots, and the one whose prop get
bent.

Bald spots on landing are usually the result of having ones toes on the
brakes instead of the rudder pedals. This comes from pushing the rudder
pedals by flexing the foot so that the ball pushed against the toe
brakes instead of sliding the heels for and aft to control direction of
the ground roll by pushing the lower rudder pedal portion.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
Lift is proportional to the square of speed and directly
proportional to the coefficient of lift (CL) CL is
typically close to linearly proportional to angle of attack
(AOA) over a range from about 0 to 15 or 16 degrees and then
departs from the linear relationship as it approaches CL max
which is at the stall AOA.

Yes, I know all that.

It's quite possible to be at low
speed, high AOA and find that increasing AOA more gives very
little extra lift as you approach stall.

But 80 knots isn't "at low speed". That's my point. And the idea of a
"flat lift curve" makes no sense to me. Except just above the stalling AOA,
every wing's AOA-to-CL graph looks pretty much the same.

Pete

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:22:47 GMT, john smith wrote:

In article ,
Roger wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:51:06 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,

What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.


Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.

FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.

There's something that bothers me about this "nailing the 80 knots".
If the plane is that sensitive then the landing speed should change
with loading. Even the Bo changes 1 MPH for each 100# under gross.
Following that logic the 22 with one person and half fuel would be a
good 500# (or more) light and about 5 knots( or more) fast. So if
the airplane is that sensitive I'd expect to have to calculate the
speed for every landing.
BTW they made us do that in Bo specific training.


Roger, as I have pointed out before, primary instructors (normally) do
not teach how to calculate the different speeds. That is a Commercial
requirement. As a practicle matter, those of us who know it and use it
wish it had been taught earlier in our training.

Remember that your Vx and Vy speeds on your Bo are different when the
gear is up or down. How many of us were taught that when we did our
first retract training?

Or on short field take offs to leave the gear alone until *after*
clearing the obstacles and lowering the nose to reach Vy. Cycling the
gear adds a lot of drag and at Vx the doors have little if any effect
on climb.

Gear up it has about twice the glide ratio of a 172 albeit at 120
(give or take) and makes a Cherokee look absolutely slippery with the
gear down.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:27:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

... On 2006-06-07, Ron Garret
wrote:
At 80 knots and no power you probably didn't have any lift reserve.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Even with the relatively high stall speed
(though, as has been pointed out, at lower than max weight, so is the stall
speed lowered), there's a good 20 knots plus of airspeed to convert to lift.

Welllll... In the Deb Vso is about 63 MPH at gross. I fly final at 80
minus 1 MPH for each 100# under gross. However if I kill the power
it'll drop like a rock. Pull the nose up and it'll just go down faster
and I have about 17 MPH over stall.


[...]
I'm willing to bet the lift curve of an SR-22 wing gets relatively flat
at slow airspeeds before it even stalls - so at low airspeeds,
increasing the AoA doesn't increase lift that much.

What lift curve are you talking about? Lift is proportional to airspeed and
angle of attack, regardless of the wing. Up to the point of the stall, you
need more lift, you just increase the angle of attack. It's a linear
change.

I think this idea may be what's getting some SR-22 pilots into
trouble. Stop thinking of the SR-22 as a fast Cherokee or Cessna.
Things are not as you think. It varies from plane to plane but is
quite common for high performance aircraft. Some where around 20
knots above stall speed (give or take) you reach a point where the
drag is so high that although raising the nose may give more lift it
is more than offset by the increased drag. So raising the nose results
in a faster rate of descent instead of slowing it. Pulling the power
to idle in this range is likely to put you on the express elevator
down.

This is why there is a substantial difference in my power off and
power on landing speeds with the power on being the slower of the two.
Plus I'm flying a plane with relatively low wing loading and low stall
speed. The Bo/Deb is very good at short field landings and take offs
when flown by the numbers.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Pete

Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2006-06-07, Ron Garret wrote:

dead-on at 80 knots but I still chopped the power at 100' as was my
habit. The plane felt perfectly normal all the way down except that it
didn't settle into ground effect. Instead, it slammed hard onto the
runway and bounced up about 20 feet. (My instructor didn't notice


The docile, mushing type stall may give you a bit of idea. I'm guessing
here having never flown an SR-22.

At 80 knots and no power you probably didn't have any lift reserve. So
when you pulled back on the stick to flare, the nose came up, the AoA
increased, but the amount of lift only increased a little. So basically,
you got the nose up but didn't arrest the descent rate - so you just hit
the runway at whatever rate of descent you had.

I'm willing to bet the lift curve of an SR-22 wing gets relatively flat
at slow airspeeds before it even stalls - so at low airspeeds,
increasing the AoA doesn't increase lift that much.


Wow, it isn't often that the misinformation density is this high even on
usenet!


Matt

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:


Roger wrote:


On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:04:42 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:



Ron Garret wrote:



In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:




Matt,




What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.


Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.


FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.

What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?


No, Landing on the nose wheel results in the nose rebounding up about
the time the mains hit and then rebound. On the next one the nose is
coming down even steeper with the resulting rebound being even higher.

Wheelbarrow is when you land faster than the plane wants to and then
hold it on. This results in an inability to get the mains to stay on
and you go down the runway riding on the nose gear with the mains
still in the air. That is a true wheelbarrow.

Yes, that is why I was asking. Landing on the nosewheel and bouncing
off the nosewheel are, to me anyway, different.

Matt


Landing nosewheel first is a sure symptom of poor training! You should
*NEVER* land nosewheel first!

No kidding.

Matt