A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 15th 03, 10:31 PM
Flynn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.