Another Cirrus crash

"Toly" wrote in message
m

Piper's ride is solid and predictable, and you can relax and enjoy the
ride, while Cirrus is too slippery and manually flying one demands
constant control inputs to the point that it wears you out very soon.
I have suspicion this may be true for most metal vs. composite
aircraft.

Is it "metal v. composite" or different design considerations in the
respective airframes?

Don't get me wrong. I haven't so much as sat in a Cirrus much less flown
one, but it seems that the Cirrus was designed as a higher performing
airframe than the Piper models you mentioned. I'm just wondering if the
Cirrus designers sacrificed some stability to achieve that performance.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

the SR20 is not that much higher performing.
its a 200 hp engine that does about 156 KTAS (per their website), thats about
6 kts faster then my 200 hp turbo arrow is all - and at 14000 ft I can go
faster then a SR20 (about 165 KTAS)

the SR22 with its 310 HP engine is something else now.
But compare it to other planes with a 310 HP engine.


John T wrote:

"Toly" wrote in message
m

Piper's ride is solid and predictable, and you can relax and enjoy the
ride, while Cirrus is too slippery and manually flying one demands
constant control inputs to the point that it wears you out very soon.
I have suspicion this may be true for most metal vs. composite
aircraft.

Is it "metal v. composite" or different design considerations in the
respective airframes?

Don't get me wrong. I haven't so much as sat in a Cirrus much less flown
one, but it seems that the Cirrus was designed as a higher performing
airframe than the Piper models you mentioned. I'm just wondering if the
Cirrus designers sacrificed some stability to achieve that performance.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

That's a good question. I tend to think it's the material, not the
design. Cirrus actually is a stable airplane, I just found it too
twitchy. I think the airframe is so slick that it's very sensitive to
minute air disturbances, while most metal a/c are "dirty" enough to
ignore them. However, without experience in other composite a/c it's
just a guess... I'd love to hear what other pilots would say...

-Toly.

"John T" wrote in message ews.com...
"Toly" wrote in message
m

Piper's ride is solid and predictable, and you can relax and enjoy the
ride, while Cirrus is too slippery and manually flying one demands
constant control inputs to the point that it wears you out very soon.
I have suspicion this may be true for most metal vs. composite
aircraft.

Is it "metal v. composite" or different design considerations in the
respective airframes?

Don't get me wrong. I haven't so much as sat in a Cirrus much less flown
one, but it seems that the Cirrus was designed as a higher performing
airframe than the Piper models you mentioned. I'm just wondering if the
Cirrus designers sacrificed some stability to achieve that performance.

Toly

I disagree with you. After 23 years of owning a C172 & 18 months of owning a
Cirrus, there is no comparison ther than both fly.
The higher wing loading of the Cirrus makes it slide through turbulence that
used to be uncomfortable in the Cessna.
Twitchy? you have to explain in more depth what you mean. Pain in the neck to
use the electric trim? Yes, but really is just a matter of getting used to the
sensitivity of the switch. Most, if not all Cirrus owners ( except ArtP) get
used to it. The fallback is to use the auto pilot which will trim the plane.
Once disconnected, the plane stays pretty much in trim, though I admit I prefer
the trim wheel of the Skyhawk.

John

Islip,

Most, if not all Cirrus owners ( except ArtP) get
used to it.


Don't own one, only did a demo ride. Took me all of two minutes to
adjust to it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)