Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:38:36 +0200, Peter Hovorka
wrote:

Hi Thomas,

(just why did I know ...)

The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
about many problems and so on.

Well, then think about the number of ADs that have come out for
new-generation Cessnas compared to the Cirrus or the Diamond, too.

I do. And I do think about the 'accidents' of both types since restart of
Cessna's production and the emerging of Cirrus.

If compared, the ADs for the 182 on the one side and the ADs and problems of
the Cirrus show a clear difference: On the one side a many years old design

I think they have a long way to go to catch up with all the ADs on the
"new" Cessnas.

of a 'rugged-and-reliable' spam can with a few minor problems due to
redesigns and on the other side a totally new design with some real
problems.

I seriously doubt there's much wrong with the Cirrus design. OTOH
people should not be comparing them to Cessnas, unless it's a 210.

There is one on our field and it's cruise is 20 knots faster than my
Deb and my Deb has had a lot of mods. I flight plan 160 knots. That
Cirrus easily makes 180 knots without straining.

Now take new, relatively low time pilot in high performance/complex
and you have the proverbial 130 MPH mind in a 220 MPH airplane. Add
to that the low timers are more likely to think that chute is
something they can rely on to keep them out of trouble.

Pilots regularly get caught VFR into IMC in Cessnas and Pipers. Now
add between 50% and 100% to the speed and they can get into trouble
much faster. It's the speed that gets them into trouble, not so much
folding feet in say a Bonanza.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Cirrus is faulty or bad. Just
that it's ones own decission if you want to use a _very_ proven design
(with the downside of 'age') or a brand new design with many (nice?)
surprises in the first 5-10 years.

I think the Cirrus design is fine, but I also think too many pilots
see a fixed gear and automatically class it with 172s and Cherokees in
its flying abilities, when they really need to be learning to think
almost twice as far ahead as they did in the Cessna or Cherokee.
It's more like a souped up Bonanza with a big engine, constant speed
prop, and the gear down and welded.

As an aside, I don't like the "side yoke" and I call it a yoke instead
of a stick as the thing works exactly like a yoke except for the
single horn. I'd much prefer a "joy stick" as in F-16, or Flight
Simulator on a computer. I've flown yokes, sticks, side sticks, and
joy sticks. Of all I least prefer the side yoke or stick as Cirrus
calls it. Side stick aside (no pun intended), other than that, I like
the airplane.

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

Peter

Hi Roger,

I seriously doubt there's much wrong with the Cirrus design. OTOH
people should not be comparing them to Cessnas, unless it's a 210.

There is one on our field and it's cruise is 20 knots faster than my
Deb and my Deb has had a lot of mods. I flight plan 160 knots. That
Cirrus easily makes 180 knots without straining.

Now take new, relatively low time pilot in high performance/complex
and you have the proverbial 130 MPH mind in a 220 MPH airplane. Add
to that the low timers are more likely to think that chute is
something they can rely on to keep them out of trouble.

I now took the time to seriously look at the NTSB reports. And I agree to a
large extent.

Pilots regularly get caught VFR into IMC in Cessnas and Pipers. Now
add between 50% and 100% to the speed and they can get into trouble
much faster. It's the speed that gets them into trouble, not so much
folding feet in say a Bonanza.

The fate of many well designed high performance singles...

Was there a non-deployment of the chute after the AD regarding the handle? I
just found the preliminary report about the 'remove before flight' pin and
just couldn't believe it. Sadly

Kind regards,
Peter