Another Cirrus 'chute deployment

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

Right. It is not necessarily true that a stall will result in a spin. The
Cirrus requires considerable force to enter a spin. It can be done, as was
demonstrated, but it is not easy. I don't think it is far wrong to say that
some other planes would break up in flight if subjected to the same types of
forces.

What?!?!

Last time I checked, the Cirrus was only certified to the same limits
as everybody else's airplanes. Why should it hang together better
than everyone else's? (And if you think they designed in an extra
3g's and didn't tell anybody about it, I've got a bridge to sell you.)

And why do the spins require "considerable force"? Force on what?
The wing is stalled (or very nearly so), meaning not too much stress
on them, at least. I bet one can pitch up to, say 30 degrees above
the horizon with a bunch of nose-up trim, then let go of everything
and she'll stall right out from under you with no pilot input at all!
Once you've got that down, try giving her a big boot full of left
rudder and hammer in the throttle just as she breaks. I'd bet she'll
do a very pretty spin entry from there.... 8- (And, btw, there's
really very little stress on the airframe when you do this. Otoh, it
might be stressful for the pilot.)

we had cirrus open house come to salt lake city and give some local CFI's a
test ride - talked to the test pilots and it was the same. You get in a
spin you pull the chute. Aircraft is not certified for spins (something
about aft CG)

I don't see the big deal - follow the POH. My question on the accident is
what was a pilot doing up there that high above 12,500 did he have oxygen?
Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence..if I
got in a spin yeah I *might* try and get out of the spin but I wouldn't
waste time pulling that chute.

in the end we'll just wait and see on the NTSB report (someone post it when
it shows up)

Matthew

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:07:51 GMT, "Matthew Chidester"
wrote:

My question on the accident is
what was a pilot doing up there that high above 12,500 did he have oxygen?
Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence.

The 310hp SR-22 17,500 foot ceiling is a certified ceiling not a
service ceiling. It is actually 500 feet less than the 200hp SR-20
ceiling, so I doubt that the problems with the plane were caused by
being close to it climb limit. I don't know whether that plane had
oxygen, but it is a factory option.

The 310hp SR-22 17,500 foot ceiling is a certified ceiling not a
service ceiling. It is actually 500 feet less than the 200hp SR-20
ceiling, so I doubt that the problems with the plane were caused by
being close to it climb limit. I don't know whether that plane had
oxygen, but it is a factory option.

huh I didn't know they had an option on oxygen - that's a LONG way down -
interesting, well like I said should be an interesting NTSB report thanks
for the info

"Matthew Chidester" wrote in message
news:rDX4d.16430$He1.12412@attbi_s01...
Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence

Why? He was (as has been pointed out in other posts in this thread) almost 3
miles AGL. If he was losing airspeed, point the nose down. Why would he
stall? I've been in a lot of turbulence (I live on the Colorado Front Range)
and it has never caused the airplane to come close to stall speed.

Michael

Michael 182 wrote:
"Matthew Chidester" wrote in message
news:rDX4d.16430$He1.12412@attbi_s01...

Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence


Why? He was (as has been pointed out in other posts in this thread) almost 3
miles AGL. If he was losing airspeed, point the nose down. Why would he
stall? I've been in a lot of turbulence (I live on the Colorado Front Range)
and it has never caused the airplane to come close to stall speed.

Michael

Well, I can't claim to have ever flown in severe turbulence, but my
sense is not that the turbulence causes you to lose airspeed and stall,
but that the correct way to handle this situation is to slow down enough
that you are likely to stall if a gust is severe enough to stress the
airframe. That's not to suggest that you want to end up in a spin, but
it seems preferable to stall and spin at altitude then to have parts of
the plane get ripped off. If I'm in a thunderstorm I'm going to make
sure my airspeed stays below Va.

--
David Rind

exactly you're in a climb for some reason and heavy turbulence hits - woops
late response wrong rudder input you could do it.. not likely but i've flown
and climbing at vx or even vy and you hit a gust, stall alarm goes and if
you are THAT high - on a hot day you could get in a stall

(I think anyway)