Have we stopped teaching VOR skills?

Roy,
I found the VOR weakness along with numerous others when an
SR-22 pilot came ro me after failing his instrument checkride.

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.

Gene Whitt

In article et, Gene Whitt wrote:

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.

I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).

I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
that in a slipery bird.


Morris

I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
That is complex in my book.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Journeyman wrote:

In article et, Gene Whitt wrote:

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.


I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).

I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
that in a slipery bird.


Morris

In article , Jon Kraus wrote:
I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
That is complex in my book.

It has all that, and fits the FAA definition of complex.

But, since it's (relatively) slow and draggy, you don't have to fly it
the same way you'd fly a higher performance bird. The SR-22 should be
classed with the Mooneys and Bonanzas. The Arrow should be classed
with the Skylanes and Cherokees.

IOW, in the real world, what makes an airplane a handful to fly isn't
the presence or absence of a couple of extra knobs. It's the need
to be planning further out ahead of the plane.


Morris

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:13:06 GMT, Jon Kraus
wrote:

I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
That is complex in my book.

The Arrow is complex, but it is not high performance. (*over* 200 HP)

It is also far, far slower than an SR-22. The 22 may have fixed gear,
but it's a good 20 knots faster than many Bonanzas. The major hurtle
is learning to think farther ahead.


Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Journeyman wrote:

In article et, Gene Whitt wrote:

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.


I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).

Your Arrow is a complex.


I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
that in a slipery bird.

The Bo is slippery and a good short field bird and particularly the 33
series. Book figures have them landing shorter than a 172, or at
least many of them. Then again the wing loading of the Bo is
surprisingly light. My Deb is a tad lighter per sq ft than a
Cherokee. The newer ones are a tad heavier, but still relatively
light.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Morris

In article , Roger wrote:

Your Arrow is a complex.

Sure, but is it any more complicated/difficult/challenging to fly
than a fixed-gear Cherokee?

Does a high-performance fixed-gear Skylane give you any more
performance than a low-performance retract Arrow?


Morris

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:20:36 -0500, Journeyman
wrote:

In article , Roger wrote:

Your Arrow is a complex.

Sure, but is it any more complicated/difficult/challenging to fly
than a fixed-gear Cherokee?

Does a high-performance fixed-gear Skylane give you any more
performance than a low-performance retract Arrow?

Yes, it is a bit more challenging and complicated, but no more
difficult. You have a constant speed prop and retractable gear which
are more things to keep track of, but that is not the point. By
definition it is a complex aircraft.

OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less
forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead,
but learning the aircraft far better than say a 172 or Cherokee which
are far more forgiving of mistakes. The Cherokees and Arrows are
among the most forgiving aircraft out there.

The SR-22 being even faster than a Bo, should not be thought of in
terms normally reserved for "fixed gear" aircraft. It is a truly high
performance aircraft.

I would not call the SR22 any more complex than the Bo (if you neglect
trying to program the GPS/MFD while en route). Besides, you don't have
to worry about lowering the gear. I find the glass displays easy to
fly, simpler to read, and even prefer them, to the regular instrument
display, but it would take me hours to learn the GPS to the point
where programming it in flight was instinctive.

There are three things in transitioning to a much higher performance
aircraft. Learn its limitations and the edges of the flight envelope
well. Learn its systems, and develop a mind set that thinks in the
terms of the speed at which you will be flying. Even the extra 20
plus knots from a Bo to the SR-22 takes a bit of conditioning. Going
from 130 or 140 knots to 200 or better is a big step.

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

Morris

Roger wrote:

OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less
forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead,

For another data point:

I fly both a 182 and a 182RG in our club. Both are HP. But the complex is
faster and more slippery, and therefore more demanding of forethought.

- Andrew

OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less
forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead,

but learning the aircraft far better than say a 172 or Cherokee which

are far more forgiving of mistakes.

The first high performance plane I ever soloed (235 hp O-470 powered)
was none of these things. It wasn't even as fast as a 172 or Cherokee.
It was a taildragger, but it was the least demanding taildragger ever
- less demanding than a Piper Cub or Aeronca Champ. Had it been built
with tricycle gear, it would have been less demanding than a C-172. It
was so undemanding that pilots with less than 500 hours were routinely
turned loose in it without a checkout - as I was. Still, why reach so
far? Neither the C-182 nor the Cherokee 235 have the features you
ascribe to high perfromance aircraft.

On the other hand, the later IO-360 powered Mooneys are not high
performance, but they have all the properties you ascribe to high
perfromance aircraft. The IO-360 powered Arrows do not.

Why not just admit the truth? The FAA definitions of high performance
and complex are meaningless.

Some airplanes are relatively fast, slippery, and unforgiving as
compared to others. Additional training for someone not used to these
properties makes all kinds of sense. Those properties are not
predictable simply by knowing whether the gear happens to move and
whether the engine can make more than 200 ponies.

Michael