Nuther SR-22 crash/incident?

Stefan wrote:
The instructors in my club don't solo students who can't nail the
approach speed to -0/+2 knots and touch down within 150 feet of the
designed point (weather permitting, of course).

There is a fairly significant difference between holding -0/+2 kts in a
training glider with spoilers available for glideslope control and
doing it at 40-50 kts, and doing the same in a slippery airplane at 80
kts with no spoilers. The realistic standard for such an airplane is
-0/+5, and not at the student pilot level (not that a student pilot is
even insurable in such a plane). I say this having instructed both in
training gliders and slippery high performance airplanes (Bonanzas,
Mooneys, Twin Comanches, and even the odd Cirrus).

The Cirrus DOES NOT require -0/+2 to land well. It doesn't even
require -0/+5 (though this is entirely attainable). What it requires
is that you not put it on the ground until the excess speed has bled
off. If you simply hold it a few inches above the ground in the flare,
continuously increasing back pressure, the speed will bleed off
eventually and a good landing will be made. Interestingly enough, it
is closest in this regard to the Mooneys, the later Mooneys being more
critical in that regard. I find it interesting that Mariash reported
problems there as well. Probably a technique issue with regard to the
flare - most likely allowing the plane to settle onto the runway at too
high a speed due to insufficient backpressure as the elevator forces
get heavier. This is none too rare on the heavier airplanes, and
something an instructor won't catch unless he is specifically looking
for it (as he should be). My personal solution for the problem (what I
do and teach) is the use of electric trim in the flare (most such
planes have it) to relieve control pressure and allow for more precise
control.

By contrast, almost every Cessna I've flown (including the 310, but
excluding the 140, the only tailwheel Cessna I've flown) can make
decent landings at a wide variety of touchdown speeds so holding it off
the runway isn't terribly critical. Same for all the Bonanzas. Thus a
technique issue that is really minor for some airplanes can bite the
Cirrus pilot on landing.

Michael

Michael schrieb:

There is a fairly significant difference between holding -0/+2 kts in a
training glider with spoilers available for glideslope control and
doing it at 40-50 kts, and doing the same in a slippery airplane at 80
kts with no spoilers.

Where did I say I was talking gliders? I know that the cirrus isn't
exactly a beginner's plane. However, I stay with my statement that,
whether you need it or not, a pilot who cannot nail the airspeed (in
whichever plane) isn't ready to solo (this particular plane). Can't do
it in a Cirrus? Fly Cessnae. Want to fly Cirri? Practice.

The realistic standard for such an airplane is -0/+5,

Ok. I think the crucial thing is attitude: Good enough is not good
enough. Always aim for perfect.

The Cirrus DOES NOT require -0/+2 to land well. It doesn't even
require -0/+5 (though this is entirely attainable). What it requires
is that you not put it on the ground until the excess speed has bled
off. If you simply hold it a few inches above the ground in the flare,
continuously increasing back pressure, the speed will bleed off
eventually and a good landing will be made.

Agreed, and I would add this is good technique for every plane. But as,
where I fly, the typical airstrip is around 2000ft or even shorter, this
translates pretty directly in nailed airspeed.

Stefan

Where did you fly gliders (or tow)? I used to fly them a bit out of NJ
and other places.

Stefan wrote:
Well, I've learnt in gliders, which taught me to use the rudder right on
day one and to hit the landing spot every time, because there simply was
no option to go around. Actually, to include that option into my
decition making was quite a challenge for me, when I added the noise
rating later.

When finally I decided to get that license to waste fuel, of course I
did this in a TW long before I even saw a nose pusher from the inside.
(The reason is that I did that rating mainly to be able to tow gliders
in the club, all towing planes being TW.) So...

can you hit the speed,
yes
hit the spot,
yes

*and keep it straight*

yes

at 1:00 pm on a sunny day?


Depends. As I said in my former post (the part which you snipped): If
weather permitting.

Stefan

Michael wrote:
Interestingly enough, it
is closest in this regard to the Mooneys, the later Mooneys being more
critical in that regard. I find it interesting that Mariash reported
problems there as well. Probably a technique issue with regard to the
flare - most likely allowing the plane to settle onto the runway at too
high a speed due to insufficient backpressure as the elevator forces
get heavier. This is none too rare on the heavier airplanes, and
something an instructor won't catch unless he is specifically looking
for it (as he should be). My personal solution for the problem (what I
do and teach) is the use of electric trim in the flare (most such
planes have it) to relieve control pressure and allow for more precise
control.

By contrast, almost every Cessna I've flown (including the 310, but
excluding the 140, the only tailwheel Cessna I've flown) can make
decent landings at a wide variety of touchdown speeds so holding it off
the runway isn't terribly critical. Same for all the Bonanzas. Thus a
technique issue that is really minor for some airplanes can bite the
Cirrus pilot on landing.

Michael


Michael,

I think you have accurately described the situation. Landing was never a
problem for me in single engine pipers or cessnas, or my 310. However,
the Mooney and the SR22 were more "challenging". In the SR22 it is made
even worse by the electric trim which is very sensitive (small bumps
lead to large changes in the trim). The other difference with the SR22
and Mooney versus the pipers and cessnas is that the former land
relatively flat, while the latter land well with a nose high flare. The
transition (to learn how to land) from the 310 to the SR22 took much
more time than the transition from a single engine Cessna (172 and 182)
to the 310 (or a Duchess).

Cary

On 5 Jun 2006 03:55:46 -0700, "Denny" wrote:


Low time pilot...
High time wallet....
"And, it's the safest airplane made, Sir... It has a PARACHUTE!."

130 MPH mind in a 220 MPH airplane.

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


denny

Cary Mariash wrote:
I think you have accurately described the situation.

I thought as much, but your reply makes it certain. Specifically,
this:

The other difference with the SR22
and Mooney versus the pipers and cessnas is that the former land
relatively flat, while the latter land well with a nose high flare.

In reality, almost everything lands well with a nose high flare -
including Cessnas and Pipers. The difference is not so much that the
common Pipers and Cessnas land relatively flat - they land just fine
nose high - but that they land acceptably even if flat. The Mooneys
and the SR22 do not.

When my primary instructor criticised me for landing flat, I thought he
was simply being a sadist. After all, the landings he criticised were
on the mains, not on all three or the nosewheel, and no significant
braking was required even on the 2600 ft runway to stop. I also
couldn't see why he made such a big deal of holding the exact speed on
final - anything between 50 and 70 seemed to work fine. I had no
indications from the airplane that I was doing anything wrong. Of
course this was in a Cessna 150.

In the end, I learned to do it his way, not because he explained to me
why it was important (I'm not sure he knew himself, and he wasn't much
of a communicator) but because I didn't have a lot of good choices for
instruction (as far as I knew then) and I needed his signature to solo
and take the checkride. It was not until I started flying airplanes
that were not nearly as forgiving in this regard that I appreciated
what he was trying to do.

The
transition (to learn how to land) from the 310 to the SR22 took much
more time than the transition from a single engine Cessna (172 and 182)
to the 310 (or a Duchess).

The planes you mention are, in my experience, some of the most docile
and forgiving on landing (in terms of the pitch control precision
required), surpassed in that regard only by the Bonanzas. If you ever
want to experience humility, try an unmodified Twin Comanche - if you
can find one. Most of them, including mine, have been modified (often
in more ways than one) to smooth out the worst of the landing
characteristics.

Michael

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:45:00 +0200, Stefan
wrote:

Maule Driver schrieb:

Flying an approach within a knot requires concentration and more than 3
TO/Landings in 90.

You mean, flying unconcentrated is SOP? :-/

Should be. Concerned yes, but by the time someone qualifies to fly one
of these hot rods they should not have to spend time concentrating on
getting things right when landing. It should be second nature.


The instructors in my club don't solo students who can't nail the
approach speed to -0/+2 knots and touch down within 150 feet of the
designed point (weather permitting, of course).

Lordy, I'm happy to hit the right runway at the right airport let
alone the speed.

My motto is: Don't land long on short runways and don't land short on
long runways.

OTOH I rarely fly a stabilized pattern. I do on occasion, but normally
I vary the pattern from a close in slipping U-turn outbound from the
end of the runway to the runway to a normal stabilized rectangular
pattern. Landings from all of these patterns will be soft field, short
field, and no flap. Most landings take power as power off landings
take too much runway as final is noticeably faster without power and
can be as much as 15 MPH faster in the Deb. OTOH I don't have near
the wing loading as the SR-22. That has a long high aspect ratio,
laminar flow wing.


An aircraft that *requires* it in this GA space is not going far. But I
don't think plus/minus 1knot is required

Nor do I.

The SR-22 really isn't quite that finicky. However they do teach not
to come in nose high and drop the gear on in a full stall landing.

I figure that airspeed management is the airplane, not me. On an
absolutely calm day I can trim to any desired airspeed and take it all
the way to the round out, hands off the yoke without being able to
detect movement of the ASI from that spot. That includes making minor
adjustments to the power if necessary. Actually you can make a
substantial power adjustment without changing the airspeed as long as
it's not abrupt.

If it's not a calm day, which is most of the time, the airspeed will
jump around quite a bit.


Of course you are TW qualified....

Let's see... I flew one of those contraptions back in about 1956.
Haven't flown one since.

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

Sorry, I have no idea what this means.

Stefan

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:45:08 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Dan,

I have made five landinngs in an SR-22 and noticed nothing unusual or
difficult about it.


Me neither. In fact, I found it easy to land. Speed control is important
landing any airplane, IMHO. Allowing a wide range of speeds, whether in
a Cessna or a Cirrus, is sloppy airmanship, except when adaption to wind
requires different airspeeds.

FWIW, I have but 450 hours, 70 of which in Bonanzas.

Yah, but you shouldn't count that as they are one of the easiest
planes to land out there. :-)) They are big, fast, slippery, (Until
you put the gear down) and have a light wing loading that's about the
same as a Cherokee.

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

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,

What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.


Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.

FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.

The SR22 has only given me one serious surprise. I am in the habit of
coming in a little high and hot (the thing sinks like a brick without
power, and I want to have a little extra margin if I lose the engine on
final), chopping the last bit of power at 100' AGL and bleeding off the
last bit of airspeed on the way down to the ground. (Also, my home base
is VNY which has an 8000 foot runway, so overshooting is pretty unlikely
:-)

I was trying to land from the right seat one day (with an instructor)
and so I was being really careful to nail all my airspeeds. I was
dead-on at 80 knots but I still chopped the power at 100' as was my
habit. The plane felt perfectly normal all the way down except that it
didn't settle into ground effect. Instead, it slammed hard onto the
runway and bounced up about 20 feet. (My instructor didn't notice
anything amiss until we hit either.) I recovered by adding power and
going around. The stall horn never went off. And this was after three
good landings immediately before, and hundreds of prior good landings
from the left seat. To this day I'm still not 100% sure what went
wrong, but I don't want to repeat the experience to find out. It was by
far the hardest landing I've ever done, but my instructor said he's seen
a lot worse.

rg

Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:


Matt,


What I don't know is what the stall characeristics are.


Utterly harmless. Just mushing down.


FWIW, my experience in the SR-22 is that it's easier to land than a
C182RG. I porpoised that damned 182 more times than I can count.

What do you mean by porpoise? Landing on the nosewheel (we call that
wheel barrowing in my neck of the woods)? Getting into a PIO?

Matt