Cirrus spin recovery was tested. Was: Why does airspeed change when I adjust the prop?

Since it can't spin, pilots are afraid to stall it. Stall's are good
practice to learn where the performance envelope is. Spins are good to
have under your belt in case a stall goes bad.

I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.

We all need to go one step further in training than we will actually go
in practice. That is how we build the confidence we need.

Having said that, Cirrus are selling. So they must be doing something
right.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote

Bds,

I wonder who the "test pilot(s)" were that thought that
it was "virtually unrecoverable", and why they made that comment.


Not "why", but "if". That would be my first question.

So far I have not been able to find anyone (alive) with actual experience
spinning a Cirrus to say how it reacts one way or the other. And, since
even the factory hedges on this point I have to believe there is something
there to be concerned about.

Would this stop me from buying one - no. Would it stop me from spinning one
on purpose knowing that I might have to trash it to recover - yes.

YMMV

BDS

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:53:27 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the
key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane
spin-certified would just muddy the waters."

Statements worded like this tend to make my BS detector go off.

--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:53:27 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

[A Cirrus Engineer wrote:]
Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention
is the key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make
the airplane spin-certified would just muddy the waters."

Statements worded like this tend to make my BS detector go off.

First, I've added back in the attribution that indicates who actually wrote
the statement - as quoted it looks as if I had written the statement, which
is not correct.

Secondly, I can see no way to critically examine someone's "BS detector".
There are no facts presented, no line of reasoning stated. Its only purpose
here appears to be as a rhetorical device for the purpose of emotional
persuasion.

Is the argument that Cirrus engineers were too clueless or the company too
cheap to design their aircraft so that pilots could use traditional spin
recovery techniques? If either of those (or any other) are being asserted
then it would be helpful if they were explicitly stated so those assertions
can be critically examined.

Dallas wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:53:27 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the
key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane
spin-certified would just muddy the waters."

Statements worded like this tend to make my BS detector go off.

I agree

If the aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin who would buy such a
beast ?
flying schools training pilots in recovery from fully developed stalls
or training their own instructors often have inadvertant spins from
overcorrection..
And nowadays how many PPL's actually have spin training in their
logbook?
Buy Robins. They're built here in NZ great two seater trainer

george writes:

If the aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin who would buy such a
beast ?

People who think that a magic parachute will save them from anything.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"george" wrote

If the aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin who would buy such a
beast ?
flying schools training pilots in recovery from fully developed stalls
or training their own instructors often have inadvertant spins from
overcorrection..

I found this on the Grumman Yankee which I recalled had a nasty reputation
for spins and yet was being used as a primary trainer:

"The original American Aviation AA-1 Yankee developed a poor reputation for
safety in its first years of production (1969-71). The aircraft was designed
purely to fill the role of a personal transportation and touring aircraft
and not a trainer, but many of the early production models were purchased by
flying schools. The appeal of the AA-1 to schools was obvious - compared to
the competition, the AA-1 was faster, cost less to purchase and maintain
and, most importantly, had more student-appeal with its sliding canopy and
fighter-like looks.

Many of the early school accidents were related to spin-training. Once the
AA-1 entered a fully developed spin and exceeded three turns, it was usually
not recoverable. The AA-1 had been spin-tested as part of its certification,
but in 1973 the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive 73-13-07 ordering the
aircraft placarded against spins."

BDS

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Stealth,

and
you were turning on to final in turbulence.


None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
spin on final will be difficult.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


In the article referenced at the beginning of this thread segment, the
"CIRRUS Engineer" mentioned his own first spin experience--in which he
really didn't know which direction he was spinning. That mirrors my own
first spin experience, with one very important difference--my first spin was
part of spin training which I received after I demanded it, while his first
spin was inadvertant and he was lucky enough to push the rudder the correct
direction and survive.

My point is that, recovery from the initail stall--or, in the worst case,
the incipient spin--requires recognition, which in turn requires recent
experience.

BTW, those spins looked pretty slow and lazy, in a C-152, after enough
practice.
Peter

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.

I would have gained far more useful knowledge if they had allowed my to
skip Calc II and Calc III and just take Calc I three times.

Vaughn

I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.

I would have gained far more useful knowledge if they had allowed my
to
skip Calc II and Calc III and just take Calc I three times.


Calc was NASTY. But that @##$%^&* Matrix Algebra was WORSE.

(That's all I remember--WORSE than NASTY !)

Peter