Plastic planes are fast but landing speed too high

On 17 Jun 2006 22:19:19 -0700, "P S" wrote:

This appears to be a troll, and even though I happen to dislike the
SR-22 I will come to its defense.

I received some marketing brouchures from one of the best
selling "composite plane" on the market, with an invitation
to take a ride. Well, I was tempted until I found out how high
the Vso is. The plane goes in on final at 80 kts.

And?


Which means, 80 kias is the speed you use for emergency
landing.

Actually I fly a Bonanza/Debonair. Engine out, best glide is
120MPH/105 knots. Engine out, landing is about 90 MPH or just shy of
that 80 knots. Seems normal to me. A normal landing, "by the book"
is slower and takes a fair amount of power. At that speed you do not
have enough energy to flare if the engine quits, which at best means a
very hard landing.


No wonder pictures after pictures of the wreckages of such
plane look so horrifying. Oh,, it is all pilot errors, since

Ahhh...fiberglass resin burns. It's usually what happens after the
crash that makes them look so bad. Well, that and the parachute cords
do make the fuselage look a bit untidy. OTOH if it hasn't burned it's
quite easy to fix. I think if you read the accident reports that the
pilot probably walked away from that smoldering pile.

the computers onboard have added such unprecendented
situation awareness, so that even incompetent pilots can
fly at ease.

The computer does nothing except make information available. It is up
to the pilot to assemble the relevant and throw away the irrelevant
plus "look out the windows" to create situational awareness.
Situational awareness to what ever level exists only between the ears
of the pilot. To the pilot who has flown old technology all that
information is hidden behind layers of button pushes that have to be
done in the proper order and it takes a while to learn how to access
all that information, let alone put it to use. So it actually
increases the workload greatly until the pilot has had enough time
behind it for the operation to become second nature, or instinctual.


The testmoney's printed in the brouchure are amazing. And they
reflect the intelligence of the owners, as well as the perceived
intelligence of the future buyers by the sales organization.
[This is a negative statement. So please read the previous
statement again, if you didn't get it.]

These are very good airplanes. That they are fast and slippery is not
a detriment, but rather to good engineering. It is up to the pilot to
learn to fly it like the airplane it is.


Can anyone share the thoughts on why the 80 kias speed for
emergency landing is not bothersome ? [The chut is for the wife,
now lets hear the reasons for the husband pilot.]

Why would 80 knots be bothersome unless you are trying to land in a
parking lot? Once you move into complex, high performance let alone
multi engine you may find 80 knots is near the bottom end with many
coming down final much faster.

Who cares if a plane lands at 50 or 150 IF you have enough runway and
particularly if all else fails you have the BRS? If you dwell on the
negatives then flying anything is not for you.


Of course, when you are not good enough to build such a thing,
you tell buyers, "you don't need it".

The chutes are a "last ditch" resort and have saved lives. Odds being
what they are, the purchaser/pilot *isn't* going to need it.

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

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:26:24 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
wrote:

In article ,
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
And metal airplanes don't?

http://www.wanttaja.com/mooney.jpg

Geez, Ron, better luck with the next landing!

Landing? Hay-el, that was a *preflight* accident. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

(BTW, that's perfectly true: the fire started during preflight)

John,

Which is to
say, the Cirrus can't meet the requirements of Part 23.221 without the
parachute.


Here we go again...

No, that's not at all what it means. It means that there was no test
whether it would meet those requirements without the chute. Cirrus
doesn't know, I don't know, you don't know.

The difference isn't at all subtle, so why do you people have such
problems getting it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 17 Jun 2006 22:53:18 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan"
wrote:


It is not the approach speed that make the wreckages look so
horrifying. It is their abrupt stall characteristics and the fact that
composite materials melt and vaporize when under fire. I have seen a
Lancair after a wreck and I could only identify the metal pieces.
Everything else was gone.

Some where around 95 or 96 my wife and I flew the Deb down to visit
her folks at Dade City FL. We landed and kept the plane at Zypher
Hills. This was over the Christmas holiday week including New Years
week end.

Early one morning a Piper Cherokee tried to make it in to Tampa Bay
Exec. There was a lot of morning ground fog and he hit the power
lines about 2 miles short of the runway. The only thing recognizable
was the engine and prop. Even then the prop and all of the accessories
were molded around the engine as if they had been clay.

As I understand the rest of it rolled up into a ball and burned. The
couldn't even recover the instruments. Needless to say it was a fatal.

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


P S wrote:
I received some marketing brouchures from one of the best
selling "composite plane" on the market, with an invitation
to take a ride. Well, I was tempted until I found out how high
the Vso is. The plane goes in on final at 80 kts.

Which means, 80 kias is the speed you use for emergency
landing.

No wonder pictures after pictures of the wreckages of such
plane look so horrifying. Oh,, it is all pilot errors, since
the computers onboard have added such unprecendented
situation awareness, so that even incompetent pilots can
fly at ease.

The testmoney's printed in the brouchure are amazing. And they
reflect the intelligence of the owners, as well as the perceived
intelligence of the future buyers by the sales organization.
[This is a negative statement. So please read the previous
statement again, if you didn't get it.]

Can anyone share the thoughts on why the 80 kias speed for
emergency landing is not bothersome ? [The chut is for the wife,
now lets hear the reasons for the husband pilot.]

Of course, when you are not good enough to build such a thing,
you tell buyers, "you don't need it".

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
It is not the approach speed that make the wreckages look so
horrifying. It is their abrupt stall characteristics and the fact that
composite materials melt and vaporize when under fire. I have seen a
Lancair after a wreck and I could only identify the metal pieces.
Everything else was gone.

Is the stall characteristics inherently abrupt if the plane's wing
loading is high ?

Roger wrote:
On 17 Jun 2006 22:19:19 -0700, "P S" wrote:

This appears to be a troll, and even though I happen to dislike the
SR-22 I will come to its defense.

Insulting comments ignored.


I received some marketing brouchures from one of the best
selling "composite plane" on the market, with an invitation
to take a ride. Well, I was tempted until I found out how high
the Vso is. The plane goes in on final at 80 kts.

And?


Which means, 80 kias is the speed you use for emergency
landing.

Actually I fly a Bonanza/Debonair. Engine out, best glide is
120MPH/105 knots. Engine out, landing is about 90 MPH or just shy of
that 80 knots. Seems normal to me. A normal landing, "by the book"
is slower and takes a fair amount of power. At that speed you do not
have enough energy to flare if the engine quits, which at best means a
very hard landing.

Excuse me for my ignorance, but would forced landings on soft farm
lands
cause the plane to nose over at higher speeds ?



No wonder pictures after pictures of the wreckages of such
plane look so horrifying. Oh,, it is all pilot errors, since

Ahhh...fiberglass resin burns. It's usually what happens after the
crash that makes them look so bad. Well, that and the parachute cords
do make the fuselage look a bit untidy. OTOH if it hasn't burned it's
quite easy to fix. I think if you read the accident reports that the
pilot probably walked away from that smoldering pile.

It might have been co-incidents, but all the reports I came across on
these planes had fatalities.


the computers onboard have added such unprecendented
situation awareness, so that even incompetent pilots can
fly at ease.

The computer does nothing except make information available. It is up
to the pilot to assemble the relevant and throw away the irrelevant
plus "look out the windows" to create situational awareness.
Situational awareness to what ever level exists only between the ears
of the pilot. To the pilot who has flown old technology all that
information is hidden behind layers of button pushes that have to be
done in the proper order and it takes a while to learn how to access
all that information, let alone put it to use. So it actually
increases the workload greatly until the pilot has had enough time
behind it for the operation to become second nature, or instinctual.

Reasonable viewpoint.



The testmoney's printed in the brouchure are amazing. And they
reflect the intelligence of the owners, as well as the perceived
intelligence of the future buyers by the sales organization.
[This is a negative statement. So please read the previous
statement again, if you didn't get it.]

These are very good airplanes. That they are fast and slippery is not
a detriment, but rather to good engineering. It is up to the pilot to
learn to fly it like the airplane it is.

The CFIs all said that. But that is not substitute for safer landing
characteristics.



Can anyone share the thoughts on why the 80 kias speed for
emergency landing is not bothersome ? [The chut is for the wife,
now lets hear the reasons for the husband pilot.]

Why would 80 knots be bothersome unless you are trying to land in a
parking lot? Once you move into complex, high performance let alone
multi engine you may find 80 knots is near the bottom end with many
coming down final much faster.

This is why I do not move to "complex" airplanes, with retractable
landing gears. High performance, maybe. But better with similar
landing characteristics as the trainers.

At least for practicing "spot landings", it should be equally easy to
pin-point
the landing spot with the high performance airplane with comparable
landing
distance.

Also, with such view point in mind, these planes should not be targeted
at new pilots. But obviously there is targeted effort to sell these
planes
to the new pilots.


Who cares if a plane lands at 50 or 150 IF you have enough runway and
particularly if all else fails you have the BRS? If you dwell on the
negatives then flying anything is not for you.

That is extrapolating too much. There are a couple of single engine
airplanes
that meet the safety requirement for me. I have been urged by people to
look at the new composites. Obviously, the responses so far have
confirmed
what I suspected, that is, it is fine for you if you either think the
engine will
never quit on you, or if it quits, flying it onto the farm lands or
rolling hills
at 80 kts is as safe as gliding at 65 kts and touching down at 40-50
kts.

If the composite burns easily, it will be even more important to be
able to
glide at slower speeds.



Of course, when you are not good enough to build such a thing,
you tell buyers, "you don't need it".

The chutes are a "last ditch" resort and have saved lives. Odds being
what they are, the purchaser/pilot *isn't* going to need it.

The chutes can only be used at certain altitude, and within certain
range
of airspeeds. But the high stalling speed problem exists with other
composite
planes as well.

I don't think these composite planes are not good. They do well
in the better cruise speed, fuel efficiency and removal of the
retractable
landing gears. They do not do well in the forced landing department.

And if a new pilot questions the safety issues with a Cirrus, that
pilot will
be called a "troll", and be told "flying anything may not be for
him/her".

So long.


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

P,

And if a new pilot questions the safety issues with a Cirrus, that
pilot will
be called a "troll", and be told "flying anything may not be for
him/her".


Tune your reality distortion field as much as you like, but that's not
how it went.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2006-06-18, P S wrote:
I received some marketing brouchures from one of the best
selling "composite plane" on the market, with an invitation
to take a ride. Well, I was tempted until I found out how high
the Vso is. The plane goes in on final at 80 kts.

Which means, 80 kias is the speed you use for emergency
landing.

That's the final approach speed for many high performance singles. Even
the Arrow (which isn't really high performance) has a final approach
speed of something like 90mph (around 80 knots). The Bonanza manual,
IIRC recommends 80 knots for a power off landing.

If you don't want a final approach speed of 80, fly something slow.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On 17 Jun 2006 22:53:18 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan"
wrote:


It is not the approach speed that make the wreckages look so
horrifying. It is their abrupt stall characteristics and the fact that
composite materials melt and vaporize when under fire. I have seen a
Lancair after a wreck and I could only identify the metal pieces.
Everything else was gone.

Some where around 95 or 96 my wife and I flew the Deb down to visit
her folks at Dade City FL. We landed and kept the plane at Zypher
Hills. This was over the Christmas holiday week including New Years
week end.

Early one morning a Piper Cherokee tried to make it in to Tampa Bay
Exec. There was a lot of morning ground fog and he hit the power
lines about 2 miles short of the runway. The only thing recognizable
was the engine and prop. Even then the prop and all of the accessories
were molded around the engine as if they had been clay.

As I understand the rest of it rolled up into a ball and burned. The
couldn't even recover the instruments. Needless to say it was a fatal.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X09256&key=1

"P S" wrote in message
oups.com...

Roger wrote:
On 17 Jun 2006 22:19:19 -0700, "P S" wrote:

This appears to be a troll, and even though I happen to dislike the
SR-22 I will come to its defense.

Insulting comments ignored.

Insulting comments appropriate.


And if a new pilot questions the safety issues with a Cirrus, that
pilot will
be called a "troll", and be told "flying anything may not be for
him/her".

Correction: A new and clueless pilot with a chip on his shoulder and a
"punk" attitude, getting snotty with people with thousands of hours...


So long.

Indeed! PLONK