cirrus aircraft

Marco Leon wrote:

There are many very experienced old-hats that are of the opinion that
autopilots are required equipment for single-pilot IFR. An STEC-30 or 50 is
high on my upgrade list. Until it's in the panel, I will not fly any
appreciable IMC (more than 1 hour) without an instrument rated co-pilot.

I'm glad I'm not an old hat. I flew single pilot IFR very frequently
for the six years that I owned a Skylane. And this was in the northeast
where we have a fairly wide range of weather during most of the year and
also fairly high traffic density. My airplane didn't have an autopilot
and I found flying IFR to be fairly easy most of the time. Last might
reroutes in turbulence could make reprogramming the GPS a little tricky
while flying, but even that was manageable.


Matt

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
* Numerous Cirrus owners have commented that trimming the plane to
hands-off is difficult and that they rely on the A/P for enroute
flying. Then again, who would drive a car today without power steering?
Perhaps this is the SATS-type future of GA.


Power steering doesn't drive the car for you. An autopilot flies the
plane for you.

No, but if your power steering fails, you probably call the towtruck.
And if you don't, your wife definitely does. That's my point- the
autopilot basically becomes an MEL item in these planes.

With all due respect to those who have purchased SR20/SR22 aircraft, I
wouldn't buy one if someone handed me the money. In my opinion, the
money is better spent on more proven designs.

I'm a little less chary of it, though I prefer the Lancair (from a
distance) because of their attention to the cabin crash dynamics. IIRC
they poached some of the guys who worked on the Diamond planes which
have an absolutely amazing safety record, especially the Katana. This
plus airbags has for me a lot more safety value than CAPS, which
protects you in comparatively few circumstances. However, it seems to
me that in terms of fundamental philosophy, both the Columbia and SR
series planes seem to be designed to be flown like corporate jets-
takeoff, turn on George, disconnect, flare and land. Considering the
comparative safety record thi might be the wiser approach.

-cwk.

Mike,

One thing that is weird is
the side-yoke. Anybody find any problems with that?


None. It's more of a stick - vastly preferable to a yoke, IMHO. And in
case of a crash, I'd much prefer to have nothing on front of me, thank
you.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Morgans,

I know all
of the advantages, but they just don't outweigh the disadvantage of lack of
flexibility, IMHO.


I'll give up the flexibility for crash-worthiness.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Would people say that's
typical of Mooney 201/Bonanza and other planes of a similar class to
the SR series?


One data point: regulation in Germany (and other European countries)
prohibit single-pilot IFR flying without at least a two-axis autopilot
in the aircraft. One of the few German rules that make sense to me...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote

I'll give up the flexibility for crash-worthiness.

I hope you are smart enough, to not buy into that bit.

There are other ways to deal with a stick or column, and being crash-worth.
Telescoping under pressure, break-away, and airbags are all strategies that
work well.
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:47:58 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Mike,

One thing that is weird is
the side-yoke. Anybody find any problems with that?


None. It's more of a stick - vastly preferable to a yoke, IMHO. And in
case of a crash, I'd much prefer to have nothing on front of me, thank

I'll swear it worked like a yoke rather than a stick.
I like a side "joy stick" as in computer, or F-16.

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

you.

Morgans,

There are other ways to deal with a stick or column, and being crash-worth.
Telescoping under pressure, break-away, and airbags are all strategies that
work well.


And can be found in which aircraft?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Roger,

I'll swear it worked like a yoke rather than a stick.


You're right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article .com,
wrote:

I'm a little less chary of it, though I prefer the Lancair (from a
distance) because of their attention to the cabin crash dynamics. IIRC
they poached some of the guys who worked on the Diamond planes which
have an absolutely amazing safety record, especially the Katana. This
plus airbags has for me a lot more safety value than CAPS, which

I think the Lancair (or Columbia as they're calling themselves) are the
better airplanes. However, neither one has a long-term cost of
ownership or reliability history. Kit-built cost of ownership is one
thing, but when it's certificated, and then you have to hunt down an A&P
who has been trained on the airplane, that certainly limits your options
and raises the overall cost.

No doubt that as automation increases, piloting skills required
decrease. That may contribute to greater safety if adequate redundancy
is employed, but it also takes a certain charm out of flying an airplane.



JKG