Nuther SR-22 crash/incident?

In article
,
john smith wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

The Cirrus has a free castering nosewheel, but
the C182RG is the one everyone (including me) had a hard time landing,
the one whose tires kept getting bald spots, and the one whose prop get
bent.

Bald spots on landing are usually the result of having ones toes on the
brakes instead of the rudder pedals. This comes from pushing the rudder
pedals by flexing the foot so that the ball pushed against the toe
brakes instead of sliding the heels for and aft to control direction of
the ground roll by pushing the lower rudder pedal portion.

That was one theory. Trick is, all the same pilots were flying all the
planes in the fleet and only the 182 was getting bald spots. Also,
after landing, the brakes would be partially engaged for a while until
they cooled down (very annoying as it made it next to impossible to move
the plane back into its parking space). There was no one in the cockpit
so this after-landing lockup was manifestly not caused by someone
applying the brakes inadvertently.

We had long arguments about this for many years. The matter had still
not been resolved when I left the club.

rg

"Roger" wrote in message
...
Welllll... In the Deb Vso is about 63 MPH at gross. I fly final at 80
minus 1 MPH for each 100# under gross. However if I kill the power
it'll drop like a rock. Pull the nose up and it'll just go down faster
and I have about 17 MPH over stall.

There's no reason to pull the nose up until you're ready to flare, and with
17 mph there's absolutely no reason you should not have the ability to
arrest your descent and land without "dropping like a rock".

My own plane is very "draggy", without power it glides very steeply, and if
you're too slow when flaring power-off, the flare does need to be fairly
rapid. Otherwise, the airspeed drops more quickly than you can increase the
AOA to account for the reduced airspeed.

But that doesn't mean that the lift isn't available. It just means it
requires correct piloting technique to take advantage of the lift, at the
right moment and with the correct control input.

Beyond that, your own anecdote isn't very germane, considering that you're
talking a 5 knot smaller margin, in an airplane with a LOT more drag. With
20 knots or more above stall, the Cirrus has plenty of airspeed to have a
nice comfortable flare, even power off.

What lift curve are you talking about? Lift is proportional to airspeed
and
angle of attack, regardless of the wing. Up to the point of the stall,
you
need more lift, you just increase the angle of attack. It's a linear
change.

I think this idea may be what's getting some SR-22 pilots into
trouble.

What idea?

Stop thinking of the SR-22 as a fast Cherokee or Cessna.

Who's thinking of the SR-22 as a fast Cherokee or Cessna?

Things are not as you think.

What things are not as I think?

It varies from plane to plane but is
quite common for high performance aircraft.

What is quite common for high performance aircraft?

Some where around 20
knots above stall speed (give or take) you reach a point where the
drag is so high that although raising the nose may give more lift it
is more than offset by the increased drag.

Drag counteracts thrust, not lift. How can the lift be "more than offset by
the increased drag"?

So raising the nose results
in a faster rate of descent instead of slowing it.

Not until the airspeed drops. An airplane does not slow immediately when
the AOA is increased. The increase in drag takes time to cause an airplane
to slow, and assuming the pilot is not increasing the AOA at an
inappropriate moment (say, 100' above the touchdown elevation), the primary
effect of increasing AOA is to increase lift and thus reduce the rate of
descent.

This is true for any airplane.

Pulling the power
to idle in this range is likely to put you on the express elevator
down.

All that pulling the power to idle will require is a lowered AOA in order to
compensate for the reduced thrust. Yes, descent rate will increase. But
airspeed can easily be kept the same, and with 20 knots above the stall
speed, there is plenty of energy left for a proper flare and touchdown at
the appropriate moment.

This is why there is a substantial difference in my power off and
power on landing speeds with the power on being the slower of the two.

Actually, the reason there is a substantial difference in your power-off and
power-on landing speeds is the amount of power available. It has nothing to
do with some oddball idea of a "flat lift curve".

Plus I'm flying a plane with relatively low wing loading and low stall
speed. The Bo/Deb is very good at short field landings and take offs
when flown by the numbers.

Um, that statement simply reinforces my point. Even your "drop like a rock"
airplane has no trouble if the pilot does things correctly.

Pete

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:01 -0400, Roger
wrote:

snip

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

You wrote it, I was thinking it... Dopey me, had made quite a few
laps around the patch in various M20whatevers until somebody told me
they were tricky to land. Still haven't figured out what I was doing
wrong (never noticed a problem during approach thru landing).

One of 'em had speed brakes, totally forgot about them until after I
was on the ground. Oh well.

TC

Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
another.

I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring
over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
landing. Go figure.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
...
could add tailwheel time, gliders and other stuff. Whatever it is, I
found the Cirrus easy to land.

Maule Driver wrote:

Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
another.

I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring
over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
landing. Go figure.

Become one with the Maule, Grasshopper. :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Maule Driver wrote:
Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy
for another.

I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early
Mooney M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to
bring over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
landing. Go figure.

Become one with the Maule, Grasshopper. :-)

You know, I'm going to go out and do just that.... sure beats work. Thanks!

I should add that I meant it's a bear to do without a big fat slip.

In article ,
Maule Driver wrote:

Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
another.
I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring
over an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance
landing. Go figure.

I found that with the Champ, 55 mph, power off, puts the wheels at the
aim point with medium firm arrival. Higher than normal sink rate, but
not so high as to cause damage. Excellent short field/obstacle procedure.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
...
Funny how landing a given a/c can be tough for one person and easy for
another.

I found doing short field over the obstacle landings in an early Mooney
M20 to be a piece of cake. And yet I find the Maule a bear to bring over
an obstacle in a steep approach and do the minimum distance landing. Go
figure.

Trade planes with someone? g
--
Jim in NC

John,

The only way to turn is using the brakes.
That is why they had brake fires on several aircraft.


No, that's not why. The reason for that is utter pilot incompetence.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
The only way to turn is using the brakes.
That is why they had brake fires on several aircraft.


No, that's not why. The reason for that is utter pilot incompetence.

I'm not convinced that's a fair assessment. Utter instructor incompetence,
perhaps, or maybe utter manufacturer incompetence.

It's true that operated correctly, the free-castoring nosewheel is no
trouble at all. But it's also true that otherwise competent pilots,
unfamiliar with the design, need a proper introduction to taxiing
techniques. If the manufacturer of the airplane is not correctly
emphasizing this issue to new owners, or if the instructors introducing
these new owners to their airplanes are not pointing out the necessary
techniques, then how should the pilot be held entirely to blame for the
consequences of their incorrect use of the brakes?

There are a number of factors that led to the brake fires, and the fact is
that the root factor -- the one factor that led to all the others -- is
indeed the design of the airplane. That's not to say that the design is
inherently faulty, but it IS to say that one cannot discount the influence
of the design itself in the problems that arise from that.

Owning an airplane with a free-castoring nosewheel myself, I am very
familiar with the training issues surrounding the proper use of brakes while
taxiing. Taxiing an airplane without a steerable nosehweel requires a
certain amount of planning, sometimes delicate technique, sometimes
forceful, and above all a certain degree of experience before it becomes
natural.

I myself had my brakes smoking once the first day I was training in it.
Thankfully, in my airplane one can actually see the wheels, and my
instructor let the problem get just bad enough so he could show me why taxi
technique was so important. Did I lack complete competence? Of course...I
was still learning the airplane. Do I think calling me "utterly
incompetent" would be fair? Absolutely not...that implies a degree of
ineptitude that goes far beyond simple lack of training, as does your
accusation do so as well when applied to all Cirrus pilots who had brake
fires.

And in a Cirrus (as opposed to an airplane like mine where an instructor can
watch the wheels), it's much harder for an instructor to monitor the pilot's
brake use and resulting effect on the wheels. Brakes can overheat and catch
stuff on fire, with no visible evidence until things have gotten WAY out of
hand.

I realize that, for whatever reason, you have set yourself up as the
defender of the Cirrus no matter the accusation. But in this case, you go
too far. You unfairly malign pilots who are guilty of nothing more than not
having been properly trained (and possibly who were actually in the process
of being properly trained), and you entirely ignore the very real causative
effects due to the design of the airplane (and of course, lack of any
warning devices to alert the pilot to a hazardous condition).

Pete