Why does airspeed change when I adjust the prop?

Morgans,

I'm pretty sure I have read that some owners have successfully spun and
recovered it.


EASA certification required it, I've been told.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to get down to the truth.

No you're not. You have become bored with the topic after having gotten
the answers you sought - and now you start trying to destroy the thread
and this community with your obnoxious, childish behaviour - because
you're envious that there are people that are part of such communities,
in real life.

Nobody seems to agree on anything in this domain,

Your reading comprehension really sucks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Mxsmanic,
This would also explain why so many pilots can
depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.

And you really wonder why people think you're a first-class asshole and
regret answering to your question EVERY TIME? It's because you are.

Oh mx definitely can sound that way. But in this case, if anyone else
had said it, there'd be virtually zero argument. With little or no
information in the old POHs, and pilots using techniques ranging from
LOP to ROP, then his observation is right... it seems like you can use
almost any adjustment incantation and the engine doesn't blow up :-)

Heck, just look at how much discussion is generated here about the
"right way" to adjust the engine. Not to mention that students are
rarely taught much about leaning / EGT / etc, partly because it's hard
to find definitive information. (Even though it's not hard to find
articles on the topic.). In the end, that's why we usually rely on
word-of-mouth from other pilots of the same aircraft type.

Cheers, Kev

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Morgans,

I'm pretty sure I have read that some owners have successfully spun and
recovered it.

EASA certification required it, I've been told.

No idea if anyone's recovered from a spin or not, but the EASA approved
manual, page 3-19, states that spin recovery characteristics have not
been tested or certified.

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicec...003SR20POH.pdf

The company line is that, while they tried to design to avoid spins,
the chute is the answer for loss of control:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/chutehappens/qa/index.html

Kev

Kev,

No idea if anyone's recovered from a spin or not, but the EASA approved
manual, page 3-19, states that spin recovery characteristics have not
been tested or certified.

Ah, thanks for that. Several people said Cirrus had to demonstrate conventional spin recovery for EASA,
but they couldn't provide a document. Now you have provided one tha proves the opposite. Excellent.

The company line is that, while they tried to design to avoid spins,
the chute is the answer for loss of control:

That's not only the company line. The chute is the basis for spin certification both for the FAA and (as
you pointed out) the EASA, accepted as an alternate method. It seems to work pretty well, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Kev,

With little or no
information in the old POHs,

Regarding MP and RPM combination, there's a ton of information even in
the oldest POH.

and pilots using techniques ranging from
LOP to ROP,

They have all been explained to him, in detail, with the factual
background and further reference. No voodoo about it.

Heck, just look at how much discussion is generated here about the
"right way" to adjust the engine.

So what? This is not "the definitive answer machine". It's a newsgroup.

Not to mention that students are
rarely taught much about leaning / EGT / etc, partly because it's hard
to find definitive information.

That's not the reason, IMHO. Lazy instructors is more like it.

In the end, that's why we usually rely on
word-of-mouth from other pilots of the same aircraft type.

I sure wouldn't. Don't know many people that would, either.

I can't for the life of me understand why you defend him, but you gotta
do what you gotta do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote
Bds,

"Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover,
according to the test pilots."


Just by putting it in quotation marks, you don't make it a quote (which
in itself is quoting someone else - really funny). So which test pilot
said this when to whom?

Not sure what you mean - putting it in quotes credits a source other than
the writer. I felt it necessary considering all the threats of litigation
here for copyright infringement.

BDS

"Morgans" wrote

Hardly seems definitive, to me. Company pilots, reciting the company
position.

Kinda' like a "he said she said" type of deal.

I'm pretty sure I have read that some owners have successfully spun and
recovered it.

I don't know - someone who just spent several hundred grand on a new
airplane and noticed that the manufacturer advised against intentional spins
and that the approved recovery technique involved destroying the airplane
probably wouldn't go out and intentionally spin theirs.

Then again, "virtually unrecoverable" isn't the same as "unrecoverable"
either, so apparently it is recoverable. The point is that the statement
"virtually unrecoverable" would seem to indicate that the aircraft doesn't
respond just like any other in terms of spin recovery.

That said, spins that end in crashes usually aren't intentional IMO, they're
inadvertent and at low (read that unrecoverable) altitudes, and that's a
whole different animal.

BDS

Bds,

Not sure what you mean -


What I mean is this: You say "Not accoding to the test pilots" and then
add a quote from a third person quoting those test pilots. That is
hearsay at its extreme, yet your first sentence makes it sound like
fact. Which is what I was taking issue with.

In that context, if there's any litigation to fear, it's because of
slander.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
have kindly answered your question!!!

I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to get down to the truth.

Well, gosh, golly, aren't you the dedicated (not) little investigator!

Nobody seems to agree on anything in this domain, and I have to wonder
why. It seems to be a part of aviation that is filled with mythology,
rumor, and urban legend, but few hard facts appear to circulate, and
for some reason the actual recommendations of the engine and aircraft
manufacturers are often discounted in favor of rumors, which doesn't
seem very rational (although it is a fairly typical human behavior).

There is little need for hard facts to circulate. They are located and
preserved in appropriate places, where you have been directed from time to
time. Presuming, of course, that a troll can ever go anywhere away from his
bridge.

OTOH, this forum is more like a 24 hour airport coffee shop. Since we fail
to meet your esteemed intellectual standard, you are free to leave at any
time. Please stop at the register and pay your tab on the way out...

For my money it is nice to know the in-depth stuff but it simply isn't
necessary to be an aeronautical expert just to fly a light aircraft!

Perhaps not, but it does seem that one must know a great deal about
engines, which I find bizarre.

If you look in the mirror, you will see something REALLY bizarre!

Peter