SR-22 in northern NJ?

I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:49:59 GMT, se
(Ron Rapp) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:42:55 GMT, David Megginson
wrote:

(Ron Rapp) writes:

Not that this tips things one way or the other, but the Mooney 201
I've flow (a '77 model) wouldn't do 170 knots. It was a 160 knot
airplane.

To get 180 knots, the SR22 burns 18 gph. I think the actual number
was 18.8 gallons per hour, but I'm going from memory here.

I was quoting book numbers for both; I'd assume that each would take a
similar real-world hit if not spiffy clean and perfectly rigged, with
a skilled test pilot at the controls.

Actually, from what I gather (I haven't flown an SR22), the SR22 will
make book speed. The only thing I noticed is that to get that magic
180 knots, it burns an awful lot of fuel. The SR20 gets 160 knots out
of 10 or so gallons, whereas the SR22 gets 180 knots out of 18 gph.

That said, for the plane you flew, did you check the tach? A small
calibration error could easily account for a speed loss.

No, it wasn't my airplane. I observed 160 knots or so when I flew it,
and that's what the owner told me 201s tend to get in the real world.


I think Cirrus is probably more "on the money" with their numbers,
especially since a new glass plane will probably be truer than an old
metal one that's developed some bad rigging, a little extra drag, and
a bit of extra weight over the years.

--Ron

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.


--
Jim Pennino

And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.


What about it?

The Columbia was destroyed because hot gas got through the hole in the
ablative tile, not because of a problem with the underlying structure.

When you hit the atmosphere at 15,000 mph with a hole in you heat shield,
it doesn't matter what the structure is.

Is there a SR-22 that does 15,000 mph?

--
Jim Pennino

Jim

I quote from an Internet search.

1." In ablative technology, the surface of the heat shield melts and
vaporizes, and in the process, it carries away heat".

2. "The orbiter tiles do not ablate during the heat of reentry".

Someone started using the wrong word (ablative) and spelled it wrong
and it has carried from post to post.

Just setting the technical record straight.

Big John


On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.

I really see no need to discuss this with you, but my take is that if
the carbon fiber didn't matter, they wouldn't be disassembling the
wing from a current ship and shooting things at it. Since you seem to
be a smart-ass without humorous intentions, I just guess you're
someone that knows what brought down the shuttle, and one of those
folks that is always correct. WOW! I am honored to have been
recognized as an inferior by you. Now, you know what you can go do.


On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.


What about it?

The Columbia was destroyed because hot gas got through the hole in the
ablative tile, not because of a problem with the underlying structure.

When you hit the atmosphere at 15,000 mph with a hole in you heat shield,
it doesn't matter what the structure is.

Is there a SR-22 that does 15,000 mph?

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I really see no need to discuss this with you, but my take is that if
the carbon fiber didn't matter, they wouldn't be disassembling the
wing from a current ship and shooting things at it. Since you seem to
be a smart-ass without humorous intentions, I just guess you're
someone that knows what brought down the shuttle, and one of those
folks that is always correct. WOW! I am honored to have been
recognized as an inferior by you. Now, you know what you can go do.


On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.


What about it?

The Columbia was destroyed because hot gas got through the hole in the
ablative tile, not because of a problem with the underlying structure.

When you hit the atmosphere at 15,000 mph with a hole in you heat shield,
it doesn't matter what the structure is.

Is there a SR-22 that does 15,000 mph?

My, my, touchy to being contradicted, aren't we?


--
Jim Pennino

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:39:15 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

My, my, touchy to being contradicted, aren't we?

No, but I find that I should have used these exact words when replying
to you the first time. Your statements regarding the construction of
the shuttle was not relevant to the conversation about the durability
of carbon fiber, as is the smart assed remark about a 15K mph SR-22.
And although plastic can be repaired, we still have no way of knowing
the effects of long term UV.

Now go and beat your wife if she hasn't left you yet.

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:39:15 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

My, my, touchy to being contradicted, aren't we?

No, but I find that I should have used these exact words when replying
to you the first time. Your statements regarding the construction of
the shuttle was not relevant to the conversation about the durability
of carbon fiber, as is the smart assed remark about a 15K mph SR-22.
And although plastic can be repaired, we still have no way of knowing
the effects of long term UV.

Now go and beat your wife if she hasn't left you yet.

Your original statement that started this sub-thread regarding the shuttle,
"After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when they
shot the foam at it?" has no relevance to the SR-22 since the materials
used are entirely different and one is only a heat shield (the shuttle)
and other structural (the SR-22).

I don't know who "we" is that doesn't know the long term effects of UV
on composition structures, but they are known in the industry and in the
military. The C-130 for example has had composite skin pieces for about
40 years now.

Further, the whole composits versus aluminium debate was beat to death
right here a couple of months ago.

You might try taking an anger management class to find out why you feel
personal attacks are necessary when someone disagrees with you.

--
Jim Pennino

Pete;
How does one lose when stating an opinion?

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 02:44:54 GMT, Pete Zaitcev
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:12:26 -0500, Justin Case wrote:

You know what you can do now, paisano. You're plonked.

Come on, Justin, learn to lose gracefully.

You were beaten on all the issues:
- relevance of a hole in the RCC panel #8 to the SR-22 construction
- durability of composite aircraft structures, and industry
experience with such.

-- Pete