If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Tom,
Not at all. So let's talk about that other accident. Have you actually read the convoluted account the pilots of the accident aircraft? Went into clouds, went out, pulled the chute, nothing happened, landed alright, then the chute deployed. Well, am I the only one having a little trouble with all that? I doubt it. What other accidents are there that relate to the chute? You and I know the one where the chute worked just fine, I guess. Point me to the reports, and we'll discuss all you like. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Tom,
It takes...what, 1000 feet for a chute to deploy and become effective? That'll work great in the landing pattern. The 100 number is wrong, AIFAK. Also, do you really want to tell us spins in other aircraft are survivable/recoverable in other aircraft? Come on! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Tom,
Is that ALL it says? Well, yes, with regard to that. It's quite simple. The POH says, in so many words: If you are in a spin, pull the chute. Intentional spins prohibited. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff" wrote in message ... little more performance from a barron? How much stuff can you shove in a barron compared to a sr22? what would be better in hard IFR, a little light sr22 or a heavy barron? WIM, was "Why a Baron (one "r", not two), instead of a Bonanza or something else". Comparing a Baron to a SR22 is "apples and oranges". twice the maint. yes, but its 3 times the plane. My doctor just had his E55 engines replaced with Millennium remans/Tornado Alley Whirlwinds. He's awe struck!! :~) |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Tom,
it may be you who need some attention paying. Here's the full line of discussion that led us he Someone said: they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. to which I said: Do you maybe have any source for numbers that support this statement? Hint: They don't exist. You're wrong. To which you said: Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus. Tell me the low altitude recovery procedure. To which I said: I will - when you give me numbers that link the Cirrus safety record to spin characteristics. Don't try to change the subject just because you can't produce them! To which you now say: We didn't say it was STRICTLY SPIN ACCIDENTS. Well, coming back to the original statement "they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics.", I can't see how you can arrive at your most recent statement without a SERIOUS lack of attention. Who's we, anyway? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff" wrote in message ... losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 .. ka-boom KABOOM is the sound that a lot of light twins make when losing an engine. Lose one, you might as well lose both. Now, if you're spinning turbines, rather than popping pistons, it's a whole different story. http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182040-1.html |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"markjen" wrote in message news:4L%sb.145785$9E1.745940@attbi_s52... not a factor, I have an auto pilot, if it goes out, fly the instruments, it does not take much to get out of an unusual attitude. I own a retract, I fly it in IMC. I guess you're just a great pilot. But for us average pilots, loss of control is a very big concern. (I'd love to put you in a simulator and start introducing random instrument failures in heavy turbulence while flying a tough approach. Hmmm .... the turn coordinator and horizon don't seem to agree. Which is right? You've got about five seconds to figure it out before you die.) And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear types. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Nathan Young" wrote in message m... "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Jeff" wrote in message ... If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron Why? Twice the maintenance with little more in performance. Because the engine out performance is infinitely better. Actually, it isn't...odd as that may sound. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"Flynn" wrote in message news:4DWsb.143715$9E1.726950@attbi_s52... That's just wrong. Go through the Accident records. Only 2 are spins and one was by a test pilot. Read the rest of the accident reports; I said CHARACTERISTCS, not just due to SPINS. It sounds like when it let's go, it REALLY LET'S GO. "Tom S." wrote in message ... They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
"Flynn" wrote in message news:OTWsb.143359$275.434437@attbi_s53... In the end, it's up to the individual buyer. For $300 you can get a new Cirrus....comparables are what? T182's I guess? Are you serious? $300K for a T182? Diamond Twins? Not a new Bo' and certainly not a Baron. Which is why the suject line is stupid ; contrasting a new design with designs that are 56 and 40 years old. The Beech's are terrific aircraft. My uncles went back and forth between them as I was growing up so they're part of my flying memories. Yes, they are..what they are is a KNOWN QUANTITY that has well known characteristics/ qualities, something the new machines lack. Us older folks call it EXPERIENCE. The 182's are terrific machines as well. Ahhh....kinda, but a 182 is a Chevy, a F33A OTOH, is a Caddy (okay..an Acura, in my case). I'm guessing that most (all?) talking down the SR22 haven't even flown one. Try them all, do your homework and get the one that strikes your fancy. BTW, Cirrus is selling around 50-60 planes per month. 16 delivered week before last. Something's clearly going right there. Fads? Here, try this: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|