Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
.com...
What a load of BS. Have either of you guys ever seen or flown a high
performance sailplane? Where *only* airframe performance counts -
aircraft
use composite construction. Anybody heard of Rutan?


Composites, sure. But fiberglass specifically, well.....

Rutan's designs, such as the round-the-world Voyager, or Adam Aircraft's
A500... were done in carbon fiber and kevlar.... was there very much
fiberglass involved?

As for the obsolescence of aluminum, especially in alloy, try the
"Centennial of Flight" Commission:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...tes/Tech40.htm

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:38:36 +0200, Peter Hovorka
wrote:

Hi Thomas,

(just why did I know ...)

The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
about many problems and so on.

Well, then think about the number of ADs that have come out for
new-generation Cessnas compared to the Cirrus or the Diamond, too.

I do. And I do think about the 'accidents' of both types since restart of
Cessna's production and the emerging of Cirrus.

If compared, the ADs for the 182 on the one side and the ADs and problems of
the Cirrus show a clear difference: On the one side a many years old design

I think they have a long way to go to catch up with all the ADs on the
"new" Cessnas.

of a 'rugged-and-reliable' spam can with a few minor problems due to
redesigns and on the other side a totally new design with some real
problems.

I seriously doubt there's much wrong with the Cirrus design. OTOH
people should not be comparing them to Cessnas, unless it's a 210.

There is one on our field and it's cruise is 20 knots faster than my
Deb and my Deb has had a lot of mods. I flight plan 160 knots. That
Cirrus easily makes 180 knots without straining.

Now take new, relatively low time pilot in high performance/complex
and you have the proverbial 130 MPH mind in a 220 MPH airplane. Add
to that the low timers are more likely to think that chute is
something they can rely on to keep them out of trouble.

Pilots regularly get caught VFR into IMC in Cessnas and Pipers. Now
add between 50% and 100% to the speed and they can get into trouble
much faster. It's the speed that gets them into trouble, not so much
folding feet in say a Bonanza.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Cirrus is faulty or bad. Just
that it's ones own decission if you want to use a _very_ proven design
(with the downside of 'age') or a brand new design with many (nice?)
surprises in the first 5-10 years.

I think the Cirrus design is fine, but I also think too many pilots
see a fixed gear and automatically class it with 172s and Cherokees in
its flying abilities, when they really need to be learning to think
almost twice as far ahead as they did in the Cessna or Cherokee.
It's more like a souped up Bonanza with a big engine, constant speed
prop, and the gear down and welded.

As an aside, I don't like the "side yoke" and I call it a yoke instead
of a stick as the thing works exactly like a yoke except for the
single horn. I'd much prefer a "joy stick" as in F-16, or Flight
Simulator on a computer. I've flown yokes, sticks, side sticks, and
joy sticks. Of all I least prefer the side yoke or stick as Cirrus
calls it. Side stick aside (no pun intended), other than that, I like
the airplane.

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

Peter

I am not too sure that there has been too much design in aircraft that
utilizes the crumple capabilities of metal. Even in the metal planes. At
least the GA planes.

The likely accidents are much different than in cars, and I am not sure that
you have the weight available to really play with crumple zones. Sure, you
would want to ensure that the wings will shear off at a certain amount of
force, and that the engine will not go straight back into the cockpit.
Other than that, where would you go for a crumple rather than a solid
resistance?

Also, the likely bounce is much different in a plane than a car.

This would make a neat new thread.

I personally believe that Cessna could do much better.

Perhaps the talent is not there anymore, but I think its available for hire
if they want it. They lack the drive, spirit, and passion at Cessna. This
is inevitable because anyone who could stand the lack of change could not be
innovative or revolutionary by nature.

Still, we could see a little faster evolutionary change out of those guys,
but we just don't. Its about time someone cleaned house over there before
the disease spreads to the jet side of the house.




"Peter Hovorka" wrote in message
...
Hi Gerd,

What bothers me in this whole discussion is the religious zeal with
which Cirrus proponents go around.

[ .. ]

Why do these Cirrus
missionaries try to portray existing designs as being outdated and not
up to par?

I guess it depends on the individual. On the one hand you'll find the
statements like 'planes are much more oldfashioned than motorcycles and
cars, it's time for something new, everything old has to be seen as crap!'
told by non-owners and tech-freaks. On the other hand you'll find the
'this
is the best plane ever - in every regard thinkable' emphasized by owners.

I haven't flown both, I don't have a mission profile for one of them, I'm
not a cessna nor a cirrus dealer etc. etc...

The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
about many problems and so on.

Though I'm not lucky with the non-improvement of the avgas guzzlers by
Lycoming and Continental and I would really like to see some improvements
in crashworthiness in the 'old' Cessna airplanes (26g seats, structural
rework) I would never think of a Cessna as a bad airplane.

These pseudo-religious fights Cirrus - Cessna Fans are ridiculous. Every
company does its best in regard to the market, their product image, their
target customers and the legal possibilities.

Think about the Cessna representing 'old school', being as harmless as it
gets and the Cirrus as a state-of-the-art airplane with a sleek design.
One
wouldn't compare a Bonanza with a C182, would one?

Kind regards to all of you, I love these groups

(Although I don't really see the sense in cross posting to the whole r.a.
hierarchy... I kept the header)

Peter

C,

You will never see a
serious fiberglass bicycle, which is even more dependent than an airplane on
strength and lightness. Fiberglass is for cheap boats, not airplanes or
bicycles.


There are comparisons that make sense. Then there are comparisons that are
total BS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

But what about all the Cirrus aircraft being sold in and around
germany?Maybe that's because of the lack of interest by Cirrus to do a
full certification in the EU


The SR20 has been certified in Europe by the JAA for some months Still,
keep in mind that, with the new JAR-FCL regulation, having a
US-registered aircraft is a very attractive alternative for many European
pilots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Peter Hovorka" wrote in message
...

PS: I think no one will question that composite is the future

Composite, maybe. Fiberglass, no.

Hi Thomas,

But what about all the Cirrus aircraft being sold in and around
germany?Maybe that's because of the lack of interest by Cirrus to do a
full certification in the EU


The SR20 has been certified in Europe by the JAA for some months Still,
keep in mind that, with the new JAR-FCL regulation, having a
US-registered aircraft is a very attractive alternative for many European
pilots.

I'm not talking about EU registered planes but N-registered ones in Europe.
Haven't seen a non-N-registered one yet.

After the bureaucratic suicide called JAR, the N registration stuff is (!)
very interesting in the EU, indeed. But as you know especially the german
authorities dislike this very much and still try to find a way to 'handle'
this...

Regards,
Peter

Hi Roger,

I seriously doubt there's much wrong with the Cirrus design. OTOH
people should not be comparing them to Cessnas, unless it's a 210.

There is one on our field and it's cruise is 20 knots faster than my
Deb and my Deb has had a lot of mods. I flight plan 160 knots. That
Cirrus easily makes 180 knots without straining.

Now take new, relatively low time pilot in high performance/complex
and you have the proverbial 130 MPH mind in a 220 MPH airplane. Add
to that the low timers are more likely to think that chute is
something they can rely on to keep them out of trouble.

I now took the time to seriously look at the NTSB reports. And I agree to a
large extent.

Pilots regularly get caught VFR into IMC in Cessnas and Pipers. Now
add between 50% and 100% to the speed and they can get into trouble
much faster. It's the speed that gets them into trouble, not so much
folding feet in say a Bonanza.

The fate of many well designed high performance singles...

Was there a non-deployment of the chute after the AD regarding the handle? I
just found the preliminary report about the 'remove before flight' pin and
just couldn't believe it. Sadly

Kind regards,
Peter

Peter,

I'm not talking about EU registered planes but N-registered ones in Europe.
Haven't seen a non-N-registered one yet.


Well, I have. I was talking about the alleged "lack of interest" in European
certification you said Cirrus has. I was saying that Cirrus has completed the
European registration. That can hardly be called a lack of interest.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)