Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

Peter,

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.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

...snip... One of the troubles with carbon fiber is it if it is
over-stressed, it doesn't just gradually crystallize and develop cracks
the
way metal does. It fails suddenly and spectacularly. ...snip...

I think bicycles are pointing the direction to the future of aircraft. I
think we may eventually see aircraft made of titanium (the stuff is not
rare, just difficult to work with) and beryllium/aluminum alloys. You can
get bicycles made of these materials today, and they are proving their
worth, though I will probably stick with carbon fiber.


Although the necessity of "light and strong" is obvious, the "energy
dissipation" quality of crumpling aluminum and "standard" metals is also
useful in light GA aircraft, where survivable crashes are common.

If we make stuff too strong (titanium and carbon fiber) do we risk that it
would lead to fewer GA accidents being survivable??


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.



I couldn't agree more!

"C J Campbell" wrote:
First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign.

Bwaw-haw-haw! You could have fooled us! Is that why you only cross-posted
to four groups?

If you keep grinding this axe, you won't have anything left but the handle.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

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
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.

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.

Call me conservative

Peter

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?

You guys sound like Ford defending the Lizzy. Best way to towards
industrial obsolescence is putting your head in the ground while the world
flies past.

That sound you hear is credibility leaking away at a high rate of speed.

"Icebound"
"C J Campbell"
...snip... One of the troubles with carbon fiber is it if it is
over-stressed, it doesn't just gradually crystallize and develop cracks
the
way metal does. It fails suddenly and spectacularly. ...snip...

I think bicycles are pointing the direction to the future of aircraft. I
think we may eventually see aircraft made of titanium (the stuff is not
rare, just difficult to work with) and beryllium/aluminum alloys. You
can
get bicycles made of these materials today, and they are proving their
worth, though I will probably stick with carbon fiber.


Although the necessity of "light and strong" is obvious, the "energy
dissipation" quality of crumpling aluminum and "standard" metals is also
useful in light GA aircraft, where survivable crashes are common.

If we make stuff too strong (titanium and carbon fiber) do we risk that it
would lead to fewer GA accidents being survivable??


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.



I couldn't agree more!

"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

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.

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)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Ryan,


hey can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.



Could you explain a little more, please?

TCM: I think Continental's quality of materials and construction is poor
these days (see Deakin's comments on TCM at AVWeb) and I would have
vastly preferred a Lycoming powerplant in the Cirrus. The current
engine is a operating expense and safety liability in an otherwise
well-thought out airplane. The TBO talk of 1,700 vs. 2,000 is largely
moot because the engine is not likely to make it past 800-1000 hours
without being topped no matter how it's operated.

Network: Components by Emax, Avidyne, Garmin, S-TEC, and L-3 all
communicate together via ethernet. A piece of garbage occasionally
appears in the data stream and causes problems - for example, the
altitude preselect may stop functioning mid-flight, or the autopilot may
stop receiving course or heading signals from the PFD. These problems
are transitory and impossible to troubleshoot. The solution is to
integrate, which is what Garmin is promising with the G-1000. Garmin is
also building their own autopilot, which will obviously be designed to
seamlessly integrate with the G-1000. A/P integration was one of the
key goals of the Garmin design team, according the G-1000 product
manager when I spoke with him after a presentation on the G-1000.

MCU: The Master Control Unit provides electrical services such as
voltage regulation and overvoltage protection, etc. It's mounted on the
left side of the firewall in the engine compartment. Oddly, it is a
single point of failure across both alternators. A failure of the MCU
makes the all-electric SR-22 a battery-powered airplane in a heartbeat.
This is supposed to be a rare event, but we've replaced two MCUs in
one of our SR-22s already.

Another common misunderstanding is that the airplane "can't" recover
from spins with CAPS. According to Cirrus' test pilots, the airplane
recovers from spins via conventional recovery techniques. The latest
iteration of the SR-22 and SR-20 POH indicates the proper recovery
method is to first try the conventional PARE technique, and if not
effective, to activate CAPS. Spin certification compliance via CAPS was
simply a matter of saving money to certify the airplane. I don't
suggest that the airplane can or should be spun, but from what I've
heard directly from the horse's mouth, spin avoidance and recovery are
no more an issue in the Cirrus than any other single-engine airplane.

-Ryan

Ryan,

very interesting, thanks.

IMHO, it's a matter of time until Cirrus switches to the G1000, just
like they switched from Arnav to Avidyne. The integration really makes
sense. Maybe they're waiting for the autopilot...

As for TCM, here in Europe, many people, myself included, are really
waiting for a diesel to be integrated into the Cirrus. The way Cirrus
tells it, the SMA installation is full of problems which need solving
by SMA, not Cirrus. Not much movement there. OTOH, the small Thielert
doesn't have enough power. The big Thielert, scheduled for 2006, is too
big and heavy. So the only hope from my view is the 6-cylinder 200+ HP
Thielert, which will probably take until close to the end of the decade
to be fully certified and integrated. Oh well...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)