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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Dude" wrote in message ... [...] If you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle. How is that different from every other airplane without speed brakes, where you need to reduce the throttle in order to slow down without changing your flight path? I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination will slow my plane without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an argument about shock cooling. Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it. The Cirrus does not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec) Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly slow because he can shed speed whenever needed. Dude, seems to me that by now, you've seen "speed brakes" spelled correctly often enough that it's time you start doing so yourself. LOL, thanks, I will try. Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good. Funny...lots of people find it works just fine. It's not a FADEC, by the way. Pete Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging louder than the ones that think it works just fine. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
As far as the accidents go, simply pointing at statistics and calling the plane a death trap and saying that they are "falling out of the sky" isn't supportable by the facts. Of the eight fatal accidents (not counting the flight test accident) five (and possibly a sixth, though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard to blame these on the plane per se. "per se"? Accusing those of us who think the statistics are relevant of hyperbole will not save any lives, nor win the argument. The fatalities per 100,000 flight hours stat is a very valid and fair stat. Once again, you can't take out the "stupidity factor" from one manufacturer's stats, and not the others. Ultimately it comes down to whether people do more stupid things in Cirrus aircraft than in other brands. Statistically it's too early to tell, and the time-in-type average is very low. Basically, you can cook the numbers to support your position, regardless. I think it's probably true that someone who is going to be stupid enough to scud run at night or in mountainous terrain is probably more likely to die in a Cirrus than a Cessna because of the speed. It may well be that pilots feel safer in a Cirrus than in a 25 year old 172 (I know I do, and it's arguably true, particularly IFR) and perhaps that leads the marginal ones to take bigger risks. But there is no shortage of pilots doing dumb things in all manner of aircraft, and dying on a regular basis. Time will tell. I believe they are over a million fleet hours, and I am told that is generally considered the time at which the numbers become valid. It often seems reasonable that if a design appeals to risk takers, or somehow promotes risk taking, then we can dismiss the results. In reality, this is a terrible mistake. There are so many ways to approach this argument. One would be that its the fatalities that matter, and if you cannot change them, then the cause is not important. Another would be that everyone of us is likely to decide that we are not one of those idiots. In fact, the ones that are dead likely thought that. The idea that the feeling of safety causes risk taking is meaningless in the end. Either the design is safe or it is not. There is almost no practical way to prove the cause without changing the results. Therefore, the design is bad until it is found to be performing more safely. If Cirrus implements a change, and then gets different results, then we can talk again. (the parachute fix seems to have helped). If the problem is indeed personality, perhaps they are selling the planes to the wrong people. I would not necessarily disagree that this is the case except to point out that they are not changing their sales practices and other than looking at experience levels what are you going to do anyway. Cirrus could get some good PR by simply dropping the SRV idea, and requiring a high level of hours to buy their SR20 and SR22. I don't see this happening, so I guess we will have a bunch more Thurman Munson Jr.'s. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Murdock ) wrote:
Apparently doing acrobatics despite placards prohibiting them. See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X00613&key=1 As a local to this particular crash and as one who has talked to many about it, I am of the belief that these two pilots were simply checking out their newly-delivered Cirrus using all the standard private pilot air maneuvers (stalls, steep turns, etc.). They were not performing prohibited aerobatics. What appeared to have doomed them was their decision to perform multiple power-on stalls in a row. During a power-on stall, the pilot botched the recovery and the aircraft entered into a secondary stall followed by a spin. The question that will never be answered is why didn't they use the BRS? -- Peter |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
I would have to say that any plane is relatively safe while in the hangar.
This may be a way to look at it, but it would not be a way to find out anything. I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed. However, I have to disagree with you on this one. It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here. The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one. There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating an environment where other innovators will just be scared away. I think that many in the press are willing to listen to Cirrus' arguments, and give them a break for this reason. I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair. It may not be true that every Cirrus sale comes at the expense of one of the others, but I would be much happier seeing more of the other two brands being sold instead. "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Dude, One way to look at it is total aircraft numbers versus aircraft with fatal accidents - which is what Richard Collins does in the latest issue of Flying. Cirrus is comparable to the 182S that way. Many other planes are much worse. The one fatal accident after the mag appeared doesn't change that. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis ) wrote:
Great! You'll have to look me up while there! I'll be the one with "MyAirplane.com" on his shirt.. (well, one of them anyway). We may get a booth, its up in the air right now (and only 2 weeks untillt he show). I'll be looking for the shirt, as I am very familiar with your excellent website. Will you be staying over the 2 days? Wondering what camping would be like on that field... or if its even allowed. No, I am only attending on Saturday, unless the weather is really bad Saturday but nice on Sunday. Since I am flying in from Syracuse, a mere 40 minute flight away, I am did not have plans to stay there. I strongly doubt that camping would be allowed on the airport grounds. Maybe someday this will be the Oshkosh of the Northeast, but for now the event is still in its infancy. -- Peter |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
C,
The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests Ok, quote me where it says that in the POH. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Dude,
I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed. Why, thanks! ;-) It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here. The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one. You know, I agree. The problem, as we all know, of course, is that there is no reliable count of hours flown. So anyone can amssage the numbers anyway he or she likes. i still take strong objection to statements like "falling out of the sky". That's BS any way you look at the numbers. There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating an environment where other innovators will just be scared away. Yes, I think that many pilots do tend to do that - while at the same time clamoring for innovation. I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair. Well, there are hardly any Lancairs flying, so in that case we really don't have any numbers to go by, I would say. And the Diamond has a great record - but hey, it's from Old Europe, so an all-American GA pilot can't well buy that crap now, can he? (yes, that was irony, but a lot of truth in it for some people...) -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Edr,
That it has to be a fatal to be an accident, and if there are no fatals it doesn't count? it does - but I don't think the statistics make the Cirrus stand out for non-fatals. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Vaughn" writes:
We are not talking about a trainer, we are talking about an advanced, owner-flown, plane that will occasionally end up in an inadvertant spin. Any pilot that has enough experience to be flying one shout at least be able to recite the standard spin recovery procedure. Saying that the plane "will occasionally end up in an inadvertent spin" is a lot like calling it a plane that "will occasionally end up crumpled on the side of a mountain in clouds and freezing rain." You have to be trying really hard to spin one; it's hard to pin that on the plane. We can probably all recite the standard spin recovery procedure. I suspect that a significant number of us have never experienced a spin nor actually done the procedure, and should it happen in real life will probably be really confused and disoriented for long enough to die. When I moved to California I was able to recite the standard earthquake procedure, but when it happened the first time I had no idea what was happening to me until it was already over... |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" writes:
"Dave Katz" wrote in message ... I've got about 500 hours in both SR20s and SR22s, so I'll throw out some real world experience (not that it's worth anything in a newsgroup, but here goes.) The folks claiming that they stall without warning Anyone here make such a claim? Or is this just a straw man argument? I think the claim was something along the lines of "it's flying and then suddenly it's not flying." I interpreted that as having no warning in the stall. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
New Cirrus SR22 Lead Time | Lenny Sawyer | Owning | 4 | March 6th 04 09:22 AM |
Fractional Ownership - Cirrus SR22 | Rich Raine | Owning | 3 | December 24th 03 05:36 AM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |