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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"BTIZ" wrote in message news:g%q1e.436$ZV5.418@fed1read05... Currently the Cirrus is having a higher accident rate per hours flown than most other single engine aircraft... it's new.. and harder to fix for minor dings than bent sheet metal.. Its not harder to fix, you have to have a different skill set. A minor flaw in aluminum costs almost exactly the same to repair from my experience. The only difference is that the metal plane likely has a harder to match color. Also, I do not fly a Cirrus, but have seen that pilots used to C-182s or Mooney's are not used to the speed and fast wing of the Cirrus... lots of long hot landings on short runways... Which Mooney are you speaking of? Any Mooney built in the last decade is faster than a Cirrus. Of course, it also likely has speed brakes, and is more respected by its pilot. Ask a few Cirrus pilot (or any others) which plane requires more skill and attention, and they will undoubtedly say the Mooney. I think that is why the Cirrus accidents reduced when they started more training. The Mooney guys were mostly getting that kind of training already. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The other issue is that the Cirrus is an unknown. There just isn't enough of them out there to get good statical data. Of course, the insurance industry will error on the negative side for you (positive for them.) How many planes, and flight hours, do you propose is necessary before it is statistically relevant? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dude wrote:
Which Mooney are you speaking of? Any Mooney built in the last decade is faster than a Cirrus. Any Mooney built in the last decade is an R-model or later, and there weren't many of those built. I have some time in an F model and also in an R model, ant they're only vaguely similar. Of course, it also likely has speed brakes, And in any case has retractable landing gear. I have some time in a Cirrus as well, and mostly I've noticed that it requires more thought given to descent planning than anything else I've flown - BE-55, C-310, PA-30, M20R, and the 33/35/36 Beeches included. The full flap speed is low, the first notch won't do much, and the gear is fixed yet the plane is still clean and slippery. I didn't find it to be a challenge, but then I had close to 1000 hours in those sorts of planes when I flew it. I doubt it's the guys with that experience level who are having the accidents. and is more respected by its pilot. And there's the main issue. I have a feeling that once insurance companies get used to treating the Cirrus they way they treat expensive new big-engine Bonanzas and Mooneys, the accident picture will smooth out. Ask a few Cirrus pilot (or any others) which plane requires more skill and attention, and they will undoubtedly say the Mooney. I wouldn't say that. Having flown both the modern Mooney and the Cirrus, I think it's really a wash. The older Mooney is easier - things happen slower, it's easier to slow down, etc. The Bonanzas are definitely easier - to slow down/get down and to land. The Cirrus is not a simple airplane, to be compared to a C-182. It's a fast, slippery airplane comparable to an A36/V35 or M20R/S, and more demanding in some respects. It's missing a couple of levers, but that's not where the complexity comes in. I think that is why the Cirrus accidents reduced when they started more training. The Mooney guys were mostly getting that kind of training already. I think you're right on the money there. Michael |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ask a few Cirrus pilot (or any others) which plane requires more skill and attention, and they will undoubtedly say the Mooney. I wouldn't say that. Having flown both the modern Mooney and the Cirrus, I think it's really a wash. I am with you there, and from the rest of your comments, I think you are more informed than most. You would likely be in the minority of our poll. We agree totally. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting..
I have not flown one, so I have to depend on the thoughts/theories of others. The Aircraft appears to be correctly ptoportioned with the possible exception of the center of laterial (side) area, (smallish vertical fin/rudder) maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added... But no one has reported any yaw instability or dutch roll tendencies. (?) Spin recovery/training is part of the training in Canada, - we spin ours often just cause it is a hoot and keeps us aware of the "feel" of what can cause a spin etc. We get to practice our recovery techniques often, and feel it's a good thing to do in trying to stay "sharp" with the aircraft.. Nice aircraft, but the whole idea if an aircraft that has (for me) a serious design issue is troubling. Thanks for your reply.. Dave On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:15:22 GMT, "Dude" wrote: Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design has recovery problems? Dave I got theories, but given my level of expertise, they are better labeled guesses. I have to warn you that just asking that question is considered heresy by many. Obviously, anyone outside of the government or Cirrus would have to have a LOT of resources and motivation to figure this out for real. Maybe one of the big insurers might care enough, but they would likely only bullly Cirrus into doing the testing. USAIG has reportedly come to call in Duluth, but has not yet demanded that Cirrus perform the normal tests in spite of the BRS supported waiver. Looking at a Cirrus it seems to me the CG may be too high above the wing. Of course, this is even more true about many modern Bizjets, but intuitively it would seem to be a bad thing for spin recovery. The wing loading seems to be pretty high compared to the weight of the plane, but I have no idea how this relates. In fact, if you look at the Bizjets again, it would seem that this is not necessarily a problem. Lastly, the shape of the wing is very complex, and it would seem that they over did it on the spin resistance bit. How this makes it tough to recover, or even if its a factor is unknown. The bottom line may be that the growth of BRS technology that Cirrus is indirectly funding could be worth the losses in the long run (not that the families of the lost will see it that way). It could also be that after we get another few million hours, the Cirrus will prove to be as safe as the Cessna's and Diamonds (but I think the verdict is in already). For me, it all didn't matter. I am convinced that the quality is just not there. In spite of the G2 improvements, I think they are still a long way behind the other major players, and especially behind Lancair and Diamond. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS!
Thinking one thing, typing another....... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:16:05 -0400, Dave wrote: maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added... Should have written.."causing this center to be well _forward_".... ...Sorry..... Dave Interesting.. I have not flown one, so I have to depend on the thoughts/theories of others. The Aircraft appears to be correctly ptoportioned with the possible exception of the center of laterial (side) area, (smallish vertical fin/rudder) maybe causing this center to be well aft, like a float plane without the sometimes required sub fins added... But no one has reported any yaw instability or dutch roll tendencies. (?) Spin recovery/training is part of the training in Canada, - we spin ours often just cause it is a hoot and keeps us aware of the "feel" of what can cause a spin etc. We get to practice our recovery techniques often, and feel it's a good thing to do in trying to stay "sharp" with the aircraft.. Nice aircraft, but the whole idea if an aircraft that has (for me) a serious design issue is troubling. Thanks for your reply.. Dave On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:15:22 GMT, "Dude" wrote: Anybody here have any theories as to why (aerodynamically) this design has recovery problems? Dave I got theories, but given my level of expertise, they are better labeled guesses. I have to warn you that just asking that question is considered heresy by many. Obviously, anyone outside of the government or Cirrus would have to have a LOT of resources and motivation to figure this out for real. Maybe one of the big insurers might care enough, but they would likely only bullly Cirrus into doing the testing. USAIG has reportedly come to call in Duluth, but has not yet demanded that Cirrus perform the normal tests in spite of the BRS supported waiver. Looking at a Cirrus it seems to me the CG may be too high above the wing. Of course, this is even more true about many modern Bizjets, but intuitively it would seem to be a bad thing for spin recovery. The wing loading seems to be pretty high compared to the weight of the plane, but I have no idea how this relates. In fact, if you look at the Bizjets again, it would seem that this is not necessarily a problem. Lastly, the shape of the wing is very complex, and it would seem that they over did it on the spin resistance bit. How this makes it tough to recover, or even if its a factor is unknown. The bottom line may be that the growth of BRS technology that Cirrus is indirectly funding could be worth the losses in the long run (not that the families of the lost will see it that way). It could also be that after we get another few million hours, the Cirrus will prove to be as safe as the Cessna's and Diamonds (but I think the verdict is in already). For me, it all didn't matter. I am convinced that the quality is just not there. In spite of the G2 improvements, I think they are still a long way behind the other major players, and especially behind Lancair and Diamond. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Cirrus Deploys Chute Safely | m alexander | Home Built | 40 | September 28th 04 12:09 AM |
SR20 vs SR22 exhaust | Ben Jackson | Owning | 14 | April 29th 04 04:29 PM |