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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" writes:
"Javier Henderson" wrote in message ... I did post the link to TCM's datasheet on the engine, stating a TBO of 2000 hours. The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours. I hope it has been, but you still have not given me any evidence of that. Given that you have made a religious issue of it, I am hardly likely to take you at your word. Someone already posted a copy of a letter they received from the FAA. I'm sure that will satisfy your requirement for proof. I don't recall now where I first heard of the lifetime increase, avweb newsletter maybe, it's not really important. And I haven't made a religious issue out of anything. I just pointed a couple of facts, and you're still foaming at the mouth. Whatever. -jav |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message . .. C J Campbell wrote: Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it. Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go. http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf How come part of this document is blacked out? There is nothing new, BTW, about fiberglass. It is heavier than aluminum, more difficult to repair, and subject to solar radiation damage (even the Cirrus' special 3M fiberglass -- it has to be protected by that white paint). It does have the advantage of being somewhat tougher than aluminum (fiberglass does not dent as easily, but it is still subject to abrasions and cracks. You can do anything with aluminum that you can with fiberglass or carbon fiber. Carbon fiber, though, is both lighter and stronger than either aluminum or fiberglass. It is also a lot more expensive and even more difficult to repair. It also can be woven in ways that give infinite combinations of flexibility and strength. There are very few shops certified to repair carbon fiber. 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. I learned this the hard way when I was hit head-on by a car while riding my OCLV carbon fiber bike. Although designed for stresses up to 14,000 pounds, the bike frame exploded on impact. (I also flew over the car, leaving the soles of my shoes still in the pedals. I landed on my head on the other side, which some people say explains a lot about me. Anyway, I am now two inches shorter from having compressed my neck and spine. The driver, of course, had no insurance, and got her eighth and ninth outstanding traffic tickets that day. They took away her license, but no doubt she drives anyway.) Of course, if money is no object, then carbon fiber is the way to go. No doubt, this is the reason the Diamond is so expensive for what you get. Aluminum will always have an economic advantage over carbon fiber. The Diamond uses fiberglass, too, especially in the wings and skins, no doubt as a cost saving measure. It uses Kevlar in the seats, so your passengers can't shoot you in the back (actually, to achieve that 26G cockpit strength). 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. 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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message om... C J Campbell wrote: First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22 has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus. Okay. I don't give Cirrus a blanket endorsement either, but I think Cessna's going to have their hands full for the forseeable future in the single-engine airplane market. The Cessna products are still fine for what they do, but I think the majority of the market will choose Cirrus for the average private pilot mission. I think most people don't have much choice. Cessna has shown little willingness to innovate or even build adequate numbers of the designs they have. I am flabbergasted, actually, that Cessna managed to install the G-1000 in several of their planes. Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted then that removes one of my major objections. Do you honestly still think there's any doubt? Not really, but I will keep annoying Javier as long as I can. I think the safety record is still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane. This is a voluminous subject on which I have many opinions, but in a nutshell I believe the statistics show it's the training, not the airplane. I think that is right, but the SR22 seems to be the kind of airplane that attracts the wrong kind of pilots. Oh, well. Bonanza is, no doubt, glad to get some competition for the title of doctor killer. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
How come part of this document is blacked out? There was a conspiracy, but it was covered up. Reasonable points about types of materials used in airplane construction, although I believe the Cirrus will last just as long or longer than any other airplane out there. -Ryan Aluminum airplane owner |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Stefan" wrote in message ... C J Campbell wrote: Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per 100,000 hours 10 times that of average, Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane? Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted. The Boeing 737 is not being sold as easy and safe for low time private pilots to fly. The Cirrus is. Which is my biggest gripe about the Cirrus after all. They are selling a plane that takes a Bonanza like training course to people that would NEVER say they are ready for a Bo. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:09:59 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote: C, Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been around that particular block before. What happens when an airframe goes beyond the lifetime limit? Is the airworthiness certificate trash then? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"6079 Smith" wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:09:59 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote: C, Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been around that particular block before. What happens when an airframe goes beyond the lifetime limit? Is the airworthiness certificate trash then? In theory, yes. However, what the FAA has said is that when a significant number of aircraft approach the lifetime limit then they will inspect the planes for signs of age and wear and possibly extend the lifetime limit, with perhaps some limitations and conditions. Of course, you have to take the FAA's word for this... Anyway, I was told that all new aircraft designs are having some sort of lifetime limit, usually 12,000 hours, imposed on them. The Diamonds appear to be an exception; they have no limit directly mentioned on the TCDS*, so I don't know how accurate that information is. But that is what I was told. We will see what limitations are placed on the DA42. Of course, no one in their right mind trusts the FAA, least of all the FAA's own personnel. Policies and procedures there change with the wind. It must be hell to work there. If nothing is done, the airplane becomes an expensive lawn ornament. *The TCDS says that the DA40 must comply with the airworthiness limitations and time limits specified in the maintenance manual. That manual is nearly 2000 pages long, but I could not find any airframe time limit in either chapters 4 or 5, which cover airworthiness and time limits. There is also no mention of any airframe time limit in the Flight Manual. Both manuals are available on Diamond's web site for those who wish to examine them. (I wish Cessna would do that.) Furthermore, Diamond's representative told me that the Diamond has no airframe life limit. If I seem suspicious, I have my reasons. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Ryan,
hey can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU. Could you explain a little more, please? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"gwengler" wrote in message om... Just a few corrections: Max. cruise is 165 at 20000 ft. and 88% power. Range WITH 45 miuntes reserve is 635 nm (88% power) to 970 nm (45% power). I got my numbers off Cessna's own web site. If they are wrong then Cessna should hear about it. I got my numbers from my T182T POH. For example, 175 KIAS is the Vne, never exceed airspeed, not max. cruise. Range at 12,500 incl. 45 min. reserve is 617 nm (88%) or 968 nm (45%). Seems some computer guy put the web-site numbers together without knowing what he was talking about... Having said that, I have owned a T182T for 2.5 years now and flown 600 hours. No problems, whatsoever, totally trouble free. The support from both Cessna and the local dealer (Leggat, Toronto Buttonville) is outstanding. The quality of the airplane equals that of a German car - no rattling, vibrations, loud noises, avionics failures, cabin linings falling down, door closing problems and the like (those are all frequent issues from the public Cirrus discussion forum). Anyway, the T182T fulfills my mission profile perfectly, going from coast to coast with three sometimes four people (four people, four hours fuel and 20 lbs. luggage per person). The turbocharger is worth every penny since it lets me go high to avoid ice, CBs visually and go over the mountains without much worrying. I have now a Garmin/Apollo MX20 with WSI weather data link and Jeppesen approach plates, all options not available (or not working) on the Cirrus. What bothers me in this whole discussion is the religious zeal with which Cirrus proponents go around. That airplane is not revolutionary different from Cessnas, Mooneys, Pipers etc. It's made from plastic - so what? May be good, may be bad, who knows. The Avidyne avionics definitely are now second behind the Garmin 1000 if for nothing else for the reason that the NAV/COM parts are integrated. You don't have to frequently look down to your Garmin NAV/COMs to change frequencies and NAV inputs. The Cirrus is a GREAT airplane that perfectly fulfills the mission of people who buy it (one hopes). Why do these Cirrus missionaries try to portray existing designs as being outdated and not up to par? Gerd ATP, T182T |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Cessna 140 wheel pants aluminum | Mark T. | Home Built | 0 | September 9th 04 12:19 AM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware ! | Bill Berle | Home Built | 73 | June 25th 04 04:53 AM |
Cessna Steel Landing Gears, J-3 Seat Sling For Auction | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | February 19th 04 06:51 PM |
Cessna wheela and axles | clare @ snyder.on .ca | Home Built | 2 | January 10th 04 04:52 PM |