On 17 Jun 2006 22:19:19 -0700, "P S" wrote:

This appears to be a troll, and even though I happen to dislike the
SR-22 I will come to its defense.

I received some marketing brouchures from one of the best
selling "composite plane" on the market, with an invitation
to take a ride. Well, I was tempted until I found out how high
the Vso is. The plane goes in on final at 80 kts.

And?


Which means, 80 kias is the speed you use for emergency
landing.

Actually I fly a Bonanza/Debonair. Engine out, best glide is
120MPH/105 knots. Engine out, landing is about 90 MPH or just shy of
that 80 knots. Seems normal to me. A normal landing, "by the book"
is slower and takes a fair amount of power. At that speed you do not
have enough energy to flare if the engine quits, which at best means a
very hard landing.


No wonder pictures after pictures of the wreckages of such
plane look so horrifying. Oh,, it is all pilot errors, since

Ahhh...fiberglass resin burns. It's usually what happens after the
crash that makes them look so bad. Well, that and the parachute cords
do make the fuselage look a bit untidy. OTOH if it hasn't burned it's
quite easy to fix. I think if you read the accident reports that the
pilot probably walked away from that smoldering pile.

the computers onboard have added such unprecendented
situation awareness, so that even incompetent pilots can
fly at ease.

The computer does nothing except make information available. It is up
to the pilot to assemble the relevant and throw away the irrelevant
plus "look out the windows" to create situational awareness.
Situational awareness to what ever level exists only between the ears
of the pilot. To the pilot who has flown old technology all that
information is hidden behind layers of button pushes that have to be
done in the proper order and it takes a while to learn how to access
all that information, let alone put it to use. So it actually
increases the workload greatly until the pilot has had enough time
behind it for the operation to become second nature, or instinctual.


The testmoney's printed in the brouchure are amazing. And they
reflect the intelligence of the owners, as well as the perceived
intelligence of the future buyers by the sales organization.
[This is a negative statement. So please read the previous
statement again, if you didn't get it.]

These are very good airplanes. That they are fast and slippery is not
a detriment, but rather to good engineering. It is up to the pilot to
learn to fly it like the airplane it is.


Can anyone share the thoughts on why the 80 kias speed for
emergency landing is not bothersome ? [The chut is for the wife,
now lets hear the reasons for the husband pilot.]

Why would 80 knots be bothersome unless you are trying to land in a
parking lot? Once you move into complex, high performance let alone
multi engine you may find 80 knots is near the bottom end with many
coming down final much faster.

Who cares if a plane lands at 50 or 150 IF you have enough runway and
particularly if all else fails you have the BRS? If you dwell on the
negatives then flying anything is not for you.


Of course, when you are not good enough to build such a thing,
you tell buyers, "you don't need it".

The chutes are a "last ditch" resort and have saved lives. Odds being
what they are, the purchaser/pilot *isn't* going to need it.

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