Roger wrote:
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.

Insulting comments ignored.


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.

Excuse me for my ignorance, but would forced landings on soft farm
lands
cause the plane to nose over at higher speeds ?



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.

It might have been co-incidents, but all the reports I came across on
these planes had fatalities.


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.

Reasonable viewpoint.



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.

The CFIs all said that. But that is not substitute for safer landing
characteristics.



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.

This is why I do not move to "complex" airplanes, with retractable
landing gears. High performance, maybe. But better with similar
landing characteristics as the trainers.

At least for practicing "spot landings", it should be equally easy to
pin-point
the landing spot with the high performance airplane with comparable
landing
distance.

Also, with such view point in mind, these planes should not be targeted
at new pilots. But obviously there is targeted effort to sell these
planes
to the new pilots.


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.

That is extrapolating too much. There are a couple of single engine
airplanes
that meet the safety requirement for me. I have been urged by people to
look at the new composites. Obviously, the responses so far have
confirmed
what I suspected, that is, it is fine for you if you either think the
engine will
never quit on you, or if it quits, flying it onto the farm lands or
rolling hills
at 80 kts is as safe as gliding at 65 kts and touching down at 40-50
kts.

If the composite burns easily, it will be even more important to be
able to
glide at slower speeds.



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.

The chutes can only be used at certain altitude, and within certain
range
of airspeeds. But the high stalling speed problem exists with other
composite
planes as well.

I don't think these composite planes are not good. They do well
in the better cruise speed, fuel efficiency and removal of the
retractable
landing gears. They do not do well in the forced landing department.

And if a new pilot questions the safety issues with a Cirrus, that
pilot will
be called a "troll", and be told "flying anything may not be for
him/her".

So long.


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