KMIC - SR22 down

WalterSobchak said:
In light, Normal category single-engine aircraft, a spin in an incipient or early phase is defined, for FAA certification purposes, as one turn or three seconds of rotation. Recovery must be accomplished in not more than one additional turn."

"In the case of the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 and Lancair Columbia 300, however, the FAA allowed an alternative way to meet the spin criteria with an exemption from the one-turn spin recovery requirement."

QUOTE]


Ok, you got me on the normal, put the planes that are approved for spins are approved in the utility catagory(all that I know of anyway). And again, the Cirrus did not fail the spin certification, IT WAS NEVER TESTED.... They were issued an exemption because it had the chute, not because it wont recover. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Click to expand...
 
WalterSobchak said:
It was not certified to recover from a spin. I believe normal category aircraft demostrate recovery from 1 rotation in a spin or 3 seconds. The Cirrus was issued an exemption for this. That being the CAPS system. I like an airplane that can be controlled as opposed to "its not supposed to do that".
Click to expand...

You better never fly a Twin Engine airplane then...

By the way I talked with and flew with a Cirrus test pilot who has "unofficially" done spins for the chute testing recovery system. He says it is more difficult to recover then a Cessna but doable. It just takes the correct control movements unlike a 172 where you just let go of everything. He showed me how hard it was to get into a spin and finally actually went into a half turn spin in the process. Myself I think Cirrus just says its unrecoverable and have to use the CAPS so that all these rich ignorant pilots don't practice spins after coming from their 172.
 
jynxyjoe- So your saying, and I would quote but you wrote two pages of stuff, that if the first version of a plane had any problems that it is not a good aircraft? And that you and your friends in the testing and design field wont go anywhere near a Cirrus in "anything but day VFR". Where do you want me to start the list of almost every commmercial and military aircraft in history that had problems with the initail prototype, and fatalities for that matter, that are flying today that you prabably would call "tried and true"? People died testing almost every aircraft that flies in the US fleet that protects you everyday. But I guess they are all flying peices of crap that you wouldnt go up in IFR because they have flaws...

And how long does a plane have to fly to be called "tried and true" in your book? And until that time what is it considered? A Deathtrap? If we go by that theory we would have not had a redesigned plane since the Wright brothers.

And I ask for the second time.. Specifically, what are the design flaws in the Cirrus that you came to the decision that it is not IFR capable. And I am talking about current production aircraft, not the first one that ever flew.
 
LOL @ Cirrus haters. What a bunch of buttholes making fun of this pilot.

That's the future without exception because its functional. Its not for inexperienced pilots or really new pilots but for an experienced guy 215 knots isn't bad on 11gph. There's nothing wrong with the plane at all.

I like Cessna's but you might have thought they would have updated some of their designs since the 1950s. Even they aren't living in the past like a lot of you guys -> Corvallis (i.e. composite DEATH MACHINE).
 
wjmiller3 said:
jynxyjoe- So your saying, and I would quote but you wrote two pages of stuff, that if the first version of a plane had any problems that it is not a good aircraft? And that you and your friends in the testing and design field wont go anywhere near a Cirrus in "anything but day VFR". Where do you want me to start the list of almost every commmercial and military aircraft in history that had problems with the initail prototype, and fatalities for that matter, that are flying today that you prabably would call "tried and true"? People died testing almost every aircraft that flies in the US fleet that protects you everyday. But I guess they are all flying peices of crap that you wouldnt go up in IFR because they have flaws...

And how long does a plane have to fly to be called "tried and true" in your book? And until that time what is it considered? A Deathtrap? If we go by that theory we would have not had a redesigned plane since the Wright brothers.

And I ask for the second time.. Specifically, what are the design flaws in the Cirrus that you came to the decision that it is not IFR capable. And I am talking about current production aircraft, not the first one that ever flew.
Click to expand...

Oh, God I'm sorry. I got two sentences in and I just fell asleep. Obviously you've already had this conversation in your head. I'm done with you.

PS: ask a third or fourth time. act like a kid to someone who cares about you, i owe you nothing.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Oh, God I'm sorry. I got two sentences in and I just fell asleep. Obviously you've already had this conversation in your head. I'm done with you.

PS: ask a third or fourth time. act like a kid to someone who cares about you, i owe you nothing.
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
Yeah let me rephrase that more politely.

After due consideration I find that trying to tell you anything is waste of time.

I feel I've made my point, I've failed convincing you, and I'm tired of getting 3 posts at from folks who trust what they see and feel solely. There is simply no point to me jumping up and down when the person I'm trying to answer just takes my replies and mischarectizes them and then tries to turn it into a high school debate. I just don't care that much about you to try and change your mind.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Oh, God I'm sorry. I got two sentences in and I just fell asleep. Obviously you've already had this conversation in your head. I'm done with you.

PS: ask a third or fourth time. act like a kid to someone who cares about you, i owe you nothing.
Click to expand...

I did not in anyway imply you owe me something, all I want to know is from your vast experience what is soo wrong with the Cirrus(with the exception of the prototype you spoke of earlier)? You have stated many times you won't fly one but not once said why, thats all I want to know.(and by the way, this is the third time:D)
 
wjmiller3 said:
WalterSobchak said:
In light, Normal category single-engine aircraft, a spin in an incipient or early phase is defined, for FAA certification purposes, as one turn or three seconds of rotation. Recovery must be accomplished in not more than one additional turn."

"In the case of the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 and Lancair Columbia 300, however, the FAA allowed an alternative way to meet the spin criteria with an exemption from the one-turn spin recovery requirement."
Click to expand...


Ok, you got me on the normal, put the planes that are approved for spins are approved in the utility catagory(all that I know of anyway). And again, the Cirrus did not fail the spin certification, IT WAS NEVER TESTED.... They were issued an exemption because it had the chute, not because it wont recover. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Click to expand...
Actually I got you on that too. Please rereadmy posts. I never said it failed and I never said it wouldn't recover. I said it was certified using different criteria that was created in the 1990's(I'm right & I proved that) and I don't like those criteria. I think we should be emphasizing pilot skill and aircraft controlability verses cruches. I stated my opinion on cirrus that is all.
 
wjmiller3 said:
I did not in anyway imply you owe me something, all I want to know is from your vast experience what is soo wrong with the Cirrus(with the exception of the prototype you spoke of earlier)? You have stated many times you won't fly one but not once said why, thats all I want to know.(and by the way, this is the third time:D)
Click to expand...

:D. no thats not all you want to know. Here, let me help you out.

"So your saying, and I would quote but you wrote two pages of stuff, that if the first version of a plane had any problems that it is not a good aircraft?"

"And that you and your friends in the testing and design field wont go anywhere near a Cirrus in "anything but day VFR". Where do you want me to start the list of almost every commmercial and military aircraft in history that had problems with the initail prototype, and fatalities for that matter, that are flying today that you prabably would call "tried and true"?"

"And how long does a plane have to fly to be called "tried and true" in your book?"

"And until that time what is it considered?"

"A Deathtrap?"

Ask a fourth time if that makes you feel better. Why don't you just answer your own question, you are doing it anyway. I promise, there is nothing I care less about right now, then what you want to know.
 
Fly_Unity said:
You better never fly a Twin Engine airplane then...
.
Click to expand...

Whole different argument and certification process. I'd rather have two engines that was my whole point. Oh, wait I haven't had one in years....... I would rather fly the pos navajo's that I used to fly than a cirrus.

LOL @ Cirrus haters. What a bunch of buttholes making fun of this pilot.

That's the future without exception because its functional. Its not for inexperienced pilots or really new pilots but for an experienced guy 215 knots isn't bad on 11gph. There's nothing wrong with the plane at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think any one is making fun of that pilot. I'm not. It's completely tragic. I think most of us are debating the weak link in either Cirrus training, Design, or Certification process.

Let's join reality on the 215 knots at 15gph. More like 210 kts at 20gph at FL240. Still the most efficient 4 seat production piston single in the mooney 252(m20k). That can actually do 210 kts at FL240 on 11-12 gph. It does it on 100 fewer hp than the Cirrus.
 
jynxyjoe said:
:D. no thats not all you want to know. Here, let me help you out.

"So your saying, and I would quote but you wrote two pages of stuff, that if the first version of a plane had any problems that it is not a good aircraft?"

"And that you and your friends in the testing and design field wont go anywhere near a Cirrus in "anything but day VFR". Where do you want me to start the list of almost every commmercial and military aircraft in history that had problems with the initail prototype, and fatalities for that matter, that are flying today that you prabably would call "tried and true"?"

"And how long does a plane have to fly to be called "tried and true" in your book?"

"And until that time what is it considered?"

"A Deathtrap?"

Ask a fourth time if that makes you feel better. Why don't you just answer your own question, you are doing it anyway. I promise, there is nothing I care less about right now, then what you want to know.
Click to expand...

I guess if you cant tell us what is so wrong with the plane, then you must not have a good answer or you would have already posted it.

I know, I know, your done with me and you dont care about me or anything I want to know, you could care less, I am a idiot, your the greatest, yada yada yada.....you have stated that several times, but you still havent answered the question.(fourth time)

And Waltersobchak- Its not possible to run a Cirrus at FL240 at 20GPH in cruise, the CHT's would prabably be in the red. Anything over @18GPH and the CHT's start running over 380. In Texas I have no need to go on oxygen, but at 12,000 I get 200kts at 16GPH. FlyUnity I am sure can give you correct numbers higher.

Now I am done with this thread....
 
WalterSobchak said:
I think we should be emphasizing pilot skill and aircraft controlability verses cruches. I stated my opinion on cirrus that is all.
Click to expand...
Pilot Skill: (n) The ability to fly an airplane without getting it into an unintentional spin, and not intentionally spinning an airplane that doesn't recover the way you want it to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top