CIRRUS DOWN AT KMYF TODAY

[ilovecornfields]

16 minutes ago, Sue Bon said:

Hearing that first "okay" from Maggie brought tears to my eyes.

Me too. But she did it. I’d be surprised if she’s not an airline pilot by now.

[PT20J]

4 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Out of curiosity, how is the trim switch positioned on the stick in the Cirrus?  Is it on top where it can't be accidentally pushed while wrestling with the stick? 

I recall one particularly tense approach where I got slam dunked in IMC with pretty heavy rain.   After some pretty big changes in altitude and speed, The tower asked if I had a hot mic, and I realized every time I tried hitting the trim switch, I was also holding the mic switch because I was so tense.  The brain can do some pretty strange things under stress.

On top of the stick. You work it with your  thumb. Left/right for aileron trim and forward/back for pitch trim. 

I thought I was the only one who confused the mic button with trim.

[PT20J]

So I tried an experiment today. Trimmed in cruise flight in my M20J, I trimmed full nose down. It took 40 lbs (measured with a spring scale) to hold it in level flight. 

[Mooney in Oz]

8 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

I’m not sure looking for a “flat” area is really important.  If you need to pull the chute at low altitude (but within the envelope), you just do it.  If you’re at 10k in cruise and lose the engine, sure, glide somewhere “better”.  In a low altitude ejection/chute scenario, you’re usually not too concerned with exactly what’s below you.

I vaguely remember years ago reading somewhere of a no lower than 1,500’ AGL limitation for parachute deployment. Is this still a limitation?

[toto]

21 minutes ago, Mooney in Oz said:

I vaguely remember years ago reading somewhere of a no lower than 1,500’ AGL limitation for parachute deployment. Is this still a limitation?

I think it’s 500-600’ minimum. 

[Ragsf15e]

2 minutes ago, toto said:

I think it’s 500-600’ minimum. 

Yes, there’s a bit of “it depends” in there… for initial takeoff/climb it’s 500’-600’ depending on model.  I want to say it’s 1000’ min for other conditions (level, pattern ops, etc) with an optimal/planned alt of 2000’.  However it’s been a while since I flew them and I don’t recall exactly.

[carusoam]

I think the small numbers are actual altitudes where the chute really worked…

Let’s invite @Amelia to the conversation (Marvin K. Mooney)

 

Mimi and Rob were at the Summit this year….

Best regards,

-a-

[PT20J]

I wonder what happens if you’re inverted?

[carusoam]

1 minute ago, PT20J said:

I wonder what happens if you’re inverted?

You surely get less room to work with… as the Rocket pulls the chute normal to the aircraft….

Best regards,

-a-

[Ragsf15e]

3 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I wonder what happens if you’re inverted?

It’s already exciting enough when you’re level!  The Chief pilot at the Flightschool I worked at had to pull one on a customers airplane when they lost the engine on the way to McCall. They pulled at 2000 feet near an open area in the mountains. The first thing that happens is the airplane points straight down when the drogue shoot comes out. The occupants are thrown forward against their straps, pointing straight at the ground.  It’s a very long three seconds until the rest of the explosives fire, free, the harness and the airplane levels out and floats down gently. They were both fine after landing, and that parachute is hanging in the Northwest Flightschool Hangar at Felts.

[toto]

17 minutes ago, carusoam said:

I think the small numbers are actual altitudes where the chute really worked…

During my one hour with the Cirrus instructor, he did a standard thing where on initial climb at 500-600’ AGL you touch the CAPS handle and say “CAPS Available” or something. 

Anyway, 500-600’ is definitely a thing

 

[A64Pilot]

When you think about it, there is a lot of complexity and therefore money in things like nose wheel steering and mechanical trim systems, to say nothing of retracts, much, much cheaper if they are eliminated.

Ref the 40 lb flight control force, it can be much more than 40 lbs depending on speed and how far you have to displace the control to return the aircraft to level flight, so it can be 40 lbs plus whatever it takes to pull out of a dive or climb that’s about to stall you.

The accidents and almost accidents I’ve seen were from sudden unexpected go-around’ s with trim full up and the pilot only has one hand on the control, the other being on the throttle, gear, flaps whatever, often it’s the weak hand on the yoke if they are right handed.

If your the type to trim full up on approach, do a practice go around or two, ease into it but do one where you go from idle to full throttle very quickly, how hard you have to push has caught people off guard before.

[toto]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

When you think about it, there is a lot of complexity and therefore money in things like nose wheel steering and mechanical trim systems, to say nothing of retracts, much, much cheaper if they are eliminated.

Cirrus is selling a ton of airplanes at a price point higher than other manufacturers. It seems odd to me that someone plunks down $1.1 million for a single-engine piston that doesn’t have nose wheel steering because it saves money. 

The complexity argument is fair enough, and seems perfectly reasonable. But the cost savings doesn’t seem to make it to the showroom

(Please understand that I’m being snarky about the Cirrus price point, not about anything that A64 said.)

[MikeOH]

There are companies that price based on cost, and then there are successful companies that price on what the market will pay

I’ll let the reader decide which one Cirrus is

[Ragsf15e]

The nose wheel steering thing did seem weird for about the first 10 hours.  After that, it becomes second nature and allows for very tight turns.  It’s just as easy as steering the Mooney once you’re use to it.

[Pinecone]

I did my PP in Grumman Tigers.  No nose wheel steering either.  No problem.

BTW, the King Air doesn't have nose wheel steering either.

[GeeBee]

The lack of nose wheel steering is nothing compared to having nose wheel steering......on a Twin Commander.

[Pinecone]

6 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The lack of nose wheel steering is nothing compared to having nose wheel steering......on a Twin Commander.

An infamous Ted Smith nose wheel steering system.

Have you taxied an Aerostar?

 

[Shadrach]

On 11/9/2022 at 10:34 AM, toto said:

Cirrus is selling a ton of airplanes at a price point higher than other manufacturers. It seems odd to me that someone plunks down $1.1 million for a single-engine piston that doesn’t have nose wheel steering because it saves money. 

The complexity argument is fair enough, and seems perfectly reasonable. But the cost savings doesn’t seem to make it to the showroom

(Please understand that I’m being snarky about the Cirrus price point, not about anything that A64 said.)

A new SR20 is ~500k but your point is well taken.  Cirrus is in business to make money and no one really places a premium on ground handling. It's nice to have, but in the whole scheme of things it's a low priority.  People buy Cirrus because it has a chute, it looks cool, is well marketed and has payload/speed performance that bests almost any other single engine recip. The Klapmeier brothers hit it out of the park on most fronts.  I bet Cirrus has better margins than most companies in the industry.  Their planes are spoken for before they start production.

[FlyingDude]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind converting Mooneys' nose gear to castering, so that I won't go paranoid every time I leave the plane outside of my hangar. Plus, the truss just upgraded from expensive to unobtainium...

[jaylw314]

20 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

A new SR20 is ~500k but your point is well taken.  Cirrus is in business to make money and no one really places a premium on ground handling. It's nice to have, but in the whole scheme of things it's a low priority.  People buy Cirrus because it has a chute, it looks cool, is well marketed and has payload/speed performance that bests almost any other single engine recip. The Klapmeier brothers hit it out of the park on most fronts.  I bet Cirrus has better margins than most companies in the industry.  Their planes are spoken fore before they start production.

It's hard to think of any particular advantage of nosewheel steering--I mean, free-castering nosewheels are MUCH more maneuverable on the ramp than nosewheel steering.  I'm always a little embarassed when I pull into the FBO how much I have to swing out from the marshaller when parking.

I think the only time nosewheel steering is an advantage is early in the takeoff roll during crosswinds.

[Shadrach]

2 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

It's hard to think of any particular advantage of nosewheel steering--I mean, free-castering nosewheels are MUCH more maneuverable on the ramp than nosewheel steering.  I'm always a little embarassed when I pull into the FBO how much I have to swing out from the marshaller when parking.

I think the only time nosewheel steering is an advantage is early in the takeoff roll during crosswinds.

Yup, I love the way tail draggers can reverse direction in small areas. Is the Cirrus a completely free castering nose wheel? 

[Yetti]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:47 AM, Ragsf15e said:

I have trained primary students in an SR20, and it’s not terrible (other than being expensive vs a C-172).  We did not do much autopilot work until after solo (around cross country training).  I do think we went through the trim disconnect and some basic AP modes but I don’t remember specifically.

 I didn’t find the stall characteristics detracted from training.  We did do some “full stalls”, but most of the new standards are to first indication.  I do agree it’s less complex to fly and the checklists are much better organized than a Mooney.  
It also works well as an instrument trainer.  50/50 hand flown vs AP works well and students get to learn how to use advanced avionics.  
All in all, I liked it as a primary trainer if money wasn’t an option.  That being said, I also think a C-172 is a great trainer and have recommended them to students who probably had the $$ for the Cirrus.

This is interesting conclusion when the data seems to say different.   The three incidents in my brain are Navasota, Hobby, San Antonio.   2 are low time pilots, San Antonio may have been low time in type.  All three are slow stall spin.   The comparison should not be to a Mooney because we know that slow stall spin is a common Mooney accident.  but the other traditional trainers.

 

[Ragsf15e]

2 minutes ago, Yetti said:

This is interesting conclusion when the data seems to say different.   The three incidents in my brain are Navasota, Hobby, San Antonio.   2 are low time pilots, San Antonio may have been low time in type.  All three are slow stall spin.   The comparison should not be to a Mooney because we know that slow stall spin is a common Mooney accident.  but the other traditional trainers.

 

Maybe, but I think it would be a large dataset of C-172 or 152 training accidents to compare those with.  I know the Cessnas are great trainers, but there’s 50 years of accident data there.  I wonder how often they crash in the pattern vs the number of hours flown?  

[Yetti]

2 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Maybe, but I think it would be a large dataset of C-172 or 152 training accidents to compare those with.  I know the Cessnas are great trainers, but there’s 50 years of accident data there.  I wonder how often they crash in the pattern vs the number of hours flown?  

There was a guy that would download the FAA stats and do these kind of analysis.   Was he here or pilots of America?   I could do it if I tried but I have a Fire Department video to make.