MVP of Safety Devices

[Marauder]

Brett -- if I read things right, 168k true, 24/2490 power setting and 11.7ish GPH burn. Did I get that right? Do you find it flys faster with a sleeping wife in the back? If so, I may stash mine back there.

[201er]

Brett, you may want to get your Pitot/Static looked at cause I'm sure it must be wrong! How the heck do you do that??? I can't get that sort of speed firewalled on everything.

[bnicolette]

Nah Mike.  It's on the money.  Well at least it generally coincides with forecast winds aloft/ground speed.  If you notice on that video I was over the ridges and it was riding the tiny wave going on so it would slow a bit and then go fast for a bit.  I can usually count on 165 though "balls to the wall".  Here is one I did running slightly LOP.

 

 

Maybe you're using the wrong kind of wax?  

[Alan Fox]

Parachute is a sales gimmick. There was a pilot who lost gyros in the clouds pulled the chute and got no chute. He landed safely. Training saved him. Circus would have listed him as a "save" but the parachute failed. It is a gimmick for low time pilots and their wives to "feel" safe. Its existence only highlights the "I'm scared to fly cause its so unsafe" MYTH.

 Pure BS and way more money than I would ever spend for such a JOKE solution.

PS tails don't fall off Mooneys you are thinking of Bonanzas and Saratogas.

A good auto pilot and the knowledge to use it properly can help keep you ahead of the plane in busy situations. I consider it required equiptment for IFR operations.

You need to tell that one to the people who landed safely to the ground beneath that parachute.....and there have been many....I have never heard of a Cirrus parachute not deploying , must be urban legend,(prove me wrong if you dare) ....Even if poor decision making gets you into a situation where you need a chute, it still will save your life.....

[Alan Fox]

Out of 44 Cirrus deployments , There were 3 not successful , One was in excess of 300 knots (#5) and the parachute separated from the air frame, (#11) because the altitude was too low , and (#44) on may 16 2013 was the only failure of a Cirrus chute WITHIN PARAMETERS and yes the pilot landed and survived.....   Also (#11) spawned an AD to correct the problem....(#11) also landed and pilot survived... (#44 is believed to be a bad repack)

[N201MKTurbo]

I wonder what is safer? Looking out the window for traffic, or looking at a computer screen for traffic...

[BigTex]

I wonder what is safer? Looking out the window for traffic, or looking at a computer screen for traffic...

 

And for some strange reason, I get a thrill every time that nice English lady whispers 'TRAFFIC!" in my ear...

[bnicolette]

I wonder what is safer? Looking out the window for traffic, or looking at a computer screen for traffic...

Depends

[fantom]

Certainly isn't the CamGuard -- I don't use it.

Certainly isn't LOP -- still haven't tried it.

And it certainly isn't the Parrots -- had them for lunch. Yummy

If you used CamGuard you would pick up at least 5 knots, and if you flew LOP you could afford a better lunch.

[RJBrown]

n74795, on 04 Jun 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Out of 44 Cirrus deployments , There were 3 not successful , One was in excess of 300 knots (#5) and the parachute separated from the air frame, (#11) because the altitude was too low , and (#44) on may 16 2013 was the only failure of a Cirrus chute WITHIN PARAMETERS and yes the pilot landed and survived..... Also (#11) spawned an AD to correct the problem....(#11) also landed and pilot survived... (#44 is believed to be a bad repack)

There was another where the chute was used and did not help. It was a mid air between a Cirrus and a glider tow plane. Made spectacular news video to see the Cirrus burning bright under the chute like fireworks on the 4th of July. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b39_1265536174&comments=1

Boulder (KBDU) is famous for glider operations according to Airnav 1/3 of the aircraft based there are gliders. There even is a "gliders only" runway in the grass parallel to the paved one. The Cirrus driver unaware of his situation plowed into a glider tow plane with glider attached. The 2 in the glider were the only survivors. The Cirrus driver pulled a Darwin real bad and unfortunately took others with him. Cirrus doesn't list this one though, I wonder why? I think most of the "saves" were premature pulls where good piloting would have been a better solution.

Sales gimmick for people afraid to fly. Very expensive recurring item.

Plastic is a great medium for Revell to build airplanes, real ones not so much. I'll keep my metal one thank you.

More complete list. Of 44 deployments listed they brag 33 "saves" most of which probably premature pulls.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx

I see more than 3 unsuccessful pulls.

[AndyFromCB]

There was another where the chute was used and did not help. It was a mid air between a Cirrus and a glider tow plane. Made spectacular news video to see the Cirrus burning bright under the chute like fireworks on the 4th of July.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b39_1265536174&comments=1

 

 Boulder (KBDU) is famous for glider operations according to Airnav 1/3 of the aircraft based there are gliders. There even is a "gliders only" runway in the grass parallel to the paved one. The Cirrus driver unaware of his situation plowed into a glider tow plane with glider attached. The 2 in the glider were the only survivors. The Cirrus driver pulled a Darwin real bad and unfortunately took others with him. Cirrus doesn't list this one though, I wonder why? I think most of the "saves" were premature pulls where good piloting would have been a better solution.

Sales gimmick for people afraid to fly. Very expensive recurring item. 

Plastic is agreat medium for Revell to build airplanes, real ones not so much. I'll keep my metal one thank you.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. One, not plastic, but fiberglass and carbon fiber. And I assure you, in about 20 more years, there will not be a single new aircraft, large or small, built out of anything but composite materials. They are stronger, they are lighter, etc, etc, etc. I have this strange feeling a Mooney with its wet wings would start burning as well if involved in a midair. Actually, quite a few have after an off airport landing:

 

 

As to balistic parachutes, I wish I had one few weeks ago. I was lucky, engine dumped the oil within gliding distance of my field. Still landing with no visibility is no fun either. Three engine problems in 14 years of flying, only one bent airplane. All during daytime, lucky me. Yeah. My next airplane will have a chute or two engines and it won't be a Mooney. The new Cirrus has an almost 1400lb useful load.

 

Had this happened two weeks earlier when the weather between here and Fargo was 0/0 for 300miles in every direction but great at both departure and destination, I would have been most likely dead.

[AndyFromCB]

I wonder what is safer? Looking out the window for traffic, or looking at a computer screen for traffic...

 

Both, now with GTS800 installed, I "see" a lot of traffic that I've never seen before. See and avoid is total bullshit with closing speeds of 400knots, and mostly white aircraft against white cloudy sky. See and avoid is also useless IFR and after you get a traffic system, you'll be amazed how many times you'll "see" traffic in less than VFR weather on approach.

[Marauder]

Certainly isn't the CamGuard -- I don't use it.
Certainly isn't LOP -- still haven't tried it.
And it certainly isn't the Parrots -- had them for lunch. Yummy

If you used CamGuard you would pick up at least 5 knots, and if you flew LOP you could afford a better lunch.

I will agree with you on the lunch. Instead of eating the slop served in our company cafeteria, I would have walked across the street to the 4 star restaurant.

[Alan Fox]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. One, not plastic, but fiberglass and carbon fiber. And I assure you, in about 20 more years, there will not be a single new aircraft, large or small, built out of anything but composite materials. They are stronger, they are lighter, etc, etc, etc. I have this strange feeling a Mooney with its wet wings would start burning as well if involved in a midair. Actually, quite a few have after an off airport landing:

 

 

As to balistic parachutes, I wish I had one few weeks ago. I was lucky, engine dumped the oil within gliding distance of my field. Still landing with no visibility is no fun either. Three engine problems in 14 years of flying, only one bent airplane. All during daytime, lucky me. Yeah. My next airplane will have a chute or two engines and it won't be a Mooney. The new Cirrus has an almost 1400lb useful load.

 

Had this happened two weeks earlier when the weather between here and Fargo was 0/0 for 300miles in every direction but great at both departure and destination, I would have been most likely dead.

Its amazing how some people will not accept new technology , Its stronger , lighter , easier to build with ,   also Even if you were the greatest pilot in the world , having the chute is just another tool to save your Bacon.....You cant float to the groung on arrogance alone!!!!  Glad you survived this one unscathed , I have been lucky enough not to have tested my mettle against a broken ship....

[jetdriven]

Composites designed to the same standard are no lighter.

Check the useful load and empty weight of the Cirrus. Despite having a fixed landing gear it really is no lighter than a 201. And the 201 has a steel frame to absorb a lot of crash energy where a composite airplane doesn't.

[AndyFromCB]

Composites designed to the same standard are no lighter.

Check the useful load and empty weight of the Cirrus. Despite having a fixed landing gear it really is no lighter than a 201. And the 201 has a steel frame to absorb a lot of crash energy where a composite airplane doesn't.

 

Byron,

 

While I hold your opinion on most subjects to be of high value, I will have to disagree here. I would much rather be surrounded by a carbon fiber tub than a steel one. Look at formula 1 cars. No amount of steel can ever provide the protection and energy absorption of properly designed carbon fiber tub.

 

As to strength, my road bicycle begs to differ (11lbs total weight). Ultimate strength of carbon fiber in laminate form is 1600 megapascals, aluminum is about 400. Now, with the latest advanced from MIT in nano tube coatings it will be even stronger.

 

If cirrus was designed to same safety standard as mooney, it would be considerably lighter (look at Lancair IV). The cirrus is designed to the latest Part 23 standards and still has an empty weight lower than my M20M. That's with multiple spars, 26g seats, airbags, parachute, two doors, an interior that doesn't look like it came from Model T, dual ADHARs, TKS and airconditioning. Even with all these options, it's still a bit lighter than my bare bones M20M. Plus the cabin size has no comparison.

 

There are technical issues with carbon fiber when used on smaller scale GA aircraft which don't allow for full advantage and don't translate to much greater weight reductions like they do on something the size of 787 unless the GA aircraft is pressurized where composites just shine in weight reduction vs aluminum. One that comes to mind is the need for at least two plies on non structural parts for "ding" control and the need to finish both sides of the substrate. The other is the need for at least one layer of fiberglass anywhere there will be contact with steel/al parts to prevent galvanic corrosion or use of copper instead.

 

Andy

[Alan Fox]

Composites designed to the same standard are no lighter.

Check the useful load and empty weight of the Cirrus. Despite having a fixed landing gear it really is no lighter than a 201. And the 201 has a steel frame to absorb a lot of crash energy where a composite airplane doesn't.

A composite aircraft doesnt need a steel cage , for two reasons , it is of a monocouque design , and it is does not need reinforcement .....also the 201 has a 4 cylinder , and the Cirrus is a 6 cylinder , and the Cirrus is built to a higher certification...... I love my Mooney , but I have to tip my hat to the Cirrus....There is a reason Cirrus is in buisness , and Mooney is not.... 

[RJBrown]

 Composites are expensive as can be to repair. There is no way to verify repair work either.  Composites get brittle with age. I really do not think it really is a better material at this point. Lightning protection for the airframe is a negative.  I think the existence of Cirrus has been a negative thing for the general aviation market. Their sales success based on what I consider marketing gimmickry has drawn money out of the market that could have been better used to further develop and support the other manufacturers. I know the best and strongest should prevail in the free market but I consider Cirrus all perception and little substance. We heard the same "material of the future" BS back in the 50s when it came to composites. How many plastic cars are out there?  Todays composites are better than those from 60 years ago but still not lighter nor stronger nor better suited to the task. 

[AndyFromCB]

 Composites are expensive as can be to repair. There is no way to verify repair work either.  Composites get brittle with age. I really do not think it really is a better material at this point. Lightning protection for the airframe is a negative.  I think the existence of Cirrus has been a negative thing for the general aviation market. Their sales success based on what I consider marketing gimmickry has drawn money out of the market that could have been better used to further develop and support the other manufacturers. I know the best and strongest should prevail in the free market but I consider Cirrus all perception and little substance. We heard the same "material of the future" BS back in the 50s when it came to composites. How many plastic cars are out there?  Todays composites are better than those from 60 years ago but still not lighter nor stronger nor better suited to the task. 

 

Actually, almost all supercars are "plastic". The problem is price, not the material. As the material applications widen, so will the price and eventually, all cars will be plastic as well. I hate to break it you, but this is the way things are going. All luxury cars are now going aluminum riveted/glued construction, carbon fiber will be next.

 

Yes, cirrus is all gimmickry. Seriously? Go fly one. Quiet, amazing avionics (much better than G1000 it's based on), climate control rivaling that of my Volvo. Doors that fit. Paint work that Mooney factory could only dream off. Amazing level of fit and finish. The best and strongest has prevailed. All that Mooney has ever been able to pull off was go faster on less fuel and Beech folks seemed to only be interested in increasing their aircraft's empty weight over the years. If it wasn't for Cirrus, there would have been no advancement in GA what so ever. I love my Mooney but the second I cash out of the venture I'm working on now, I'll be getting what ever is the latest and greatest from Cirrus.

 

Can you provide any information to your statement "still not lighter or stronger" because I can point to you quite a few different websites listing material strengths but instead how about go look up Extra 300 and tell me how you'd build that spar out of Al. Just like all supercars anymore are carbon fiber so are all "super aircraft" where the lightest weight and highest strength is desired and sitka spruce is not an option. The reason for carbon fiber spar is preciselly opposite of what you stating. Aluminum develops fatigue at these force levels and gets

"brittle" with use, not carbon fiber.

 

As to Cirrus safety features being all hype, tell that to all who died doing a stall/spin on base to final (can't do with ESP), all who died during a forced landing into wrong kind of terrain, all who died because their oxygen malfunctioned at 25,000 (Perspective will gently lower to aircraft to 14,000 in case of pilot incapacitation), etc, etc, etc. These safety features are real and have and will save lives.

[Alan Fox]

 Composites are expensive as can be to repair. There is no way to verify repair work either.  Composites get brittle with age. I really do not think it really is a better material at this point. Lightning protection for the airframe is a negative.  I think the existence of Cirrus has been a negative thing for the general aviation market. Their sales success based on what I consider marketing gimmickry has drawn money out of the market that could have been better used to further develop and support the other manufacturers. I know the best and strongest should prevail in the free market but I consider Cirrus all perception and little substance. We heard the same "material of the future" BS back in the 50s when it came to composites. How many plastic cars are out there?  Todays composites are better than those from 60 years ago but still not lighter nor stronger nor better suited to the task. 

Yea , all those buisness jets made of composites are just falling out of the sky , as far as expense , to replace a single wing skin on a mooney is about 10 K , and no there are not composite cars , simply because it is not a good task for composites , Cars can support the extra weight of structure where as Planes are functioning in a much smaller strenghth to weight envelope....Cirrus and Diamond are the aircraft of the future..... Remember these are the first generation of composites , Imagine what they will be in twenty or thirty years........

[AndyFromCB]

Yea , all those buisness jets made of composites are just falling out of the sky , as far as expense , to replace a single wing skin on a mooney is about 10 K , and no there are not composite cars , simply because it is not a good task for composites , Cars can support the extra weight of structure where as Planes are functioning in a much smaller strenghth to weight envelope....Cirrus and Diamond are the aircraft of the future..... Remember these are the first generation of composites , Imagine what they will be in twenty or thirty years........

 

Actually, funny, earlier post I said that there are carbon fiber supercars but then I forgot about BMW. More and more of there models are slowly becoming more and more carbon fiber. Both M3 and M6 have carbon fiber front and rear bumpers, a carbon roof, and carbon beams and internal structures. And let's not forget the 'vette. Glass from the very start.

 

Here is a great article. Resin injection will be a game changer. Cars will get lighter, more fuel efficient (because of the new 2025 55mpg standard) and still be as safe if not safer than now.

 

http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20130318/NEWS/130319922/higher-volume-cars-get-carbon-fiber#

[Alan Fox]

Actually, funny, earlier post I said that there are carbon fiber supercars but then I forgot about BMW. More and more of there models are slowly becoming more and more carbon fiber. Both M3 and M6 have carbon fiber front and rear bumpers, a carbon roof, and carbon beams and internal structures. And let's not forget the 'vette. Glass from the very start.

 

Here is a great article. Resin injection will be a game changer. Cars will get lighter, more fuel efficient (because of the new 2025 55mpg standard) and still be as safe if not safer than now.

 

http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20130318/NEWS/130319922/higher-volume-cars-get-carbon-fiber#

Yes , but I am in the car buisness , and no car I know of has a carbon fiber frame , or monocoque , they are just the body work......The closest I have seen to true lightweight monocoque is bonded aluminum , and this must be repaired in lab like environments , and are very expensive to repair...

[RJBrown]

Have you ever been in a Cirrus service center? My MSC Arapahoe Aero is a Cirrus Service center also. I have talked to the mechanics. Before you buy a Cirrus talk to the guy that has to fix them. Nothing is easy. Every thing costs more. Minor hanger rash becomes a much bigger deal on a Cirrus. Major airframe damage becomes prohibitivly expencive or down right inpossible. The vaccm bagged, oven cured, injection molded, composite methods cant be duplicated outside the factory. Repair and maintaience costs are double. And that is with new airframes. 50 years from now there will be no 50 year old Cirrus but there will still be Mooneys flying.

[AndyFromCB]

Yes , but I am in the car buisness , and no car I know of has a carbon fiber frame , or monocoque , they are just the body work......The closest I have seen to true lightweight monocoque is bonded aluminum , and this must be repaired in lab like environments , and are very expensive to repair...

 

No "regular" car has a carbon fiber frame. The following road legal supercars are carbon fiber monocoque:

 

Lamborhini Aventador LP 700-4

All Pagani cars

McLaren MP-4

Mercedes Benz SLR

 

And I'm sure a bunch of others. The McLaren MP-4 is kind of the coolest because it's a single piece mono-cell.

 

 

[AndyFromCB]

Have you ever been in a Cirrus service center? My MSC Arapahoe Aero is a Cirrus Service center also. I have talked to the mechanics. Before you buy a Cirrus talk to the guy that has to fix them. Nothing is easy. Every thing costs more. Minor hanger rash becomes a much bigger deal on a Cirrus. Major airframe damage becomes prohibitivly expencive or down right inpossible. The vaccm bagged, oven cured, injection molded, composite methods cant be duplicated outside the factory. Repair and maintaience costs are double. And that is with new airframes. 50 years from now there will be no 50 year old Cirrus but there will still be Mooneys flying.

Maintenance costs being double have nothing to do with composite contruction but new certification standards. Please explain to me exactly what kind of maintenance one performs on "airframe". None on Cirrus, every couple of years of corrosion X on an Al airframe. The rest of the parts are bearings, motors, tracts, etc are identical between Mooney and Cirrus. My MSC chargers only few hundred bucks more for a Cirrus annual than my Bravo. $2800 vs $2500.

 

As to damage I agree but how much different is it than a Mooney. I wouldn't want my mechanic bending Al to make replacement parts any more than I'd like my mechanic fixing a carbon spar. In boths cases you buy parts from factory. Difference being, Cirrus can most likely make you a part tomorrow. Mooney, maybe today, maybe next month, maybe never. As to major damage repair, isn't that what insurance is for?

 

It's funny, but owners of C, B and P aircraft always say the same thing about Mooneys: talk to the guy that has to fix them.

 

On a lighter note, anything else I need to know about 50 years from now? Any stock market advice? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that I'm sure will be flying 50 years from now is insects. I'm not betting on anything else.