SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,414
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
It was required there.
I can get you the docs. They are public but not simple to track down.
The perfect GA airplane, in my opinion (looking for critique)
- Thread starter MountainDude
- Start date
I can get you the docs. They are public but not simple to track down.
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,809
- Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
There have been videos of spin testing of Cirrus posted on here. I'm looking...
denverpilot
Tied Down
No worries. I had just never seen them. It’s nice to know it’ll recover. Other than that I’m cool.
SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,414
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
No! You will read the docs and watch the videos young man!
denverpilot
Tied Down
Nah. FAA says all I need is a stall horn. LOL.
NordicDave
En-Route
Direct quote from Cirrus design Engineer, Cirrus Monthly magazine:
"The parachute has a connection to spins in that if you get into one, it is the means of recovery you should use. In tests we conducted, in a one-turn spin the chute will recover you faster than will the standard pilot control input."
Cirrus encountered spin scenarios where the plane could not recover, though most spin scenarios it did while FAA certification testing. The cuffed wings helps delay full stalls in slow flight, and thereby helping to prevent spins; but the cuff has the unintended consequence of delaying recovery from a spin using traditional pilot recovery technique.
The point of my comments for the OP was BRS is not necessary in a 182, but mandatory in the Cirrus due to their certification for spin recovery. In reality BRS is more marketing then asset, as it provides the non-flying spouse a level of comfort in peace of mind.
"The parachute has a connection to spins in that if you get into one, it is the means of recovery you should use. In tests we conducted, in a one-turn spin the chute will recover you faster than will the standard pilot control input."
Cirrus encountered spin scenarios where the plane could not recover, though most spin scenarios it did while FAA certification testing. The cuffed wings helps delay full stalls in slow flight, and thereby helping to prevent spins; but the cuff has the unintended consequence of delaying recovery from a spin using traditional pilot recovery technique.
The point of my comments for the OP was BRS is not necessary in a 182, but mandatory in the Cirrus due to their certification for spin recovery. In reality BRS is more marketing then asset, as it provides the non-flying spouse a level of comfort in peace of mind.
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
The extra HP doesn't help at lower altitudes, but it does help you to get high and perform better up high, just like a turbo. The stock engine with a turbo and a 300hp without a turbo would perform about the same around 7-8,000 feet, above which the turbo wins, but the turbo will take longer to get there.
Now, 300hp on a 182 is certainly well into the overkill range, but it's one way of improving high altitude performance with lower maintenance/overhaul costs than a turbo.
"under $7500 for the conversion" is kind of apples to oranges - You're not getting an overhauled engine for that, you're getting the same one converted. All of the other conversions, you end up at 0 SMOH.
BTW, who's your turbo STC from? Something recent, or the old Rajay?
denverpilot
Tied Down
Not to mention that CFIT and Loss Of Control accidents outnumber the accident types that the parachute is really useful for.
People need more training before they need a parachute in a very broad and general sense.
FAA is seeing an uptick in accidents (non-fatal) at speeds from 40 knots down to zero on landing. Or so they say, according to a local DPE who’s been being briefed on said material.
If I had to guess it’s a lack of rudder proficiency. Move those feet, everyone!!
NordicDave
En-Route
It's a Rajay STC. System works great. I just did the 1000hr overhaul. It's fun impressing your friends while flying 23sq at FL160.
The real problem with the Rajay set-up is poor maintenance from ham handed A&P's who know nothing about these systems. Example; It's not uncommon to have a MX just torque any bolt he can get his hands on during an oil change to "check if everything's tight" and blow past defined torque specs set for heat expansion of parts. Density altitude is almost a non-factor.
yakdriver
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,200
- Location
- Twin Falls, Idaho
- Display Name
Display name:
yellow peril
I fly a friend's IO-550 conversion. Great performance in the backcountry gets off short and climbs like crazy. If you want to burn the fuel it will cruise 150+kts + but it will cruise around 140kts burning 11gph running LOP. And those numbers are with 8.50 tire all around. Makes a great airplane out of it.
DesertNomad
Pattern Altitude
I just flew my Dakota to Guatemala and could not have done it VFR. Cuba requires that you be IFR within their airspace. Crossing other borders is much easier IFR. We were also solid IMC for about an hour between Cozumel and Guatemala City at 12-13K. I think you should seriously consider getting your IFR ticket.
Last edited:
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
"The perfect GA plane" is in the eye of the beholder. For some that will be Vans, for others a Citabria, and others still everything from Mooney to Cirrus, to Bonanza.. up to a turboprop or jet
Good luck though, that's the awesome part about GA.. getting to pick that "perfect" plane for you
<>
I think unless you have an extremely flexible schedule that's going to be very hard to accomplish. And wx, I have found almost more often than not, is not what is going to be forecast. Coming out of the bay area yesterday (KOAK) the Nexrad showed tops at 5K.. we were in it until about 10.5K. Also showed marginal VFR back at SEE, but it was honestly a beautiful day by the time we got back home. I think for pleasure flying VFR is fine, but if you plan to do any serious long term trips the $10K or whatever it will cost you to get an IR is well worth it. Even if you don't plan to fly IMC it makes you (I think) a better pilot to be able to fly in the system when needed. Especially if you plan to fly in other countries, most places outside of the US and Canada are not really VFR friendly places
I'm not in the high wing camp. The 182, 206, etc., is great for many people.. as far as being safe, etc., that's going to depend a lot on the quality of maintenance and pilot competence, etc. A Saratoga, Six, or Lance will also carry a ton and be roomy inside
While that's faster than most of the "typical" GA planes out there, if the OP is planning to travel the world that means there will be days where he or she is flying at 90 knots battling a headwind. The challenge will be, if they're planning to do Alaska wilderness then many of the faster and sportier planes will have a hard time doing "bush" flying
Good luck though, that's the awesome part about GA.. getting to pick that "perfect" plane for you
Markus@planephd
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1
- Display Name
Display name:
Markus@planephd
I've been comparing thousands of planes as part of a project "planephd". The Cessna 182 is one of my favorites (even though I've flown more Piper and Cirrus).
When I compare these aircraft side-by-side (pasted below) you see that they offer a lot of similar characteristics. Obviously the Cessna is slower in cruise and then of course, slower to stall.
Two things stand out though when I compare these aircraft. One thing that is very unusual in the Cirrus is how it depreciates. Almost every other aircraft depreciates in a predictably similar fashion. But the Cirrus, because there is such a large production run behind it depreciates significantly faster. At this point, the 2001 which I've shown below (to compare it to a 2001 182T) is worth about $180k. Whether the steep decline continues, we shall see. Some will argue that because it's plastic, its age isn't tested. But composites have been used for a long time on gliders and other applications.
The other thing is safety. We calculated fatality rates for all aircraft, and the Cessna 182 has an annual fatal rate of 0.063% (accidents/#aircraft), while the Cirrus had a rate of 0.24%. Cirrus has improved their rate a lot over the last few years with their new training program (which is not reflected here), but it's clear that the Cessna 172 and 182 have a great safety record. I should note that the Cirrus isn't much worse than a Bonanza, so there's certainly an element of different missions creeping into the numbers.
As Tantalum said, it's awesome just thinking about which is the perfect plane, and there are literally hundreds to choose from.
Good luck!
Markus
When I compare these aircraft side-by-side (pasted below) you see that they offer a lot of similar characteristics. Obviously the Cessna is slower in cruise and then of course, slower to stall.
Two things stand out though when I compare these aircraft. One thing that is very unusual in the Cirrus is how it depreciates. Almost every other aircraft depreciates in a predictably similar fashion. But the Cirrus, because there is such a large production run behind it depreciates significantly faster. At this point, the 2001 which I've shown below (to compare it to a 2001 182T) is worth about $180k. Whether the steep decline continues, we shall see. Some will argue that because it's plastic, its age isn't tested. But composites have been used for a long time on gliders and other applications.
The other thing is safety. We calculated fatality rates for all aircraft, and the Cessna 182 has an annual fatal rate of 0.063% (accidents/#aircraft), while the Cirrus had a rate of 0.24%. Cirrus has improved their rate a lot over the last few years with their new training program (which is not reflected here), but it's clear that the Cessna 172 and 182 have a great safety record. I should note that the Cirrus isn't much worse than a Bonanza, so there's certainly an element of different missions creeping into the numbers.
As Tantalum said, it's awesome just thinking about which is the perfect plane, and there are literally hundreds to choose from.
Good luck!
Markus
Attachments
N659HB
En-Route
Everyone knows the answer is "Bonanza"!
OkieAviator
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,865
- Display Name
Display name:
OkieAviator
Flying over the jungles of central/South America in a 182 does not sound like a good time. Maybe it’s changed in the 20 years since I’ve been there.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Crazy Europeans....
Briar Rabbit
Line Up and Wait
So how high did they have to be to start spinning 61 times and have a successful pullout without a splat?
Last edited:
Banjo33
Line Up and Wait
On purpose or that’s how many turns it made before finally recovering!?
denverpilot
Tied Down
There is no perfect airplane. Airplanes are sort of like people in that respect. You know, they are imperfect.
Slackyhacky
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 54
- Display Name
Display name:
Jeremy
I am always baffled by this idea...and it is due to complete ignorance (on my part).
Can someone give some good detail on this?
If I am flying over land that has no great landing spot (which is a LOT of area...like populated areas, or mountains, or trees)...how is a parachute not a better asset than crashing into a tree at 80mph? or into buildings? or trying to land on a freeway only to get caught in a wire, or on an overpass? I just don't see how people don't think having a parachute is a HUGE benefit?
How about landing on water? Isn't a parachute better?
What about a dirt field where you can't see rocks, and large dirt piles and big bushes that seem like they would flip your plane instantly once the front wheel catches it? Wouldn't a parachute be much better than that?
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
There are, in fact, plenty of pilots whose spouses have heard about the chute on the Cirrus and stated that is the plane they're getting, period, end of story, they won't fly on a plane without a chute once they hear of it. (They probably think they float down like a feather, which is not the case.)
There are also good reasons for having the chute: Pilot incapacitation, control failure, and mid-air collision are the big ones. Engine failure over truly inhospitable terrain, maybe, but more on that below.
What's to stop you from riding the chute down into a wire, or getting hit by a vehicle on a freeway when you suddenly appear in front of them at 0 mph lateral speed? What's to say you won't land on top of a building, or worse yet, partially on top of the building and you either fall off trying to get out, or the entire plane falls again after the chute has already collapsed?
NO! Part of the design with the chute is that the landing gear is supposed to collapse and absorb some of the energy. That doesn't happen when you hit water - You belly-flop the airplane to a very sudden stop.
I'm aware of two times a Cirrus has been ridden into water under a chute. One of those two, the sudden stop broke the pilot's back. I think if I was faced with a water landing in a plane with a chute, I'd probably not pull it unless the water was really rough. There have been lots of successful ditchings of airplanes, and generally they lead to no injuries at all, and planes flipping over are fairly rare, even with fixed gear - Think about the folks who do the "rooster tails" - On smooth-ish water, you'll "land" the plane on its gear and it won't sink in until it's fairly slow, if you keep your wits about you and keep the yoke/stick full aft after touchdown.
Keep the weight off the nosewheel to the extent possible - Full aft elevator. And it'd have to be a very big rock that was buried quite deep to flip the plane. In most cases, the nosewheel would bash into the rock and knock it out of the way. It might damage or collapse the nose gear, but again you'd have to hit it really hard, and it'd have to be a very large rock, which you should still be able to avoid if you can see.
So yeah - If I had a chute, here's where I'd use it:
1) Control failure, pilot incapacitation, or any but the most minor mid-air collisions (ie plane is no longer flyable).
2) Engine failure over mountains, with no possibilities for a glide to a landable surface
3) Engine failure at night, with no possibility of gliding to a visible landable surface
4) Fuel-fed fire, *after* an emergency descent to ~1000 AGL
Where I wouldn't use it:
1) Engine failures not in the above categories
2) Non-fuel fire, unless no landable areas
3) Water landing
But, the chances of the first list happening are low enough that they're unlikely to be the things that kill me in a small airplane. So, I mitigate the larger risks instead.
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
A lot of debatable points in what you typed but they are legitimate points of view and I don't have a ton of time, so let me just clarify a couple things on this one part.
1) There have been way more than 2 CAPS landings into water (I can think of 9 off the top of my head)
2) The one you are referring to (Pilot Ilan Reich who suffered incapacitation in flight over the Hudson river due to a sudden brain aneurism, pulled the chute, passed out, then regained consciousness) resulted in fractured vertebrae in large part because he kept the engine at full power under the chute and tried to steer away from some fuel tanks (specifically against the emergency and checklist and demonstrated to have no real effect in 'steering' the plane under canopy). The thrust from the full 310 hp under the chute caused a lot of air spillage from the parachute and substantially increased his descent rate resulting in the injury. As an aside, Ilan's back is perfectly fine now but his brain condition is what took him out of flying after the accident.
3) Water displacement upon alighting in water is actually just as good, if not better as a damping effect as the gear splaying. Don't believe the "water hard as concrete" nonsense, the CAPS descent rate of about 17 knots is about equivalent to jumping off a one story building. Would you rather jump one story into a pool or onto concrete with some spring contraption attached to your legs designed to "splay"?
4) None of the other CAPS pulls that landed in water (and followed procedure) resulted in significant injuries.
Last edited:
Just out of curiousity, what's the logic behind #2? I would think that if the fire were outside the cockpit then you could probably put it out by varying airspeed and if the fire were inside the cockpit then there's a good chance your ability to land might be compromised by the time you get close to the ground.
Cogito
Pre-takeoff checklist
Plane hits the water at 1:50, doesn't look too bad to me. In fact, looks less brutal than the cirrus parachute touchdowns on land I've seen:
edo2000
Pre-takeoff checklist
You are right IMO, a chute could be a huge asset in many emergency situations. It is also a pretty big liability. It is expensive to buy initially and expensive to maintain. A $15k repack every 10 years is a major disadvantage, more than most owners need to save for engine overhaul reserves. That money will even pay for a hangar in many parts of the country. You can argue that you can't put a price on safety, but you can also argue that spending a lot of money to mitigate risk on a very low probability event is not efficient. There is no "right" answer.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Good to know, thanks. I hadn't ever heard about the power used in Ilan Reich's pull.
Descent rate of a Cirrus under the chute is about 1500 fpm. I would think that an idle-power emergency descent could do a lot better than that. With fire, the name of the game is to get on the ground as fast as you can. If you're cruising around at 9000 AGL and you catch fire and pop the chute, it's gonna take an agonizingly long 6 minutes to get on the ground. I would bet you could do it in half that time with an emergency descent, and depending on where it is you could potentially blow it out with higher airspeed rather than just let it burn.
Basically, I don't want to be these guys (who did not survive):
How about an emergency descent to minimum chute altitude and then pull the handle? It doesn't have to be either/or.
SoCal RV Flyer
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2016
- Messages
- 3,037
- Display Name
Display name:
SoCal RV Flyer
Whichever achieved the slowest deceleration. Remember, with this analogy you'd be belly-flopping into that pool.
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
That has been tested and by far the fastest way onto the ground in a fire situation is a VNE spiral descent to 1000 ft AGL and then a chute pull. You can descend way faster in a VNE spiral descent than under the chute EXCEPT for those last 1000 ft where you have to slow your speed and descent rate WAY down, circle to line up, fly short final, fiddle with configuration, flare, then slow down on the runway, egress, etc... The chute makes short work of the last 1000 ft. It will save you a couple of minutes from 1000 agl to on the ground and stopped vs the best short field on fire landing you can make.
These guys in the video were dead before the chute fired (from impact forces) so I don’t think it is much of an example.
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
Water is probably slightly better but it’s really highly variable based on a lot of factors. At the end of the day, all chute pulls (within the generous performance envelope of the caps system) have been survivable. Regardless of landing in water, on concrete, in trees, on hillsides, in ditches, in power lines, in fields, on busy roads, on structures, etc...
denverpilot
Tied Down
I don’t believe that’s what the Coroner’s report said.
Plus, if they were, the chute deployed itself and there was also no mention of a chute rocket “cook off” or any other way to get the chute out in the NTSB reports.
The Pawnee they hit lost a strut and went down instantly. The Commercial glider pilot behind stated that he released immediately and “flew through smoke” before executing an immediate return to the field. (He exited the glider after watching his tow pilot friend killed and asked the Commercial passengers to remain in it for their own safety while he went inside and got help as he sat down to sob on the couch.)
The Cirrus was fairly intact and the main problem was the spreading fire post-chute deployment.
Have any references to anything official that claims blunt force trauma IN FLIGHT was the cause of death? I’ve never seen it, and I’ve watched that accident closely since it happened in my backyard and the Pawnee had towed me aloft before, long long ago. Me in the 233 whereas commercial rides like that one were done in the 232 at that outfit.
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Exactly. That's why I also included it in my "would use the chute for" list.
I'd buy that.
At the time, there were some eyewitnesses who said they jumped. While that seems to not be true, seeing that plane slowly descending while on fire made it quite plausible. Think back to all the people who jumped from the WTC on 9/11.
Also, like Nate says, no mention of the rocket cooking off anywhere, nor that they were dead after the initial impact, so at least one of them lived long enough to pull the chute. What an absolutely horrible way to go.
RudyP
Cleared for Takeoff
Someone I know was a named party in the NTSB investigation and while he can’t provide a lot of details, what I heard is unconscious or dead from impact. The ME did not believe they were conscious on the ride down.
The rocket does not cook off but the cable that activates it (and runs from front of cabin to the rear) gets pulled when the airframe bends or twists. It is relatively common for an unusued CAPS system to fire upon ground impact in several Cirrus crashes. Has nothing to do with fire. That is the theory for what happened here too.
mrg0612
Filing Flight Plan
I love my 2012 Mirage. Larger cabin, get above weather without having to suck oxygen from a tube and live weather radar.