Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (
More info?)
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:55:59 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net>
wrote:
>"Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:15p5g1gykab0w$.bviz43evejto$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:07:32 -0400, Beech45Whiskey wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>> I was somewhat shocked at the description of their somewhat agressive use
>> of the throttle control during the touch-and-goes though...
>>
I think what you are seeing is an example of the fixed gear mentality.
By that I mean pilots and students moving up see the SR22 as another
fixed gear airplane, but it has the characteristics of a high
performance retract. IOW it behaves just like a Bonanza or other high
performance retract with the exception of not having to lower the
gear. It is a *slippery* airplane and its speed requires the pilot
think much farther ahead. Couple those two together and it's a real
hand full for a Cessna or Cherokee driver. Still, pilots keep thinking
of it in the same light as a fast 180 rather than a Bonanza and it has
higher wing loading than a Bo.
>> There is a very interesting and informative video that was taken at
>> Oshkosh
>> this year, where the chief test pilot showed how the laminar flow wings
>> would allow for 60º+ bank angles without danger of inducing a spin.
>
>Bank angle has nothing to do with stalls or spins!
It depends on how far the ball is out<
) but I do agree that
regardless of bank if the turn is coordinated it should make no
difference. I practice accelerated stalls in the Deb at 60 degrees
while pulling 2 Gs. Release the back pressure when the stall breaks
and it'll go right back to flying. OTOH even a half a ball width out
can take the boredom out of practice.
>
>Stalls happen when you exceed the critical angle of attack ... and spins
>come from flying in an uncoordinated manner whilst stalling.
NOTE and Disclaimer: This is not a "how to" and should not be
attempted IRL without an instructor in an approved aircraft. Get the
nose up a little bit and when it stalls shove in the rudder. That in
general will give an almost instant spin *entry* (or snap roll) Spin
entries are not the same as a fully developed and stabilized spin.
>
>I've done turning stalls at 20 and 30 degrees of bank and if the ball is
These would be a form of accelerated stall.
I practice them at 60 degrees of bank. OTOH when I learned steep turns
they were done at 60 degrees instead of 45 back then.
>centered, then all you have to do to recover at the stall break is shove the
>nose down (relative to the lift vector...) I've also discovered that if you
This depends on the airplane. In high performance it's *usually* not
a good idea to *shove* the nose down. Rather you just release the back
pressure and particularly so when doing accelerated stalls.
I took the Deb out one day with an instructor who wanted to see how it
flew. I had previously explained that although it flew great and was
quite predictable it was not at all forgiving and particularly so in
approach stalls with gear and flaps down. The stall recovery was not
done by releasing the back pressure, but rather by bringing the yoke
forward. All of the flight gear in the back seat ended up on the
glare shield.
In the 150s, 172s, Cherokees, and even Bonanzas I've flown, releasing
the back pressure was enough to initiate a stall recovery from a
coordinated condition. Turning, accelerated stalls that were not
coordinated merely required pointing the plane in the direction it
wanted to go. Now that *might* end up in an unusual attitude
depending on whether slipping or skidding.
>stall wings level with the ball displaced, very interesting things can
>happen...whoops!
You should try that when doing lazy eights.
>
>You can even be at 90 degrees of bank and not exceed the critical AOA (if
>you have the shove like the BAs and T-Birds do with their max performance /
>min radius turns...)
>
>> There is also a video (available at the BRS website, showing a CAPS
>> deployment during a deliberately induced spin, which proves it IS
>> possible,
>> but the test pilot had to really try HARD to achieve that condition...
From what I've been told it can be spun intentionally, or accidentally
without great effort and will recover in a normal application of
controls, BUT as the plane is not certified for *intentional* spins
I'd not want to try to prove it one way or another. However I've
heard several instructors say they had to do recoveries and they were
no big deal.
>
>Cirrus was certified with the CAPS because they could not (or would not)
>prove to the satisfaction of the FAA that a spin was recoverable.
It was neither. They *chose* not to do spin testing as they (and the
FAA) figured the BRS was sufficient.
Spins are normally a rather benign event. Flat, inverted, or
accelerated spins are animals of a different color.
>
>I'm not saying that a spin in a Cirrus is un-recoverable, but I am saying
>that the FAA was not satisfied with Cirrus until they demonstrated the CAPS
>was reliable as an alternative.
It's my understanding It was, or is not a case of either. The Cirrus
recovers fine with the normal application of controls for spin
recovery. The FAA was satisfied with the BRS and Cirrus chose not to
certify the plane for spins.
The F-33 Bonanza is not certified for spins, but the F-33C is. They
are identical aerodynamically and can be loaded to the same CG.
The 33C is aerobatic and has some strengthening, but other wise the
F-33 could do spins and recover in the same manner as the F-33C.
OTOH I'd take the Columbia 350 or 400 over the SR-22 any day of the
week.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Jay Beckman
>PP-ASEL
>Chandler, AZ
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram