Is the Cirrus a Coffin Maker?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Con,
I think you need to read IO540's reply again.
There is little doubt that a CB could suck a fully intack aircraft upwards. But IO540 was saying that if the CB caused the wings to break off, then it's not going upwards.
Without a chute no CB is going to suck a 1000kg lump of metal without wings upwards. It's no longer designed to fly. With the chute deployed, perhaps in an extreme situation it might be possible, but I doubt it.
I think you are talking at cross purposes. You are talking about an aircraft with wings getting sucked up, and IO540 is talking about an aircraft with it's wings broken off.
dp
I think you need to read IO540's reply again.
I am sure it would take a lot to break the wings off a Cirrus, or a TB20 for that matter. Probably flying into a nasty CB at close to Vne. But once a wing breaks off, the thing is just going to plummet; around 10,000fpm (100kt vertical speed) according to some NTSB reports. No CB will suck a 1000kg+ lump upwards, IMHO. The chute should work.
Without a chute no CB is going to suck a 1000kg lump of metal without wings upwards. It's no longer designed to fly. With the chute deployed, perhaps in an extreme situation it might be possible, but I doubt it.
I think you are talking at cross purposes. You are talking about an aircraft with wings getting sucked up, and IO540 is talking about an aircraft with it's wings broken off.
dp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept that a Cirrus with a wing(s) broken off could float upwards if the chute was deployed and it was inside a CB, because the descent speed with the chute is supposed to be no more than about 1000-2000fpm (10-20kt).
But it's only a matter of time before it will come down again. The CB will dissipate anyway in 10-20 mins.
The occupants might get a bit of hypoxia in the meantime
Back to the conductivity of materials, I think most people have got it wrong. Fibreglass doesn't conduct at all, and becomes partly conductive only when carbonised by the breakdown of its insulating properties. Carbon fibre is a pretty poor conductor but good enough to conduct the lightning, getting extremely hot in the process (and probably delaminating) through resistive heating. Metal is fine if thick enough, and all the airframe parts are well joined electrically. That is why IFR certified planes which are nonmetal have metal mesh buried within them. I have no idea if the SR20/22 has but it probably should have. Gliders have had their controls disabled after being hit by lightning which (obviously) preferred the control cables over the composite, and melted them.
But it's only a matter of time before it will come down again. The CB will dissipate anyway in 10-20 mins.
The occupants might get a bit of hypoxia in the meantime
Back to the conductivity of materials, I think most people have got it wrong. Fibreglass doesn't conduct at all, and becomes partly conductive only when carbonised by the breakdown of its insulating properties. Carbon fibre is a pretty poor conductor but good enough to conduct the lightning, getting extremely hot in the process (and probably delaminating) through resistive heating. Metal is fine if thick enough, and all the airframe parts are well joined electrically. That is why IFR certified planes which are nonmetal have metal mesh buried within them. I have no idea if the SR20/22 has but it probably should have. Gliders have had their controls disabled after being hit by lightning which (obviously) preferred the control cables over the composite, and melted them.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Cirrus a perm maker?
On the subject of lightning strikes I ran into Geoff Boot (of Flyer) at Sun 'n Fun a few years ago and he told a story about his twin cessna taking a lightning strike while he was ferrying it back to the UK after he first bought it in South America. The electrics took the brunt of the strike but the aircraft flew on just fine til he could make a precautionary landing. Took some time to get the fried wiring out and iron out the problems but he eventually got it sorted.
I also understand that airliners are expected to be able to soak the odd lightning bolt up and take it in their stride. I would be interested in how the new composite boeing gets over the problem of conductivity.
Carbon fibre/composite (I recognise that there are differences Rod1 but basically non-metal) is undoubtedly stronger, fatigues better and is less maintenance intensive than metal - however I would like to see what a cirrus does in the Top Gear lightning simulator. I had heard of the metallic conducting mesh, I wonder what circumstances it has been tested in?
Anyway, surely if the Cirrus were a perm maker
(static problems) Angelina's hair would be curly? Perhaps she flies with straightening tongs permanently plugged in?
SB
I also understand that airliners are expected to be able to soak the odd lightning bolt up and take it in their stride. I would be interested in how the new composite boeing gets over the problem of conductivity.
Carbon fibre/composite (I recognise that there are differences Rod1 but basically non-metal) is undoubtedly stronger, fatigues better and is less maintenance intensive than metal - however I would like to see what a cirrus does in the Top Gear lightning simulator. I had heard of the metallic conducting mesh, I wonder what circumstances it has been tested in?
Anyway, surely if the Cirrus were a perm maker
(static problems) Angelina's hair would be curly? Perhaps she flies with straightening tongs permanently plugged in?SB
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In a galaxy.....far, far away
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cirrus...like any aeroplane is a potential coffin filler....it just depends on the capability of the cr*p stuck between the seat and the rudder pedals! 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having been recently "cut up" by a Cirrus in the circuit (well, my student was flying a circuit and the Cirrus just joined on finals!), and then reflecting on the incident with another instructor -
We pondered that the Cirrus may earn the same accolade as the V tail Bonanza in the sixties, ie "The Twin Tailed Doctor Killer". Just idle chat, and it will probably annoy someone out there.
ps - on having a "chat" with the Cirrus pilot about his circuits, he was terribly apologetic and extremely polite. What a nice man. He may have had lots of money, and I may be jealous as hell 'cos I'm in a 152, but we still managed to discuss things in a civil manner. As always happens on pprune......
We pondered that the Cirrus may earn the same accolade as the V tail Bonanza in the sixties, ie "The Twin Tailed Doctor Killer". Just idle chat, and it will probably annoy someone out there.
ps - on having a "chat" with the Cirrus pilot about his circuits, he was terribly apologetic and extremely polite. What a nice man. He may have had lots of money, and I may be jealous as hell 'cos I'm in a 152, but we still managed to discuss things in a civil manner. As always happens on pprune......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the Cirrus pilot actually do something wrong and, if so, what was it?
Or was it just that a C152 can fly the circuit at 65kt, whereas the only way an SR22 could go that slow is either way back on the curve (and not doing the engine much good, due to poor airflow) or with the parachute deployed
I have the same problem flying a TB20 (very similar performance) into some non-ATC airfields. Some places are a total free for all. You get cut on from the left, from the right. Most of the people that think they can fly a tighter circuit usually get it wrong and they force the faster plane to go around.
Anyway, I don't want to start another thread on joining procedures. If a field is a real free for all, and is busy, there isn't a perfect way to do it. Every join has a risk, especially the overhead one...
The Cirrus incident may not have been anything to do with airframe icing. Just because a pilot reported ice doesn't mean that he plummeted as a result of ice. He may have flown into a CB at Vne, or whatever, and that will take a wing off anything except, maybe, an F16. He should have pulled the chute, of course; structural failure or loss of control is one of its principal uses. At this stage nobody can tell the cause, and quite likely (as is the case with most GA fatal accidents) nobody ever will know the whole story.
Or was it just that a C152 can fly the circuit at 65kt, whereas the only way an SR22 could go that slow is either way back on the curve (and not doing the engine much good, due to poor airflow) or with the parachute deployed
I have the same problem flying a TB20 (very similar performance) into some non-ATC airfields. Some places are a total free for all. You get cut on from the left, from the right. Most of the people that think they can fly a tighter circuit usually get it wrong and they force the faster plane to go around.
Anyway, I don't want to start another thread on joining procedures. If a field is a real free for all, and is busy, there isn't a perfect way to do it. Every join has a risk, especially the overhead one...
The Cirrus incident may not have been anything to do with airframe icing. Just because a pilot reported ice doesn't mean that he plummeted as a result of ice. He may have flown into a CB at Vne, or whatever, and that will take a wing off anything except, maybe, an F16. He should have pulled the chute, of course; structural failure or loss of control is one of its principal uses. At this stage nobody can tell the cause, and quite likely (as is the case with most GA fatal accidents) nobody ever will know the whole story.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Joining overhead, and repeating that he was no.3 to two in the circuit, he was in the wrong to fly outside the two on downwind and then carve in onto finals.
On discussion, he said he didn't see either of us. However, as the day before a microlight did the same thing (on the inside) and the day after a C2K again carved a student up I am now thinking that we operate a Stealth 152 which is invisible to the mk1 eyeball. I can't say anymore as the MOD are now interested in the technology..............
On discussion, he said he didn't see either of us. However, as the day before a microlight did the same thing (on the inside) and the day after a C2K again carved a student up I am now thinking that we operate a Stealth 152 which is invisible to the mk1 eyeball. I can't say anymore as the MOD are now interested in the technology..............
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a closely guarded secret in aviation that most planes are invisible to the Mk1 eyeball. The closer they are to hitting you the less visible they are, and those on a perfect collision course are not visible at all.
But don't tell anybody; I don't want all the retired RAF navigators in the CAA getting a court order on pprune admin to divulge my IP
In the overhead, on average half the planes will be invisible, because they are somewhere behind you. That's why it is such a stupid way of joining. But I've said too much already ...........
But don't tell anybody; I don't want all the retired RAF navigators in the CAA getting a court order on pprune admin to divulge my IP
In the overhead, on average half the planes will be invisible, because they are somewhere behind you. That's why it is such a stupid way of joining. But I've said too much already ...........
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gugnunc,
I was the Cirrus pilot involved in this incident. First let me clarify for the record that I am not a doctor nor am I particularly rich! I don’t own the aircraft but am fortunate enough to get to fly it regularly.
Let me explain a little more clearly what happened from my point of view. As you say, I carried out a full overhead join for a right-hand circuit, as mandated in Pooley’s, giving all the standard circuit calls. I was indeed aware that there were two other aircraft in the circuit but on turning downwind could not see anything ahead of me. At this point I asked the A/G operator to confirm the position of the other circuit traffic. The next call I heard was from an aircraft reporting on crosswind. My downwind leg was about 1nm out from the runway which is the way I was taught. One small error I did make was to turn base a little later than usual. This was a result of momentarily losing sight of the runway, a consequence of looking out for the still invisible traffic. I estimate my base leg was flown just over 1nm out from the threshold. Not a massive error but further out than I would normally aim for. I imagine the conflict occurred when you turned base closer into the field and saw that I was already on final. I don’t believe that relative speed was an issue as I had the Cirrus down to just over 100kts before joining the circuit. It seems to me that this incident was just simply the result of the two of us flying different size circuits; yours a fairly tight one close in to the field and mine rather wider with an slightly extended downwind leg. I expect you caught up with me due to your shorter flight path rather than the speed difference. The real concern is that neither of us was fully aware of the other’s position which is obviously worrying. I remember being slightly higher than 1000ft AGL when downwind so the classic low-wing v high-wing mismatch would have worked against us. I can only apologise again most sincerely for the inconvenience. I accept that as a visiting pilot it is my responsibility to fit into the circuit pattern without getting in the way of others. I failed on this occasion. Thanks again for speaking to me after the incident in such a civil manner, I was expecting a stern dressing down!
This is really a subject for another thread but I find that there is quite a spread of opinion on the subject of what size circuit to fly. Some aerodromes are very prescriptive with clear published instructions but others give practically no information at all. Visiting pilots could be in for a nasty surprise at places with unpublished ‘variable’ training circuits. A few such places spring to mind in the south of England. I’m beginning to wonder if there is any such thing as a standard circuit or standard overhead join. It’s obviously more difficult to spot other traffic if it’s not where you expect it to be, especially at an unfamiliar airfield.
Returning to the main subject of this thread, I have to say that I don’t think there is anything specific about the design of the Cirrus that qualifies it as a ‘coffin maker’. Our incident had nothing to do with aircraft type; the same problem could have arisen if I’d been in a club PA28. As you say; a C2K also managed to get in the wrong place after my visit. The Cirrus actually has surprisingly benign flying characteristics, even when pushed to the limits. In practice, its not really any more difficult to handle than something like a PA28 provided it’s operated in a safe and responsible manner. The extra speed and performance is something that you get used to very quickly. Having said that, a thorough type conversion training programme is essential due to the large number of differences compared with more traditional light singles. Pilot training is of course an issue that Cirrus as a company takes very seriously.
My final thoughts go to your student. Please pass on my best wishes for his PPL and an obvious personal tip if he hasn’t learnt already – look out at all times in the circuit!
I was the Cirrus pilot involved in this incident. First let me clarify for the record that I am not a doctor nor am I particularly rich! I don’t own the aircraft but am fortunate enough to get to fly it regularly.
Let me explain a little more clearly what happened from my point of view. As you say, I carried out a full overhead join for a right-hand circuit, as mandated in Pooley’s, giving all the standard circuit calls. I was indeed aware that there were two other aircraft in the circuit but on turning downwind could not see anything ahead of me. At this point I asked the A/G operator to confirm the position of the other circuit traffic. The next call I heard was from an aircraft reporting on crosswind. My downwind leg was about 1nm out from the runway which is the way I was taught. One small error I did make was to turn base a little later than usual. This was a result of momentarily losing sight of the runway, a consequence of looking out for the still invisible traffic. I estimate my base leg was flown just over 1nm out from the threshold. Not a massive error but further out than I would normally aim for. I imagine the conflict occurred when you turned base closer into the field and saw that I was already on final. I don’t believe that relative speed was an issue as I had the Cirrus down to just over 100kts before joining the circuit. It seems to me that this incident was just simply the result of the two of us flying different size circuits; yours a fairly tight one close in to the field and mine rather wider with an slightly extended downwind leg. I expect you caught up with me due to your shorter flight path rather than the speed difference. The real concern is that neither of us was fully aware of the other’s position which is obviously worrying. I remember being slightly higher than 1000ft AGL when downwind so the classic low-wing v high-wing mismatch would have worked against us. I can only apologise again most sincerely for the inconvenience. I accept that as a visiting pilot it is my responsibility to fit into the circuit pattern without getting in the way of others. I failed on this occasion. Thanks again for speaking to me after the incident in such a civil manner, I was expecting a stern dressing down!
This is really a subject for another thread but I find that there is quite a spread of opinion on the subject of what size circuit to fly. Some aerodromes are very prescriptive with clear published instructions but others give practically no information at all. Visiting pilots could be in for a nasty surprise at places with unpublished ‘variable’ training circuits. A few such places spring to mind in the south of England. I’m beginning to wonder if there is any such thing as a standard circuit or standard overhead join. It’s obviously more difficult to spot other traffic if it’s not where you expect it to be, especially at an unfamiliar airfield.
Returning to the main subject of this thread, I have to say that I don’t think there is anything specific about the design of the Cirrus that qualifies it as a ‘coffin maker’. Our incident had nothing to do with aircraft type; the same problem could have arisen if I’d been in a club PA28. As you say; a C2K also managed to get in the wrong place after my visit. The Cirrus actually has surprisingly benign flying characteristics, even when pushed to the limits. In practice, its not really any more difficult to handle than something like a PA28 provided it’s operated in a safe and responsible manner. The extra speed and performance is something that you get used to very quickly. Having said that, a thorough type conversion training programme is essential due to the large number of differences compared with more traditional light singles. Pilot training is of course an issue that Cirrus as a company takes very seriously.
My final thoughts go to your student. Please pass on my best wishes for his PPL and an obvious personal tip if he hasn’t learnt already – look out at all times in the circuit!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be misreading it but I don't see what you have done wrong, NorthUp.
Yes you are supposed to fit in behind other traffic but equally traffic that ends up (for whatever reason) behind you is supposed to fit in behind you, and follow you all the way round. If they think you fly a big circuit, they are still supposed to fit in behind you, and follow you all the way round.
That procedure is clear. A lot of people don't like it and cut you up.
Equally, some people may not see you and turn base before you, but if you made the right calls in the right places.... these things can't be done perfectly.
Yes you are supposed to fit in behind other traffic but equally traffic that ends up (for whatever reason) behind you is supposed to fit in behind you, and follow you all the way round. If they think you fly a big circuit, they are still supposed to fit in behind you, and follow you all the way round.
That procedure is clear. A lot of people don't like it and cut you up.
Equally, some people may not see you and turn base before you, but if you made the right calls in the right places.... these things can't be done perfectly.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus acft a 'coffin maker'...?
I dunno much about these aeroplanes, but when talking to one owner yesterday, who parks his Cirrus 22 next to my booted twin Cessna, he mentioned that...."Ice is absolutely no problem for me, as I have TKS fitted, I can fly in all icing conditions."
This got me to thinking...if this is the way many of these Cirrus owners think, look for many smokin' holes in the ground this coming winter, in the USA.
Now, I have flown only one aeroplane fitted with TKS (Shorts Skyvan) and indeed it IS known ice approved, but sadly, the Cirrus is not.
Also, there have been three Cirrus fatal accidents just this week, one here in Arizona...in icing conditions.
Rather bad news.
This got me to thinking...if this is the way many of these Cirrus owners think, look for many smokin' holes in the ground this coming winter, in the USA.
Now, I have flown only one aeroplane fitted with TKS (Shorts Skyvan) and indeed it IS known ice approved, but sadly, the Cirrus is not.
Also, there have been three Cirrus fatal accidents just this week, one here in Arizona...in icing conditions.
Rather bad news.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any relationship between TKS (KI) and TKS (not KI)?
A G-reg TB20 is approved for icing, an N-reg TB20 is not (full TKS case). Same plane, different stickers on the side.
So I don't think one can make these judgements.
How many Cessna/Piper fatals have you had this week?
A G-reg TB20 is approved for icing, an N-reg TB20 is not (full TKS case). Same plane, different stickers on the side.
So I don't think one can make these judgements.
How many Cessna/Piper fatals have you had this week?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends on the certification criteria, IO540.
On known ice TKS equipped aeroplanes on the FAA register, the following are certified....
Wings
Tail surfaces
Propellor
Windshield
Engine inlets (some acft)
...and in addition, the rest needs to be followed as well, such as, dual heated pitot, heated static sources, heated fuel vents, the list goes on and on.
The SkyVan complied, the Cirrus does not.
It really is that simple.
As the Cirrus has a rather clean laminar flow airfoil, icing and the accretion thereof can well be a major concern, something clearly lacking in the knowledge of many Cirrus owners, who truly believe the have ahhh....the safest single engine aeroplane in general aviation.
They are quite mistaken.
On known ice TKS equipped aeroplanes on the FAA register, the following are certified....
Wings
Tail surfaces
Propellor
Windshield
Engine inlets (some acft)
...and in addition, the rest needs to be followed as well, such as, dual heated pitot, heated static sources, heated fuel vents, the list goes on and on.
The SkyVan complied, the Cirrus does not.
It really is that simple.
As the Cirrus has a rather clean laminar flow airfoil, icing and the accretion thereof can well be a major concern, something clearly lacking in the knowledge of many Cirrus owners, who truly believe the have ahhh....the safest single engine aeroplane in general aviation.
They are quite mistaken.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Circuit patterns are off thread, but where we are we don't use any particular land marks to define the pattern, more the ability to land with an engine failure from the downwind leg onwards. When joining crosswind, turning downwind is the classic "extended centre line passing by the tailplane" which also fits in nicely with the glide performance on our 152's.
Having flown the same pattern in a Tecnam P2002 - that just didn't want to come down - I can see how fitting into the "training" pattern could be difficult if your glide performance is considerably better than a 152.
Alluding that the Cirrus may become the V tail Bonanza of today really came from speculation about speedier types and everything happening so much faster. I wouldn't be happy climbing into our Arrow now, after a six month gap, and would probably want a bit of solo time just to get the feel again before I took up any GV's. Sigh, oh to be able to do 130kts again......
Having flown the same pattern in a Tecnam P2002 - that just didn't want to come down - I can see how fitting into the "training" pattern could be difficult if your glide performance is considerably better than a 152.
Alluding that the Cirrus may become the V tail Bonanza of today really came from speculation about speedier types and everything happening so much faster. I wouldn't be happy climbing into our Arrow now, after a six month gap, and would probably want a bit of solo time just to get the feel again before I took up any GV's. Sigh, oh to be able to do 130kts again......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the fixed undercarriage made it a non-starter.
I am not disputing that fixed gear prevents FAA certification for flight in icing (I haven't read the regs, if indeed they are online, and have enough to do) but it totally amazes me.
Hard to believe that Cirrus and Lancair would have tied both hands behind their backs before they even started, making planes that are all-out long distance IFR machines, and IFR without collecting ice is a bit like letting your cat run around outside and expecting it to not poo in next door's garden.
To top it all, with a finger-up gesture to the American legalistic climate surrounding "known ice", they offer TKS. Of course, nobody will ever use the system... It's a bit like the CAA CofA inspector sticking an INOP sticker over my TKS prop on/off switch
Alluding that the Cirrus may become the V tail Bonanza of today really came from speculation about speedier types and everything happening so much faster
I don't think that's a problem really. The thing flies only 50% faster than a spamcan. Thinking 50% faster is the difference between a 20hr/year pilot and a 50hr/year pilot, perhaps. This isn't an SR71.
The problem is lack of training for flight planning for real IFR; nobody offers anything like that. Pilots have to pick it up as they go along.
I am not disputing that fixed gear prevents FAA certification for flight in icing (I haven't read the regs, if indeed they are online, and have enough to do) but it totally amazes me.
Hard to believe that Cirrus and Lancair would have tied both hands behind their backs before they even started, making planes that are all-out long distance IFR machines, and IFR without collecting ice is a bit like letting your cat run around outside and expecting it to not poo in next door's garden.
To top it all, with a finger-up gesture to the American legalistic climate surrounding "known ice", they offer TKS. Of course, nobody will ever use the system... It's a bit like the CAA CofA inspector sticking an INOP sticker over my TKS prop on/off switch
Alluding that the Cirrus may become the V tail Bonanza of today really came from speculation about speedier types and everything happening so much faster
I don't think that's a problem really. The thing flies only 50% faster than a spamcan. Thinking 50% faster is the difference between a 20hr/year pilot and a 50hr/year pilot, perhaps. This isn't an SR71.
The problem is lack of training for flight planning for real IFR; nobody offers anything like that. Pilots have to pick it up as they go along.
Last edited by IO540; 30th Oct 2006 at 14:23.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If going 50% faster isn't a problem, how come we teach slow flight? There will always be a situation where you'll want to just slow it all down, be it in the circuit or in bad weather. If you are flying something even 50% faster, then you may get nearer to VNE quicker, you may get nearer to Vs quicker, you might bust that zone quicker and your turning radius will increase if it all goes wrong and you need that 180.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying too slowly is far more dangerous than any other sort of flight; loads of people die from stalling/spinning. That's is probably why it is taught; to show how to fly on the back of the curve.
I don't think for a moment that slow flight is taught to give somebody more time to think. One is far better off flying at Vbg (=Vy) than very slowly; flying just above Vs overheats the engine and blocks your forward view.
I don't think for a moment that slow flight is taught to give somebody more time to think. One is far better off flying at Vbg (=Vy) than very slowly; flying just above Vs overheats the engine and blocks your forward view.