No risk, no fun :-)
I am aware that this could happen one day. But it’s not a reason for me to not fly anwhere I want to go. I try to protect the nosewheel as much as i can, but of course if a hole is too deep, it will happen. Knock on wood!
Mid-air collisions are EXTREMELY rare and the one I remember most involved a Cirrus, burning under the CAPS ….
That’s the second one where the Cirrus and the tow plane collided. All occupants of the Cirrus were already dead after the collision and the burning leftovers descended under the chute. It says nothing about the value of the chute.
Flyer59 wrote:
It says nothing about the value of the chute.
Sure it does – it’s just not the “value” that you seem to think it is …
The simple fact remains that the VAST MAJORITY of accidents/incidents involving injuries, including fatal, are during the TO & Landing phases where the CAPS is useless.
109 people were saved by the CAPS system to this day, from altitudes ranging from 400 feet to 20.000 feet. Most of these people would not have survived had they been in other airplanes. And even if 5 of the 53 CAPS pull were “unnecessary”, the facts still prove that the system can, has and will save lives.
Would you agree that an airplane with an anti ice system is safer if you enter icing conditions inadvertently?
Regarding the ability to use your engine and flight controls while the chute is deployed, I believe this does not work since P-factor simply will spin you in circles.
POH recommends shutting down the engine, boost pump and then focus on communication of your positon and securing loose objects in the cockpit.
Chute landings have taken place in all manner of terrain/buildings/trees/rocks/water and the results have always been favourable for the occupants due to the very strong passenger compartment, engineered energy absorption in the seats, airbag seatbelts and 4 point harness. Also the use of the sidestick eliminates a lot of chest crushing injuries that occur in other aircraft with traditional control columns.
I do not believe that the VAST MAJORITY of accidents involving injuries in a Cirrus have occurred during TO/Landing but if that is the case then it may be DUE TO the fact that other phases of flight accidents are proving to be very survivable due to the chute.
The saving of one human life makes all the conjecture and debate about the value of the chute irrelevant. One Life. So far the tally is 107 and counting.
Sorry, 109 lives. Real people, not just numbers. The number of lives saved will only increase, the aircraft continues to outsell all others and the market speaks very loudly that this is by far the best all around 4 seat tourer.
C’mon guys, this is not worth our time debating. Lets switch to something more interesting like: Diamond working on new vertical takeoff aircraft: Do you think they can do it?
tomjnx wrote:
So while “emotionally wrong”, it is a rationally defensible decision to stick a fixed gear to a turbo aircraft that can reasonably reach say FL180.
As long as you intend to cruise at such altitudes. Not just pop in there to avoid weather. It’s not really appealing to me without pressurization. OTOH having a plane is an indulgence in the first place, so why not. And the cost doesn’t have to be that high. The issue is there are not that many newly build retractable CS23/ Part 23 SEPs.
As far as looks go, I like retractable taildraggers the most.
Michael wrote:
Look at the F1 racers and the like, all are fixed gear yet they attain incredible speed efficiency.
Well, the system increases weight and the gear has to fit inside, which constraints the design. And such planes tend to be taildraggers (they are more efficient). So it doesn’t really pay off.
Consider that sailplanes typically have retractable main gear, even though they are taildraggers (those intended for training rather than racing are an exception, they can even have third wheel in front just for the ease of ingress and egress).
Cirrus_Man wrote:
the market speaks very loudly that this is by far the best all around 4 seat tourer.
How many are there anyway? DA40 plays a different league (I like it, it just ticks too few boxes). Then there is the TTx and it’s a shame it didn’t really succeed. What else? 172? 
On the MEP front there is the DA42 and I quite like it in the latest incarnation.
Michael wrote:
True, I’m not very comfortable flying the Lancair on anything but the hard, but then again I wouldn’t fly a Mooney on grass either.
Do you fly your retract out of fields ?
This incident comes to mind:
On another thread about pilot confidence, there was word of a similar occurrence. Is this common for Mooneys or all retractables?
Rwy20; do you have a link to the accident report to that Video of the Mooney accident? I think, out of context, that video does no favours to retractables and grass. My Mum spent a chunk of her flying career flying Mooney’s and Bonnies in and out of “hostile” African strips with out incident. I suspect it has something to do with her ability to do her checks properly. I do know on the manual gear system re the Mooney, you needed to hear the click when locking the gear into place otherwise that gear leaver could pop out and it then was a bitch to get locked back in. I myself have flown the Bonnie, Lance, Arrow and Cardinal in and out of grass strips with no issues. I know of many other pilots with the same. I fail to see why a retractable should be any more “precious” than a fixed gear if flying into “normal” strips. The only issue I would say that is posed to a retractable is if going into a boggy or muddy type strip. That can cause problems with the. gear mechanism.
Posted in the interest of “balance”.
