I wonder if an SR22 bounces more than other “IFR” types because it has gear with no damping?
It has plenty of damping, provided by the tires scrubbing sideways on the tarmac with deflection of the gear leg. There’s a reason Steve Wittman’s patented design became almost universal on training aircraft.
You learn something every day. I always thought the point of spring steel landing gear was to make landing elegantly impossible. How I remember learning to fly a Citabria!
Try a Luscombe with its pivoting, short travel gear that was designed before Wittman struts were invented. The Citabria is much easier.
derek wrote:
Could you elaborate (preferably with equations)? I’m not saying it is in incorrect, just that it isn’t obvious to me. I can imagine a scenario with the airplane in a shallow pitch down attitude such that the vertical component of thrust is downwards, but that the lift generated by the flying surfaces is sufficient to still result in a climb.
I’m making the assumption that the aircraft is rigged so that the nose will be at (or slightly above) the horizon at typical cruise speeds. If fact, you could well say that the definition of the nose being at the horizon is the the aircraft has cruise (or zero) AoA. That means that the vertical flight path in cruise will be in the same direction as the nose is pointing or slightly below it. This in turn implies that if you lower the nose below the horizon, the aircraft must be descending. The only exception is if you increase the speed above normal cruise so that the AoA reduces below normal cruise AoA. Even then the nose will be only very slightly below the horizon and it is unlikely that enough excess power is available to make the aircraft climb.
Thanks. That makes sense to me, and perhaps explains my experience in a Pitts. There seemed to be lots of excess power available (at least compared to what I usually fly).
Snoopy wrote:
Instead, all arguments are washed away with “it has a chute, it is safe”. Looking at it this way, CAPS killed a lot more people than it saved.
I’m not sure this is a good assessment. Recent fatal accident rate stats for the Cirrus show it has a lower accident rate than the general aviation fleet at large.
This accident has nothing to do the Cirrus design or avionics.
It has everything to do with training.
I’m not sure this is a good assessment.
From a perspective of marketing and target demographics, it is.
@alioth We had that more often here: CAPS may make you feel safer than you are, making you push your limits. I definitely did that at least once where I realized later that in a plane without chute I never would have gone so far.
That said, @Snoopys point is absolutely reasonable to me.
Whether overconfidentiality was a factor in this accident is something we won’t find out with a level of certainty. In GA there are few hard limits to push. So sometimes one is perfectly fine with a certain risk and another one isn’t.
I do see the point @Snoopy is making, and it’s a good point to think about. There’s nothing wrong with a Cirrus, it’s whether such a capable plane makes you feel overconfident. Just like flying with a knob that’s labeled “second life”.
I’m still curious whether some technical issues will be found (however difficult, looking at the amount of damage).
