![]() ![]() Engineering is always evolving and Cirrus represents that. BUT as engineering progresses we will see more and more advance materials in the construction with better performance. (I was shocked when I saw how some cirrus looked like after their accidents).Composites are strong, but have some shorter life span compared to metals, they can behave little brittle materials. The composites are more flammable, suffer delamination, don't like the Sun (Cirrus=hangar queen), like less to hit hard stuff like fences, obstructions, etc. The aluminium frame can diform (within it's acceptable tension range and return to it's normal), can accumulate residual tension, stress, fatigue cracks but it's easier to fix and repair. ![]() If you ask me where I would rather be in the case of an accident(forced landing)? I'd answer that's a hard question! Though CFIT and crash/t.o/landings are more common accidents NOTE: True is that's scares me more the thought of the wing coming out of the airplane or hitting some other guy than any other thing. The parachute is for peace of mind! (mid air collisions, loss of control, etc.) and any technical design fault in the aircraft. The Cessna 400/350 look great and everything, but being a newbie one would better go for a simple operation aircraft (single lever cirrus) than to throttle/prop lever configuration in the Cessna. Young and with half million in the bank? what would I buy?Yeap the answer is a Cirrus. Enroute, automation is vital for the pilot getting some rest Somehow I don't see the CHT being introduced into the autopilotĪpproaches are already possible "fully automatic" with 20 year old kit, and arguably that is where automation is most important for safety. I have certainly been to airports where this is an issue. This is pretty easy but the best one can do automation-wise is to fly on the autopilot in HDG mode - initially at least.Įven if one had full automatic departure/go-around capability, issues remain for GA aircraft, like a minimum climb gradient (for obstacle clearance) which might be tough though possible to achieve, but which cannot be achieved on a given day due to engine management issues (max CHT) which require an early transition to a higher speed, at the expense of climb gradient. So, I fly a SID using its chart representation/description, and throw in GPS database waypoints where there are some defined. So that SID cannot be flown hands-off, for several reasons some of which are pretty nontrivial in certification terms. One needs a really complete procedure depiction before one can do it totally automatically.įor example, (as mentioned above) a typical SID is a straight ahead climb to some altitude, or VOR radial, etc, but not to any database waypoint. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |