"Pull Early, Pull Often"

Flying Tips and Advice from The Colonel!
User avatar
Colonel
Posts: 2517
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 pm
Location: Over The Runway

Image

Imagine how good an airplane it would be, if it wasn't a fixed gear nosewheel trainer.

1) Chop off the nosewheel. Put on a (inexpensive non-retracting) tailwheel. Better ground clearance for the prop tips, less drag in high speed cruise.

2) Increase the diameter of the prop (with tailwheel) for increased climb performance. Nice at high density altitude!

3) Retract the main gear for massive drag reduction in high speed cruise. Faster, less GPH.

4) Get rid of that stupid airframe parachute. Reduce manufacturing cost and maintenance. Decreased weight for increased useful load and better climb performance and cruise at the same load. Increase baggage room. Win/win/win/win.

It could be such a better aircraft - cheaper, faster, lighter. But that's not what pilots want.

They want to dumb aviation down to the lowest level, so everyone flies a shit airplane.


Slick Goodlin
Posts: 936
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:24 am

Did you just invent a four-place Swift?
User avatar
Colonel
Posts: 2517
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 pm
Location: Over The Runway

I guess so - but composite?

Remember the Velocity? I see a few of them around, still.

Image
Squaretail
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:21 pm
Location: Group W Bench

Colonel wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:17 pm

Imagine how good an airplane it would be, if it wasn't a fixed gear nosewheel trainer.

1) Chop off the nosewheel. Put on a (inexpensive non-retracting) tailwheel. Better ground clearance for the prop tips, less drag in high speed cruise.

2) Increase the diameter of the prop (with tailwheel) for increased climb performance. Nice at high density altitude!

3) Retract the main gear for massive drag reduction in high speed cruise. Faster, less GPH.

4) Get rid of that stupid airframe parachute. Reduce manufacturing cost and maintenance. Decreased weight for increased useful load and better climb performance and cruise at the same load. Increase baggage room. Win/win/win/win.

It could be such a better aircraft - cheaper, faster, lighter.
I suspect if you want all those changes, you'd have to start from scratch. I wouldn't bother making it retractable, I'd use the extra ground clearance to just shorten the gear for less drag. The airframe just ain't that slick that you'd get much more on the top end. Sort of like how the Arrow doesn't go much faster than a similarly powered Cherokee D. Not for the loss of 200 lbs payload so you can say you retract the wheels. The loss of the para, and adding gear retraction would make it a wash for weight. I mean the Cirrus just isn't as slick as its composite would lead you to think. If speed is your thing, the Columbia/Cessna 400 is a way cleaner airframe, and the speed is stunningly more for two planes with the same engine. The Cessna is already even heavier empty, and they both have the same maximum. So in other words the Cessna is already handicapped with weight, but still has like 30-35 knots on the Cirrus Without doing anything you suggest. In practice I found it was even more. The Cirrus I found with realistic power settings, cruised at about 160, while the Columbia seemed to effortlessly make 200 (I actually haven't flown the Cessna version, only had the luck to try the Columbia). For similar power settings at similar altitudes.

Fun fact, the Cessna version is certified in the utility category. The Cirrus isn't.

When it comes to the Cirrus, well, you can't polish a turd.

On the subject of Velocities, the only guy I knew that owned one got arrested for drug smuggling. You know something is up when a guy pays for fuel with rolls of twenties.

But forget about that, what's the taildragger behind the velocity?
The details of my life are quite inconsequential...
Slick Goodlin
Posts: 936
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:24 am

Looks like a Dornier behind the Velocity
Nark
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:29 pm
Contact:

The velocity pilots seem to go to the same school as the cirrus pilots…

Wind was 220/9knots today.

Paved runway instead of grass 18. Okay, fine.

However… they chose runway 9.

Great job guys.
Twin Beech restoration:
www.barelyaviated.com
JW Scud
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:25 pm

Squaretail wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 6:55 pm


When it comes to the Cirrus, well, you can't polish a turd.
You may not be able to polish a turd, but you can roll it in sparkles.

That is the parachute which apparently is just enough to convince a fair amount of “but honey, it’s dangerous” spouses to reluctantly agree to spending all that money on a plane instead of on horse stuff.

That is the marketing genius of the parachute equipped Cirrus.
User avatar
Colonel
Posts: 2517
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 pm
Location: Over The Runway

I remember when the Cirrus came out, it’s fanboys couldn’t believe that it had a fatal accident rate three times higher than the 182. Oops.

The lesson there is that you cannot equate owners of 182’s with owners of Cirruses. The numbers tell us that Cirrus pilots are complete idiots who manage to kill themselves despite additional very expensive safety equipment which they all somehow defeated.
Nark
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:29 pm
Contact:

The guy that purchased my 182 did so only at the behest of his wife getting him to install a ballistic parachute.

I didn’t want to push the idea that Cirrus has them from the factory…

But, his check cleared, so fantastic for both him and I, and his wife.
Twin Beech restoration:
www.barelyaviated.com
Slick Goodlin
Posts: 936
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:24 am

I hitched a ride in a Cirrus once and it seemed like an excellent way to get around the continental US. I didn’t get any stick time, unfortunately, but then again the guy flying barely did either. Seems to me that it’s meant to be operated like an airliner: taxi out, take off, autopilot on, autopilot off, land, taxi in. Appeared to do a stellar job at that, we went fast and high with fixed gear and a single power lever.

Felt to me they’re not dangerous, maybe just too popular for their own good.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post