Originally Posted by
Sputnik
If your dividing line between "an airliner" and GA is a spin, I guess I'm guilty as charged.
I go up and spin Super-D's occasionally, got my tailwheel endorsement a long time ago, makes one a better pilot. You can guarantee I'm going to fly a plane that can't recover from a spin, and does things like Shyguy's accident post, in a much different way than a decathlon. I wouldn't do steep banks or load the wing close to the ground, but again I safely would do this in a plane I'm very familiar with and has benign approach to stall characteristics.
Originally Posted by
Sputnik
I didn't like the feel of a stall, not a crisp onset indication. With the stall warning computer I don't know how you'd get into a stall, that thing would wake the dead. While I didn't like the stall characteristics, I found it easy to avoid inadvertent stalls.
I agree.
Originally Posted by
Sputnik
I don't know your definition of a short approach so I can't speak to that.
Turning base right after the numbers to have minimal to no final approach segment. Often with steep bank such that overbanking tendency is apparent and opposite rudder needed. Less room for error but can easily and safely be done. I'd NEVER attempt it in a cirrus. Never. High performance airfoils will have flow separation suddenly happen and a (unrecoverable) spin can occur low to the ground. That's what I mean by "airliner" as opposed to "fun flyer".
More on that "over the top" stall/spin:
Cirrus Stall - AVweb Insider Article
Originally Posted by
Sputnik
Personally, I didn't like it much. I found the sidestick intuitive, but I hated the spring loaded flight controls. But while I didn't like it, I never felt it was unsafe.
There are no sharp borders between "safe" and "unsafe". For me, I also hated the spring controls. I'd rather have a "feel" of an aircraft than, say, an AOA guage or computer-assisted accelerated stall warning system.
Originally Posted by
Sputnik
The last report I had read on safety record was in avweb a year or so back. Perhaps the report was wrong, I was under the impression it had a pretty good record over last few years.
There was a big push for more training particularly in 'chute deployment over the past few years. When I looked to buy one the safety rate was quite poor and it was alarming a lot of people and scaring away buyers like me. Reportedly it is a bit better nowdays.
Beware the "Safe" Airplane
The Latest "Advances": Parachutes, Glass Cockpits, etc.
Today, we have the "safety" of airplanes with parachutes. Yet the Cirrus SR20/SR22 family apparently has a crash rate easily five times as bad as the Skylane RG -- an airplane quite comparable in cost, specifications and performance. The Cirrus, in fact, seems to be killing off pilots at a rate that would make critics of those "crash-prone" common single-engine retractables -- (fill in your favorite here) -- reluctant to ride a fixed-gear Cirrus.
Anyhow we should start a separate thread if we want to discuss Cirrus more, maybe in safety forum.