David Isaac

I would ask Jabiru that question

Yes they are customised to the MTOW and the bridal attachments are customised to the frame type. Yes a bigger chute will slow the descent but will weigh more. The whole thing is a compromise for weight. With the Hornet just hold the stick hard back and she will descent like a parachute ... LOL

The stranger phenomenon here is that there has been absolutely no debris discovered anywhere ... how can this be? There is no way a 777 would not break up in a water landing in the middle of the ocean with ocean swells, it wasn't as smooth as the Hudson. Is it possible the debris was cleaned up ...

I have a particular view that in most cases bean counters should advise businesses not run them. But in this day where everything in business is about short term margin sometimes at the cost of long term sustainability, bean counters often lack the survival skills of those who understand what the business is all about. Dont get me wrong ... no margin ... no survive, but there is a world of understanding in between. A good bean counter who works with the team and tries to understand and consults is worth their weight in Gold.

Oscar, You are right about the drop test. There is one RAAus aircraft that would possibly come close to that spec and that is the Ole Hartman's AAK Hornet. It has a collapsible seat structure and big flexible legs. Regrettably they have proved their crash worthiness a few times in the last few years all with minor injuries.

Exactly Nev, in the most common of corporate cases, they turn up, cut costs out of the business, get the bottom line looking good, collect their bonus and bugga off before the impact of their cost cutting ultimately bites the bottom line. Classic competing and conflicting KPIs. That is what happens when businesses are run and managed (note my choice of words) by bean counters who don't have an understanding of which costs bring indirect benefits until they cut them and then down the track wonder what the hell went wrong.

Nothing is ever forever! The best in the market move on to a new employer on average every 2.5 years.

Yes I have seen these seat belt airbags in the exit row of a passenger jet in Australia, I think it was a Virgin flight. Not a bad idea and not that heavy. The greater risk to injury is a poor practice of only wearing the lap belt and not using the shoulder harness. A lot of Cessna pilots have this bad habit. When I purchased my Auster, a few knowledgable Auster buffs suggested strongly that I fit the second shoulder strap to my seat belt so that it becomes a full shoulder harness. The reason they said that most Auster prangs have been survivable, but a few fatalities have been caused by the occupants heads striking the dash area. In my view in a strong slow speed aircraft, quality seat belts and attachments are a better investment and I would definitely look at the seat belt airbag option.

Good points Nev. I have often wondered whether I would rather have a laminated timber spar or a metal spar. Of the two choices rightly or wrongly my instinct goes with the laminated timber.

Indeed ...

Maybe we are being paid for our efforts by the guilty party .....

Or buy (wisely) a second hand aircraft; why does it have to be new. There are plenty of second hand Drifters out there usually around $15k ... Thrusters even Sapphires. Hell you can even buy a good ol Auster for $30 to 35K. C150s to 172s from $25K to $35K. But if you are hell bent on new, you will pay the premium. These days even with new it is 'buyer beware'. Sometimes old established brands have good predictability and with the right inspections you can limit the risk.

Well done Any, you have my support in this endeavour. You are an ideal candidate.

Right on Matty. I think the only remaining real low cost Ultralights are in the 95-10 category. For example the Tyro (still available) etc.

Ross, from memory it was a good reply. What did you consider inappropriate?

Hongie, Dafydd is probably a cranky ol bugga in his field of expertise just as I am in mine, but I think he did make the comparison that Nick was seeking.

What happened to Ross Millard's response to DWF stating that DWF's question were good questions? Ross's response was up in this thread this morning and now it is gone?

And it is your contributions to this site that go a long way to improving that understanding ... so thank you for your efforts.

Probably right Nick, but as I discovered in my last house that had it on ... don't park the barbecue too close ... LOL

Can't answer all your questions Nick. Maintenance can be an issue with aging aircraft with some more than others. All aluminium has the difficulty of getting inside the wing to check spar corrosion. Fabric is easy to cut out the fabric and repatch to check for tube frame corrosion and wooden spar examination. It depends a lot on maintenance from previous owners. I own a 1951 Auster, they are cheap to acquire and like any rag and tube corrosion of the tube frame needs to be watched and repaired. I was fortunate in that mine was completely restored in 1998, including frame corrosion treatment and a new skin so technically she is only 16 years old, but is now in need of substantial maintenance including a cable replacement (required at 15 years). The Auster was designed by the same guy who designed the Cub (CG Taylor), but the Auster has a different wing and is capable of 20 mph higher cruise speeds than the Cub. Austers are possibly the lowest cost aircraft you can buy, a good one can be as cheap as $35K, but you can blow a lot of money if you have to recover and paint one and rebuild the Gypsy. Anything you add to an aircraft will effect W & B, and the aircraft should be re weighed. Technically you can add electronics, but AFAIK there is a TSO requirement for most of the equipment you add to VH aircraft. Some one else can offer better advice on that ... Now back to Cessnas ...

I agree, because they also widened the body at the same time, it is a bit like comparing the C180 and 182. The C180 definitely flys nicer than the C182 (180 is a lot more 'tricky' in the landing). The C180 has a narrower body and only two dunlops in the breeze. The C180 has to be more stream line. Landomatic has to be a clever name for tricycle under cart, because all you had in those days were tail draggers and compared to a Cessna tail dragger the tricycle was quite a bit like an automatic landing. Things aren't much different today the way you see some pilots land Cessnas, it is almost like they expect them to land 'automatically' from some of the tragic techniques I have observed. LOL

And just to add some clarity around this 'spin certification' issue, Cessna 180s, 182s, 185s, 206s are not spin approved, but they meet the spin stability certification requirements. They are NOT approved for intentional spins. The C150, 152, 172 are spin approved, but only in the utility category, they are training aircraft. BTW, the Cessna Skycatcher is NOT approved for intentional spins. So we are not talking about spin approved aircraft here in the general sense we are just talking about GA aircraft that are required to meet certain inherent spin stability requirements for ordinary GA certification. That is the ability to recover from a spin in a specified number of rotations, again NOT spin approved aircraft. It appears the Cirrus circumvented the stability requirements by adding a supplementary CAPs which became mandatory for ordinary GA certification. Now if I have got that wrong, someone please correct me.

Mate you are on ... I just luuuuuuvv those Hornets .

Again you miss my point, my beef is with the certification process where other manufacturers have had to make their aircraft more stable and Cirrus appear to have avoided some requirements by fitting a CAPs? And again another appearance of implying that we should fit CAPs to all aircraft in case they enter a spin. How does that argument have any validity in justifying a CAPs requirement for one aircraft type, a type that HAS to have a CAPs in order to meet certification. To answer your question I wouldn't fly as a PAX with anyone I thought was stupid enough to put any aircraft in a spin with 4 POB. ... And there are no GA aircraft approved for spins with 4 POB to my knowledge at least none that I fly and all the ones that I fly that are spin approved, are only spin approved in the utility category with 2 POB. I don't know how 'hot' a Cirrus is in a glide approach configuration. Maybe they are so hot that firing the CAPs is a safer option with limited clear areas. He'll in some cases a CAPs would be a good idea in any aircraft. BUT ... The Cirrus HAS TO HAVE ONE.

Steve, My argument isn't whether you spin or don't spin. You are correct the average GA pilot would be dead if they even put a Cessna in a spin ( except a Cessna is so stable it would probably come out on its own) because the average GA pilot has not been trained in spin entry or recovery. But if you took that argument to its logical conclusion we would fit CAPs to every GA aircraft in case they entered a spin and the pilot did not have the skill to recover. We don't do spin training in the PPL anymore because GA aircraft are so stable they don't spin ....? My beef is the methodology Cirrus appear to have used to circumvent inherent stability requirements for GA aircraft. The Cirrus is required to have a CAPs in order to meet the certification requirements, other GA types are not. That in itself is a significant statement. In answer to your last question the stats further up in this thread don't put the Cirrus in a very safe light in IMHO.