I believe I am going to get to make a tax deductible contribution to the charity of Mike's choice at the end of the year...

Like perhaps maybe saving a couple lives ????

I don't know the relative costs between the two but surely you know Mike that a spin test is not merely a 'few' spins. Any spin matrix is huge and the cost of spin testing is not even remotely trivial. Back in the early SR20 days I recall a number over $1M being mentioned regarding the cost of a spin program and that figure has got to be much higher today.

The ELOS was about NOT doing spin testing, not saving lives. The "E" stands for "equivalent", not "better".

If safety was truly the first priority, then why not do spin testing? Spin testing is SIMPLE. A few hours of flight time, a few days at most. Load up the plane with the most rearward CG, and go fly it through a few spins. That's it. Given the plane already has a parachute, you don't even need the spin drag chute safety system. Truly, the SR22 would have been EASY to spin certify, and later, it was with EASA.

Mike C.

One, spin testing is not that expensive when part of the overall flight test program. You get to combine various CG and weight configurations and do multiple tests at once (takeoff, landing, stability, spins, etc).

Two, they did it for EASA anyway, so no cost savings in the end.

Three, applying for and getting an ELOS, with the data you have to submit, is not free, either. Given they did spin testing anyway, that was money wasted.

I just do not believe Cirrus can't do spin testing while everybody else without a chute, including some really small companies selling handfuls of airplanes, can complete spin testing. The "spin testing is a hardship for Cirrus" argument just doesn't fly.

Mike C.

Say what???? Have you seen a spin matrix and how many possible entries there are? Unless things have changed DRAMATICALLY in recent years, an FAA spin test program is far more involved and far more expensive than you make it to be Mike. Why else would you go through the process of an ELOS if it weren't?

Do you know the relative difference in requirements for the FAA spin testing vs. EASA? I don't, which is why I'm asking.

And yet everyone else completes it, even Cirrus when EASA said so.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... 23-15A.pdf

See pages 23 and following. I count 36 spins require for the full test card, figure 12.

Is that really so hard? It would take, what, 2 days?

Compared to something like FIKI, spin testing is trivial.


To make the chute a required piece of equipment.

Outside of the ELOS, the chute is not required for the plane to be certified and someone could pretty easily make an STC to remove it. Cirrus doesn't want that, that's against their religion. I believe the ELOS was all about making the chute required equipment.

Now we have the flip side of that. Certifying the SF-50 chute is proving troublesome, so Cirrus wants to not even have to test it, much less make it a required for certification. Now not only don't we need the chute any more, it doesn't need to even be tested to be sure it works. Hmmm.

And this implies Cirrus was happy to do spin testing for the SF50, and there have been pictures of the SF50 prototypes with spin recovery chutes indicating such testing was being done. With the V tail and rear engine, it seems on paper to be FAR more likely to have spin recovery issues than the SR22.

Mike C.

So, assuming all of this is true... what's the problem? Obviously, you don't NEED the chute for the plane to fly. Most people want it, but no one NEEDS it.

Say what???? Have you seen a spin matrix and how many possible entries there are? Unless things have changed DRAMATICALLY in recent years, an FAA spin test program is far more involved and far more expensive than you make it to be Mike. Why else would you go through the process of an ELOS if it weren't?

FWIW, Lancair and Gipsland both lost airframes to their spin test campaigns. The pilots survived in both cases, but the pilot of the GA-8, had trouble getting out and got hit by the prop on his way out... I'd call that a close scrape.

I will try to dig out the paper Imhabe that discusses this.

Spin testing is anything but easy (or cheap).

Lancair's case was a spin chute that wouldn't release after a recovery that went wrong. With the spin chute attached, the plane can't be flown, so the pilot bailed.

I don't have info on the Gipsland event.

The Cessna Skycatcher was another case, two airframes lost in testing, though the first was in a stall test that ended up in an unintentional flat spin (chute failed to deploy, pilot bailed), the second was actual spin testing (chute deployed, but failed to release). Clearly the 162 spin testing was a good thing for it revealed some dicey spin issues.

Suffice it to say, loss of airframes in spin testing is very rare, though it does happen. Airframes are potentially lost in ANY flight test program, not just for spins.

Mike C.

The ELOS was about NOT doing spin testing, not saving lives. The "E" stands for "equivalent", not "better.

Mike C.

From what I recall reading/hearing, Cirrus pursed the ELOS for the SR program due to time constraints to start making product deliveries.
At the time the FAA was having trouble scheduling resources to complete the actual flight testing, and the spin test was going to cost Cirrus months of delay. The ELOS was a way to short cut the process and start deliveries.

Tim

FWIW, Lancair and Gipsland both lost airframes to their spin test campaigns. The pilots survived in both cases, but the pilot of the GA-8, had trouble getting out and got hit by the prop on his way out... I'd call that a close scrape.

I will try to dig out the paper Imhabe that discusses this.

Spin testing is anything but easy (or cheap).