AOPA Expo 2006, Palm Springs

[kwmoore]

The Expo was great fun. Todd & Jo had two planes on display: their new Katmai (http://www.katmai-260se.com/katmai.html) with huge tundra tires and Norm's nearly complete (sans BRS parachute) Katmai with standard gear (a 153-155 KTAS cruiser!). Todd's demo Katmai was dubbed the "Cartoon Airplane" by some children watching the Parade of Planes, to our collective great amusement. The PPP display was right next to Cirrus, and we got a friendly visit and inquiry from Cirrus COO David Coleal.

In addition to Todd, Jo, and Chris Clemons from PPP, Bill Roberts, Norm Worthington, Glen Green, and I took turns helping out talking to attendees who were curious about the planes. Bill handed out huge numbers of Katmai DVDs. Pete Minges also flew out for the Expo and stopped by, as did Kari Cameron & Joe Rieger. Rumor had it that Tom Castleberry and Mike Sullivan were around but I didn't see either of them.

My impression was that there were a considerably greater number of genuinely serious inquiries this year than in 2002; Todd & Jo's 2007 production slots may be taken up quickly! :cool:

The most notable new things this year in my opinion were (a) a profusion of LSA's, including Cessna; (b) prominent displays of VLJ's, including an honest-to-goodness real flying Cessna Mustang, and (c) the retrofit G600 glass panel from Garmin.

I did not have a camera but will gladly post photos if attendees will e-mail them to me.

[morrisond]

Hi Kevin,

I was there and spent a good hour talking to Todd. Very nice man and incredibly knowledgeable.

He did a great Job on the Katmai and to my undecated eyes couldn't tell a meaningful difference bewteen the interior of it and paint vs. Norms plane(sorry Norm)

My hesitation at this point is wanting to know more about the NGP which may fill my needs. I thought they would annouce more details but it looks like we won't know more until Oshkosh. I would like a modern Integrated Panel, Fadec, etcc.., which you can somewhat get there with an G600 but you can't have everything. The timing works well anyways as I promised my wife no airplane buying until about 12 months from now when our cottage is finished, the G600 won't available until then and by then Todd will have done more testing with 3 Blade props and bigger engine options.

If I build one I will be keeping it for a long time and will probably go all out and add TKS as well(helps balance a larger engine and 3 blade as well).

I watched the DVD. It mentioned that there is an option for Bigger wheels with Pants vs. Standard. Any idea of size? What do they look like? How much of a performance decrease?

[nworth]

The NGP, tantalizing as it was, looks to me like a 2008 or 2009 (or later) plane. I think if deliveries were expected sooner, we would be seeing a lot more than a mockup with vinyl skins where the avionics go.

I seems to me that Cessna's intent is to freeze the market for "regular" airplanes before Cirrus eats their lunch too much more.

On the other hand, you may be able to get a canard on a Cirrus soon! Apparently, the President of Cirrus wandered over to the PPP display area and inquired about some sort of technology alliance. A canard on a Cirrus makes a ton of sense to me -- the SR2x really needs much better slow flight characteristics for safety (and, in my opinion, a complete rearrangement of the side stick (no springs!) and trim system (variable speed!) before it will be FUN to fly).

[morrisond]

That would be amazing if they did an SR22 with a Canard. It could be Cirrus's way to fight the NGP, assuming that the NGP's shortfield performance is better than an SR22.

I'll second you on the control feel and the push/pull it felt unnatural, although I never left the ground so who knows what it is like in flight. The system in the Columbia felt much more natural. Now that would be a plane an Columbia 400 with a Canard 200+ Knot Cruise speeds and way better short field performance than it has now, that Plane felt great to sit in, there's just no way I could get it in and out of my field(although the salesman from California said no problem). His shortfield landing method was flaps 40, speed brakes deployed and 70 knots over the threshold, not quite the approved procedure.

If there serious it could be great income stream for Todd, take a royalty on every Canard installed. I can think of one Cirrus pilot who would have been happy to have Canards on his plane, making his turning radius significantly less than the 1400' he took vs. the 1200' required.

[kwmoore]

Now that would be a plane an Columbia 400 with a Canard 200+ Knot Cruise speeds and way better short field performance than it has now, that Plane felt great to sit in, there's just no way I could get it in and out of my field(although the salesman from California said no problem). His shortfield landing method was flaps 40, speed brakes deployed and 70 knots over the threshold, not quite the approved procedure.
I have about 160 hr in SR20/22. The recommended short final/over-the-fence speeds are too fast in my opinion. For the '22, the POH recommends 77 kt at MGTOW (3400 lb). Many Cirrus pilots subtract 1 kt for each 100 lb under MGTOW. At those speeds you will still get considerable float by a 260se pilot's standards. For most of my flights, with Senior Management and Byron on board, we are at 3000-3100 when we land after a ~2 hr trip. 73 kt works, but even 72 or 71 is OK for me. However we always use the full length of PAO's 2440' runway for rollout. Quite a difference from the 260se: for amusement I would ponder which 1/4 or 1/3 of that runway I wanted to use for landing. :D

However with the engine at idle you do develop a sink rate and noticeably lose pitch authority under 70 in the Cirrus. With some power carried into the flare you can manage 68-69 kt but I wouldn't want to do it in a gusty wind.

A canard might be able to knock off 10-15 kt from the SR22's 59 kt stall speed, provided it doesn't undesirably interfere with airflow over the inboard part of the wings. This would be a real enhancement of the Cirrus' capabilities in my opinion.

I don't know if there are any royalties in this. The canard technology on the 182 dates back to the '60's--any patents would have long since expired--and it's not a novel concept elsewhere in aviation either.

[n2099x]

Yes Kevin, both Mike and Tom were there. Tom and his wife were at dinner with us Friday night. Oh, i remember, you were spending the evening with brand X.

LOL, Glen

[kwmoore]

The NGP, tantalizing as it was, looks to me like a 2008 or 2009 (or later) plane. ...
The flying NGP prototype was there in the hangar while we were being briefed for the "Parade of Planes" Wednesday morning. It departed not long after. It seemed intermediate between the 182 and 206 in size but lower slung. Definitely NOT pressurized. There were 4 seats in it but I suppose they could squeeze in another row if one didn't need much baggage space. The Cessna guy I spoke with at the exhibits booth confirmed only two rows of seats but they were considering a center seat belt in the rear to accomodate 5 "souls." He referred to the current engine as a Lycoming injected 580, 315 hp, but wouldn't say whether that was the ultimate engine choice. My query about a canard was met with a momentary blank stare and "Huh?"

According to this gentleman it is much more likely than not that BRS will be offered as an option. Finally they're "getting it" on this subject. :o

[morrisond]

However we always use the full length of PAO's 2440' runway for rollout. Quite a difference from the 260se: for amusement I would ponder which 1/4 or 1/3 of that runway I wanted to use for landing. :D

.

Problem with Brake fires on the Sr22 Kevin?

[kwmoore]

Well, I've never had a problem with brake performance or even overheating (as judged by the brake condition indicators on all the Cirri I fly). I came to the Cirrus with a fair amount of Grumman Tiger time and thus was used to steering with brakes. The best technique to maintain direction during taxi is occasional taps on the appropriate brake and keep rpm at ~1000 or lower.

It seems to be the consensus that improper taxi technique--high rpm and dragging the brakes during prolonged taxiing--was the source of the problem. The engine monitor record on one of the brake fire planes showed prolonged taxi at 1600 rpm and higher, implying continuous brake use to control speed/direction. That's goofy technique in any plane.

Nonetheless Cirrus made available heavier duty (=idiot proof?) brakes and brake condition indicators. I have recently rejected a club SR22 on preflight because the right main gear brake condition indicator had turned from white to dark gray (not black). Supposedly it's only a danger sign if it's dark black, but I decided not to be a test pilot on that one. ;)

In my opinion the brake fires have been due largely to operator error, but product designers do need to take into account that not all customers will be sensible, properly/thoroughly trained, mechanically savvy, or have above average IQ.

[Pete of N978PB]

According to this gentleman it is much more likely than not that BRS will be offered as an option.
Interesting. I had a chat with a Cessna chap about various aspects of the NGP who commented that a BRS really wasn't necessary for "real world" flying.

Pete

[kwmoore]

Interesting. I had a chat with a Cessna chap about various aspects of the NGP who commented that a BRS really wasn't necessary for "real world" flying.
This particular guy clearly doesn't get it. :rolleyes: It's not about "necessary." It's about expanding the safety envelope for pilots to provide an "out" for low probability but high consequence events such as structural failure, birdstrike, loss of control, engine failure in low IFR or over bad terrain, etc. Perhaps even more importantly, it's to expand the comfort zone for nonpilot passengers--spouses, friends, etc.--who perceive travel in small airplanes as unreasonably dangerous. It provides them a sense of security/control in case something incapacitates the pilot. For the same reason, it attracts new people to consider becoming pilots.

If Cessna doesn't do this, they'll deserve what they get: an ever-dwindling market share of the single-engine piston market.

[Pete of N978PB]

This particular guy clearly doesn't get it. It's not about "necessary." It's about expanding the safety envelope for pilots to provide an "out" for low probability but high consequence events such as structural failure, birdstrike, loss of control, engine failure in low IFR or over bad terrain, etc. Perhaps even more importantly, it's to expand the comfort zone for nonpilot passengers--spouses, friends, etc.--who perceive travel in small airplanes as unreasonably dangerous. It provides them a sense of security/control in case something incapacitates the pilot. For the same reason, it attracts new people to consider becoming pilots.

If Cessna doesn't do this, they'll deserve what they get: an ever-dwindling market share of the single-engine piston market.
You're absolutely right.

I said as much to the fellow I spoke with after his comment. He then suggested I complete the Cessna "consumer survey" on one of two nearby laptops. The survey was being conducted by an entity other than Cessna, and just didn't have a ring to it of someone familiar with single-engine flying.

I completed it, but the BRS was only one of dozens of inquiry points. In all honesty, I'm not sure the chap I spoke with is an isolated case within Cessna based upon the nature of the survey.

Pete

[kwmoore]

For some pictures from Norm Worthington, click here. (http://www.260sepilots.org/gallery/AOPA-Expo-2006)

[Todd Peterson]

As I must go fly in a minute or two I'll just make a short note on the Expo. I'll expand on this in the next day or two.

The Expo was great and we did have more serious prospects than ever before. The new Katmai was met with great enthuiasm and it appears we will be building a significant number of them with a variety of landing gear configurations in the future. As this is the only true STOL airplane made that has the BRS parachute as an option I think we will be installing more BRS parachutes that one might expect. The BRS we are currently installing on Norm's Katmai is going very well and we have had a number of people contact us relative to this option.

It was interesting to discuss the merits of a canard on a Cirrus. Cirrus obviously has a good airplane and I think it would depend on customer demand and cost. Just as Cessna is hopefully reviewing customer demand and cost for the BRS.

My interest is and always has been in STOL aircraft and safety. The lure of backcountry flying and providing a versatile airplane with more performance and safety than a conventional airplane is what gets me going. If one does not care about these things then there are a lot of good airplanes out there. I do not know how much safer an airplane could be than to have the slow speed capabilities of the Katmai or a 260SE with the BRS onboard. To be then able to convert it from an efficient super safe cross country airplane to one designed for the backcountry is just an added benefit. Our airplanes also being easy to fly, maintain and insure just make it better. To top it off I don't know of any airplane with a better resale value.

Damn, I just love my work (and my customers).

Regards, :)

[kwmoore]

I do not know how much safer an airplane could be than to have the slow speed capabilities of the Katmai or a 260SE with the BRS onboard.
Well, maybe Microsoft Flight Simulator on a PC in my living room would be safer. Otherwise, beats me. ;)

Damn, I just love my work (and my customers).
It really is an extraordinary relationship between you and your customers. I'm very happy to be a part of it. :D