Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

[Potential Bo Buyer]

Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
at work in this market.

Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
than the Bonanzas I'm considering.

It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?

[Dan Luke]

"Potential Bo Buyer" wrote:
> Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat.

The market for practically everything is flat except for light twins,
where the market is well below "flat."

> Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> 4-place Bonanzas?

Yes, IMO.

> After all, they're faster with
> fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years
> newer than the Bonanzas I'm considering.

Yeah, but they cost quite a bit more, so you're comparing apples to
oranges.

> It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> for a big change. Agree?

For the newer A36s, yes. Same thing for newer Mooneys. I predict neither
of these aircraft will still be in production five years from now.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[markjen]

What you saying may have some slight effect, but it is minor compared to the
general price trends of all aircraft and complex retracts specifically.
Very seldom does the appearance of a new airplane have much affect on the
value of used airplanes.

And others have said, I don't see someone with a budget of $150K for a 170K
IFR bird cross-shopping late-model F33As/V35Bs with a new $300K airplane.
And I think may pilots, truth be told, want a retract even if there are
fixed-gear airplanes of similar performance. Light twins can seldom be
practically justified over a heavy single, but many folks just get more
pleasure out of flying a twin. Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
rugged/substantial airplane, a much better rough field airplane, has a much
bigger baggage area, is bigger/heavier and arguably more comfortable, and is
a better airplane for situations where you can't hangar - I'd consider
hangaring an absolute requirement for a composite airplane.

I'll admit I'm prejudice, but I just don't see 25-year-old SR22s holding up
like 25-year-old Bonanzas have.

That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
panels. If I had $300K to spend, I'll look at them very seriously.

- Mark

[Dan Luke]

"markjen" wrote:
> Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
> rugged/substantial airplane,

Says who?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Zeno]

> a Bonanza is .... arguably more comfortable

says who ?

[markjen]

> > a Bonanza is .... arguably more comfortable
>
> says who ?

Says me. We're just expressing opinions here.

- Mark

[Tom S.]

"Potential Bo Buyer" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> 4-place Bonanzas?

Yes, in the same sense that Honda Hybrids are replacements for the Accord.

> (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
> place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
> 300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
> first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
> fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
> than the Bonanzas I'm considering.

And a lot more expensive. Also, check the accident reports for Cirrus
compared to the F33A.

> It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?

Bonanza's, being a proven product (in contrast with Cirrus and Lancair) will
be around after many of us are dead and gone.

Right now I'm this "........." close to buying a 1992 F33A and adding a
Tornado Alley Whirlwind to it. The cost will be about $255K, barely enough
to touch a Lanc or Cirrus.

The accident reports, particularly Cirrus, keep me at bay.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

[Larry Smith]

"Potential Bo Buyer" > wrote in message
om...
[...]
> It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?

Dunno, but a friend just returning from the AOPA fly-in said customers were
lined up there buying Cirrus SR22's. He said they were selling like
hotcakes.

[Michael 182]

The accident reports are pretty interesting.

There were five fatal flights:

1 - Flew into powerlines
3 - Flew into terrain
1 - spin w/out parachute deployment

Only the spin accident has a final report, which basically says the pane
entered a spin and the parachute was not deployed. No comment on whether the
parachute was tried. In a non-fatal accident a month earlier the parachute
deployment was attempted and failed.

There is not enough data or info here to draw any real conclusion, but some
speculation...

On one hand, unless there was a control failure, the flights into terrain
and powerlines appear to be pilot error. On the other hand, this many CFIT
accidents in such a short time in such a small population of planes does
cause some concern. Is the plane difficult to handle? Is it so "slippery"
that pilots are losing control? Is it being flown by pilots that can't
handle the performance - the stereotypical "doctor-killer" story?

Michael



"Tom S." > wrote in message
...

> The accident reports, particularly Cirrus, keep me at bay.
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
>
>
>
>

[markjen]

There is insufficient time-in-service to really be able to say much about
Cirrus accident rates. The Concorde went from having the best airliner
accident rate to the worst with one accident. That's the problem with new
airplanes - insuffiicent experience with the fleet.

My gut is that they'll be better than a Bonanza over time because it's a
newer design and because the fleet will be much younger - there are an awful
lot of Bonanzas flying around with lots of hours, lots of owners, lots of
mods, and lots of mechanics who have worked on them. That being said, the
Bonanza is a very proven design with excellent type-specific training
available through ABS.

The only reason I might select a Cirrus over a Bonanza for safety reasons is
if I were flying a lot of IFR - some of the available panels and autopilots
in the Cirrus are really nice and there is better backup and redundancy. A
new/modern electrical system is also a safety plus for IFR flight. And
everything else being equal, fixed gears are also safer airplanes in clouds.
In non-professional service, the weakest link in single-pilot IFR is the
pilot and anything that reduces workload and covers for errors is a safety
plus.

- Mark

[ArtP]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:32:53 GMT, "markjen"
> wrote:

> some of the available panels and autopilots
>in the Cirrus are really nice and there is better backup and redundancy.

My SR20 autopilot failed in solid IMC because the Cirrus roll trim
servo fired the STEC-55X roll computer. There was no indication of the
failure and since the ALT hold mode was still working I was gradually
placed in a graveyard spiral. Fortunately I spotted it and flew the
rest of the trip (10 hours 8 in solid IMC) manually. There was no
backup, there was not even an indication of failure. I can also say
because the plane does not have manual trim it is a beast to fly for
long periods in IMC without the autopilot.

[[email protected]]

On 12-Nov-2003, (Potential Bo Buyer) wrote:

> Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> 4-place Bonanzas?


At first glance the primary capability and performance difference is that a
Bonanza (model 35) will have a fairly large payload advantage over a
comparably equipped SR22. If each is fueled for a 500 nm trip with IFR
reserves a typical SR22 will have a maximum cabin payload of around 680 lbs
and a Bonanza around 925 lbs. The SR22 will probably be a few kts faster,
which is remarkable considering the fixed gear.

I guess what this shows is that composite construction allows for greater
drag reduction at a penalty of higher weight. (The SR22 has an empty weight
of 2250 lbs and older Bonanzas come in at around 1950 lbs.)

--
-Elliott Drucker

[R. Hubbell]

On 12 Nov 2003 09:58:25 -0800
(Potential Bo Buyer) wrote:

> Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
> economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
> with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
> at work in this market.
>
> Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> 4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
> place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
> 300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
> first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
> fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
> than the Bonanzas I'm considering.
>
> It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?


I think that a lot of newer pilots today like the simplicity of operating
the newer planes. Less stuff to fiddle around with means less stuff to
screw up. There are some drawbacks with new planes. Not lots of hours
logged yet to prvoe the design. I thought I heard the Cirrus had some
bad stall characteristics or was it spin? Haven't heard a lot about the
Lancair.


I definitely agree that appreciation rates are in for a big change. I
think it's been changing and will keep changing and not just for
Bonanzas.


R. Hubbell

[Flynn]

I don't think anyone should fool themselves that there's less to fiddle with
in the -22. It can be a very busy cockpit at times. However, the PFD/MFD
is absolutely amazing in it's presentation of data to manage single pilot
IFR flights in my opinion.
I considered buying a Bo', looking at both models cited. In the end, all of
the safety features designed into the Cirrus products carried the day.
Living in the Pacific NW made the TKS system a no brainer. Even at $380,000
I don't think you can find a comparable Bonanza.

One other note, slow flight and stalls in the -22 (I assume it's also true
of the -20 but haven't flown one) are very impressive tests of the planes
capabilities. Stalls are a non-event with remarkable aileron authority
right up to the stall. Don't know about spins :) Having flown a Grumman
Tiger though I'm pretty comfortable restricting spins and other aerobatics
to airplanes like the Extra.

All in all the SR22 is one heck of a traveling machine. I consistently see
181-184KTAS on 18gph running ROP. AND my wife will now fly with me so
that's another big plus.


--
Patrick Flynn
Sammamish, WA
Cirrus SR22 N6099Z KRNT
All the bells and whistles

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:HRCsb.428$iS6.200@fed1read04...
> On 12 Nov 2003 09:58:25 -0800
> (Potential Bo Buyer) wrote:
>
> > Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
> > economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
> > with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
> > at work in this market.
> >
> > Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> > 4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
> > place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
> > 300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
> > first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
> > fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
> > than the Bonanzas I'm considering.
> >
> > It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> > for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?
>
>
> I think that a lot of newer pilots today like the simplicity of operating
> the newer planes. Less stuff to fiddle around with means less stuff to
> screw up. There are some drawbacks with new planes. Not lots of hours
> logged yet to prvoe the design. I thought I heard the Cirrus had some
> bad stall characteristics or was it spin? Haven't heard a lot about the
> Lancair.
>
>
> I definitely agree that appreciation rates are in for a big change. I
> think it's been changing and will keep changing and not just for
> Bonanzas.
>
>
> R. Hubbell

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> Bonanza's, being a proven product (in contrast with Cirrus and Lancair) will
> be around after many of us are dead and gone.
>

Like flintstones, steam engines and the telegraph? ;-) Ever heard of
"progress"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jeff]

If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron


markjen wrote:

> What you saying may have some slight effect, but it is minor compared to the
> general price trends of all aircraft and complex retracts specifically.
> Very seldom does the appearance of a new airplane have much affect on the
> value of used airplanes.
>
> And others have said, I don't see someone with a budget of $150K for a 170K
> IFR bird cross-shopping late-model F33As/V35Bs with a new $300K airplane.
> And I think may pilots, truth be told, want a retract even if there are
> fixed-gear airplanes of similar performance. Light twins can seldom be
> practically justified over a heavy single, but many folks just get more
> pleasure out of flying a twin. Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
> rugged/substantial airplane, a much better rough field airplane, has a much
> bigger baggage area, is bigger/heavier and arguably more comfortable, and is
> a better airplane for situations where you can't hangar - I'd consider
> hangaring an absolute requirement for a composite airplane.
>
> I'll admit I'm prejudice, but I just don't see 25-year-old SR22s holding up
> like 25-year-old Bonanzas have.
>
> That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
> They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
> panels. If I had $300K to spend, I'll look at them very seriously.
>
> - Mark

[Jeff]

I dont agree with fixed gear being safer in IMC, I have a turbo arrow and
putting the gear down is second nature.
By the time you get to your FAF you have it in landing configuration, no
problems..


markjen wrote:

> everything else being equal, fixed gears are also safer airplanes in clouds.
> In non-professional service, the weakest link in single-pilot IFR is the
> pilot and anything that reduces workload and covers for errors is a safety
> plus.
>
> - Mark

[Jeff]

the SR22 is also a 310 HP engine correct?
what size engine is in the bonanzas?


wrote:

> On 12-Nov-2003, (Potential Bo Buyer) wrote:
>
> > Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> > 4-place Bonanzas?
>
> At first glance the primary capability and performance difference is that a
> Bonanza (model 35) will have a fairly large payload advantage over a
> comparably equipped SR22. If each is fueled for a 500 nm trip with IFR
> reserves a typical SR22 will have a maximum cabin payload of around 680 lbs
> and a Bonanza around 925 lbs. The SR22 will probably be a few kts faster,
> which is remarkable considering the fixed gear.
>
> I guess what this shows is that composite construction allows for greater
> drag reduction at a penalty of higher weight. (The SR22 has an empty weight
> of 2250 lbs and older Bonanzas come in at around 1950 lbs.)
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

[Jeff]

In my Turbo Arrow III, I get 150-155 KTAS at 12 gph, on a 200 HP engine.
This is at 65% power setting above 8000 ft
I can fly non-stop 700 NM and still have IFR reserves left.
I can go leaner, I just like running ROP

So 30 kts less, with an engine that has 110 less HP and 5 gph less isnt bad at
all.

If the SR22 had its design with retract gear, it would be much faster. The
comanche 400 will do 190 kts, carry ALOT more then the SR22 and is about
200,000$ less then the SR22


Flynn wrote:All in all the SR22 is one heck of a traveling machine. I
consistently see

> 181-184KTAS on 18gph running ROP. AND my wife will now fly with me so
> that's another big plus.
>

[Stu Gotts]

How true! But a comparison like this reminds me of a person wanting
to do a comparison between a pre owned Bentley and a brand new
Chevrolet. The new plastic planes are ~$300K and the new Bonanzas
~$700K. The really must be some difference in there, can't be all
product liability. Also the V35B and F-33A's are going for about
$150K to $170K. To get into a new Cirrus or Lanceair would require
about another $150K in pocket change. And a 25 year old Bonanza is
young. How about thinking what the composites will look like in 55
years. I guess the mission profile would dictate where you put your
money. For long CC's, a Bonanza is tops. For short hops (<500 miles)
I'd sure like a Cirrus. For hops about town, a Champ or Cub. All it
takes is money



On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:56:16 GMT, "markjen"
> wrote:

>What you saying may have some slight effect, but it is minor compared to the
>general price trends of all aircraft and complex retracts specifically.
>Very seldom does the appearance of a new airplane have much affect on the
>value of used airplanes.
>
>And others have said, I don't see someone with a budget of $150K for a 170K
>IFR bird cross-shopping late-model F33As/V35Bs with a new $300K airplane.
>And I think may pilots, truth be told, want a retract even if there are
>fixed-gear airplanes of similar performance. Light twins can seldom be
>practically justified over a heavy single, but many folks just get more
>pleasure out of flying a twin. Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
>rugged/substantial airplane, a much better rough field airplane, has a much
>bigger baggage area, is bigger/heavier and arguably more comfortable, and is
>a better airplane for situations where you can't hangar - I'd consider
>hangaring an absolute requirement for a composite airplane.
>
>I'll admit I'm prejudice, but I just don't see 25-year-old SR22s holding up
>like 25-year-old Bonanzas have.
>
>That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
>They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
>panels. If I had $300K to spend, I'll look at them very seriously.
>
>- Mark
>

[Stu Gotts]

Just about everyone. Especially the owners.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:07:39 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"markjen" wrote:
>> Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
>> rugged/substantial airplane,
>
>Says who?

[Stu Gotts]

Anyone that has ever flown more than an hour in each.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:15:05 GMT, "Zeno" > wrote:

>> a Bonanza is .... arguably more comfortable
>
>says who ?
>

[Stu Gotts]

>Right now I'm this "........." close to buying a 1992 F33A and adding a
>Tornado Alley Whirlwind to it. The cost will be about $255K, barely enough
>to touch a Lanc or Cirrus.

And probably one of the best aircraft decisions you'll ever make.
You're REALLY going to enjoy that one. Boy, I'm envious (as will
everyone on the ramp be).

[Stu Gotts]

Inexperienced pilots with a pocketful of money. They view this as a
toy that's a better deal than a Bonanza, not requiring the special
skills we all need to have, even ultralighters.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:47:29 GMT, "Michael 182"
> wrote:

>The accident reports are pretty interesting.
>
>There were five fatal flights:
>
>1 - Flew into powerlines
>3 - Flew into terrain
>1 - spin w/out parachute deployment
>
>Only the spin accident has a final report, which basically says the pane
>entered a spin and the parachute was not deployed. No comment on whether the
>parachute was tried. In a non-fatal accident a month earlier the parachute
>deployment was attempted and failed.
>
>There is not enough data or info here to draw any real conclusion, but some
>speculation...
>
>On one hand, unless there was a control failure, the flights into terrain
>and powerlines appear to be pilot error. On the other hand, this many CFIT
>accidents in such a short time in such a small population of planes does
>cause some concern. Is the plane difficult to handle? Is it so "slippery"
>that pilots are losing control? Is it being flown by pilots that can't
>handle the performance - the stereotypical "doctor-killer" story?
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
>> The accident reports, particularly Cirrus, keep me at bay.
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Stu Gotts]

The older ones (47) start at 185, about '55 they go to 225, '57 to
250, '62 to 260, '64 to 275, and about '75 at 300. All years are
approximations for you lawyer types.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:40:25 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>the SR22 is also a 310 HP engine correct?
>what size engine is in the bonanzas?
>
>
wrote:
>
>> On 12-Nov-2003, (Potential Bo Buyer) wrote:
>>
>> > Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
>> > 4-place Bonanzas?
>>
>> At first glance the primary capability and performance difference is that a
>> Bonanza (model 35) will have a fairly large payload advantage over a
>> comparably equipped SR22. If each is fueled for a 500 nm trip with IFR
>> reserves a typical SR22 will have a maximum cabin payload of around 680 lbs
>> and a Bonanza around 925 lbs. The SR22 will probably be a few kts faster,
>> which is remarkable considering the fixed gear.
>>
>> I guess what this shows is that composite construction allows for greater
>> drag reduction at a penalty of higher weight. (The SR22 has an empty weight
>> of 2250 lbs and older Bonanzas come in at around 1950 lbs.)
>>
>> --
>> -Elliott Drucker

[Tom S.]

"Potential Bo Buyer" > wrote in message
om...

Obsolete? Must be that planned obsolescence at Beech.

[Tom S.]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:5Mysb.185403$e01.666293@attbi_s02...
> The accident reports are pretty interesting.
>
> There were five fatal flights:
>
> 1 - Flew into powerlines
> 3 - Flew into terrain
> 1 - spin w/out parachute deployment
>
> Only the spin accident has a final report, which basically says the pane
> entered a spin and the parachute was not deployed. No comment on whether
the
> parachute was tried. In a non-fatal accident a month earlier the parachute
> deployment was attempted and failed.
>
> There is not enough data or info here to draw any real conclusion, but
some
> speculation...
>

Check the disparity in the non-fatal's as well.

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:ViAsb.184140$Tr4.511893@attbi_s03...
> There is insufficient time-in-service to really be able to say much about
> Cirrus accident rates. The Concorde went from having the best airliner
> accident rate to the worst with one accident.

Wrong context.

> That's the problem with new
> airplanes - insuffiicent experience with the fleet.

For the few numbers in service and it's short history, there's a hell of a
lot of accidents.

[Tom S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Tom,
>
> > Bonanza's, being a proven product (in contrast with Cirrus and Lancair)
will
> > be around after many of us are dead and gone.
> >
>
> Like flintstones, steam engines and the telegraph? ;-) Ever heard of
> "progress"?

So let's send all the Bonanza's to the junkyard.

Let's send all the cars over 10 years old there too.

Gee, some V-tails are older than most people in this group.

Hint for the slow: We're talking USED aircraft.

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> the SR22 is also a 310 HP engine correct?
> what size engine is in the bonanzas?

IO-520-BB is 285, the IO-550 is 300

Add a Tornado Alley Whirlwind and keep those numbers up to 20,000 feet.

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
>

Why? Twice the maintenance with little more in performance.

>
> markjen wrote:
>

> > That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
> > They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
> > panels.

They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

> Especially the owners.
>

What a surprise! "Oh, my 150k dollars investment really is a piece of
junk. That other plane from Cirrus or Lancair is much better." Like
you're gonna hear that often.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

> Anyone that has ever flown more than an hour in each.
>

Sorry, but that's just BS.

I, for one, find the Cirrus much more comfortable than the Bo - and I
have.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:32:02 -0800
Jeff > wrote:

> If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron


You'll find two engines means you are twice as likely to loose one.
Kaaaaaching!


R. Hubbell

>
>
> markjen wrote:
>
> > What you saying may have some slight effect, but it is minor compared to the
> > general price trends of all aircraft and complex retracts specifically.
> > Very seldom does the appearance of a new airplane have much affect on the
> > value of used airplanes.
> >
> > And others have said, I don't see someone with a budget of $150K for a 170K
> > IFR bird cross-shopping late-model F33As/V35Bs with a new $300K airplane.
> > And I think may pilots, truth be told, want a retract even if there are
> > fixed-gear airplanes of similar performance. Light twins can seldom be
> > practically justified over a heavy single, but many folks just get more
> > pleasure out of flying a twin. Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
> > rugged/substantial airplane, a much better rough field airplane, has a much
> > bigger baggage area, is bigger/heavier and arguably more comfortable, and is
> > a better airplane for situations where you can't hangar - I'd consider
> > hangaring an absolute requirement for a composite airplane.
> >
> > I'll admit I'm prejudice, but I just don't see 25-year-old SR22s holding up
> > like 25-year-old Bonanzas have.
> >
> > That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
> > They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
> > panels. If I had $300K to spend, I'll look at them very seriously.
> >
> > - Mark
>

[Dan Luke]

"Tom S." wrote:
> They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
> characteristics.

Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Stu Gotts" wrote:
> For long CC's, a Bonanza is tops. For short hops (<500 miles)
> I'd sure like a Cirrus.

Why? The Cirrus is roomier than the Bo and has better designed seats.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Tom S." wrote:
> > That's the problem with new
> > airplanes - insuffiicent experience with the fleet.
>
> For the few numbers in service and it's short history, there's a
> hell of a lot of accidents.

True, but the record is too short and the numbers too small for
statistical reliability. And by the way, Bonanzas certainly don't have
anything to brag about, safetywise.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[ArtP]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:45 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"Tom S." wrote:
>> They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
>> characteristics.
>
>Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
>that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.

They might have if the chute worked. As a result of a number of
failures of the chute the entire deployment mechanism was replaced
(after the fatal accident just mentioned). The insurance companies
seem to think that the Cirrus accident rate is high and they are
charging a lot for insurance. They are also reluctant to insure pilots
for an SR22 with less that 500 hours and an instrument rating. Just
what about their safety record do you find so encouraging?

[Dan Luke]

"Tom S." wrote:
> So let's send all the Bonanza's to the junkyard.

> Let's send all the cars over 10 years old there too.
>
> Gee, some V-tails are older than most people in this group.

And they're still being maintained and flown because, until recently, a
new airplane was virtually the same as a thirty-year old one. There was
little incentive to buy new. You could by an old Bo in decent shape and
make it as good as a new one (or better) for a lot less money.

> Hint for the slow: We're talking USED aircraft.

....and the effect that the new designs may be having on used aircraft
prices. I was in the market for about an '85 model Bo or 210 a while
back, but now I'd seriously think about spending a little more and
getting a Cirrus.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
> characteristics.
>

Do you maybe have any source for numbers that support this statement?
Hint: They don't exist. You're wrong.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dan Luke]

"Jeff" wrote:
> If the SR22 had its design with retract gear, it would be much faster.

Probably not. In fact, I believe I recall one of the Klapmeier's saying
the design is already so slick, they figured retracting the gear would
add only about 5 knots to cruise TAS.


> The
> comanche 400

Oh, puh-leeeze!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"ArtP" wrote:
> Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging?


Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their
spin characteristics.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Michael]

Jeff > wrote
> I dont agree with fixed gear being safer in IMC, I have a turbo arrow and
> putting the gear down is second nature.
> By the time you get to your FAF you have it in landing configuration, no
> problems..

That's not what he's talking about. The risk we're concerned with is
not gear-up landing (which is, for all practical purposes, a financial
rather than a life-and-lib risk) but loss of control in IMC. Having
the gear hanging out means it takes that much longer to overspeed the
airplane, giving the pilot that much more time to recover from the
unusual attitude.

Michael

[gross_arrow]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<tRNsb.1659$iS6.406@fed1read04>...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:32:02 -0800
> Jeff > wrote:
>
> > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
>
>
> You'll find two engines means you are twice as likely to loose one.
> Kaaaaaching!
>
>
> R. Hubbell
>


perhaps, but the odds of losing (not loosing) _all_ of your engines
simultaneously go up by several orders of magnitude.

g_a

[[email protected]]

On 13-Nov-2003, (Michael) wrote:

> That's not what he's talking about. The risk we're concerned with is
> not gear-up landing (which is, for all practical purposes, a financial
> rather than a life-and-lib risk) but loss of control in IMC. Having
> the gear hanging out means it takes that much longer to overspeed the
> airplane, giving the pilot that much more time to recover from the
> unusual attitude.

I agree, However, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the
Cirrus is an extremely "clean" airplane even with its fixed gear. That's
how it achieves its exceptional cruise speed performance. On an airplane
like an Arrow you can extend the gear to greatly increase drag when things
get dicey. Obviously not an option in the Cirrus, but they could employ
spoilers or similar devices to achieve the same purpose.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[ArtP]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:19:00 GMT, wrote:


> On an airplane
>like an Arrow you can extend the gear to greatly increase drag when things
>get dicey. Obviously not an option in the Cirrus, but they could employ
>spoilers or similar devices to achieve the same purpose.

Lancair does offer spoilers, but Cirrus does not.

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." wrote:
> > So let's send all the Bonanza's to the junkyard.
>
> > Let's send all the cars over 10 years old there too.
> >
> > Gee, some V-tails are older than most people in this group.
>
> And they're still being maintained and flown because, until recently, a
> new airplane was virtually the same as a thirty-year old one. There was
> little incentive to buy new. You could by an old Bo in decent shape and
> make it as good as a new one (or better) for a lot less money.
>
> > Hint for the slow: We're talking USED aircraft.
>
> ...and the effect that the new designs may be having on used aircraft
> prices. I was in the market for about an '85 model Bo or 210 a while
> back, but now I'd seriously think about spending a little more and
> getting a Cirrus.

That's nice, but read the subject line.

I hope to hell a current design can obsolesce a design that is basically 55
years old, and which has not been produced in nearly ten years.

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." wrote:
> > They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
> > characteristics.
>
> Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
> that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.

More than one (why do only fatals count) and in that one, it FAILED to
deploy. Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
'chute.

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "ArtP" wrote:
> > Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging?
>
>
> Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their
> spin characteristics.

Which is why the insurance is so high.

[Tom S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Tom,
>
> > they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
> > characteristics.
> >
>
> Do you maybe have any source for numbers that support this statement?
> Hint: They don't exist. You're wrong.
>
Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus.

Tell me the low altitude recovery procedure.

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." wrote:
> > > That's the problem with new
> > > airplanes - insuffiicent experience with the fleet.
> >
> > For the few numbers in service and it's short history, there's a
> > hell of a lot of accidents.
>
> True, but the record is too short and the numbers too small for
> statistical reliability. And by the way, Bonanzas certainly don't have
> anything to brag about, safetywise.

When the number of accidents is roughly the same, where A's "population" is
about 5% that of B's, that should tell you something.

[Peter R.]

Tom S. ) wrote:

> More than one (why do only fatals count) and in that one, it FAILED to
> deploy. Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
> 'chute.

Keep in mind that the while the NTSB report concluded that the 'chute did
not deploy, the report did not state why this did not occur. Unfortunately
for all involved, the why won't ever be known, despite what the upcoming
lawsuit claims.

Perhaps you were stating that but one interpretation of your post could be
that the deployment system failed, which was not able to be proven.


--
Peter



















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Michael 182]

This bothered me as well. While I think the chute is a great idea, and will
probably save a number of lives before all is said and done, doesn't it
strike you as strange that the POH (at least accourding to the NTSB report I
read) says that the only method of spin recovery is to deploy the chute. Why
doesn't opposite rudder work?

Michael

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
> Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
> 'chute.
>
>

[John E. Carty]

They had to include the chute to get this aircraft certified because of its
lack of spin recovery :-)


"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:5mRsb.193024$Tr4.545029@attbi_s03...
> This bothered me as well. While I think the chute is a great idea, and
will
> probably save a number of lives before all is said and done, doesn't it
> strike you as strange that the POH (at least accourding to the NTSB report
I
> read) says that the only method of spin recovery is to deploy the chute.
Why
> doesn't opposite rudder work?
>
> Michael
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
> > 'chute.
> >
> >
>
>

[ArtP]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:43:53 -0700, "Tom S." >
wrote:


>Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus.

Deploy the parachute.


>Tell me the low altitude recovery procedure.

Same as any other plane, the ground stops the spin. That is
why since spin recovery training was dropped as a PPL requirement and
spin avoidance training was instituted the number of deaths due to
spins has decreased.

[Jeff]

little more performance from a barron?
How much stuff can you shove in a barron compared to a sr22?
what would be better in hard IFR, a little light sr22 or a heavy barron?

twice the maint. yes, but its 3 times the plane.


"Tom S." wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
> >
>
> Why? Twice the maintenance with little more in performance.
>
> >
> > markjen wrote:
> >
>
> > > That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
> > > They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
> > > panels.
>
> They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
> characteristics.

[Jeff]

losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 ..
ka-boom


"R. Hubbell" wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:32:02 -0800
> Jeff > wrote:
>
> > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
>
> You'll find two engines means you are twice as likely to loose one.
> Kaaaaaching!
>
> R. Hubbell
>
> >
> >
> > markjen wrote:
> >
> > > What you saying may have some slight effect, but it is minor compared to the
> > > general price trends of all aircraft and complex retracts specifically.
> > > Very seldom does the appearance of a new airplane have much affect on the
> > > value of used airplanes.
> > >
> > > And others have said, I don't see someone with a budget of $150K for a 170K
> > > IFR bird cross-shopping late-model F33As/V35Bs with a new $300K airplane.
> > > And I think may pilots, truth be told, want a retract even if there are
> > > fixed-gear airplanes of similar performance. Light twins can seldom be
> > > practically justified over a heavy single, but many folks just get more
> > > pleasure out of flying a twin. Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
> > > rugged/substantial airplane, a much better rough field airplane, has a much
> > > bigger baggage area, is bigger/heavier and arguably more comfortable, and is
> > > a better airplane for situations where you can't hangar - I'd consider
> > > hangaring an absolute requirement for a composite airplane.
> > >
> > > I'll admit I'm prejudice, but I just don't see 25-year-old SR22s holding up
> > > like 25-year-old Bonanzas have.
> > >
> > > That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
> > > They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
> > > panels. If I had $300K to spend, I'll look at them very seriously.
> > >
> > > - Mark
> >

[Jeff]

not a factor, I have an auto pilot, if it goes out, fly the instruments, it does
not take much to get out of an unusual attitude. I own a retract, I fly it in
IMC.


Michael wrote:

> Jeff > wrote
> > I dont agree with fixed gear being safer in IMC, I have a turbo arrow and
> > putting the gear down is second nature.
> > By the time you get to your FAF you have it in landing configuration, no
> > problems..
>
> That's not what he's talking about. The risk we're concerned with is
> not gear-up landing (which is, for all practical purposes, a financial
> rather than a life-and-lib risk) but loss of control in IMC. Having
> the gear hanging out means it takes that much longer to overspeed the
> airplane, giving the pilot that much more time to recover from the
> unusual attitude.
>
> Michael

[Jeff]

I agree with you there, put the gear down and you slow way the hell down and
start dropping altitude

wrote:

> On 13-Nov-2003, (Michael) wrote:
>
> > That's not what he's talking about. The risk we're concerned with is
> > not gear-up landing (which is, for all practical purposes, a financial
> > rather than a life-and-lib risk) but loss of control in IMC. Having
> > the gear hanging out means it takes that much longer to overspeed the
> > airplane, giving the pilot that much more time to recover from the
> > unusual attitude.
>
> I agree, However, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the
> Cirrus is an extremely "clean" airplane even with its fixed gear. That's
> how it achieves its exceptional cruise speed performance. On an airplane
> like an Arrow you can extend the gear to greatly increase drag when things
> get dicey. Obviously not an option in the Cirrus, but they could employ
> spoilers or similar devices to achieve the same purpose.
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

[Tom S.]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Tom S. ) wrote:
>
> > More than one (why do only fatals count) and in that one, it FAILED to
> > deploy. Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
> > 'chute.
>
> Keep in mind that the while the NTSB report concluded that the 'chute did
> not deploy, the report did not state why this did not occur.
Unfortunately
> for all involved, the why won't ever be known, despite what the upcoming
> lawsuit claims.

The roport said (IIRC) that they actuator lever was erratic and stiff
(OWTTE).

> Perhaps you were stating that but one interpretation of your post could be
> that the deployment system failed, which was not able to be proven.

The report said they tried to deploy and it didn't; then the investigator
tried and it still wouldn't.

IAC, it's not a system/procedure I'd care to rely on, particularly that
being the only spin recovery. Even if it DID deploy, try it at less than
1000 feet.

[Tom S.]

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
...
> They had to include the chute to get this aircraft certified because of
its
> lack of spin recovery :-)
>
This is called (as on here called it..) PROGRESS! NOT!!!!

[Jeff]

Do you know anything about the comanche 400's ?

this comanche 400 achieved a TAS of 275 mph at 19,000 ft
http://www.comanchepilot.com/Tech_Articles/FLIGHT_OPS/A_300MPH_COMANCHE/a_300mph_comanche.html



Dan Luke wrote:

> .
>
> > The
> > comanche 400
>
> Oh, puh-leeeze!
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

[Stu Gotts]

You're obviously not an owner!

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:55:36 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Stu,
>
>> Especially the owners.
>>
>
>What a surprise! "Oh, my 150k dollars investment really is a piece of
>junk. That other plane from Cirrus or Lancair is much better." Like
>you're gonna hear that often.

[Stu Gotts]

And you have what? A little more than an hour in each? Next time be
a bit more observant, or pick a 30 year old airplane with the same
interior level than the plastic one you're trying to compare it with.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:55:37 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Stu,
>
>> Anyone that has ever flown more than an hour in each.
>>
>
>Sorry, but that's just BS.
>
>I, for one, find the Cirrus much more comfortable than the Bo - and I
>have.

[Stu Gotts]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:33:25 GMT, ArtP
> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:45 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:
>
>>"Tom S." wrote:
>>> They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
>>> characteristics.
>>
>>Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
>>that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.
>
>They might have if the chute worked. As a result of a number of
>failures of the chute the entire deployment mechanism was replaced
>(after the fatal accident just mentioned). The insurance companies
>seem to think that the Cirrus accident rate is high and they are
>charging a lot for insurance. They are also reluctant to insure pilots
>for an SR22 with less that 500 hours and an instrument rating. Just
>what about their safety record do you find so encouraging?

The high insurance cost is attributed to the inability to properly
repair any damage. Almost any "bend" is a break and the thing is a
total. Sooner or later someone will come up with a way to fix them as
easily as they do Corvettes.

[Stu Gotts]

Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and
pilots knew how to fly?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:55:50 -0500, Peter R. > wrote:

>Tom S. ) wrote:
>
>> More than one (why do only fatals count) and in that one, it FAILED to
>> deploy. Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
>> 'chute.
>
>Keep in mind that the while the NTSB report concluded that the 'chute did
>not deploy, the report did not state why this did not occur. Unfortunately
>for all involved, the why won't ever be known, despite what the upcoming
>lawsuit claims.
>
>Perhaps you were stating that but one interpretation of your post could be
>that the deployment system failed, which was not able to be proven.
>

[Stu Gotts]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:08:12 GMT, "John E. Carty"
> wrote:

>They had to include the chute to get this aircraft certified because of its
>lack of spin recovery :-)
>
Wow! That's **** poor, isn't it? Kinda makes the subject a bit moot
(or mute for Ron)!
>
>"Michael 182" > wrote in message
>news:5mRsb.193024$Tr4.545029@attbi_s03...
>> This bothered me as well. While I think the chute is a great idea, and
>will
>> probably save a number of lives before all is said and done, doesn't it
>> strike you as strange that the POH (at least accourding to the NTSB report
>I
>> read) says that the only method of spin recovery is to deploy the chute.
>Why
>> doesn't opposite rudder work?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> "Tom S." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
>> > 'chute.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Stu Gotts]

Tom;
Sounds like you either own one of these pups or have a good friend
that lets you ride and wash!

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:40:56 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Tom,
>
>> they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
>> characteristics.
>>
>
>Do you maybe have any source for numbers that support this statement?
>Hint: They don't exist. You're wrong.

[Stu Gotts]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:43:24 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>little more performance from a barron?
>How much stuff can you shove in a barron compared to a sr22?
>what would be better in hard IFR, a little light sr22 or a heavy barron?
>
>twice the maint. yes, but its 3 times the plane.

And especially comforting at night over the mountains.

(only 1 "n" in Baron, but a lot more $$$)
>
>
>"Tom S." wrote:
>
>> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
>> > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
>> >
>>
>> Why? Twice the maintenance with little more in performance.
>>
>> >
>> > markjen wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > > That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
>> > > They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
>> > > panels.
>>
>> They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
>> characteristics.

[Stu Gotts]

I consider it more of a fun to fly airplane, the plastic one, whereas
the Bo's, although a delight, are more of a mission type. More useful
load, etc. Personal opinion of a Bonanza man. Not too sure about the
roomier claim. Sounds like the sicilian claims Mooney people have
when they say the backwards tailed wonders have only 4" less cabin
room than a Bonanza. Pure bull****!

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:11:38 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"Stu Gotts" wrote:
>> For long CC's, a Bonanza is tops. For short hops (<500 miles)
>> I'd sure like a Cirrus.
>
>Why? The Cirrus is roomier than the Bo and has better designed seats.

[Stu Gotts]

Not yet, but I'll bet they will soon.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:59:08 GMT, ArtP
> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:19:00 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>> On an airplane
>>like an Arrow you can extend the gear to greatly increase drag when things
>>get dicey. Obviously not an option in the Cirrus, but they could employ
>>spoilers or similar devices to achieve the same purpose.
>
>Lancair does offer spoilers, but Cirrus does not.

[Stu Gotts]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:40:44 -0700, "Tom S." >
wrote:

>
>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tom S." wrote:
>> > So let's send all the Bonanza's to the junkyard.
>>
>> > Let's send all the cars over 10 years old there too.
>> >
>> > Gee, some V-tails are older than most people in this group.
>>
>> And they're still being maintained and flown because, until recently, a
>> new airplane was virtually the same as a thirty-year old one. There was
>> little incentive to buy new. You could by an old Bo in decent shape and
>> make it as good as a new one (or better) for a lot less money.
>>
>> > Hint for the slow: We're talking USED aircraft.
>>
>> ...and the effect that the new designs may be having on used aircraft
>> prices. I was in the market for about an '85 model Bo or 210 a while
>> back, but now I'd seriously think about spending a little more and
>> getting a Cirrus.
>
>That's nice, but read the subject line.
>
>I hope to hell a current design can obsolesce a design that is basically 55
>years old, and which has not been produced in nearly ten years.
>
Still being produced. Saw a brand new one recently. Didn't have the
correct tail on it, but the basic design was the same.

[Stu Gotts]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:43:50 -0700, "Tom S." >
wrote:

>
>"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
>> the SR22 is also a 310 HP engine correct?
>> what size engine is in the bonanzas?
>
>IO-520-BB is 285, the IO-550 is 300
>
>Add a Tornado Alley Whirlwind and keep those numbers up to 20,000 feet.

Maybe even 24,000 if you believe George!
>

[Newps]

Stu Gotts wrote:

> The high insurance cost is attributed to the inability to properly
> repair any damage. Almost any "bend" is a break and the thing is a
> total. Sooner or later someone will come up with a way to fix them as
> easily as they do Corvettes.

They can be fixed very easily today. Any mechanic who has worked with
both will tell you that the metal airplane is harder to fix and takes
longer.

[Nathan Young]

"Tom S." > wrote in message >...
> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
> >
>
> Why? Twice the maintenance with little more in performance.

Because the engine out performance is infinitely better. :)

[Flynn]

That's just wrong. Go through the Accident records. Only 2 are spins and
one was by a test pilot.

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
> characteristics.
>
>

[Flynn]

The POH and training both say that an incipient spin is countered as you
would in any plane. Fully developed, pull the chute.
BTW, the Cirrus isn't the only thing out there not approved for spins. The
others simply don't have ANY recovery mechanism in case of one. Case in
point: Grummans.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:5mRsb.193024$Tr4.545029@attbi_s03...
> This bothered me as well. While I think the chute is a great idea, and
will
> probably save a number of lives before all is said and done, doesn't it
> strike you as strange that the POH (at least accourding to the NTSB report
I
> read) says that the only method of spin recovery is to deploy the chute.
Why
> doesn't opposite rudder work?
>
> Michael
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
> > 'chute.
> >
> >
>
>

[Flynn]

In the end, it's up to the individual buyer. For $300 you can get a new
Cirrus....comparables are what? T182's I guess? Diamond Twins? Not a new
Bo' and certainly not a Baron. The Beech's are terrific aircraft. My
uncles went back and forth between them as I was growing up so they're part
of my flying memories. The 182's are terrific machines as well.

I'm guessing that most (all?) talking down the SR22 haven't even flown one.
Try them all, do your homework and get the one that strikes your fancy.
BTW, Cirrus is selling around 50-60 planes per month. 16 delivered week
before last. Something's clearly going right there.

Have fun!

"Potential Bo Buyer" > wrote in message
om...
> Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
> economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
> with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
> at work in this market.
>
> Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> 4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
> place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
> 300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
> first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
> fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
> than the Bonanzas I'm considering.
>
> It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?

[Tony]

I think the V35s and the f33 look alot nicer then the SR20-22s. I would
buy a V35 and spend some of the money that i saved by not buying a SR22
and put a very nice Panel in it. Just my thoughts

TONY

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:45:11 -0800
Jeff > wrote:

> losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 ..
> ka-boom

Not for my wallet.

R. Hubbell

>
>
> "R. Hubbell" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:32:02 -0800
> > Jeff > wrote:
> >
> > > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
> >
> > You'll find two engines means you are twice as likely to loose one.
> > Kaaaaaching!
> >
> > R. Hubbell
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > markjen wrote:
> > >
> > > > What you saying may have some slight effect, but it is minor compared to the
> > > > general price trends of all aircraft and complex retracts specifically.
> > > > Very seldom does the appearance of a new airplane have much affect on the
> > > > value of used airplanes.
> > > >
> > > > And others have said, I don't see someone with a budget of $150K for a 170K
> > > > IFR bird cross-shopping late-model F33As/V35Bs with a new $300K airplane.
> > > > And I think may pilots, truth be told, want a retract even if there are
> > > > fixed-gear airplanes of similar performance. Light twins can seldom be
> > > > practically justified over a heavy single, but many folks just get more
> > > > pleasure out of flying a twin. Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
> > > > rugged/substantial airplane, a much better rough field airplane, has a much
> > > > bigger baggage area, is bigger/heavier and arguably more comfortable, and is
> > > > a better airplane for situations where you can't hangar - I'd consider
> > > > hangaring an absolute requirement for a composite airplane.
> > > >
> > > > I'll admit I'm prejudice, but I just don't see 25-year-old SR22s holding up
> > > > like 25-year-old Bonanzas have.
> > > >
> > > > That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
> > > > They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
> > > > panels. If I had $300K to spend, I'll look at them very seriously.
> > > >
> > > > - Mark
> > >
>

[R. Hubbell]

On 13 Nov 2003 09:44:05 -0800
(gross_arrow) wrote:

> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<tRNsb.1659$iS6.406@fed1read04>...
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:32:02 -0800
> > Jeff > wrote:
> >
> > > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
> >
> >
> > You'll find two engines means you are twice as likely to loose one.
> > Kaaaaaching!
> >
> >
> > R. Hubbell
> >
>
>
> perhaps, but the odds of losing (not loosing) _all_ of your engines
> simultaneously go up by several orders of magnitude.

But it's the wallet that I was talking about. Those twins will wreck a
good wallet in no time.

>
> g_a

[G.R. Patterson III]

"R. Hubbell" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:45:11 -0800
> Jeff > wrote:
>
> > losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 ..
> > ka-boom
>
> Not for my wallet.

You don't have to pay for the hospital or funeral expenses?

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:zhWsb.140377$mZ5.969124@attbi_s54...
>
>
> Stu Gotts wrote:
>
> > The high insurance cost is attributed to the inability to properly
> > repair any damage. Almost any "bend" is a break and the thing is a
> > total. Sooner or later someone will come up with a way to fix them as
> > easily as they do Corvettes.
>
> They can be fixed very easily today. Any mechanic who has worked with
> both will tell you that the metal airplane is harder to fix and takes
> longer.

Cosmetic damage, yes. Structural damage no way. Even the Cirrus web site
alludes to that.

[markjen]

> prices. I was in the market for about an '85 model Bo or 210 a while
> back, but now I'd seriously think about spending a little more and
> getting a Cirrus.

A little more? How about double!

- Mark

[markjen]

> I dont agree with fixed gear being safer in IMC, I have a turbo arrow and
> putting the gear down is second nature.
> By the time you get to your FAF you have it in landing configuration, no
> problems..

The issue is not forgetting to put your landing gear down. This is not a
serious safety concern in retracts because leaving the wheels up on landing
is damaging only to the pilot's pocketbook. There are almost never any
injuries.

The safety issue is loss of control, something casual, non-professional
pilots do all too often. Retracts are MUCH more susceptible to loss of
control accidents due to the much quicker speed buildup when control is
lost. (Retract pilots should be trained to lower the landing gear the first
sign of an upset -- gear damage due to excessive speed be damned -- but they
typically don't.)

Retract singles have approximately twice the fatal accident rate of
fixed-gear singles. This trend holds generally and holds for comparable
aircraft which are otherwise identical except for their gear (e.g., C182 vs.
C182RG, Cherokee Six vs. Saratoga, etc.). A retract is much more likely to
kill you.

- Mark

[markjen]

> not a factor, I have an auto pilot, if it goes out, fly the instruments,
it does
> not take much to get out of an unusual attitude. I own a retract, I fly it
in
> IMC.

I guess you're just a great pilot. But for us average pilots, loss of
control is a very big concern.

(I'd love to put you in a simulator and start introducing random instrument
failures in heavy turbulence while flying a tough approach. Hmmm .... the
turn coordinator and horizon don't seem to agree. Which is right? You've
got about five seconds to figure it out before you die.)

- Mark

[markjen]

> Why? The Cirrus is roomier than the Bo and has better designed seats.

This reminds me of the ridiculous argument that the Mooney folks use to make
about their planes being wider and roomier than a Bonanza. I've flown
hundreds of hours in Mooneys and hundreds of hours in Bonanzas. There is NO
comparison - the Bonanza is much more comfortable. I haven't flown hundreds
of hours in a Cirrus, but I've sat in them for 20-minutes at a stretch at
Oshkosh. They're very well-designed, have nice seats, and are quite
comfortable, but there is no comparison on room. And you can get seats that
match a new Cirrus in comfort by spending a couple grand, which you can
easily afford with the $150K you saved in acquisition costs.

Don't be get me wrong - the new designs have their merits. But don't drink
the kool-aid and think these planes have made some quantum leap ahead in
anything other than avionics.

- Mark

[markjen]

> And by the way, Bonanzas certainly don't have
> anything to brag about, safetywise.

Well, I don't know about that. The numbers for Bonanza are actually pretty
good. Overall, they're right in the averages for single-retracts. Exclude
the early v-tails (up to about 1960) and they're better than average.
Include just the F33A and A36 straight-tails, and they're about best in the
fleet, only slightly below the best (C182RG). The rates are noticeably
better than the C210 and big Cherokee retracts.

Someone is probably going to cry foul over excluding the early Bonanzas, but
pre-1960 airplanes have very poor accident rates in general and it doesn't
make sense to me to compare the accident rates of a brand new design with
one first produced in 1947. A 1980 Bonanza is quite a different airplane
from a 1947 V-tail.

- Mark

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

> You're obviously not an owner!
>

And your point is?

Just to clarify mine: A Bonanza owner will hardly dislike the Bo - for
Pete's sake, he bought one. For a more balanced view, you might have to
ask other people.

And it's ok that some people like brand B, while other like brand C
better. That's subjective. But some of the things discussed in this
thread are objective facts - let's at least get those straight.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

> And you have what? A little more than an hour in each?
>

Well, an hour was what YOU claimed was enough, wasn't it? (I have more,
rest assured)

Stu, there's no need to get upset, we're just trading opinions here.
And trying to get some facts straight.

BTW, there are no 30 year old aircraft that come even close to the
level of interior design you find in a modern "plastic" aircraft, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> The report said they tried to deploy and it didn't; then the investigator
> tried and it still wouldn't.
>

We are talking about different reports. Which one are you quoting from?

For the one fatal spin accident, there was nothing left for any inspector
to pull.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

> Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and
> pilots knew how to fly?
>

Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just
flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> doesn't it
> strike you as strange that the POH (at least accourding to the NTSB report I
> read) says that the only method of spin recovery is to deploy the chute. Why
> doesn't opposite rudder work?
>

We've been around this tree a lot of times, haven't we: No one says rudder
doesn't work. All the POH says is that the rudder method hasn't been
certified.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> They had to include the chute to get this aircraft certified because of its
> lack of spin recovery :-)
>

Says who? This statement is simply unsupportable BS! The aircraft was
certified with the chute as the certified spin recovery method. No other
method was tested for certification. That's all. Come on, this is easy.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> > They had to include the chute to get this aircraft certified because of
> its
> > lack of spin recovery :-)
> >
> This is called (as on here called it..) PROGRESS! NOT!!!!
>

(that was me) The statement is neither progress nor not-progress - it is
simply wrong.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

> Wow! That's **** poor, isn't it?
>

No, it's a wrong statement, that's all.

Coming back to the original thread subject, from the reactions here, at
least some owners of traditional aircraft must be really afraid of
value depriciation - how else could one explain the totally
non-rational reactions to the new aircraft?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> > Do you maybe have any source for numbers that support this statement?
> > Hint: They don't exist. You're wrong.
> >
> Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus.
>

I will - when you give me numbers that link the Cirrus safety record to
spin characteristics. Don't try to change the subject just because you
can't produce them!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

> Sounds like you either own one of these pups or have a good friend
> that lets you ride and wash!
>

I wish! I really like facts - that's all.

You like to get personal when the facts don't support you anymore, do
you?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Nathan,

> Because the engine out performance is infinitely better. :)
>

The statistics don't really reflect that - if you factor in the engine
out performance of the pilots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jeff]

great pilot, no, cautious pilot, yes.
My plane just came out of the shop yesterday with $20,000 in new avionics.

Nothing can prevent the worst from happening, but preventive maintence will
reduce the chances of bad things happening. If you think something is not right,
have it checked and or replaced before flying, especially into IMC. You take
care of your plane like your life depends on it (because it does)

Also your situation actually happened to me last winter, 11,000 ft over the MMM
VOR (north of las vegas) in IMC, light ice on the wings, I was in my old
cherokee 180 and it did not have pitot heat. the TC said I was in a left turn,
the AI said I was in a right turn, I knew I was in a right turn because I had
just turned in that direction. It came back in about 3 seconds, but I also hit
something, not sure what it was, but I think it was wind sheer, I lost 30 mph in
IAS and 1000 ft in a matter of seconds.
I didnt die, I am still here.

Control is a big concern, but just because things may happen you dont panic.
Keep control of the airplane, trust your instruments, maintain your airplane,
make good judgement calls and you increase your chances of living to talk smack
another day.

The answer to your situation is simple, if your watching your instruments you
will know your attitude when one is wrong.


markjen wrote:

> > not a factor, I have an auto pilot, if it goes out, fly the instruments,
> it does
> > not take much to get out of an unusual attitude. I own a retract, I fly it
> in
> > IMC.
>
> I guess you're just a great pilot. But for us average pilots, loss of
> control is a very big concern.
>
> (I'd love to put you in a simulator and start introducing random instrument
> failures in heavy turbulence while flying a tough approach. Hmmm .... the
> turn coordinator and horizon don't seem to agree. Which is right? You've
> got about five seconds to figure it out before you die.)
>
> - Mark

[Jeff]

where do you get this information?
What kind of airplane do you own ?

you have some serious issues with control, have you taken and finished the
instrument course? Do you fly in actual weather in a real airplane (sims and ms
flight simulator is not a real airplanes unless your its one of those that the
airlines use)

the key to flying in VMC and IMC is not to lose control. I have flown in some
really crappy turbulence, under the hood and at night and never lost control.
The kind of turbulence where you dont have much control over the plane and you
would swear the wings were going to break off. And if you do lose control and
end up in an unusual attitude, I feel I have the training to correct for it. Do
you?
Maybe you need a new instructor if your not comfortable flying in the sloppy
goo.



markjen wrote:

> > I dont agree with fixed gear being safer in IMC, I have a turbo arrow and
> > putting the gear down is second nature.
> > By the time you get to your FAF you have it in landing configuration, no
> > problems..
>
> The issue is not forgetting to put your landing gear down. This is not a
> serious safety concern in retracts because leaving the wheels up on landing
> is damaging only to the pilot's pocketbook. There are almost never any
> injuries.
>
> The safety issue is loss of control, something casual, non-professional
> pilots do all too often. Retracts are MUCH more susceptible to loss of
> control accidents due to the much quicker speed buildup when control is
> lost. (Retract pilots should be trained to lower the landing gear the first
> sign of an upset -- gear damage due to excessive speed be damned -- but they
> typically don't.)
>
> Retract singles have approximately twice the fatal accident rate of
> fixed-gear singles. This trend holds generally and holds for comparable
> aircraft which are otherwise identical except for their gear (e.g., C182 vs.
> C182RG, Cherokee Six vs. Saratoga, etc.). A retract is much more likely to
> kill you.
>
> - Mark

[Tom S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> John,
>
> > They had to include the chute to get this aircraft certified because of
its
> > lack of spin recovery :-)
> >
>
> Says who?

AvWeb and a few others?

[Tom S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Stu,
>
> > Wow! That's **** poor, isn't it?
> >
>
> No, it's a wrong statement, that's all.
>
> Coming back to the original thread subject, from the reactions here, at
> least some owners of traditional aircraft must be really afraid of
> value depriciation - how else could one explain the totally
> non-rational reactions to the new aircraft?

Well, first of all, the subject line is stupid in itself. (Will a 2000
design replace a 1947 design? Well DUH!!!!)

When they come out and have incredible accident rates (more in a three year
period than the plane being compared to, even with 1/50th the numbers being
operated).

When the recommended spin recovery is a drough chute (most spins, IIUC, are
low altitude...during landing).

BTW, there is no such word as non-rational.

Also, the reactions are patently rational, it's the making excuses for the
new designs and pompously and patronizingly dismissing other peoples
OPINIONS as well as FACTS (the accident rates, etc) that's getting annoying.

[Tom S.]

"Flynn" > wrote in message
news:FGWsb.144633$ao4.462688@attbi_s51...
> The POH and training both say that an incipient spin is countered as you
> would in any plane. Fully developed, pull the chute.
> BTW, the Cirrus isn't the only thing out there not approved for spins.
The
> others simply don't have ANY recovery mechanism in case of one. Case in
> point: Grummans.

Great!! It takes...what, 1000 feet for a chute to deploy and become
effective? That'll work great in the landing pattern.

(A spin should be recoverable in, what 300 feet?)

[Tom S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Michael,
>
> > doesn't it
> > strike you as strange that the POH (at least accourding to the NTSB
report I
> > read) says that the only method of spin recovery is to deploy the chute.
Why
> > doesn't opposite rudder work?
> >
>
> We've been around this tree a lot of times, haven't we: No one says rudder
> doesn't work. All the POH says is that the rudder method hasn't been
> certified.

Is that ALL it says?

[Tom S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Tom,
>
> > The report said they tried to deploy and it didn't; then the
investigator
> > tried and it still wouldn't.
> >
>
> We are talking about different reports. Which one are you quoting from?
>
> For the one fatal spin accident, there was nothing left for any inspector
> to pull.
>
What is you insistence on only reading the FATAL reports rather than ALL
REPORTS? Is that your version of rational (vs "non-rational :~) )

Thomas, are you having serious DENIAL problems?

[Tom S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Stu,
>
> > Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and
> > pilots knew how to fly?
> >
>
> Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just
> flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get?
>
Well, how deep is your denial?

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> AvWeb and a few others?
>

Show me. Just one quote. I am quite sure you won't find it.

And that's because <tada!>: The statement is just wrong! The aircraft
doesn't "lack spin recovery", whatever that's supposed to mean. No one
knows if more conventional recovery methods work, because the testing
for certification of those methods hasn't been done. It's not that
Cirrus tried those, they didn't work and then they went for the chute -
as the OP implies. Rather, they went for the chute directly and got the
FAA to accept that as the certified spin recovery method. And then they
didn't ever test other methods - why would they, with one certifiable
method proven?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tom S.]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:43:53 -0700, "Tom S." >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus.
>
> Deploy the parachute.
>
>
> >Tell me the low altitude recovery procedure.
>
> Same as any other plane, the ground stops the spin. That is
> why since spin recovery training was dropped as a PPL requirement and
> spin avoidance training was instituted the number of deaths due to
> spins has decreased.

Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.

Sounds like what they do in drivers training now -- they must no longer take
drivers out on the skid pan, instead teaching skid avoidance...which is why,
when six raindrops fall, everyone drops down to 10 MPH.

[Tom S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Tom,
>
> > > Do you maybe have any source for numbers that support this statement?
> > > Hint: They don't exist. You're wrong.
> > >
> > Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus.
> >
>
> I will - when you give me numbers that link the Cirrus safety record to
> spin characteristics. Don't try to change the subject just because you
> can't produce them!

We didn't say it was STRICTLY SPIN ACCIDENTS. Pay attention.

Again, you sound like a kid rationalizing a stupid statement (not to mention
your inability to comprehend statistics).

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

Not at all. So let's talk about that other accident. Have you actually
read the convoluted account the pilots of the accident aircraft? Went
into clouds, went out, pulled the chute, nothing happened, landed
alright, then the chute deployed. Well, am I the only one having a
little trouble with all that? I doubt it.

What other accidents are there that relate to the chute? You and I know
the one where the chute worked just fine, I guess.

Point me to the reports, and we'll discuss all you like.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> It takes...what, 1000 feet for a chute to deploy and become
> effective? That'll work great in the landing pattern.
>

The 100 number is wrong, AIFAK. Also, do you really want to tell us
spins in other aircraft are survivable/recoverable in other aircraft?
Come on!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> Is that ALL it says?
>

Well, yes, with regard to that. It's quite simple. The POH says, in so
many words: If you are in a spin, pull the chute. Intentional spins
prohibited.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> little more performance from a barron?
> How much stuff can you shove in a barron compared to a sr22?
> what would be better in hard IFR, a little light sr22 or a heavy barron?

WIM, was "Why a Baron (one "r", not two), instead of a Bonanza or something
else".

Comparing a Baron to a SR22 is "apples and oranges".

> twice the maint. yes, but its 3 times the plane.
>
My doctor just had his E55 engines replaced with Millennium remans/Tornado
Alley Whirlwinds. He's awe struck!! :~)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dear Tom,

it may be you who need some attention paying. Here's the full line of
discussion that led us here:

Someone said:
> > they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
> > characteristics.

to which I said:

> Do you maybe have any source for numbers that support this statement?
> Hint: They don't exist. You're wrong.
>

To which you said:

>Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus.
>
>Tell me the low altitude recovery procedure.


To which I said:
>I will - when you give me numbers that link the Cirrus safety record
>to
>spin characteristics. Don't try to change the subject just because you
>can't produce them!

To which you now say:
> We didn't say it was STRICTLY SPIN ACCIDENTS.


Well, coming back to the original statement "they have atrocious safety
records due to their spin characteristics.", I can't see how you can
arrive at your most recent statement without a SERIOUS lack of
attention.

Who's we, anyway?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 ..
> ka-boom
>
KABOOM is the sound that a lot of light twins make when losing an engine.
Lose one, you might as well lose both.

Now, if you're spinning turbines, rather than popping pistons, it's a whole
different story.
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182040-1.html

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:4L%sb.145785$9E1.745940@attbi_s52...
> > not a factor, I have an auto pilot, if it goes out, fly the instruments,
> it does
> > not take much to get out of an unusual attitude. I own a retract, I fly
it
> in
> > IMC.
>
> I guess you're just a great pilot. But for us average pilots, loss of
> control is a very big concern.
>
> (I'd love to put you in a simulator and start introducing random
instrument
> failures in heavy turbulence while flying a tough approach. Hmmm .... the
> turn coordinator and horizon don't seem to agree. Which is right? You've
> got about five seconds to figure it out before you die.)
>
And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite
frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
types.

[Tom S.]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> > > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
> > >
> >
> > Why? Twice the maintenance with little more in performance.
>
> Because the engine out performance is infinitely better. :)

Actually, it isn't...odd as that may sound.

[Tom S.]

"Flynn" > wrote in message
news:4DWsb.143715$9E1.726950@attbi_s52...
> That's just wrong. Go through the Accident records. Only 2 are spins and
> one was by a test pilot.

Read the rest of the accident reports; I said CHARACTERISTCS, not just due
to SPINS.

It sounds like when it let's go, it REALLY LET'S GO.

>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
> > characteristics.
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Flynn" > wrote in message
news:OTWsb.143359$275.434437@attbi_s53...
> In the end, it's up to the individual buyer. For $300 you can get a new
> Cirrus....comparables are what? T182's I guess?

Are you serious? $300K for a T182?

>Diamond Twins? Not a new
> Bo' and certainly not a Baron.

Which is why the suject line is stupid ; contrasting a new design with
designs that are 56 and 40 years old.

> The Beech's are terrific aircraft. My
> uncles went back and forth between them as I was growing up so they're
part
> of my flying memories.

Yes, they are..what they are is a KNOWN QUANTITY that has well known
characteristics/ qualities, something the new machines lack.

Us older folks call it EXPERIENCE.

>The 182's are terrific machines as well.

Ahhh....kinda, but a 182 is a Chevy, a F33A OTOH, is a Caddy (okay..an
Acura, in my case).

> I'm guessing that most (all?) talking down the SR22 haven't even flown
one.
> Try them all, do your homework and get the one that strikes your fancy.
> BTW, Cirrus is selling around 50-60 planes per month. 16 delivered week
> before last. Something's clearly going right there.

Fads?

Here, try this: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

[Peter R.]

Tom S. ) wrote:

> The roport said (IIRC) that they actuator lever was erratic and stiff
> (OWTTE).
>
> > Perhaps you were stating that but one interpretation of your post could be
> > that the deployment system failed, which was not able to be proven.
>
> The report said they tried to deploy and it didn't; then the investigator
> tried and it still wouldn't.

Tom, regarding the fatal spin accident only, your recollection of the
report is incorrect. The accident aircraft was so damaged by collision and
fire that the CAPS system was not able to be tested by the investigation
team in the manner your recall.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1D723A86

The report did note that the parachute itself was found still in a packed
state, the safety pin of the deployment handle could not be located, and
the deployment rocket propellent had been expended. There was no damage to
the inside of the composite cap that covered the parachute system.

Additionally, the report indicates that the aircraft was in compliance with
service bulletin that addressed the difficulty of deployment issue that the
SR22 had in early 2002, a fact I hadn't known until rereading the report
(this aircraft was based at my home airport).

Again, my only point was to mention that the accident investigators could
not determine why the chute did not deploy. I interpreted your original
post to imply that they did.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tom S.]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:L5Ysb.1806$iS6.66@fed1read04...
> On 13 Nov 2003 09:44:05 -0800
> (gross_arrow) wrote:
>
> > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:<tRNsb.1659$iS6.406@fed1read04>...
> > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:32:02 -0800
> > > Jeff > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
> > >
> > >
> > > You'll find two engines means you are twice as likely to loose one.
> > > Kaaaaaching!
> > >
> > >
> > > R. Hubbell
> > >
> >
> >
> > perhaps, but the odds of losing (not loosing) _all_ of your engines
> > simultaneously go up by several orders of magnitude.
>
> But it's the wallet that I was talking about. Those twins will wreck a
> good wallet in no time.

Almost worse than having kids (twins, no less).

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:bt%sb.146600$ao4.476588@attbi_s51...
> > prices. I was in the market for about an '85 model Bo or 210 a while
> > back, but now I'd seriously think about spending a little more and
> > getting a Cirrus.
>
> A little more? How about double!

Let's see: Cirrus SR22's going about $350K; a 1988 F33A going about $189K.

One an "untested" rookie, the other a hardened veteran.

Thanks, no, I'll stick with the "tried and tested".

Add some updated avionic and some engine work (GAMI, Millennium Cyls/TA
Turbos) and I can get a machine that'll be flying long after I'm worm food.

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:jH%sb.145396$275.449178@attbi_s53...
> > I dont agree with fixed gear being safer in IMC, I have a turbo arrow
and
> > putting the gear down is second nature.
> > By the time you get to your FAF you have it in landing configuration, no
> > problems..
>
> The issue is not forgetting to put your landing gear down. This is not a
> serious safety concern in retracts because leaving the wheels up on
landing
> is damaging only to the pilot's pocketbook. There are almost never any
> injuries.
>
> The safety issue is loss of control, something casual, non-professional
> pilots do all too often. Retracts are MUCH more susceptible to loss of
> control accidents due to the much quicker speed buildup when control is
> lost. (Retract pilots should be trained to lower the landing gear the
first
> sign of an upset -- gear damage due to excessive speed be damned -- but
they
> typically don't.)

Cite?

> Retract singles have approximately twice the fatal accident rate of
> fixed-gear singles. This trend holds generally and holds for comparable
> aircraft which are otherwise identical except for their gear (e.g., C182
vs.
> C182RG, Cherokee Six vs. Saratoga, etc.). A retract is much more likely
to
> kill you.

Cite?

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:mP%sb.146791$ao4.476746@attbi_s51...
> > Why? The Cirrus is roomier than the Bo and has better designed seats.
>
> This reminds me of the ridiculous argument that the Mooney folks use to
make
> about their planes being wider and roomier than a Bonanza. I've flown
> hundreds of hours in Mooneys and hundreds of hours in Bonanzas. There is
NO
> comparison - the Bonanza is much more comfortable. I haven't flown
hundreds
> of hours in a Cirrus, but I've sat in them for 20-minutes at a stretch at
> Oshkosh. They're very well-designed, have nice seats, and are quite
> comfortable, but there is no comparison on room. And you can get seats
that
> match a new Cirrus in comfort by spending a couple grand, which you can
> easily afford with the $150K you saved in acquisition costs.
>
> Don't be get me wrong - the new designs have their merits. But don't
drink
> the kool-aid and think these planes have made some quantum leap ahead in
> anything other than avionics.

Quite so. But their changes are more than avionics; their entire design and
structure is different.

I think the people that gravitate towards the Cirrus and Lancair are the
same ones that have to have the "state of the art" on the rest of their
toys... :~)

[Flynn]

Man it's a good thing you're around Tom since every once else is a fool....

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> > I'm guessing that most (all?) talking down the SR22 haven't even flown
> one.
> > Try them all, do your homework and get the one that strikes your fancy.
> > BTW, Cirrus is selling around 50-60 planes per month. 16 delivered week
> > before last. Something's clearly going right there.
>
> Fads?
>
> Here, try this: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
>
>

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:7V%sb.142619$mZ5.992614@attbi_s54...
> > And by the way, Bonanzas certainly don't have
> > anything to brag about, safetywise.
>
> Well, I don't know about that. The numbers for Bonanza are actually
pretty
> good. Overall, they're right in the averages for single-retracts.
Exclude
> the early v-tails (up to about 1960) and they're better than average.
> Include just the F33A and A36 straight-tails, and they're about best in
the
> fleet, only slightly below the best (C182RG). The rates are noticeably
> better than the C210 and big Cherokee retracts.
>
> Someone is probably going to cry foul over excluding the early Bonanzas,
but
> pre-1960 airplanes have very poor accident rates in general and it doesn't
> make sense to me to compare the accident rates of a brand new design with
> one first produced in 1947. A 1980 Bonanza is quite a different airplane
> from a 1947 V-tail.

And the V-tail is VERY DIFFERENT than the F33's and the A36/B36's...

[Tom S.]

"Flynn" > wrote in message
news:i36tb.148992$275.451795@attbi_s53...
> Man it's a good thing you're around Tom since every once else is a
fool....

Well, just yourself in the fool categoy. You and Borchardt.

Go to hell, ****.

>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > I'm guessing that most (all?) talking down the SR22 haven't even flown
> > one.
> > > Try them all, do your homework and get the one that strikes your
fancy.
> > > BTW, Cirrus is selling around 50-60 planes per month. 16 delivered
week
> > > before last. Something's clearly going right there.
> >
> > Fads?
> >
> > Here, try this: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
> >
> >
>
>

[markjen]

The accident rates of retracts vs. fixed-gears are well-documented.

You're saying you're a pilot who can handle it, fine. But the accident
rates support the contention that average pilots are suffering from
loss-of-control relatively often and that they fare worse in retracts.

BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but mostly
Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would be
lower in a fixed-gear 182.

- Mark

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> Go to hell, ****.
>

Are we out of arguments yet? Jeeze!

Oh, and note the spelling of my name, if you please.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[ArtP]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:55:20 -0700, "Tom S." >
wrote:

>> Same as any other plane, the ground stops the spin. That is
>> why since spin recovery training was dropped as a PPL requirement and
>> spin avoidance training was instituted the number of deaths due to
>> spins has decreased.
>
>Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.

That is called defensive driving. Things like that may not fit you
macho image, but they save lives.

[Snowbird]

"Tom S." > wrote in message >...

> Well, just yourself in the fool categoy. You and Borchardt.

> Go to hell, ****.

Tom,

It speaks volumes to me when a man involved in a dispute
can find no better retort than to call his opponent a slang
term for a woman's vagina.

It speaks even louder volumes when the opponent is a man.
You are explaining most clearly that you consider female
attributes derogatory, even more so female reproductive
attributes.

Excuse me: just how did you come into the world if not from
a mother, with her vagina (aka "****") in all likelihood
involved at some point in the process?

Unless we are to assume you emerged by bacterial fission
and were raised in a fermentation vessel, kindly show some
respect for womankind in your choice of insults.

If you can not adopt a higher level of discourse, I for one
recommend you to perambulate over to rec.aviation.homebuilt
where you will find true kindred souls -- although even there,
for many, this particular choice of language is considered to
be going too far.

Thank you.
Sydney

[Snowbird]

Stu Gotts > wrote in message >...
> Just about everyone. Especially the owners.

> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:07:39 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:

> >"markjen" wrote:
> >> Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
> >> rugged/substantial airplane,

> >Says who?

Well, I haven't heard much one way or the other about Cirrus
and Lancair as short or rough field airplanes.

Has anyone?

I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.

It wouldn't surprise me if many people who just bought a $300K
Cirrus or Lancair for its speed and avionics, aren't willing to
risk it on a rough grass strip in backcountry Idaho.

Cheers,
Sydney

[markjen]

> I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
> planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
> risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.

A Bonanza has a few things going for it: lower stall speed (51K vs. 59K),
bigger wheels/tires, and no wheel pants. The Bonanza also has a deserved
reputation for having an incredibly rugged gear system, although the Cirrus
fixed gear may be good also - the nose wheel looks incredibly flimsy, but
looks can be deceiving.

But I think you touched on the biggest reason - a 25-year-old Bonanza will
have been around the patch a few times, and bashing it around in the bush
won't seem like you're using your best china to serve pizza to a bunch of
guys over for Monday Night Football.

- Mark

[Ron Natalie]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message om...

> I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
> planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
> risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.
>
Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
anyday.

[Snowbird]

"Tom S." > wrote in message >...

> Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus.
>
> Tell me the low altitude recovery procedure.

Gentlemen:

In a perhaps futile attempt to inject some facts into a heated
discussion, I would like to direct your attention to 14 CFR Part 23:
http://tinyurl.com/v1bs or
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/CurrentFARPart/78909ED5A6DBEB9485256687006D0568?OpenDocument
for those of you who don't like shorter links.

I believe there are three terms being used interchangeably with
some resulting confusion. Those are spin entry, incipient or
initial phase of spin, and spin (which means fully developed spin
ie more than 1 turn).

Spin entry means all the ingredients for a spin are there -- stall
and yaw -- but the plane hasn't actually begun to spin. A spin
entry must be recoverable in all certified aircraft within certified
CG loadings. A spin entry is not a spin, but rather a
stall where conditions are right to produce a spin (ie yaw) if prompt
corrective action isn't taken.

A spin entry should be recoverable in a few hundred feet in all
aircraft.

Prior to Cirrus, the FAA requires all planes certified in the normal
category to be able to recover from the initial phase of a spin
(incipient
spin) -- the first turn or 3 seconds, whichever is *longer* -- using
normal
control inputs, within one additional turn. The only exception is if
they are certified as spin *resistant*.

An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to
recover
than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal
category,
it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at
the
controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft,
including
those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to
recover
from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern.

Bruce Lansburg wrote an article for AOPA regarding alternate
certification
adopted for Cirrus and Columbia:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html

Basically, the rationale was to make the Cirrus more spin resistant
(although it is not certified as spin resistant) and then to install
the ballistic chute, which is supposed to take about 1000 ft.

This is not *less* than most normal-category aircraft would take to
recover from an incipient spin; it is comparable. A few, docile
spinning aircraft with proficient pilots at the controls, could
recover in less altitude. Maybe a few hundred feet, but that's not
typical of normal-category aircraft which aren't certified for spins.
It's more typical of utility or aerobatic aircraft with *good* spin
characteristics (and note that even aircraft which are certified for
spins may have lousy recovery characteristics outside the utility
CG envelope).

Hope this helps,
Sydney

[Tom S.]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:55:20 -0700, "Tom S." >
> wrote:
>
> >> Same as any other plane, the ground stops the spin. That is
> >> why since spin recovery training was dropped as a PPL requirement and
> >> spin avoidance training was instituted the number of deaths due to
> >> spins has decreased.
> >
> >Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.
>
> That is called defensive driving. Things like that may not fit you
> macho image, but they save lives.

"Defensive driving" and "vehicle handling" are two very distinct and
different perspectives.

If you hadn't snipped my parts of the entire post, you'd read my comparison
to a skid pan. A skid pan is NOT where they teach defensive driving.

Study a little bit: http://www.bondurant.com/pages/home.html

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:1B6tb.199815$Fm2.187055@attbi_s04...
> The accident rates of retracts vs. fixed-gears are well-documented.

Where the type of gear is a factor? Or is it that retractables are more
often flown in bad conditions due to their complexity and higher performance
(which is why more complex/higher performance equipment is manufactured in
the first place)??

> You're saying you're a pilot who can handle it, fine. But the accident
> rates support the contention that average pilots are suffering from
> loss-of-control relatively often and that they fare worse in retracts.

Again, what are the conditions flown in by 172's vs. Bonanza's vs. twins vs.
Turboprops vs. Citations...

> BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but mostly
> Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would be
> lower in a fixed-gear 182.

Why would that be so?

[Tom S.]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Well, just yourself in the fool categoy. You and Borchardt.
>
> > Go to hell, ****.
>
> Tom,
>
> It speaks volumes to me when a man involved in a dispute
> can find no better retort than to call his opponent a slang
> term for a woman's vagina.

I have other alternatives, but its doubtful they would be understood by the
"fool".

[Tom S.]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
> > planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
> > risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.
> >
> Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
> anyday.
>
Ummm....isn't the gear the same between the Nav and the Bo' ??

[Tom S.]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Prior to Cirrus, the FAA requires all planes certified in the normal
> category to be able to recover from the initial phase of a spin
> (incipient
> spin) -- the first turn or 3 seconds, whichever is *longer* -- using
> normal
> control inputs, within one additional turn. The only exception is if
> they are certified as spin *resistant*.

Okay,but...
>
> An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to
> recover
> than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal
> category,
> it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at
> the
> controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft,
> including
> those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to
> recover
> from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern.

1000 feet does not sounds like "3 seconds/ first turn"....
>
> Bruce Lansburg wrote an article for AOPA regarding alternate
> certification
> adopted for Cirrus and Columbia:
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html
>
> Basically, the rationale was to make the Cirrus more spin resistant
> (although it is not certified as spin resistant) and then to install
> the ballistic chute, which is supposed to take about 1000 ft.

Reading the NTSB accident reports, it sounds like they've had quite a few
spin accidents (some fatal, some not...I'm looking at ALL
accidents/incidents, not just the FATAL ones), given the relatively few
numbers in operation (denying the connection because Cirrus' has only been
in opeation a few years is a non-issue and lacks understanding of
statistics.

>
> This is not *less* than most normal-category aircraft would take to
> recover from an incipient spin; it is comparable. A few, docile
> spinning aircraft with proficient pilots at the controls, could
> recover in less altitude. Maybe a few hundred feet, but that's not
> typical of normal-category aircraft which aren't certified for spins.
> It's more typical of utility or aerobatic aircraft with *good* spin
> characteristics (and note that even aircraft which are certified for
> spins may have lousy recovery characteristics outside the utility
> CG envelope).
>
> Hope this helps,

It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs
Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's amazing. I
saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the F33
has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air.

The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have been
successful.

[ArtP]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:49:48 -0700, "Tom S." >
wrote:


>"Defensive driving" and "vehicle handling" are two very distinct and
>different perspectives.
>
>If you hadn't snipped my parts of the entire post, you'd read my comparison
>to a skid pan. A skid pan is NOT where they teach defensive driving.

Yes, and you seem to be emphasizing the value of "vehicle handling"
over "defensive driving". While I maintain the biggest cause of
accidents both auto and airplane are the result of poor judgement not
poor skills. Sooner or later even superior skills will fall victim to
poor judgement unless the more mundane aspects of safety training are
given and understood. That means that prevention ("defensive driving")
is better than a cure ("vehicle handling").

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:2jatb.197852$HS4.1679215@attbi_s01...
> > I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
> > planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
> > risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.
>
> A Bonanza has a few things going for it: lower stall speed (51K vs. 59K),
> bigger wheels/tires, and no wheel pants. The Bonanza also has a deserved
> reputation for having an incredibly rugged gear system, although the
Cirrus
> fixed gear may be good also - the nose wheel looks incredibly flimsy, but
> looks can be deceiving.

To me, the 182RG gear look "flimsy", but I can guarantee you it isn't. We
used to take one in and out of cow pastures...literally.

> But I think you touched on the biggest reason - a 25-year-old Bonanza will
> have been around the patch a few times, and bashing it around in the bush
> won't seem like you're using your best china to serve pizza to a bunch of
> guys over for Monday Night Football.
>

The Bo' is definitely built like a tank (same with the 182), whereas the
Lanc and Cirrus LOOK "flimsy".

[Pete Zaitcev]

Oh wow, Flynn made the moron to snap with a single sintence.
I'm not worthy.

-- Pete

[Tom S.]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:49:48 -0700, "Tom S." >
> wrote:
>
>
> >"Defensive driving" and "vehicle handling" are two very distinct and
> >different perspectives.
> >
> >If you hadn't snipped my parts of the entire post, you'd read my
comparison
> >to a skid pan. A skid pan is NOT where they teach defensive driving.
>
> Yes, and you seem to be emphasizing the value of "vehicle handling"
> over "defensive driving".

Well, "seems" that you're wrong, because I'm contrasting different
characteristics.

> While I maintain the biggest cause of
> accidents both auto and airplane are the result of poor judgement not
> poor skills.

And very often, even good judgement can result in a situation that overtaxes
the skills of the pilot or the driver.

The human fallibility is WHY we develop and enhance skills. Adding equipment
to the recipe means that the equipment must perform properly as well.

> Sooner or later even superior skills will fall victim to
> poor judgement unless the more mundane aspects of safety training are
> given and understood. That means that prevention ("defensive driving")
> is better than a cure ("vehicle handling").

It is not a CURE (as if there's only one aspect), it's preventive, but
cannot stand on it's own; see the above about human fallibility.

As the adage goes -- "**** happens". (Is that slang for poop...I mean,
excrement? Hey, Sydney, how would you list that one?) :~)

[Tom S.]

"Pete Zaitcev" > wrote in message
...
> Oh wow, Flynn made the moron to snap with a single sintence.
> I'm not worthy.
>
You're not very literate, either.

[Dan Luke]

"Tom S." wrote:
> > > Just what about their safety record do you find so
> > > encouraging?
> >
> > Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due
> > to their spin characteristics.
>
> Which is why the insurance is so high.

Baloney.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Frank Stutzman]

Tom S. > wrote:

> Ummm....isn't the gear the same between the Nav and the Bo' ??

Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea?

Other than the fact that they are both tricycle geared, there is very
little simular about them. For starters, the Navion actuates the gear
hydraulically, while the Bonanza does it electrically.

And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing gear'
nod to the Navion.



--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
(faster than a speeding Navion, but not by much)
Hood River, OR

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> > AvWeb and a few others?
> >
>
> Show me. Just one quote. I am quite sure you won't find it.
>
> And that's because <tada!>: The statement is just wrong! The aircraft
> doesn't "lack spin recovery", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Correct.

> No one knows if more conventional recovery methods work,

Actually, Cirrus does know that, because their pilots have used
conventional methods to recover the aircraft from spins.

> It's not that
> Cirrus tried those, they didn't work and then they went for the
chute -
> as the OP implies. Rather, they went for the chute directly and got
the
> FAA to accept that as the certified spin recovery method. And then
> they didn't ever test other methods - why would they, with one
> certifiable method proven?

Possibly because they discovered that the aircraft could be forced into
an unrecoverable flat spin and the 'chute was the only way out. But as
you pointed out, why demonstrate spin recovery to the FAA beyond what is
needed for certification? Volunteering more than is asked for is always
dangerous with the feds.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Jeff" wrote:
> Do you know anything about the comanche 400's ?

Um, yes, a little. I know it's got an oddball engine (Lyc. IO-720) with
an 1800-hr. TBO that will cost you $30K to overhaul and burns 20-22gph
at 75% power. You have to haul so much gas for the brute that, for a
trip of more than 300 miles, the payload of a Comanche 400 is actually
*less* than that of a 260.

> this comanche 400 achieved a TAS of 275 mph at 19,000 ft

Whoopee. Who was flying the tanker?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Tom S." wrote:
> Well, just yourself in the fool categoy. You and Borchardt.
>
> Go to hell, c...

Pathetic.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tom S." > wrote in message ...

> > Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
> > anyday.
> >
> Ummm....isn't the gear the same between the Nav and the Bo' ??
>
Not in the least. First off the Navion has 7.00x8 tires on it, much larger
than the Bo, and the gear struts are much stouter on the Navion.

[Windecks]

We have a 1974 V35B with a Millenium reman IO-520, Garmin GNS430, Avidyne
MX20, Sandel EHSI, some other assorted doo-dads. The paint and interior are
a solid 9/10, 'almost new'.

While it's not the state of the art glass panel in the Cirrus line, it's
more than adeqaute, with 3 moving maps, terrain readout and an approach
coupled autopilot. Cruise is 170 KTAS at 8000', burning less than 15gph.
The plane is easy to fly, and becomes a docile little puppy when you drop
the gear.

Total acquisition and upgrade cost was just shy of $185k. I can't imagine
calling it obsolete when compared to a $300k+ SR22. Then again, I prefer my
50 year old remodeled house over any of the more expensive newly constructed
ones in our neck of the woods... Go figure.

That said, I'm happy to see the Cirruses (Cirrae?), LANCAIRS and Diamonds
roll of the production line. In the long run competition is a good thing,
and it's nice to see there's a choice when it comes to spending your
aviation Dollars and Euros. Some like the latest and greatest, and prefer
to buy new. For me, having researched, priced and flown all the alternatives
it was an easy choice: Old reliable Beech.

"Potential Bo Buyer" > wrote in message
om...
> Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
> economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
> with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
> at work in this market.
>
> Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> 4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
> place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
> 300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
> first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
> fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
> than the Bonanzas I'm considering.
>
> It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?

[Flynn]

I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country strips
either! For that, give me a Cessna 182...
:)

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Stu Gotts > wrote in message
>...
> > Just about everyone. Especially the owners.
>
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:07:39 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> > > wrote:
>
> > >"markjen" wrote:
> > >> Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
> > >> rugged/substantial airplane,
>
> > >Says who?
>
> Well, I haven't heard much one way or the other about Cirrus
> and Lancair as short or rough field airplanes.
>
> Has anyone?
>
> I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
> planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
> risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if many people who just bought a $300K
> Cirrus or Lancair for its speed and avionics, aren't willing to
> risk it on a rough grass strip in backcountry Idaho.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Flynn]

Plural for Cirrus is Cirri!
BTW, I completely agree that whether a Bo' is better or not, what the
overall health of GA requires is new aircraft entering the fleet at rates
that exceed what we've seen of late (say the last, sadly, 20 years?).
Cessna hasn't done anything of note that wasn't powered by Jet-A. Piper's
best offerings have been problematic but at least they're trying. Beech is
slowly but surely working it's way out of the "low" end (say less than
$million). Diamond, Cirrus, Lancair and a few others are turning out some
terrific aircraft at much more reasonable prices. I hope that the Piper 6X
entries do well too. It's good for all.


"Windecks" > wrote in message
. com...
> We have a 1974 V35B with a Millenium reman IO-520, Garmin GNS430, Avidyne
> MX20, Sandel EHSI, some other assorted doo-dads. The paint and interior
are
> a solid 9/10, 'almost new'.
>
> While it's not the state of the art glass panel in the Cirrus line, it's
> more than adeqaute, with 3 moving maps, terrain readout and an approach
> coupled autopilot. Cruise is 170 KTAS at 8000', burning less than 15gph.
> The plane is easy to fly, and becomes a docile little puppy when you drop
> the gear.
>
> Total acquisition and upgrade cost was just shy of $185k. I can't imagine
> calling it obsolete when compared to a $300k+ SR22. Then again, I prefer
my
> 50 year old remodeled house over any of the more expensive newly
constructed
> ones in our neck of the woods... Go figure.
>
> That said, I'm happy to see the Cirruses (Cirrae?), LANCAIRS and Diamonds
> roll of the production line. In the long run competition is a good thing,
> and it's nice to see there's a choice when it comes to spending your
> aviation Dollars and Euros. Some like the latest and greatest, and prefer
> to buy new. For me, having researched, priced and flown all the
alternatives
> it was an easy choice: Old reliable Beech.
>
> "Potential Bo Buyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
> > economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
> > with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
> > at work in this market.
> >
> > Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> > 4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
> > place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
> > 300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
> > first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
> > fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
> > than the Bonanzas I'm considering.
> >
> > It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> > for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?
>
>

[[email protected]]

On 14-Nov-2003, Jeff > wrote:

> ....great pilot, no, cautious pilot, yes......

> Also your situation actually happened to me last winter, 11,000 ft over
> the MMM VOR (north of las vegas) in IMC, light ice on the wings, I was in
> my old
> cherokee 180 and it did not have pitot heat.

Anybody else see a contradiction in the above? I, for one, would NEVER fly
an airplane without pitot heat in IMC, especially anywhere near freezing
conditions.



> ....but I also hit something, not sure what it was, but I think it was
> wind sheer, I lost 30
> mph in IAS and 1000 ft in a matter of seconds.....

Um, do you know that the static port on the Cherokee is co-located on the
pitot stalk, and is intended to be heated with the pitot heater? Your
indicated loss of speed and altitude could well have been due to partial
obstruction of the static port and/or pitot tube.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[markjen]

> > BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but
mostly
> > Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would
be
> > lower in a fixed-gear 182.
>
> Why would that be so?

Look up the fatal accident rates of fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes/Saratogas vs.
retractable-gear Lances/Saratogas. The airplanes are essentially identical
except for the landing gear. The rate of the retract is about double. Both
airplanes go out of control in clouds but the fixed-gears are more
forgiving.

Let's let this go. I have no interest in arguing over something that is
widely known and accepted.

- Mark

[Stu Gotts]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:58 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Stu,
>
>> You're obviously not an owner!
>>
>
>And your point is?
The point I make is that you may not have sufficient experience to
make the statements you've made.
>
>Just to clarify mine: A Bonanza owner will hardly dislike the Bo - for
>Pete's sake, he bought one. For a more balanced view, you might have to
>ask other people.


>
>And it's ok that some people like brand B, while other like brand C
>better. That's subjective. But some of the things discussed in this
>thread are objective facts - let's at least get those straight.

Yes, lets! Reread the posts, then see what objective facts need to be
thrown in. Paint and styling are objective. Performance comfort and
utility are not.

[Stu Gotts]

On 14 Nov 2003 11:17:20 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>Stu Gotts > wrote in message >...
>> Just about everyone. Especially the owners.
>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:07:39 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >"markjen" wrote:
>> >> Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
>> >> rugged/substantial airplane,
>
>> >Says who?
>
>Well, I haven't heard much one way or the other about Cirrus
>and Lancair as short or rough field airplanes.
>
>Has anyone?
>
>I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
>planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
>risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if many people who just bought a $300K
>Cirrus or Lancair for its speed and avionics, aren't willing to
>risk it on a rough grass strip in backcountry Idaho.

>Cheers,
>Sydney

The styling and futuristic avionics packages are some of what is
attracting people to these aircraft. If it works for them, good!

[Stu Gotts]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:16:05 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Snowbird" > wrote in message om...
>
>> I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
>> planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
>> risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.
>>
>Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
>anyday.

First good thing I've heard you say for a few days. You slipping?

[Stu Gotts]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:59 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Stu,
>
>> And you have what? A little more than an hour in each?
>>
>
>Well, an hour was what YOU claimed was enough, wasn't it? (I have more,
>rest assured)
>
>Stu, there's no need to get upset, we're just trading opinions here.
>And trying to get some facts straight.
>
>BTW, there are no 30 year old aircraft that come even close to the
>level of interior design you find in a modern "plastic" aircraft, IMHO.

I've seen some absolutely wonderful interiors in the Bonanzas, and
although the plastic jobs are extremely well appointed, the factory
interior can't compare to a refurbished one you see in some Bonanzas.
Then again, most Cirrus and Lancairs haven't been around long enough
for the customizers to get to them.

[Stu Gotts]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:02 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Stu,
>
>> Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and
>> pilots knew how to fly?
>>
>
>Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just
>flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get?

Hardly a difference between recognizing an imminent spin then being
able to maneuver (fly) out of it and being unable to get out due to
design and pulling a chute, don't you think?

My arms still hurt when I think about those old days, sonny!

[Stu Gotts]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:07 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Stu,
>
>> Wow! That's **** poor, isn't it?
>>
>
>No, it's a wrong statement, that's all.
>
>Coming back to the original thread subject, from the reactions here, at
>least some owners of traditional aircraft must be really afraid of
>value depriciation - how else could one explain the totally
>non-rational reactions to the new aircraft?

If the internet was around in the 30's, we would be having the same
conversation about those new fangled aluminum aeroplanes that are
riveted together. Wont last, they'll rust out.

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." wrote:
> > > > Just what about their safety record do you find so
> > > > encouraging?
> > >
> > > Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due
> > > to their spin characteristics.
> >
> > Which is why the insurance is so high.
>
> Baloney.

That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more careful in
snipping previous comments.

[Tom S.]

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S. > wrote:
>
> > Ummm....isn't the gear the same between the Nav and the Bo' ??
>
> Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea?

Who you callin' wacko?

Would being wacko get me off a homicide charge?

>
> Other than the fact that they are both tricycle geared, there is very
> little simular about them. For starters, the Navion actuates the gear
> hydraulically, while the Bonanza does it electrically.
>
> And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing gear'
> nod to the Navion.

Why?

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:00:27 -0500
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

>
>
> "R. Hubbell" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:45:11 -0800
> > Jeff > wrote:
> >
> > > losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 ..
> > > ka-boom
> >
> > Not for my wallet.
>
> You don't have to pay for the hospital or funeral expenses?


Losing one of two or one of one is the same to my wallet.
Regarding the funeral expenses no I wouldn't have to pay those. ;-)
Regarding the hospital expenses, if that happened I'd probably not be
worried about the expenses but gald to be included in the living.

That assumes that losing an engine means I crash. I be engine outs are
low on the crash totem pole.

R. Hubbell

>
> George Patterson
> If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
> the problem.

[R. Hubbell]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:45:35 -0700
"Tom S." > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:L5Ysb.1806$iS6.66@fed1read04...
> > On 13 Nov 2003 09:44:05 -0800
> > (gross_arrow) wrote:
> >
> > > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:<tRNsb.1659$iS6.406@fed1read04>...
> > > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:32:02 -0800
> > > > Jeff > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You'll find two engines means you are twice as likely to loose one.
> > > > Kaaaaaching!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > R. Hubbell
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > perhaps, but the odds of losing (not loosing) _all_ of your engines
> > > simultaneously go up by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> > But it's the wallet that I was talking about. Those twins will wreck a
> > good wallet in no time.
>
> Almost worse than having kids (twins, no less).

Well, Kids are a great investment! No regrets there, but wih a twin I'd
sure have regrets. Now if I overflew water often a twin would make a good
choice, but then I'd want an inline twin. Adam aircrafts?

R. Hubbell
>
>

[Tom S.]

"markjen" > wrote in message
news:Iwftb.198900$HS4.1696819@attbi_s01...
> > > BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but
> mostly
> > > Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks
would
> be
> > > lower in a fixed-gear 182.
> >
> > Why would that be so?
>
> Look up the fatal accident rates of fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes/Saratogas
vs.
> retractable-gear Lances/Saratogas. The airplanes are essentially
identical
> except for the landing gear. The rate of the retract is about double.
Both
> airplanes go out of control in clouds but the fixed-gears are more
> forgiving.

And the fact the rate of retracts that are used in all conditions is
probably double or more negates your point.

> Let's let this go. I have no interest in arguing over something that is
> widely known and accepted.

The numbers yes; the reasons, no.

My mother is not likely to have a serious crash on the freeway since she
DOESN'T DRIVE on the freeway.

IOW: people don't buy serious hardware like a retractable to go for joyrides
in clear weather like many fixed drivers gears do.

NOTE: Finally someone come close to mentioning CAUSATION in response to the
question, but even there, they miss a significant point, that being how the
various forms of equipment are used: serious travel vs puddle jumping.

[Frank Stutzman]

> > Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea?

> Who you callin' wacko?

Uhhh, I was saying your IDEA was wacko. I can't say anything about you.
"On the internet no one knows you're a dog."

> > And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing gear'
> > nod to the Navion.

> Why?

I'm no expert on the Navion, so Ron or Margie is going to have to correct me
here but...

1) Larger tires
2) Larger gear struts
3) more travel in the oleos
4) most (all?) linkages are larger

Indeed most everything on a Navion is larger/stronger than on a Bonanza.
Its also a heck of a lot heavier.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

> The point I make is that you may not have sufficient experience to
> make the statements you've made.
>

Well, thank God you're around, since your opinion counts, and mine
doesn't, right?


The facts I'm talking about are regarding accidents, spin
characteristics and certification.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stu,

Agree!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> Volunteering more than is asked for is always
> dangerous with the feds.
>

and it makes aircraft more expensive,too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Pete,

troll feeding can be so much fun.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Flynn,

total agreement.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dan Luke]

"Tom S." wrote:
> > > > > Just what about their safety record do you find so
> > > > > encouraging?
> > > >
> > > > Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due
> > > > to their spin characteristics.
> > >
> > > Which is why the insurance is so high.
> >
> > Baloney.
>
> That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more
careful in
> snipping previous comments.

Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you
were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have
atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is
baloney. Perhaps you meant something else.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[jrf]

Thats apples and oranges. You said if I was going to spend 300K? I
own a V35 Bonanza and I can tell you there are no V tail Bonanzas that
cost 300K. I bought mine about 6 months ago, with new engine, paint,
interior, avionics and maintained to perfection by a member of the
technical staff of the american bonaza society for a thirs of what you
are saying. Why buy a Bonanza over a new Cirrus, answer they cost
about a third less and do the same thing, thats why. Money no object?
Buy a King Air or lear

[Tom S.]

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> > > Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea?
>
> > Who you callin' wacko?
>
> Uhhh, I was saying your IDEA was wacko. I can't say anything about you.
> "On the internet no one knows you're a dog."

Actually, it wasn't my IDEA, it was my QUESTION??? You know, an
interrogative statement used to gain knowledge...".

>
> > > And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing
gear'
> > > nod to the Navion.
>
> > Why?
>
> I'm no expert on the Navion, so Ron or Margie is going to have to correct
me
> here but...
>
> 1) Larger tires
> 2) Larger gear struts
> 3) more travel in the oleos
> 4) most (all?) linkages are larger
>
> Indeed most everything on a Navion is larger/stronger than on a Bonanza.
> Its also a heck of a lot heavier.

And gross weight/useful load?

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." wrote:
> > > > > > Just what about their safety record do you find so
> > > > > > encouraging?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due
> > > > > to their spin characteristics.
> > > >
> > > > Which is why the insurance is so high.
> > >
> > > Baloney.
> >
> > That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more
> careful in
> > snipping previous comments.
>
> Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you
> were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have
> atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is
> baloney. Perhaps you meant something else.

The whole PIECE wasn't me; I have no idea what Cirrus insurance rates are.
You snipped my response to which someone else added the comment about
insurance rates.

Since I don't fly my own plane, I don't know what either insurance rate
would be. I fly only our company planes and would have to ask the
controller what the insurance costs were. :~)

I'm looking to buy my own (first time) right after New Years, so it would be
interesting as my first choice right now is a F33A. However, if I was going
to go _new_, I'm thinking more Lancair rather than Cirrus.

[Snowbird]

"Flynn" > wrote in message news:<jZetb.3278$Dw6.24546@attbi_s02>...
> I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country strips
> either! For that, give me a Cessna 182...

Hi Flynn,

Well, I don't know what performance you felt you could get
from your Tiger (yours evidently differed from mine in several
respects), but my reason for not taking on back country strips
in my Tiger isn't the price of the machine.

It's the fact that the Tiger just isn't (IMO) a good back
country plane. It'll land short enough, but with normal
aspiration and a fixed prop typically pitched for cruise,
it just isn't a good climber at high DA. I love my Tigger-plane,
but I try to be honest about his weaknesses as well as his
strengths.

I know a number of 'Bo owners who are former Tiger owners
and are happy to take their 'Bos into and out of fields I'm
not comfortable taking my Tiger. Cliff Hansen and Andreas
come to mind. They tell me the 'Bo is a much better short/
rough plane than the Tiger (and again, it's not the price
tag that's the issue, obviously).

My point is, I just haven't heard much about how Columbia
and Cirrus fair as short/rough or high DA planes. I don't
know if that's because people who buy these planes just don't
want to do that kind of flying, or whether, like the Tiger,
that's just not their forte'.

So, Flynn, now that you're a Cirrus owner, tell us what the
gear is like and about the climb performance at high DA? How
does it handle at low speeds? What would you consider a
comfortable, consistantly achieveable landing distance? If
you wanted to hit some back country strips, would it do the
job?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Tom S." > wrote in message >...

> > An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to
> > recover
> > than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal
> > category,
> > it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at
> > the
> > controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft,
> > including
> > those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to
> > recover
> > from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern.

> 1000 feet does not sounds like "3 seconds/ first turn"....

Hi Tom,

The catch, if you read the Part 23 certification standards, is that
after 3 seconds or the first turn (whichever is LONGER), the plane
must recover "w/in one additional turn".

IOW, 1000-1500 ft may actually represent more than one turn of
spin, if the plane in question really snaps around quickly, PLUS
an additional turn to recover.

Hope this clarifies?

In his excellent out-of-print book "Stalls Spins and Safety", Sammy
Mason points out that a plane which takes a full turn to recover
after proper control inputs are applied has *lousy* spin characteristics.

Well, apparently there are a number of planes certified in the normal
category, which have just such *lousy* spin characteristics.

My point is don't bet the rent that a plane certified in the normal
category can recover from an incipient spin in less than 1000 ft.

> Reading the NTSB accident reports, it sounds like they've had quite a few
> spin accidents (some fatal, some not...I'm looking at ALL
> accidents/incidents, not just the FATAL ones)

I defer to you here. I'm not familiar with the spin accident
record of the Cirrus.

My point was to direct attention to the actual certification
requirements, and to correct any misapprehension that planes
certified in the "normal" category to recover from an incipient
spin with normal control inputs, necessarily have a realistic
chance to recover from a low-altitude spin (say, at traffic
pattern altitude)

Hopefully I've done that.

> It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs
> Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's amazing. I
> saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the F33
> has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air.

> The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have been
> successful.

This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also
have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring
the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the
F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports;
does this seem plausible?

Regards,
Sydney

[Flynn]

Oh I think my Tiger would get in and out of some pretty short fields (I
wasn't comfortable say going in and out of Ken Blackmans 1600' grass
strip...but he did all the time). It was more my comfort in my abilities.
In a high DA situation, you're right it was not a great performer at all.
Cliff did tell me that he thought the Bonanza was stout as all get out and
faster on nearly the same fuel as the Tiger.

The Cirrus, with only 35 hours in her, is an awesome climber in just about
everything I've hit so far. Highest DA for takeoff so far was around 5500'
in Helena. 2 aboard and full fuel we climbed out at well more than 1000'
per minute. Typically around here on anything approaching standard days to
say 1000' DA I'll sometimes hit close to 2000' fpm.

Gear's pretty stout and I believe built like the Tiger's...with the same
nose wheel pluses and minuses. Slow flight was surprising in that you've
got aileron authority so deep into the stall. I'm comfortable with 2000'
feet as a minimum strip depending on load, DA, etc etc. But that'll get me
out in 1/2 or less. The only thing I'd be real concerned about on a back
country strip are the wheel pants. The come down so low on the wheels that
I'd worry about cracking 'em.

All in all the transition for a Tiger driver is very easy. Sight lines are
similar, same care with landing speeds, same don't spin 'em....oh wait, that
started this monster thread didn't it? :) Heavier bird in feel but that
also smooths out the bumps.

Lots o'fun.

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "Flynn" > wrote in message
news:<jZetb.3278$Dw6.24546@attbi_s02>...
> > I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country
strips
> > either! For that, give me a Cessna 182...
>
> Hi Flynn,
>
> Well, I don't know what performance you felt you could get
> from your Tiger (yours evidently differed from mine in several
> respects), but my reason for not taking on back country strips
> in my Tiger isn't the price of the machine.
>
> It's the fact that the Tiger just isn't (IMO) a good back
> country plane. It'll land short enough, but with normal
> aspiration and a fixed prop typically pitched for cruise,
> it just isn't a good climber at high DA. I love my Tigger-plane,
> but I try to be honest about his weaknesses as well as his
> strengths.
>
> So, Flynn, now that you're a Cirrus owner, tell us what the
> gear is like and about the climb performance at high DA? How
> does it handle at low speeds? What would you consider a
> comfortable, consistantly achieveable landing distance? If
> you wanted to hit some back country strips, would it do the
> job?
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Flynn]

Before I bought the Cirrus I did a search of all reported accidents in the
database. In fact, I was only able to find two spins. The rest were normal
pilot errors, normal in the sense that they happen in every type flown by
Part 91. Maybe there's another database but I used the link off the ASF
site.

I do think that the real risk factor has nothing at all to do with spin or
stall characteristics. Sydney you pointed out the certification
requirements and the recovery up to and into the incipient is normal.
Beyond that, pull the chute. And you're absolutely right....in the pattern
if you stall and flip it over you have one and only one correction available
in my opinion and experience (see Rich Stowell's site).

The real risk is all the gadgetry in the panel. That's the upshot of the
TAA study as well. So I'm off to practice!

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to
> > > recover
> > > than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal
> > > category,
> > > it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at
> > > the
> > > controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft,
> > > including
> > > those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to
> > > recover
> > > from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern.
>
> > 1000 feet does not sounds like "3 seconds/ first turn"....
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> The catch, if you read the Part 23 certification standards, is that
> after 3 seconds or the first turn (whichever is LONGER), the plane
> must recover "w/in one additional turn".
>
> IOW, 1000-1500 ft may actually represent more than one turn of
> spin, if the plane in question really snaps around quickly, PLUS
> an additional turn to recover.
>
> Hope this clarifies?
>
> In his excellent out-of-print book "Stalls Spins and Safety", Sammy
> Mason points out that a plane which takes a full turn to recover
> after proper control inputs are applied has *lousy* spin characteristics.
>
> Well, apparently there are a number of planes certified in the normal
> category, which have just such *lousy* spin characteristics.
>
> My point is don't bet the rent that a plane certified in the normal
> category can recover from an incipient spin in less than 1000 ft.
>
> > Reading the NTSB accident reports, it sounds like they've had quite a
few
> > spin accidents (some fatal, some not...I'm looking at ALL
> > accidents/incidents, not just the FATAL ones)
>
> I defer to you here. I'm not familiar with the spin accident
> record of the Cirrus.
>
> My point was to direct attention to the actual certification
> requirements, and to correct any misapprehension that planes
> certified in the "normal" category to recover from an incipient
> spin with normal control inputs, necessarily have a realistic
> chance to recover from a low-altitude spin (say, at traffic
> pattern altitude)
>
> Hopefully I've done that.
>
> > It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs
> > Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's
amazing. I
> > saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the
F33
> > has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air.
>
> > The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have
been
> > successful.
>
> This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also
> have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring
> the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the
> F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports;
> does this seem plausible?
>
> Regards,
> Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Tom S." > wrote in message >...

> And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite
> frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
> differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
> types.

In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.

There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
in make and model.

Here is a link:
http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2002/FULL%20TEXT/0219.pdf

There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.

There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
recurrent training.

Just to inject some facts.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Tom S.]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Hopefully I've done that.

Yes...I was thinking "stall". Haven't done spins in YEARS!!

>
> > It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs
> > Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's
amazing. I
> > saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the
F33
> > has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air.
>
> > The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have
been
> > successful.
>
> This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also
> have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring
> the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the
> F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports;
> does this seem plausible?

Considering the Cirrus production numbers are only about three years old, it
may be a new learning experience, both for individual pilots, as well as
pilots in general, learning the quirks of the new design.

If you do a search in the NTSB database on "Cirrus", there's an astonishing
number of accidents in just the last three years (including a seemingly high
number of fatals) when considering the number of SR-20/22's in the fleet.

I have no desire to play test pilot, so I'll stick with the "known quantity"
when I buy (right after Jan. 1).

[Tom S.]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
>...
>
> > And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable.
Quite
> > frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
> > differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
> > types.
>
> In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
> control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.
>
> There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
> the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
> modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
> The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
> in make and model.

Is that a factor that it's easier to lose control of a Porsche at 150 than a
Honda Accord at 65?

>
> Here is a link:
> http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2002/FULL%20TEXT/0219.pdf
>
> There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
> lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
> which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
> maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.
>
> There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
> experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
> time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
> with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
> recurrent training.
>
> Just to inject some facts.
>

In a certain respect, I think we're comparing apples and oranges (or Honda's
and Porsche's) :~)

IAC, I stand corrected (sorta).

[Roger Halstead]

On 14 Nov 2003 11:17:20 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>Stu Gotts > wrote in message >...
>> Just about everyone. Especially the owners.
>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:07:39 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >"markjen" wrote:
>> >> Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
>> >> rugged/substantial airplane,
>
>> >Says who?
>
>Well, I haven't heard much one way or the other about Cirrus
>and Lancair as short or rough field airplanes.
>
>Has anyone?
>
>I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
>planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
>risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.

I think you will find it can get into a shorter field than a 172.
Depending on load it can get out of some pretty tight spots as well.

>
>It wouldn't surprise me if many people who just bought a $300K
>Cirrus or Lancair for its speed and avionics, aren't willing to
>risk it on a rough grass strip in backcountry Idaho.

Not many Bo pilots are willing to fly them at book figures to get that
short field performance. The vast majority land them about 10 to 15
knots faster than necessary according to the instructor at recurrency
training.

OTOH there are a number of $200,000 Bos that get flown into and out of
some pretty rough strips. Course we are talking a 8 to 10 year old
airplane for the same price as one of the new fixed gear generation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>
>Cheers,
>Sydney

[Jeff]

wrote:Anybody else see a contradiction in the
above? I, for one, would NEVER fly

> an airplane without pitot heat in IMC, especially anywhere near freezing
> conditions.

I was with my first instrument instructor, this was the reason why there was a
seocnd instructor. Fired the first, he did not know very much. We were told to
intercept 394 and he is looking at the OBS for 394 degrees ..I told him it was
V394 and he didnt believe me untill I showed it to him on the map.


> Um, do you know that the static port on the Cherokee is co-located on the
> pitot stalk, and is intended to be heated with the pitot heater? Your
> indicated loss of speed and altitude could well have been due to partial
> obstruction of the static port and/or pitot tube.

umm.....the problem could have been several things, one thing is was not was
something clogged. How do I know, because something clogged would be a false
reading, losing altitude and airspeed was real.

[Jeff]

At what point do people in these situations lose control?
Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not fixed.



Snowbird wrote:

> "Tom S." > wrote in message >...
>
> > And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite
> > frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
> > differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
> > types.
>
> In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
> control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.
>
> There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
> the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
> modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
> The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
> in make and model.
>
> Here is a link:
> http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2002/FULL%20TEXT/0219.pdf
>
> There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
> lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
> which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
> maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.
>
> There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
> experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
> time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
> with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
> recurrent training.
>
> Just to inject some facts.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Jeff]

what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
I dont understand the big difference.



markjen wrote:

> > > BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but
> mostly
> > > Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would
> be
> > > lower in a fixed-gear 182.
> >
> > Why would that be so?
>
> Look up the fatal accident rates of fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes/Saratogas vs.
> retractable-gear Lances/Saratogas. The airplanes are essentially identical
> except for the landing gear. The rate of the retract is about double. Both
> airplanes go out of control in clouds but the fixed-gears are more
> forgiving.
>
> Let's let this go. I have no interest in arguing over something that is
> widely known and accepted.
>
> - Mark

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> At what point do people in these situations lose control?
> Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
> I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not
fixed.
>

A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin
will happen much more quickly.

In much the same way, one needs closer attention (seeing ahead) doing 75 on
a freeway than on a side street doing 25.

Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
necessarily in that same category.

[markjen]

> what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
> I dont understand the big difference.

As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much
that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving when
they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and
speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of emerging
from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has either
broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the pilot
pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground.

I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the gear
down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally
stable as a rule.

- Mark

[Jeff]

But this is no different then if you were VFR so shouldnt be an issue. Power
management is part of flying any airplane.
I cant see this as being a reason for complex airplanes causing more accidents
in IMC.
Has to be something more.

"Tom S." wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> > At what point do people in these situations lose control?
> > Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
> > I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not
> fixed.
> >
>
> A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin
> will happen much more quickly.
>
> In much the same way, one needs closer attention (seeing ahead) doing 75 on
> a freeway than on a side street doing 25.
>
> Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
> necessarily in that same category.

[Jeff]

See, thats not an acceptable answer.
Power management is part of flying any airplane, VMC or IMC. Its part of your
scan. Personally, in smooth air, I will take my plane up to the yellow line and
have no concerns about losing control. But once established on the approach
course, you get it in landing configuration.
If you fly your airplane more then a few times, your used to the speed and know
when to slow down.
It has to be a different reason or the people that were in what ever study that
said this was not experienced in the aircraft they were flying or were yahoo's
and didnt care. I dont believe its the plane (complex/fixed gear), I think its
pilot error.


markjen wrote:

> > what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
> > I dont understand the big difference.
>
> As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much
> that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving when
> they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and
> speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of emerging
> from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has either
> broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the pilot
> pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground.
>
> I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the gear
> down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally
> stable as a rule.
>
> - Mark

[Snowbird]

"Tom S." > wrote in message >...
> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> > At what point do people in these situations lose control?
> > Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
> > I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not
> fixed.

> A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin
> will happen much more quickly.

The "loss of control" in the study was not necessarily a spin, nor
is a spin the outcome IRL loss of control accidents.

However, Jeff, I think the basic principle is right. In general,
there's less drag in a retract, and the margin between any sort
of distraction vs. loss of control or overspeeding and stressing
the airframe is shorter.

Some of the planes studied are also noted for responsive handling
rather than stability (ie Bonanza vs. Archer, Malibu vs 172) which
may also be an issue.

> Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
> necessarily in that same category.

I don't think difference in cruise speed is the issue. If you read
the study carefully, IIRC the vacuum failure was done during climbout
after a missed approach -- a point where the speed difference is
not as large. I believe the same protocol was followed during the
previous simulator study.

I note that there are several pairs of planes where the retract
apparently has a higher LOC accident rate than its fixed gear
"brother" yet the handling is pretty much the same and the
speed difference not that great. One can rationalize that difference
as being caused by different uses, but somehow I don't think people
are buying fixed-gear Saratogas to pop around the pattern on a nice
day.

Cheers,
Sydney

[markjen]

Jeff, you still don't get it. The issue is loss of lateral control on
instruments and has nothing to do with power or airspeed management.

Pilots make errors, they get distracted, instruments fail, turbulence
happens. For whatever reason, pilots fail to keep the wings level in
clouds. If you don't keep the wings level, bad things happen very quickly.
A fixed-gear (with more drag) gives pilots much time to regain control
before structural failure occurs.

If you're not an instrument pilot, you may not be familar with the issue of
loss of lateral control. It is a big issue and claims a bunch of lives
every year.

- Mark

[Scott Aron Bloom]

"Stu Gotts" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:02 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
> >Stu,
> >
> >> Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and
> >> pilots knew how to fly?
> >>
> >
> >Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just
> >flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get?
>
> Hardly a difference between recognizing an imminent spin then being
> able to maneuver (fly) out of it and being unable to get out due to
> design and pulling a chute, don't you think?
>
> My arms still hurt when I think about those old days, sonny!

Honestly, Ive heard this so many times before that I used to ignore it....
Then it happend
3000 feet in the clouds, just finishing the departure, setting up for my
approach into seatac, im in
a single engine 172XP, and the engine starts running VERY rough.

Net result, I broke out at 700 feet above the ground, luckily a road was
there, I landed fine, but
a car pulled out infront of me and I rear ended her. Every one was ok (me 2
passengers and the car on the ground)
but I still thank god I learned to fly IFR the hard way..... No auto pilot,
and my unusual attitudes were real.

Would I have pulled the parachute? Maybe, but im glad I had the skills to
FLY the plane first.

Scott
N1909V (the plane is totaled, but the report is in the NTSB database if you
want to read the prelim)

[Michael]

(Snowbird) wrote
> Some of the planes studied are also noted for responsive handling
> rather than stability (ie Bonanza vs. Archer, Malibu vs 172) which
> may also be an issue.

I would suggest that overall cruise efficiency is the real issue, not
speed or fixed/retract gear. Cruise efficiency is a function of drag.
Specifically, since cruise occurs well above best glide speed, it is
a function of parasite drag. If you fail the vacuum instruments in
the climb, the real life loss of control is going to be overspeed or
overgee while banked steeply. The airplane most efficient in cruise
will also accelerate into that situation the quickest.

I would love to see a Tiger vs. Arrow study - somehow, having flown
both, I have the feeling the fixed gear advantage would go away.

Michael

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Snowbird wrote:
> I know a number of 'Bo owners who are former Tiger owners
> and are happy to take their 'Bos into and out of fields I'm
> not comfortable taking my Tiger. Cliff Hansen and Andreas
> come to mind. They tell me the 'Bo is a much better short/
> rough plane than the Tiger (and again, it's not the price
> tag that's the issue, obviously).

Lots of power, highly effective flaps, nosegear that isn't held on by a
bent piece of wire, and plenty of prop clearance all add up to making a
Bonanza a good short/rough field performance aircraft. The S-35 Bonanza
can land and stop in a shorter distance than a C172N.

Not only that, they go fast too once you're cruising, and they fly
incredibly nicely.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom S. wrote:
> Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.

/me raises eyebrows.

I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did
you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash
avoidance?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Snowbird]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) wrote
> > Some of the planes studied are also noted for responsive handling
> > rather than stability (ie Bonanza vs. Archer, Malibu vs 172) which
> > may also be an issue.

> I would suggest that overall cruise efficiency is the real issue, not
> speed or fixed/retract gear. Cruise efficiency is a function of drag.
> Specifically, since cruise occurs well above best glide speed, it is
> a function of parasite drag. If you fail the vacuum instruments in
> the climb, the real life loss of control is going to be overspeed or
> overgee while banked steeply. The airplane most efficient in cruise
> will also accelerate into that situation the quickest.

I suspect you've identified a reasonable guess.

> I would love to see a Tiger vs. Arrow study - somehow, having flown
> both, I have the feeling the fixed gear advantage would go away.

Very possibly. Likewise with the new generation of fast-glass fixed
gears.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> But this is no different then if you were VFR so shouldnt be an issue.
Power
> management is part of flying any airplane.
> I cant see this as being a reason for complex airplanes causing more
accidents
> in IMC.
> Has to be something more.

I agree; we're getting a lot of statistical "correlation" but nothing
meaningful in terms of causation. So far, the "causation" is that
retractables are faster, and thus they more readily will "get away" from you
in IMC. Well DUH!! That's why they're there -- for PERFORMANCE.


> > Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
> > necessarily in that same category.
>

[Paul Sengupta]

This was where we came in on this loss of control
discussion a fair while ago...would a slippery ship like the
Cirrus be any better was the question that was asked.
I guess time will tell. (or an experiment much like the one
metioned).

Paul

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> I would love to see a Tiger vs. Arrow study - somehow, having flown
> both, I have the feeling the fixed gear advantage would go away.

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> See, thats not an acceptable answer.
> Power management is part of flying any airplane, VMC or IMC. Its part of
your
> scan. Personally, in smooth air, I will take my plane up to the yellow
line and
> have no concerns about losing control. But once established on the
approach
> course, you get it in landing configuration.
> If you fly your airplane more then a few times, your used to the speed and
know
> when to slow down.
> It has to be a different reason or the people that were in what ever study
that
> said this was not experienced in the aircraft they were flying or were
yahoo's
> and didnt care. I dont believe its the plane (complex/fixed gear), I think
its
> pilot error.

Quite so. I wonder what the record would be if they included twins and
turboprops (also "retractables" in the equasion? The "equal time pilots" in
that later category are different than the ones in the former.

>
>
> markjen wrote:
>
> > > what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
> > > I dont understand the big difference.
> >
> > As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much
> > that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving
when
> > they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and
> > speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of
emerging
> > from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has
either
> > broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the
pilot
> > pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground.
> >
> > I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the
gear
> > down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally
> > stable as a rule.
> >
> > - Mark
>

[Tom S.]

"Scott Aron Bloom" > wrote in message
...
> Honestly, Ive heard this so many times before that I used to ignore it....
> Then it happend
> 3000 feet in the clouds, just finishing the departure, setting up for my
> approach into seatac, im in
> a single engine 172XP, and the engine starts running VERY rough.
>
> Net result, I broke out at 700 feet above the ground, luckily a road was
> there, I landed fine, but
> a car pulled out infront of me and I rear ended her. Every one was ok (me
2
> passengers and the car on the ground)
> but I still thank god I learned to fly IFR the hard way..... No auto
pilot,
> and my unusual attitudes were real.
>
> Would I have pulled the parachute? Maybe, but im glad I had the skills to
> FLY the plane first.

Except (IIRC) Cirrus recommends NOT dicking around but going right to the
chute.

[Tom S.]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom S. wrote:
> > Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.
>
> /me raises eyebrows.
>
> I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did
> you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash
> avoidance?

Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped
teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's
teaching ONLY one facet. The analogy is teaching ONLY defensive driving and
not teaching how to recover from a skid. (Of course, that new favored police
citation "speed excessive for conditions" is a cover-all-occurrences and
it's meaningless.)

Recall the last line: "**** Happens".

[Flynn]

I remember the incident. Landing short on the approach to R17 must have
been pretty exciting (though landing short on R35 would be even more so!).
Good job to get down and walk away!

No Cirrus pilot I know of thinks of the BRS as anything less than a last
resort. Check out the COPA site for info on the CPPP program
www.cirruspilots.org Having invested money and time on spin training and
emergency maneuvers training, in the end, I like the idea of having one more
aid in case of a problem. I know my wife and daughter like knowing that if
I should become incapacitated they've got a way down (both are briefed on
what to do in that event as part of each flight's pax briefing).

"Scott Aron Bloom" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stu Gotts" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:02 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Stu,
> > >
> > >> Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and
> > >> pilots knew how to fly?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just
> > >flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get?
> >
> > Hardly a difference between recognizing an imminent spin then being
> > able to maneuver (fly) out of it and being unable to get out due to
> > design and pulling a chute, don't you think?
> >
> > My arms still hurt when I think about those old days, sonny!
>
> Honestly, Ive heard this so many times before that I used to ignore it....
> Then it happend
> 3000 feet in the clouds, just finishing the departure, setting up for my
> approach into seatac, im in
> a single engine 172XP, and the engine starts running VERY rough.
>
> Net result, I broke out at 700 feet above the ground, luckily a road was
> there, I landed fine, but
> a car pulled out infront of me and I rear ended her. Every one was ok (me
2
> passengers and the car on the ground)
> but I still thank god I learned to fly IFR the hard way..... No auto
pilot,
> and my unusual attitudes were real.
>
> Would I have pulled the parachute? Maybe, but im glad I had the skills to
> FLY the plane first.
>
> Scott
> N1909V (the plane is totaled, but the report is in the NTSB database if
you
> want to read the prelim)
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Michael wrote:
> That's not what he's talking about. The risk we're concerned with is
> not gear-up landing (which is, for all practical purposes, a financial
> rather than a life-and-lib risk) but loss of control in IMC. Having
> the gear hanging out means it takes that much longer to overspeed the
> airplane, giving the pilot that much more time to recover from the
> unusual attitude.

My strategy for handling a vacuum failure in the Bonanza was to slow
down, get the gear out, and put some flaps down. The trouble with the
one we had is that it would wag its tail quite a bit in any turbulence,
which would make flying without the attitude gyro and DG more
challenging than it should be. However, slowing the plane down and
putting the gear out and some flaps made it as docile as a C172, and
extremely draggy.

Of course, if you don't realise you've got a gyro failure until you are
actually in the unusual attitude and rapidly picking up speed, things
are going to be much tougher.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Snowbird wrote:
> I don't think difference in cruise speed is the issue. If you read
> the study carefully, IIRC the vacuum failure was done during climbout
> after a missed approach -- a point where the speed difference is
> not as large. I believe the same protocol was followed during the
> previous simulator study.

The vacuum failure was also done at a high workload point in the
climbout by the looks of things.

In a Cherokee, climbout from a missed approach or takeoff in IMC is
accomplished by going wide open throttle and leaving it there. In a
Bonanza, there's engine management to be done (go from takeoff to climb
power, which involves reducing throttle and prop), and raise the gear.
Also things happen A LOT quicker in the climb in a Bonanza. The Cherokee
in the study was probably climbing out at 800 fpm. The Bonanza was
probably climbing out at around 1600 fpm. (Lightly loaded, the takeoff
power climb rate of our club's S35 Bonanza would exceed 1800 fpm).

This means not only do you have to do more in the Bonanza, you have much
less time to do it in. Also, if you get into an unusual attitude,
relative to a Cherokee, you've got a tremendous amount of power helping
the slippery airframe to accelerate. A pilot who has only marginal
control and is mentally 'maxed out' might be able to pull it off in a
Cherokee. Add the extra tasks of putting the gear up, setting climb
power and climb RPM plus double the climb rate, a pilot who's 'maxed
out' will quite possibly be pushed over the edge.

> I note that there are several pairs of planes where the retract
> apparently has a higher LOC accident rate than its fixed gear
> "brother" yet the handling is pretty much the same and the
> speed difference not that great.

If the pilot is already 'maxed out' by operating on partial panel,
the additional task of retracting the gear might be enough to push
them over the edge if they are only marginally in control in the first
place. A bit like the straw that breaks the camel's back.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:18:43 -0700, "Tom S." >
wrote:

>
>"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Tom S. wrote:
>> > Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.
>>
>> /me raises eyebrows.
>>
>> I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did
>> you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash
>> avoidance?
>
>Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped
>teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's

Yah, but at least they went back to teaching stalls in addition to
stall avoidance.<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>teaching ONLY one facet. The analogy is teaching ONLY defensive driving and
>not teaching how to recover from a skid. (Of course, that new favored police
>citation "speed excessive for conditions" is a cover-all-occurrences and
>it's meaningless.)
>
>Recall the last line: "**** Happens".
>
>
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:18:43 -0700, "Tom S." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Tom S. wrote:
> >> > Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.
> >>
> >> /me raises eyebrows.
> >>
> >> I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did
> >> you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash
> >> avoidance?
> >
> >Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped
> >teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's
>
> Yah, but at least they went back to teaching stalls in addition to
> stall avoidance.<:-))
>
Well, thannnnkkk youuuu!!! :~)

[John Roncallo]

Potential Bo Buyer wrote:
> Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
> economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
> with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
> at work in this market.
>
> Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
> 4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
> place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
> 300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
> first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
> fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
> than the Bonanzas I'm considering.
>
> It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?

I have been coming to the same conclusion. In fact I see the Piper Arrow
and even the Archer and Tiger in the same boat when comaperd to the
Sr20. There are definatly new plane's about to make meat out of an old
plane market. If Toyota ever comes on the market it may become real
interesting.

John Roncallo

[Peter Gottlieb]

"John Roncallo" > wrote in message
. com...
> >
> > It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
> > for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?
>
> I have been coming to the same conclusion. In fact I see the Piper Arrow
> and even the Archer and Tiger in the same boat when comaperd to the
> Sr20. There are definatly new plane's about to make meat out of an old
> plane market. If Toyota ever comes on the market it may become real
> interesting.

Well, any help making aviation more affordable will speed up my purchase of
a plane, but I am not holding my breath. This will be a slow process, if it
even occurs in a significant manner at all.