(Snowbird) wrote
True. And IMO it's not comparable to a Cherokee or C172 in terms
of ease of handling.

I concur. It's somewhere halfway between Cherokee and Bonanza.

But the point is, I don't think it's so clear
that the IR doesn't make a difference until you get into the
"complex speedster" class. It's not complex, and the top speed
isn't *that* much different. (Much though we fans would like to
believe it is *g*)

Well, hold on a sec. In my experience, the Cherokees cruise 115, the
Tigers 135, and the Bonanzas 155-180 depending on year and engine.
And there's no question that an IR is almost a requirement (in terms
of insurance) on even an older Bonanza. The complexity is, IMO,
irrelevant. The point is - does the plane have the speed and range?
Everything else is a matter of how you equip it. Just as a reference,
the Tiger I instructed in had dual coms (one with nav/GS), KNS-80 with
GS, ADF, audio panel with marker beacons, autopilot, Strikefinder,
backup vacuum, and an external (handheld) GPS with internal battery
backup.

Well, one reason I think I make a good data point is that we've
pretty much flown the same hrs each year since our daughter was
born -- 100 to 150 split between us, more or less equally, and
when we renew our insurance in late Feb. we usually haven't flown
that much in the last 90 days either. We definately fall into a
common pattern of "get current in late winter/early spring, fly
a lot all summer and fall, barely exercise the engine in winter".

Maybe that's the key. Recent time also matters. On the other hand,
that doesn't make much sense - after all, I would think little recent
experience would be bad for IFR flight.

Not as they are commonly equipped they aren't. At least the Stinson
108s; I know, that's what we were shopping for before DH got fired
and we raised our budget *g*.

If you put in a vacuum pump rather than venturi vacuum, a modern
6 pack, and modern nav/com/txpdr/GS there's no reason why it wouldn't
be just as capable. OTOH, the FAA doesn't make it easy to do so.

First comment - I've flown IFR with venturi vacuum. As far as I'm
concerned, there's only a slight liability in terms of spinning up the
gyros, and a major advantage in that a venturi won't fail
catastrophically the way a dry pump will.

Second comment - most of these planes do have the 6 necessary
instruments. While a non-standard arrangement is a liability if the
plane is a rental, an owner flying his own plane soon gets used to it.
I've flown IFR in 2 different planes with nonstandard layouts, and
don't consider it an issue.

Your last point is valid - most of these planes DON'T have a
reasonable IFR stack, and most C-172's and Cherokees do. The FAA
doesn't make installing a radio stack any more difficult in a Stinson
than in a Cherokee, but installing a stack isn't trivial (BTDT).
Those pilots I know who own these older planes and are IFR rated tend
to have an IFR stack, and those who are not tend not to.

Bottom line - I don't think the radio stack is the issue. However, I
suspect that the people who gravitate towards these older planes tend
to be, on the whole, fairly competent scud runners. On the other
hand, I think the people who have more modern training gravitate
towards the more modern planes. That may make all the difference.

Michael