Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

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.

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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.

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