Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

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

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" 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

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.

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

"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

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

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

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.

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