Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

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

"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?

"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.

"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?)

"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?

"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?

"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?

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)

"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.

"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).