Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"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.

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 =---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

"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.