A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 12th 03, 06:58 PM
Potential Bo Buyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

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?
  #2  
Old November 12th 03, 07:49 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Potential Bo Buyer" wrote:
Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat.


The market for practically everything is flat except for light twins,
where the market is well below "flat."

Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
4-place Bonanzas?


Yes, IMO.

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.


Yeah, but they cost quite a bit more, so you're comparing apples to
oranges.

It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
for a big change. Agree?


For the newer A36s, yes. Same thing for newer Mooneys. I predict neither
of these aircraft will still be in production five years from now.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #3  
Old November 12th 03, 08:56 PM
markjen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #4  
Old November 12th 03, 09:07 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"markjen" wrote:
Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
rugged/substantial airplane,


Says who?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #5  
Old November 12th 03, 09:15 PM
Zeno
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

a Bonanza is .... arguably more comfortable

says who ?


  #6  
Old November 12th 03, 10:04 PM
markjen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

a Bonanza is .... arguably more comfortable

says who ?


Says me. We're just expressing opinions here.

- Mark


  #7  
Old November 12th 03, 10:59 PM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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




  #8  
Old November 12th 03, 11:42 PM
Larry Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Potential Bo Buyer" wrote in message
om...
[...]
It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?


Dunno, but a friend just returning from the AOPA fly-in said customers were
lined up there buying Cirrus SR22's. He said they were selling like
hotcakes.


  #9  
Old November 12th 03, 11:47 PM
Michael 182
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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






  #10  
Old November 13th 03, 01:32 AM
markjen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.