Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"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.

Stu,

Especially the owners.


What a surprise! "Oh, my 150k dollars investment really is a piece of
junk. That other plane from Cirrus or Lancair is much better." Like
you're gonna hear that often.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stu,

Anyone that has ever flown more than an hour in each.


Sorry, but that's just BS.

I, for one, find the Cirrus much more comfortable than the Bo - and I
have.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

"Tom S." wrote:
They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"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

"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.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:45 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Tom S." wrote:
They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.

They might have if the chute worked. As a result of a number of
failures of the chute the entire deployment mechanism was replaced
(after the fatal accident just mentioned). The insurance companies
seem to think that the Cirrus accident rate is high and they are
charging a lot for insurance. They are also reluctant to insure pilots
for an SR22 with less that 500 hours and an instrument rating. Just
what about their safety record do you find so encouraging?

"Tom S." wrote:
So let's send all the Bonanza's to the junkyard.

Let's send all the cars over 10 years old there too.

Gee, some V-tails are older than most people in this group.

And they're still being maintained and flown because, until recently, a
new airplane was virtually the same as a thirty-year old one. There was
little incentive to buy new. You could by an old Bo in decent shape and
make it as good as a new one (or better) for a lot less money.

Hint for the slow: We're talking USED aircraft.

....and the effect that the new designs may be having on used aircraft
prices. I was in the market for about an '85 model Bo or 210 a while
back, but now I'd seriously think about spending a little more and
getting a Cirrus.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Tom,

they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.


Do you maybe have any source for numbers that support this statement?
Hint: They don't exist. You're wrong.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)