Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

On 13 Nov 2003 09:44:05 -0800
(gross_arrow) wrote:

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:tRNsb.1659$iS6.406@fed1read04...
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



perhaps, but the odds of losing (not loosing) _all_ of your engines
simultaneously go up by several orders of magnitude.

But it's the wallet that I was talking about. Those twins will wreck a
good wallet in no time.


g_a

"R. Hubbell" wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:45:11 -0800
Jeff wrote:

losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 ..
ka-boom

Not for my wallet.

You don't have to pay for the hospital or funeral expenses?

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:zhWsb.140377$mZ5.969124@attbi_s54...


Stu Gotts wrote:

The high insurance cost is attributed to the inability to properly
repair any damage. Almost any "bend" is a break and the thing is a
total. Sooner or later someone will come up with a way to fix them as
easily as they do Corvettes.

They can be fixed very easily today. Any mechanic who has worked with
both will tell you that the metal airplane is harder to fix and takes
longer.

Cosmetic damage, yes. Structural damage no way. Even the Cirrus web site
alludes to that.

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.

A little more? How about double!

- Mark

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

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.

I guess you're just a great pilot. But for us average pilots, loss of
control is a very big concern.

(I'd love to put you in a simulator and start introducing random instrument
failures in heavy turbulence while flying a tough approach. Hmmm .... the
turn coordinator and horizon don't seem to agree. Which is right? You've
got about five seconds to figure it out before you die.)

- Mark

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

And by the way, Bonanzas certainly don't have
anything to brag about, safetywise.

Well, I don't know about that. The numbers for Bonanza are actually pretty
good. Overall, they're right in the averages for single-retracts. Exclude
the early v-tails (up to about 1960) and they're better than average.
Include just the F33A and A36 straight-tails, and they're about best in the
fleet, only slightly below the best (C182RG). The rates are noticeably
better than the C210 and big Cherokee retracts.

Someone is probably going to cry foul over excluding the early Bonanzas, but
pre-1960 airplanes have very poor accident rates in general and it doesn't
make sense to me to compare the accident rates of a brand new design with
one first produced in 1947. A 1980 Bonanza is quite a different airplane
from a 1947 V-tail.

- Mark

Stu,

You're obviously not an owner!


And your point is?

Just to clarify mine: A Bonanza owner will hardly dislike the Bo - for
Pete's sake, he bought one. For a more balanced view, you might have to
ask other people.

And it's ok that some people like brand B, while other like brand C
better. That's subjective. But some of the things discussed in this
thread are objective facts - let's at least get those straight.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stu,

And you have what? A little more than an hour in each?


Well, an hour was what YOU claimed was enough, wasn't it? (I have more,
rest assured)

Stu, there's no need to get upset, we're just trading opinions here.
And trying to get some facts straight.

BTW, there are no 30 year old aircraft that come even close to the
level of interior design you find in a modern "plastic" aircraft, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)