Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"John E. Carty" wrote in message
...
They had to include the chute to get this aircraft certified because of
its
lack of spin recovery :-)

This is called (as on here called it..) PROGRESS! NOT!!!!

Do you know anything about the comanche 400's ?

this comanche 400 achieved a TAS of 275 mph at 19,000 ft
http://www.comanchepilot.com/Tech_Ar..._comanche.html



Dan Luke wrote:

.

The
comanche 400

Oh, puh-leeeze!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

You're obviously not an owner!

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:55:36 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

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.

And you have what? A little more than an hour in each? Next time be
a bit more observant, or pick a 30 year old airplane with the same
interior level than the plastic one you're trying to compare it with.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:55:37 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

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.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:33:25 GMT, ArtP
wrote:

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?

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.

Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and
pilots knew how to fly?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:55:50 -0500, Peter R. wrote:

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.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:08:12 GMT, "John E. Carty"
wrote:

They had to include the chute to get this aircraft certified because of its
lack of spin recovery :-)

Wow! That's **** poor, isn't it? Kinda makes the subject a bit moot
(or mute for Ron)!

"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.

Tom;
Sounds like you either own one of these pups or have a good friend
that lets you ride and wash!

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:40:56 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

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.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:43:24 -0800, Jeff wrote:

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.

And especially comforting at night over the mountains.

(only 1 "n" in Baron, but a lot more $$$)


"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.

I consider it more of a fun to fly airplane, the plastic one, whereas
the Bo's, although a delight, are more of a mission type. More useful
load, etc. Personal opinion of a Bonanza man. Not too sure about the
roomier claim. Sounds like the sicilian claims Mooney people have
when they say the backwards tailed wonders have only 4" less cabin
room than a Bonanza. Pure bull****!

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:11:38 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"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.