Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:55:20 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:

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.

Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.

That is called defensive driving. Things like that may not fit you
macho image, but they save lives.

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

Well, just yourself in the fool categoy. You and Borchardt.

Go to hell, ****.

Tom,

It speaks volumes to me when a man involved in a dispute
can find no better retort than to call his opponent a slang
term for a woman's vagina.

It speaks even louder volumes when the opponent is a man.
You are explaining most clearly that you consider female
attributes derogatory, even more so female reproductive
attributes.

Excuse me: just how did you come into the world if not from
a mother, with her vagina (aka "****") in all likelihood
involved at some point in the process?

Unless we are to assume you emerged by bacterial fission
and were raised in a fermentation vessel, kindly show some
respect for womankind in your choice of insults.

If you can not adopt a higher level of discourse, I for one
recommend you to perambulate over to rec.aviation.homebuilt
where you will find true kindred souls -- although even there,
for many, this particular choice of language is considered to
be going too far.

Thank you.
Sydney

Stu Gotts wrote in message . ..
Just about everyone. Especially the owners.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:07:39 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

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

Says who?

Well, I haven't heard much one way or the other about Cirrus
and Lancair as short or rough field airplanes.

Has anyone?

I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.

It wouldn't surprise me if many people who just bought a $300K
Cirrus or Lancair for its speed and avionics, aren't willing to
risk it on a rough grass strip in backcountry Idaho.

Cheers,
Sydney

I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.

A Bonanza has a few things going for it: lower stall speed (51K vs. 59K),
bigger wheels/tires, and no wheel pants. The Bonanza also has a deserved
reputation for having an incredibly rugged gear system, although the Cirrus
fixed gear may be good also - the nose wheel looks incredibly flimsy, but
looks can be deceiving.

But I think you touched on the biggest reason - a 25-year-old Bonanza will
have been around the patch a few times, and bashing it around in the bush
won't seem like you're using your best china to serve pizza to a bunch of
guys over for Monday Night Football.

- Mark

"Snowbird" wrote in message om...

I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.

Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
anyday.

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

Okay...tell me the recommended spin recovery for Cirrus.

Tell me the low altitude recovery procedure.

Gentlemen:

In a perhaps futile attempt to inject some facts into a heated
discussion, I would like to direct your attention to 14 CFR Part 23:
http://tinyurl.com/v1bs or
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...8?OpenDocument
for those of you who don't like shorter links.

I believe there are three terms being used interchangeably with
some resulting confusion. Those are spin entry, incipient or
initial phase of spin, and spin (which means fully developed spin
ie more than 1 turn).

Spin entry means all the ingredients for a spin are there -- stall
and yaw -- but the plane hasn't actually begun to spin. A spin
entry must be recoverable in all certified aircraft within certified
CG loadings. A spin entry is not a spin, but rather a
stall where conditions are right to produce a spin (ie yaw) if prompt
corrective action isn't taken.

A spin entry should be recoverable in a few hundred feet in all
aircraft.

Prior to Cirrus, the FAA requires all planes certified in the normal
category to be able to recover from the initial phase of a spin
(incipient
spin) -- the first turn or 3 seconds, whichever is *longer* -- using
normal
control inputs, within one additional turn. The only exception is if
they are certified as spin *resistant*.

An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to
recover
than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal
category,
it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at
the
controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft,
including
those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to
recover
from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern.

Bruce Lansburg wrote an article for AOPA regarding alternate
certification
adopted for Cirrus and Columbia:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html

Basically, the rationale was to make the Cirrus more spin resistant
(although it is not certified as spin resistant) and then to install
the ballistic chute, which is supposed to take about 1000 ft.

This is not *less* than most normal-category aircraft would take to
recover from an incipient spin; it is comparable. A few, docile
spinning aircraft with proficient pilots at the controls, could
recover in less altitude. Maybe a few hundred feet, but that's not
typical of normal-category aircraft which aren't certified for spins.
It's more typical of utility or aerobatic aircraft with *good* spin
characteristics (and note that even aircraft which are certified for
spins may have lousy recovery characteristics outside the utility
CG envelope).

Hope this helps,
Sydney

"ArtP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:55:20 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:

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.

Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.

That is called defensive driving. Things like that may not fit you
macho image, but they save lives.

"Defensive driving" and "vehicle handling" are two very distinct and
different perspectives.

If you hadn't snipped my parts of the entire post, you'd read my comparison
to a skid pan. A skid pan is NOT where they teach defensive driving.

Study a little bit: http://www.bondurant.com/pages/home.html

"markjen" wrote in message
news:1B6tb.199815$Fm2.187055@attbi_s04...
The accident rates of retracts vs. fixed-gears are well-documented.

Where the type of gear is a factor? Or is it that retractables are more
often flown in bad conditions due to their complexity and higher performance
(which is why more complex/higher performance equipment is manufactured in
the first place)??

You're saying you're a pilot who can handle it, fine. But the accident
rates support the contention that average pilots are suffering from
loss-of-control relatively often and that they fare worse in retracts.

Again, what are the conditions flown in by 172's vs. Bonanza's vs. twins vs.
Turboprops vs. Citations...

BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but mostly
Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would be
lower in a fixed-gear 182.

Why would that be so?

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Well, just yourself in the fool categoy. You and Borchardt.

Go to hell, ****.

Tom,

It speaks volumes to me when a man involved in a dispute
can find no better retort than to call his opponent a slang
term for a woman's vagina.

I have other alternatives, but its doubtful they would be understood by the
"fool".

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

I know Bonanzas have a (surprising, to me) good rep as short/rough
planes by people who really know how to fly them and are willing to
risk "runway rash" by taking them out of rough fields.

Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
anyday.

Ummm....isn't the gear the same between the Nav and the Bo' ??