Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

Tom,

Not at all. So let's talk about that other accident. Have you actually
read the convoluted account the pilots of the accident aircraft? Went
into clouds, went out, pulled the chute, nothing happened, landed
alright, then the chute deployed. Well, am I the only one having a
little trouble with all that? I doubt it.

What other accidents are there that relate to the chute? You and I know
the one where the chute worked just fine, I guess.

Point me to the reports, and we'll discuss all you like.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tom,

It takes...what, 1000 feet for a chute to deploy and become
effective? That'll work great in the landing pattern.


The 100 number is wrong, AIFAK. Also, do you really want to tell us
spins in other aircraft are survivable/recoverable in other aircraft?
Come on!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tom,

Is that ALL it says?


Well, yes, with regard to that. It's quite simple. The POH says, in so
many words: If you are in a spin, pull the chute. Intentional spins
prohibited.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
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?

WIM, was "Why a Baron (one "r", not two), instead of a Bonanza or something
else".

Comparing a Baron to a SR22 is "apples and oranges".

twice the maint. yes, but its 3 times the plane.

My doctor just had his E55 engines replaced with Millennium remans/Tornado
Alley Whirlwinds. He's awe struck!! :~)

Dear Tom,

it may be you who need some attention paying. Here's the full line of
discussion that led us he

Someone said:
they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

to which I said:

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


To which you said:

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

Tell me the low altitude recovery procedure.


To which I said:
I will - when you give me numbers that link the Cirrus safety record
to
spin characteristics. Don't try to change the subject just because you
can't produce them!

To which you now say:
We didn't say it was STRICTLY SPIN ACCIDENTS.


Well, coming back to the original statement "they have atrocious safety
records due to their spin characteristics.", I can't see how you can
arrive at your most recent statement without a SERIOUS lack of
attention.

Who's we, anyway?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 ..
ka-boom

KABOOM is the sound that a lot of light twins make when losing an engine.
Lose one, you might as well lose both.

Now, if you're spinning turbines, rather than popping pistons, it's a whole
different story.
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182040-1.html

"markjen" wrote in message
news:4L%sb.145785$9E1.745940@attbi_s52...
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.)

And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite
frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
types.

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
m...
"Tom S." wrote in message
...
"Jeff" wrote in message
...
If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron


Why? Twice the maintenance with little more in performance.

Because the engine out performance is infinitely better.

Actually, it isn't...odd as that may sound.

"Flynn" wrote in message
news:4DWsb.143715$9E1.726950@attbi_s52...
That's just wrong. Go through the Accident records. Only 2 are spins and
one was by a test pilot.

Read the rest of the accident reports; I said CHARACTERISTCS, not just due
to SPINS.

It sounds like when it let's go, it REALLY LET'S GO.


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

"Flynn" wrote in message
news:OTWsb.143359$275.434437@attbi_s53...
In the end, it's up to the individual buyer. For $300 you can get a new
Cirrus....comparables are what? T182's I guess?

Are you serious? $300K for a T182?

Diamond Twins? Not a new
Bo' and certainly not a Baron.

Which is why the suject line is stupid ; contrasting a new design with
designs that are 56 and 40 years old.

The Beech's are terrific aircraft. My
uncles went back and forth between them as I was growing up so they're
part
of my flying memories.

Yes, they are..what they are is a KNOWN QUANTITY that has well known
characteristics/ qualities, something the new machines lack.

Us older folks call it EXPERIENCE.

The 182's are terrific machines as well.

Ahhh....kinda, but a 182 is a Chevy, a F33A OTOH, is a Caddy (okay..an
Acura, in my case).

I'm guessing that most (all?) talking down the SR22 haven't even flown
one.
Try them all, do your homework and get the one that strikes your fancy.
BTW, Cirrus is selling around 50-60 planes per month. 16 delivered week
before last. Something's clearly going right there.

Fads?

Here, try this: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm