Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:59 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

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.

I've seen some absolutely wonderful interiors in the Bonanzas, and
although the plastic jobs are extremely well appointed, the factory
interior can't compare to a refurbished one you see in some Bonanzas.
Then again, most Cirrus and Lancairs haven't been around long enough
for the customizers to get to them.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:02 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Stu,

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


Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just
flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get?

Hardly a difference between recognizing an imminent spin then being
able to maneuver (fly) out of it and being unable to get out due to
design and pulling a chute, don't you think?

My arms still hurt when I think about those old days, sonny!

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:07 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Stu,

Wow! That's **** poor, isn't it?


No, it's a wrong statement, that's all.

Coming back to the original thread subject, from the reactions here, at
least some owners of traditional aircraft must be really afraid of
value depriciation - how else could one explain the totally
non-rational reactions to the new aircraft?

If the internet was around in the 30's, we would be having the same
conversation about those new fangled aluminum aeroplanes that are
riveted together. Wont last, they'll rust out.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." wrote:
Just what about their safety record do you find so
encouraging?

Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due
to their spin characteristics.

Which is why the insurance is so high.

Baloney.

That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more careful in
snipping previous comments.

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Tom S. wrote:

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

Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea?

Who you callin' wacko?

Would being wacko get me off a homicide charge?


Other than the fact that they are both tricycle geared, there is very
little simular about them. For starters, the Navion actuates the gear
hydraulically, while the Bonanza does it electrically.

And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing gear'
nod to the Navion.

Why?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:00:27 -0500
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:



"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?


Losing one of two or one of one is the same to my wallet.
Regarding the funeral expenses no I wouldn't have to pay those. ;-)
Regarding the hospital expenses, if that happened I'd probably not be
worried about the expenses but gald to be included in the living.

That assumes that losing an engine means I crash. I be engine outs are
low on the crash totem pole.

R. Hubbell


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

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:45:35 -0700
"Tom S." wrote:


"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:L5Ysb.1806$iS6.66@fed1read04...
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.

Almost worse than having kids (twins, no less).

Well, Kids are a great investment! No regrets there, but wih a twin I'd
sure have regrets. Now if I overflew water often a twin would make a good
choice, but then I'd want an inline twin. Adam aircrafts?

R. Hubbell

"markjen" wrote in message
news:Iwftb.198900$HS4.1696819@attbi_s01...
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?

Look up the fatal accident rates of fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes/Saratogas
vs.
retractable-gear Lances/Saratogas. The airplanes are essentially
identical
except for the landing gear. The rate of the retract is about double.
Both
airplanes go out of control in clouds but the fixed-gears are more
forgiving.

And the fact the rate of retracts that are used in all conditions is
probably double or more negates your point.

Let's let this go. I have no interest in arguing over something that is
widely known and accepted.

The numbers yes; the reasons, no.

My mother is not likely to have a serious crash on the freeway since she
DOESN'T DRIVE on the freeway.

IOW: people don't buy serious hardware like a retractable to go for joyrides
in clear weather like many fixed drivers gears do.

NOTE: Finally someone come close to mentioning CAUSATION in response to the
question, but even there, they miss a significant point, that being how the
various forms of equipment are used: serious travel vs puddle jumping.

Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea?

Who you callin' wacko?

Uhhh, I was saying your IDEA was wacko. I can't say anything about you.
"On the internet no one knows you're a dog."

And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing gear'
nod to the Navion.

Why?

I'm no expert on the Navion, so Ron or Margie is going to have to correct me
here but...

1) Larger tires
2) Larger gear struts
3) more travel in the oleos
4) most (all?) linkages are larger

Indeed most everything on a Navion is larger/stronger than on a Bonanza.
Its also a heck of a lot heavier.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

Stu,

The point I make is that you may not have sufficient experience to
make the statements you've made.


Well, thank God you're around, since your opinion counts, and mine
doesn't, right?


The facts I'm talking about are regarding accidents, spin
characteristics and certification.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)