Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

Oh I think my Tiger would get in and out of some pretty short fields (I
wasn't comfortable say going in and out of Ken Blackmans 1600' grass
strip...but he did all the time). It was more my comfort in my abilities.
In a high DA situation, you're right it was not a great performer at all.
Cliff did tell me that he thought the Bonanza was stout as all get out and
faster on nearly the same fuel as the Tiger.

The Cirrus, with only 35 hours in her, is an awesome climber in just about
everything I've hit so far. Highest DA for takeoff so far was around 5500'
in Helena. 2 aboard and full fuel we climbed out at well more than 1000'
per minute. Typically around here on anything approaching standard days to
say 1000' DA I'll sometimes hit close to 2000' fpm.

Gear's pretty stout and I believe built like the Tiger's...with the same
nose wheel pluses and minuses. Slow flight was surprising in that you've
got aileron authority so deep into the stall. I'm comfortable with 2000'
feet as a minimum strip depending on load, DA, etc etc. But that'll get me
out in 1/2 or less. The only thing I'd be real concerned about on a back
country strip are the wheel pants. The come down so low on the wheels that
I'd worry about cracking 'em.

All in all the transition for a Tiger driver is very easy. Sight lines are
similar, same care with landing speeds, same don't spin 'em....oh wait, that
started this monster thread didn't it? Heavier bird in feel but that
also smooths out the bumps.

Lots o'fun.

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"Flynn" wrote in message
news:jZetb.3278$Dw6.24546@attbi_s02...
I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country
strips
either! For that, give me a Cessna 182...

Hi Flynn,

Well, I don't know what performance you felt you could get
from your Tiger (yours evidently differed from mine in several
respects), but my reason for not taking on back country strips
in my Tiger isn't the price of the machine.

It's the fact that the Tiger just isn't (IMO) a good back
country plane. It'll land short enough, but with normal
aspiration and a fixed prop typically pitched for cruise,
it just isn't a good climber at high DA. I love my Tigger-plane,
but I try to be honest about his weaknesses as well as his
strengths.

So, Flynn, now that you're a Cirrus owner, tell us what the
gear is like and about the climb performance at high DA? How
does it handle at low speeds? What would you consider a
comfortable, consistantly achieveable landing distance? If
you wanted to hit some back country strips, would it do the
job?

Cheers,
Sydney

Before I bought the Cirrus I did a search of all reported accidents in the
database. In fact, I was only able to find two spins. The rest were normal
pilot errors, normal in the sense that they happen in every type flown by
Part 91. Maybe there's another database but I used the link off the ASF
site.

I do think that the real risk factor has nothing at all to do with spin or
stall characteristics. Sydney you pointed out the certification
requirements and the recovery up to and into the incipient is normal.
Beyond that, pull the chute. And you're absolutely right....in the pattern
if you stall and flip it over you have one and only one correction available
in my opinion and experience (see Rich Stowell's site).

The real risk is all the gadgetry in the panel. That's the upshot of the
TAA study as well. So I'm off to practice!

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

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.

1000 feet does not sounds like "3 seconds/ first turn"....

Hi Tom,

The catch, if you read the Part 23 certification standards, is that
after 3 seconds or the first turn (whichever is LONGER), the plane
must recover "w/in one additional turn".

IOW, 1000-1500 ft may actually represent more than one turn of
spin, if the plane in question really snaps around quickly, PLUS
an additional turn to recover.

Hope this clarifies?

In his excellent out-of-print book "Stalls Spins and Safety", Sammy
Mason points out that a plane which takes a full turn to recover
after proper control inputs are applied has *lousy* spin characteristics.

Well, apparently there are a number of planes certified in the normal
category, which have just such *lousy* spin characteristics.

My point is don't bet the rent that a plane certified in the normal
category can recover from an incipient spin in less than 1000 ft.

Reading the NTSB accident reports, it sounds like they've had quite a
few
spin accidents (some fatal, some not...I'm looking at ALL
accidents/incidents, not just the FATAL ones)

I defer to you here. I'm not familiar with the spin accident
record of the Cirrus.

My point was to direct attention to the actual certification
requirements, and to correct any misapprehension that planes
certified in the "normal" category to recover from an incipient
spin with normal control inputs, necessarily have a realistic
chance to recover from a low-altitude spin (say, at traffic
pattern altitude)

Hopefully I've done that.

It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs
Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's
amazing. I
saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the
F33
has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air.

The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have
been
successful.

This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also
have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring
the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the
F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports;
does this seem plausible?

Regards,
Sydney

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

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.

In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.

There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
in make and model.

Here is a link:
http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf

There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.

There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
recurrent training.

Just to inject some facts.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Hopefully I've done that.

Yes...I was thinking "stall". Haven't done spins in YEARS!!


It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs
Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's
amazing. I
saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the
F33
has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air.

The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have
been
successful.

This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also
have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring
the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the
F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports;
does this seem plausible?

Considering the Cirrus production numbers are only about three years old, it
may be a new learning experience, both for individual pilots, as well as
pilots in general, learning the quirks of the new design.

If you do a search in the NTSB database on "Cirrus", there's an astonishing
number of accidents in just the last three years (including a seemingly high
number of fatals) when considering the number of SR-20/22's in the fleet.

I have no desire to play test pilot, so I'll stick with the "known quantity"
when I buy (right after Jan. 1).

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

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.

In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.

There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
in make and model.

Is that a factor that it's easier to lose control of a Porsche at 150 than a
Honda Accord at 65?


Here is a link:
http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf

There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.

There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
recurrent training.

Just to inject some facts.


In a certain respect, I think we're comparing apples and oranges (or Honda's
and Porsche's) :~)

IAC, I stand corrected (sorta).

On 14 Nov 2003 11:17:20 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

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.

I think you will find it can get into a shorter field than a 172.
Depending on load it can get out of some pretty tight spots as well.


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.

Not many Bo pilots are willing to fly them at book figures to get that
short field performance. The vast majority land them about 10 to 15
knots faster than necessary according to the instructor at recurrency
training.

OTOH there are a number of $200,000 Bos that get flown into and out of
some pretty rough strips. Course we are talking a 8 to 10 year old
airplane for the same price as one of the new fixed gear generation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


Cheers,
Sydney

wrote:Anybody else see a contradiction in the
above? I, for one, would NEVER fly

an airplane without pitot heat in IMC, especially anywhere near freezing
conditions.

I was with my first instrument instructor, this was the reason why there was a
seocnd instructor. Fired the first, he did not know very much. We were told to
intercept 394 and he is looking at the OBS for 394 degrees ..I told him it was
V394 and he didnt believe me untill I showed it to him on the map.


Um, do you know that the static port on the Cherokee is co-located on the
pitot stalk, and is intended to be heated with the pitot heater? Your
indicated loss of speed and altitude could well have been due to partial
obstruction of the static port and/or pitot tube.

umm.....the problem could have been several things, one thing is was not was
something clogged. How do I know, because something clogged would be a false
reading, losing altitude and airspeed was real.

At what point do people in these situations lose control?
Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not fixed.



Snowbird wrote:

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

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.

In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.

There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
in make and model.

Here is a link:
http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf

There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.

There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
recurrent training.

Just to inject some facts.

Cheers,
Sydney

what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
I dont understand the big difference.



markjen wrote:

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.

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

- Mark

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
At what point do people in these situations lose control?
Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not
fixed.


A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin
will happen much more quickly.

In much the same way, one needs closer attention (seeing ahead) doing 75 on
a freeway than on a side street doing 25.

Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
necessarily in that same category.