Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
But this is no different then if you were VFR so shouldnt be an issue.
Power
management is part of flying any airplane.
I cant see this as being a reason for complex airplanes causing more
accidents
in IMC.
Has to be something more.

I agree; we're getting a lot of statistical "correlation" but nothing
meaningful in terms of causation. So far, the "causation" is that
retractables are faster, and thus they more readily will "get away" from you
in IMC. Well DUH!! That's why they're there -- for PERFORMANCE.


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

This was where we came in on this loss of control
discussion a fair while ago...would a slippery ship like the
Cirrus be any better was the question that was asked.
I guess time will tell. (or an experiment much like the one
metioned).

Paul

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
I would love to see a Tiger vs. Arrow study - somehow, having flown
both, I have the feeling the fixed gear advantage would go away.

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
See, thats not an acceptable answer.
Power management is part of flying any airplane, VMC or IMC. Its part of
your
scan. Personally, in smooth air, I will take my plane up to the yellow
line and
have no concerns about losing control. But once established on the
approach
course, you get it in landing configuration.
If you fly your airplane more then a few times, your used to the speed and
know
when to slow down.
It has to be a different reason or the people that were in what ever study
that
said this was not experienced in the aircraft they were flying or were
yahoo's
and didnt care. I dont believe its the plane (complex/fixed gear), I think
its
pilot error.

Quite so. I wonder what the record would be if they included twins and
turboprops (also "retractables" in the equasion? The "equal time pilots" in
that later category are different than the ones in the former.



markjen wrote:

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

As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much
that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving
when
they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and
speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of
emerging
from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has
either
broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the
pilot
pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground.

I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the
gear
down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally
stable as a rule.

- Mark

"Scott Aron Bloom" wrote in message
...
Honestly, Ive heard this so many times before that I used to ignore it....
Then it happend
3000 feet in the clouds, just finishing the departure, setting up for my
approach into seatac, im in
a single engine 172XP, and the engine starts running VERY rough.

Net result, I broke out at 700 feet above the ground, luckily a road was
there, I landed fine, but
a car pulled out infront of me and I rear ended her. Every one was ok (me
2
passengers and the car on the ground)
but I still thank god I learned to fly IFR the hard way..... No auto
pilot,
and my unusual attitudes were real.

Would I have pulled the parachute? Maybe, but im glad I had the skills to
FLY the plane first.

Except (IIRC) Cirrus recommends NOT dicking around but going right to the
chute.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom S. wrote:
Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.

/me raises eyebrows.

I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did
you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash
avoidance?

Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped
teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's
teaching ONLY one facet. The analogy is teaching ONLY defensive driving and
not teaching how to recover from a skid. (Of course, that new favored police
citation "speed excessive for conditions" is a cover-all-occurrences and
it's meaningless.)

Recall the last line: "**** Happens".

I remember the incident. Landing short on the approach to R17 must have
been pretty exciting (though landing short on R35 would be even more so!).
Good job to get down and walk away!

No Cirrus pilot I know of thinks of the BRS as anything less than a last
resort. Check out the COPA site for info on the CPPP program
www.cirruspilots.org Having invested money and time on spin training and
emergency maneuvers training, in the end, I like the idea of having one more
aid in case of a problem. I know my wife and daughter like knowing that if
I should become incapacitated they've got a way down (both are briefed on
what to do in that event as part of each flight's pax briefing).

"Scott Aron Bloom" wrote in message
...

"Stu Gotts" wrote in message
...
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!

Honestly, Ive heard this so many times before that I used to ignore it....
Then it happend
3000 feet in the clouds, just finishing the departure, setting up for my
approach into seatac, im in
a single engine 172XP, and the engine starts running VERY rough.

Net result, I broke out at 700 feet above the ground, luckily a road was
there, I landed fine, but
a car pulled out infront of me and I rear ended her. Every one was ok (me
2
passengers and the car on the ground)
but I still thank god I learned to fly IFR the hard way..... No auto
pilot,
and my unusual attitudes were real.

Would I have pulled the parachute? Maybe, but im glad I had the skills to
FLY the plane first.

Scott
N1909V (the plane is totaled, but the report is in the NTSB database if
you
want to read the prelim)

In article , Michael wrote:
That's not what he's talking about. The risk we're concerned with is
not gear-up landing (which is, for all practical purposes, a financial
rather than a life-and-lib risk) but loss of control in IMC. Having
the gear hanging out means it takes that much longer to overspeed the
airplane, giving the pilot that much more time to recover from the
unusual attitude.

My strategy for handling a vacuum failure in the Bonanza was to slow
down, get the gear out, and put some flaps down. The trouble with the
one we had is that it would wag its tail quite a bit in any turbulence,
which would make flying without the attitude gyro and DG more
challenging than it should be. However, slowing the plane down and
putting the gear out and some flaps made it as docile as a C172, and
extremely draggy.

Of course, if you don't realise you've got a gyro failure until you are
actually in the unusual attitude and rapidly picking up speed, things
are going to be much tougher.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , Snowbird wrote:
I don't think difference in cruise speed is the issue. If you read
the study carefully, IIRC the vacuum failure was done during climbout
after a missed approach -- a point where the speed difference is
not as large. I believe the same protocol was followed during the
previous simulator study.

The vacuum failure was also done at a high workload point in the
climbout by the looks of things.

In a Cherokee, climbout from a missed approach or takeoff in IMC is
accomplished by going wide open throttle and leaving it there. In a
Bonanza, there's engine management to be done (go from takeoff to climb
power, which involves reducing throttle and prop), and raise the gear.
Also things happen A LOT quicker in the climb in a Bonanza. The Cherokee
in the study was probably climbing out at 800 fpm. The Bonanza was
probably climbing out at around 1600 fpm. (Lightly loaded, the takeoff
power climb rate of our club's S35 Bonanza would exceed 1800 fpm).

This means not only do you have to do more in the Bonanza, you have much
less time to do it in. Also, if you get into an unusual attitude,
relative to a Cherokee, you've got a tremendous amount of power helping
the slippery airframe to accelerate. A pilot who has only marginal
control and is mentally 'maxed out' might be able to pull it off in a
Cherokee. Add the extra tasks of putting the gear up, setting climb
power and climb RPM plus double the climb rate, a pilot who's 'maxed
out' will quite possibly be pushed over the edge.

I note that there are several pairs of planes where the retract
apparently has a higher LOC accident rate than its fixed gear
"brother" yet the handling is pretty much the same and the
speed difference not that great.

If the pilot is already 'maxed out' by operating on partial panel,
the additional task of retracting the gear might be enough to push
them over the edge if they are only marginally in control in the first
place. A bit like the straw that breaks the camel's back.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:18:43 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom S. wrote:
Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.

/me raises eyebrows.

I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did
you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash
avoidance?

Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped
teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's

Yah, but at least they went back to teaching stalls in addition to
stall avoidance.:-))

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

teaching ONLY one facet. The analogy is teaching ONLY defensive driving and
not teaching how to recover from a skid. (Of course, that new favored police
citation "speed excessive for conditions" is a cover-all-occurrences and
it's meaningless.)

Recall the last line: "**** Happens".

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:18:43 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom S. wrote:
Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance.

/me raises eyebrows.

I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did
you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash
avoidance?

Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped
teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's

Yah, but at least they went back to teaching stalls in addition to
stall avoidance.:-))

Well, thannnnkkk youuuu!!! :~)