Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
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*.

Okay,but...

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"....

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.

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), given the relatively few
numbers in operation (denying the connection because Cirrus' has only been
in opeation a few years is a non-issue and lacks understanding of
statistics.


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,

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.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:49:48 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"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.

Yes, and you seem to be emphasizing the value of "vehicle handling"
over "defensive driving". While I maintain the biggest cause of
accidents both auto and airplane are the result of poor judgement not
poor skills. Sooner or later even superior skills will fall victim to
poor judgement unless the more mundane aspects of safety training are
given and understood. That means that prevention ("defensive driving")
is better than a cure ("vehicle handling").

"markjen" wrote in message
news:2jatb.197852$HS4.1679215@attbi_s01...
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.

To me, the 182RG gear look "flimsy", but I can guarantee you it isn't. We
used to take one in and out of cow pastures...literally.

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.


The Bo' is definitely built like a tank (same with the 182), whereas the
Lanc and Cirrus LOOK "flimsy".

Oh wow, Flynn made the moron to snap with a single sintence.
I'm not worthy.

-- Pete

"ArtP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:49:48 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"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.

Yes, and you seem to be emphasizing the value of "vehicle handling"
over "defensive driving".

Well, "seems" that you're wrong, because I'm contrasting different
characteristics.

While I maintain the biggest cause of
accidents both auto and airplane are the result of poor judgement not
poor skills.

And very often, even good judgement can result in a situation that overtaxes
the skills of the pilot or the driver.

The human fallibility is WHY we develop and enhance skills. Adding equipment
to the recipe means that the equipment must perform properly as well.

Sooner or later even superior skills will fall victim to
poor judgement unless the more mundane aspects of safety training are
given and understood. That means that prevention ("defensive driving")
is better than a cure ("vehicle handling").

It is not a CURE (as if there's only one aspect), it's preventive, but
cannot stand on it's own; see the above about human fallibility.

As the adage goes -- "**** happens". (Is that slang for poop...I mean,
excrement? Hey, Sydney, how would you list that one?) :~)

"Pete Zaitcev" wrote in message
news
Oh wow, Flynn made the moron to snap with a single sintence.
I'm not worthy.

You're not very literate, either.

"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.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

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?

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.



--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
(faster than a speeding Navion, but not by much)
Hood River, OR

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
AvWeb and a few others?


Show me. Just one quote. I am quite sure you won't find it.

And that's because tada!: The statement is just wrong! The aircraft
doesn't "lack spin recovery", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Correct.

No one knows if more conventional recovery methods work,

Actually, Cirrus does know that, because their pilots have used
conventional methods to recover the aircraft from spins.

It's not that
Cirrus tried those, they didn't work and then they went for the
chute -
as the OP implies. Rather, they went for the chute directly and got
the
FAA to accept that as the certified spin recovery method. And then
they didn't ever test other methods - why would they, with one
certifiable method proven?

Possibly because they discovered that the aircraft could be forced into
an unrecoverable flat spin and the 'chute was the only way out. But as
you pointed out, why demonstrate spin recovery to the FAA beyond what is
needed for certification? Volunteering more than is asked for is always
dangerous with the feds.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jeff" wrote:
Do you know anything about the comanche 400's ?

Um, yes, a little. I know it's got an oddball engine (Lyc. IO-720) with
an 1800-hr. TBO that will cost you $30K to overhaul and burns 20-22gph
at 75% power. You have to haul so much gas for the brute that, for a
trip of more than 300 miles, the payload of a Comanche 400 is actually
*less* than that of a 260.

this comanche 400 achieved a TAS of 275 mph at 19,000 ft

Whoopee. Who was flying the tanker?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM