"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.

I know a number of 'Bo owners who are former Tiger owners
and are happy to take their 'Bos into and out of fields I'm
not comfortable taking my Tiger. Cliff Hansen and Andreas
come to mind. They tell me the 'Bo is a much better short/
rough plane than the Tiger (and again, it's not the price
tag that's the issue, obviously).

My point is, I just haven't heard much about how Columbia
and Cirrus fair as short/rough or high DA planes. I don't
know if that's because people who buy these planes just don't
want to do that kind of flying, or whether, like the Tiger,
that's just not their forte'.

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