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