Michael,

See my other reply in the thread. In short, it demands significantly
more of the pilot, despite the fancy avionics - and it's more than the
average low time pilot is consistently capable of.

As broad a statement as that is, I don't think it's true. Also, your
original post said something else: it said you had to intervene because
it was a Cirrus. I still don't buy it.

1965 Bo, while a nice plane, is still a *1965* Bo.

And still a faster, roomier, better-flying airplane than the Cirrus. I
would much rather have a 65 Bo that had been gone through and cleaned
up than I would a new Cirrus.

I know you think so. You know I don't think so. There's no ultimate truth
in this.

The sales numbers are there. Unfortunately, near as I can tell most of
them are being sold to low time pilots who have no business in them.
Those who have been around for a while don't see the value. That says
something too.

Can you back up that sweepingly broad statement with ANY facts? They are
ALL dumb and unexperienced? ALL the more than 1000 that shelled out two
or three times than what they had to in your opinion? ALL those airplane
owners that created the market of new single-engine piston aircraft? That
sustain companies like Cirrus, Lancair and Diamond? All too dumb and
unexperienced to see the light?

Come on, you can't really believe that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)