Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"Potential Bo Buyer" wrote:
Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat.

The market for practically everything is flat except for light twins,
where the market is well below "flat."

Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
4-place Bonanzas?

Yes, IMO.

After all, they're faster with
fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years
newer than the Bonanzas I'm considering.

Yeah, but they cost quite a bit more, so you're comparing apples to
oranges.

It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
for a big change. Agree?

For the newer A36s, yes. Same thing for newer Mooneys. I predict neither
of these aircraft will still be in production five years from now.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

What you saying may have some slight effect, but it is minor compared to the
general price trends of all aircraft and complex retracts specifically.
Very seldom does the appearance of a new airplane have much affect on the
value of used airplanes.

And others have said, I don't see someone with a budget of $150K for a 170K
IFR bird cross-shopping late-model F33As/V35Bs with a new $300K airplane.
And I think may pilots, truth be told, want a retract even if there are
fixed-gear airplanes of similar performance. Light twins can seldom be
practically justified over a heavy single, but many folks just get more
pleasure out of flying a twin. Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
rugged/substantial airplane, a much better rough field airplane, has a much
bigger baggage area, is bigger/heavier and arguably more comfortable, and is
a better airplane for situations where you can't hangar - I'd consider
hangaring an absolute requirement for a composite airplane.

I'll admit I'm prejudice, but I just don't see 25-year-old SR22s holding up
like 25-year-old Bonanzas have.

That's not to say that SR22s and Columbia's don't have their advantages.
They're fast, sleek, quiet, probably safer, and have absolutely gorgeous
panels. If I had $300K to spend, I'll look at them very seriously.

- Mark

"markjen" wrote:
Finally, a Bonanza is a much more
rugged/substantial airplane,

Says who?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

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?

Stu,

Especially the owners.


What a surprise! "Oh, my 150k dollars investment really is a piece of
junk. That other plane from Cirrus or Lancair is much better." Like
you're gonna hear that often.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

You're obviously not an owner!

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:55:36 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Stu,

Especially the owners.


What a surprise! "Oh, my 150k dollars investment really is a piece of
junk. That other plane from Cirrus or Lancair is much better." Like
you're gonna hear that often.

Stu,

You're obviously not an owner!


And your point is?

Just to clarify mine: A Bonanza owner will hardly dislike the Bo - for
Pete's sake, he bought one. For a more balanced view, you might have to
ask other people.

And it's ok that some people like brand B, while other like brand C
better. That's subjective. But some of the things discussed in this
thread are objective facts - let's at least get those straight.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

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.

Cheers,
Sydney

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.

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.

- Mark

"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".