Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"Snowbird" wrote in message om...

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.

Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
anyday.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

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.

Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
anyday.

Ummm....isn't the gear the same between the Nav and the Bo' ??

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:16:05 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"Snowbird" wrote in message om...

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.

Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
anyday.

First good thing I've heard you say for a few days. You slipping?

I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country strips
either! For that, give me a Cessna 182...


"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
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

"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

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.

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

The styling and futuristic avionics packages are some of what is
attracting people to these aircraft. If it works for them, good!

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

a Bonanza is .... arguably more comfortable

says who ?

a Bonanza is .... arguably more comfortable

says who ?

Says me. We're just expressing opinions here.

- Mark

Anyone that has ever flown more than an hour in each.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:15:05 GMT, "Zeno" wrote:

a Bonanza is .... arguably more comfortable

says who ?