Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

Stu,

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


Sorry, but that's just BS.

I, for one, find the Cirrus much more comfortable than the Bo - and I
have.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

And you have what? A little more than an hour in each? Next time be
a bit more observant, or pick a 30 year old airplane with the same
interior level than the plastic one you're trying to compare it with.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:55:37 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Stu,

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


Sorry, but that's just BS.

I, for one, find the Cirrus much more comfortable than the Bo - and I
have.

Stu,

And you have what? A little more than an hour in each?


Well, an hour was what YOU claimed was enough, wasn't it? (I have more,
rest assured)

Stu, there's no need to get upset, we're just trading opinions here.
And trying to get some facts straight.

BTW, there are no 30 year old aircraft that come even close to the
level of interior design you find in a modern "plastic" aircraft, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron


markjen wrote:

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

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron


Why? Twice the maintenance with little more in performance.


markjen wrote:


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.

They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

"Tom S." wrote:
They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:45 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Tom S." wrote:
They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.

They might have if the chute worked. As a result of a number of
failures of the chute the entire deployment mechanism was replaced
(after the fatal accident just mentioned). The insurance companies
seem to think that the Cirrus accident rate is high and they are
charging a lot for insurance. They are also reluctant to insure pilots
for an SR22 with less that 500 hours and an instrument rating. Just
what about their safety record do you find so encouraging?

"ArtP" wrote:
Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging?


Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their
spin characteristics.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:33:25 GMT, ArtP
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:45 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Tom S." wrote:
They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.

They might have if the chute worked. As a result of a number of
failures of the chute the entire deployment mechanism was replaced
(after the fatal accident just mentioned). The insurance companies
seem to think that the Cirrus accident rate is high and they are
charging a lot for insurance. They are also reluctant to insure pilots
for an SR22 with less that 500 hours and an instrument rating. Just
what about their safety record do you find so encouraging?

The high insurance cost is attributed to the inability to properly
repair any damage. Almost any "bend" is a break and the thing is a
total. Sooner or later someone will come up with a way to fix them as
easily as they do Corvettes.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." wrote:
They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin
characteristics.

Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in
that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute.

More than one (why do only fatals count) and in that one, it FAILED to
deploy. Nice to know that the only spin recovery is to deploy (maybe) a
'chute.