Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"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)

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:58 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Stu,

You're obviously not an owner!


And your point is?
The point I make is that you may not have sufficient experience to
make the statements you've made.

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.

Yes, lets! Reread the posts, then see what objective facts need to be
thrown in. Paint and styling are objective. Performance comfort and
utility are not.

Stu,

The point I make is that you may not have sufficient experience to
make the statements you've made.


Well, thank God you're around, since your opinion counts, and mine
doesn't, right?


The facts I'm talking about are regarding accidents, spin
characteristics and certification.

--
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".