A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 13th 03, 04:33 PM
ArtP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

  #2  
Old November 13th 03, 04:53 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #3  
Old November 13th 03, 07:43 PM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"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.


Which is why the insurance is so high.


  #4  
Old November 14th 03, 10:43 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom S." 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.


Which is why the insurance is so high.


Baloney.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #5  
Old November 15th 03, 05:10 AM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." 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.


Which is why the insurance is so high.


Baloney.


That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more careful in
snipping previous comments.


  #6  
Old November 15th 03, 02:14 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom S." 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.

Which is why the insurance is so high.


Baloney.


That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more

careful in
snipping previous comments.


Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you
were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have
atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is
baloney. Perhaps you meant something else.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #7  
Old November 15th 03, 04:09 PM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." 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.

Which is why the insurance is so high.

Baloney.


That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more

careful in
snipping previous comments.


Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you
were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have
atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is
baloney. Perhaps you meant something else.


The whole PIECE wasn't me; I have no idea what Cirrus insurance rates are.
You snipped my response to which someone else added the comment about
insurance rates.

Since I don't fly my own plane, I don't know what either insurance rate
would be. I fly only our company planes and would have to ask the
controller what the insurance costs were. :~)

I'm looking to buy my own (first time) right after New Years, so it would be
interesting as my first choice right now is a F33A. However, if I was going
to go _new_, I'm thinking more Lancair rather than Cirrus.









  #8  
Old November 14th 03, 01:19 AM
Stu Gotts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #9  
Old November 14th 03, 01:33 AM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Stu Gotts wrote:

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.


They can be fixed very easily today. Any mechanic who has worked with
both will tell you that the metal airplane is harder to fix and takes
longer.

  #10  
Old November 14th 03, 04:33 AM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Newps" wrote in message
news:zhWsb.140377$mZ5.969124@attbi_s54...


Stu Gotts wrote:

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.


They can be fixed very easily today. Any mechanic who has worked with
both will tell you that the metal airplane is harder to fix and takes
longer.


Cosmetic damage, yes. Structural damage no way. Even the Cirrus web site
alludes to that.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.