Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"markjen" wrote in message
news:4L%sb.145785$9E1.745940@attbi_s52...
not a factor, I have an auto pilot, if it goes out, fly the instruments,
it does
not take much to get out of an unusual attitude. I own a retract, I fly
it
in
IMC.

I guess you're just a great pilot. But for us average pilots, loss of
control is a very big concern.

(I'd love to put you in a simulator and start introducing random
instrument
failures in heavy turbulence while flying a tough approach. Hmmm .... the
turn coordinator and horizon don't seem to agree. Which is right? You've
got about five seconds to figure it out before you die.)

And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite
frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
types.

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite
frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
types.

In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.

There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
in make and model.

Here is a link:
http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf

There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.

There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
recurrent training.

Just to inject some facts.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable.
Quite
frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
types.

In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.

There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
in make and model.

Is that a factor that it's easier to lose control of a Porsche at 150 than a
Honda Accord at 65?


Here is a link:
http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf

There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.

There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
recurrent training.

Just to inject some facts.


In a certain respect, I think we're comparing apples and oranges (or Honda's
and Porsche's) :~)

IAC, I stand corrected (sorta).

At what point do people in these situations lose control?
Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not fixed.



Snowbird wrote:

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

And that has absolutely nothing to do with fixed-gear vs retractable. Quite
frankly, anyone with significant time in a retractable is used to the
differences and more attuned to the subtleties/situation than fixed gear
types.

In fact, a correlation between retract vs. fixed gear and loss of
control in simulated IMC has been shown to exist.

There are two recent ASF/FAA studies on vacuum failures which speak to
the contrary., one in a simulator one in actual airplanes specially
modified to allow the observer to randomly fail the vacuum system.
The pilots varied in experience, some had quite extensive time
in make and model.

Here is a link:
http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...0TEXT/0219.pdf

There was a striking difference in how many of the retract pilots
lost control vs. how many of the fixed gear pilots. In the study
which took place in an airplane, all of the Piper Archer pilots
maintained control. 1/4 of the Bonanza pilots lost control.

There was no correlation between loss of control and overall
experience or time in type. In fact, IIRC in one of the studies
time in type was a *negative* corellator, possibly because pilots
with high time in type may feel more confident and go longer between
recurrent training.

Just to inject some facts.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
At what point do people in these situations lose control?
Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not
fixed.


A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin
will happen much more quickly.

In much the same way, one needs closer attention (seeing ahead) doing 75 on
a freeway than on a side street doing 25.

Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
necessarily in that same category.

But this is no different then if you were VFR so shouldnt be an issue. Power
management is part of flying any airplane.
I cant see this as being a reason for complex airplanes causing more accidents
in IMC.
Has to be something more.

"Tom S." wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
At what point do people in these situations lose control?
Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not
fixed.


A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin
will happen much more quickly.

In much the same way, one needs closer attention (seeing ahead) doing 75 on
a freeway than on a side street doing 25.

Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
necessarily in that same category.

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
But this is no different then if you were VFR so shouldnt be an issue.
Power
management is part of flying any airplane.
I cant see this as being a reason for complex airplanes causing more
accidents
in IMC.
Has to be something more.

I agree; we're getting a lot of statistical "correlation" but nothing
meaningful in terms of causation. So far, the "causation" is that
retractables are faster, and thus they more readily will "get away" from you
in IMC. Well DUH!! That's why they're there -- for PERFORMANCE.


Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
necessarily in that same category.

"Tom S." wrote in message ...
"Jeff" wrote in message ...
At what point do people in these situations lose control?
Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear?
I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not
fixed.

A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin
will happen much more quickly.

The "loss of control" in the study was not necessarily a spin, nor
is a spin the outcome IRL loss of control accidents.

However, Jeff, I think the basic principle is right. In general,
there's less drag in a retract, and the margin between any sort
of distraction vs. loss of control or overspeeding and stressing
the airframe is shorter.

Some of the planes studied are also noted for responsive handling
rather than stability (ie Bonanza vs. Archer, Malibu vs 172) which
may also be an issue.

Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not
necessarily in that same category.

I don't think difference in cruise speed is the issue. If you read
the study carefully, IIRC the vacuum failure was done during climbout
after a missed approach -- a point where the speed difference is
not as large. I believe the same protocol was followed during the
previous simulator study.

I note that there are several pairs of planes where the retract
apparently has a higher LOC accident rate than its fixed gear
"brother" yet the handling is pretty much the same and the
speed difference not that great. One can rationalize that difference
as being caused by different uses, but somehow I don't think people
are buying fixed-gear Saratogas to pop around the pattern on a nice
day.

Cheers,
Sydney

(Snowbird) wrote
Some of the planes studied are also noted for responsive handling
rather than stability (ie Bonanza vs. Archer, Malibu vs 172) which
may also be an issue.

I would suggest that overall cruise efficiency is the real issue, not
speed or fixed/retract gear. Cruise efficiency is a function of drag.
Specifically, since cruise occurs well above best glide speed, it is
a function of parasite drag. If you fail the vacuum instruments in
the climb, the real life loss of control is going to be overspeed or
overgee while banked steeply. The airplane most efficient in cruise
will also accelerate into that situation the quickest.

I would love to see a Tiger vs. Arrow study - somehow, having flown
both, I have the feeling the fixed gear advantage would go away.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
(Snowbird) wrote
Some of the planes studied are also noted for responsive handling
rather than stability (ie Bonanza vs. Archer, Malibu vs 172) which
may also be an issue.

I would suggest that overall cruise efficiency is the real issue, not
speed or fixed/retract gear. Cruise efficiency is a function of drag.
Specifically, since cruise occurs well above best glide speed, it is
a function of parasite drag. If you fail the vacuum instruments in
the climb, the real life loss of control is going to be overspeed or
overgee while banked steeply. The airplane most efficient in cruise
will also accelerate into that situation the quickest.

I suspect you've identified a reasonable guess.

I would love to see a Tiger vs. Arrow study - somehow, having flown
both, I have the feeling the fixed gear advantage would go away.

Very possibly. Likewise with the new generation of fast-glass fixed
gears.

Cheers,
Sydney