Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

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".