Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"markjen" wrote in message
news:1B6tb.199815$Fm2.187055@attbi_s04...
The accident rates of retracts vs. fixed-gears are well-documented.

Where the type of gear is a factor? Or is it that retractables are more
often flown in bad conditions due to their complexity and higher performance
(which is why more complex/higher performance equipment is manufactured in
the first place)??

You're saying you're a pilot who can handle it, fine. But the accident
rates support the contention that average pilots are suffering from
loss-of-control relatively often and that they fare worse in retracts.

Again, what are the conditions flown in by 172's vs. Bonanza's vs. twins vs.
Turboprops vs. Citations...

BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but mostly
Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would be
lower in a fixed-gear 182.

Why would that be so?

BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but
mostly
Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would
be
lower in a fixed-gear 182.

Why would that be so?

Look up the fatal accident rates of fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes/Saratogas vs.
retractable-gear Lances/Saratogas. The airplanes are essentially identical
except for the landing gear. The rate of the retract is about double. Both
airplanes go out of control in clouds but the fixed-gears are more
forgiving.

Let's let this go. I have no interest in arguing over something that is
widely known and accepted.

- Mark

"markjen" wrote in message
news:Iwftb.198900$HS4.1696819@attbi_s01...
BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but
mostly
Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks
would
be
lower in a fixed-gear 182.

Why would that be so?

Look up the fatal accident rates of fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes/Saratogas
vs.
retractable-gear Lances/Saratogas. The airplanes are essentially
identical
except for the landing gear. The rate of the retract is about double.
Both
airplanes go out of control in clouds but the fixed-gears are more
forgiving.

And the fact the rate of retracts that are used in all conditions is
probably double or more negates your point.

Let's let this go. I have no interest in arguing over something that is
widely known and accepted.

The numbers yes; the reasons, no.

My mother is not likely to have a serious crash on the freeway since she
DOESN'T DRIVE on the freeway.

IOW: people don't buy serious hardware like a retractable to go for joyrides
in clear weather like many fixed drivers gears do.

NOTE: Finally someone come close to mentioning CAUSATION in response to the
question, but even there, they miss a significant point, that being how the
various forms of equipment are used: serious travel vs puddle jumping.

what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
I dont understand the big difference.



markjen wrote:

BTW, I have several hundred hours "in the goo" in many aircraft but
mostly
Bonanzas. I can handle it too, but I don't kid myself - my risks would
be
lower in a fixed-gear 182.

Why would that be so?

Look up the fatal accident rates of fixed-gear Cherokee Sixes/Saratogas vs.
retractable-gear Lances/Saratogas. The airplanes are essentially identical
except for the landing gear. The rate of the retract is about double. Both
airplanes go out of control in clouds but the fixed-gears are more
forgiving.

Let's let this go. I have no interest in arguing over something that is
widely known and accepted.

- Mark

what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
I dont understand the big difference.

As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much
that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving when
they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and
speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of emerging
from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has either
broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the pilot
pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground.

I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the gear
down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally
stable as a rule.

- Mark

See, thats not an acceptable answer.
Power management is part of flying any airplane, VMC or IMC. Its part of your
scan. Personally, in smooth air, I will take my plane up to the yellow line and
have no concerns about losing control. But once established on the approach
course, you get it in landing configuration.
If you fly your airplane more then a few times, your used to the speed and know
when to slow down.
It has to be a different reason or the people that were in what ever study that
said this was not experienced in the aircraft they were flying or were yahoo's
and didnt care. I dont believe its the plane (complex/fixed gear), I think its
pilot error.


markjen wrote:

what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
I dont understand the big difference.

As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much
that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving when
they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and
speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of emerging
from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has either
broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the pilot
pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground.

I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the gear
down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally
stable as a rule.

- Mark

Jeff, you still don't get it. The issue is loss of lateral control on
instruments and has nothing to do with power or airspeed management.

Pilots make errors, they get distracted, instruments fail, turbulence
happens. For whatever reason, pilots fail to keep the wings level in
clouds. If you don't keep the wings level, bad things happen very quickly.
A fixed-gear (with more drag) gives pilots much time to regain control
before structural failure occurs.

If you're not an instrument pilot, you may not be familar with the issue of
loss of lateral control. It is a big issue and claims a bunch of lives
every year.

- Mark

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
See, thats not an acceptable answer.
Power management is part of flying any airplane, VMC or IMC. Its part of
your
scan. Personally, in smooth air, I will take my plane up to the yellow
line and
have no concerns about losing control. But once established on the
approach
course, you get it in landing configuration.
If you fly your airplane more then a few times, your used to the speed and
know
when to slow down.
It has to be a different reason or the people that were in what ever study
that
said this was not experienced in the aircraft they were flying or were
yahoo's
and didnt care. I dont believe its the plane (complex/fixed gear), I think
its
pilot error.

Quite so. I wonder what the record would be if they included twins and
turboprops (also "retractables" in the equasion? The "equal time pilots" in
that later category are different than the ones in the former.



markjen wrote:

what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
I dont understand the big difference.

As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much
that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving
when
they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and
speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of
emerging
from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has
either
broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the
pilot
pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground.

I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the
gear
down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally
stable as a rule.

- Mark