Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country strips
either! For that, give me a Cessna 182...


"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
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

"Flynn" wrote in message news:jZetb.3278$Dw6.24546@attbi_s02...
I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country strips
either! For that, give me a Cessna 182...

Hi Flynn,

Well, I don't know what performance you felt you could get
from your Tiger (yours evidently differed from mine in several
respects), but my reason for not taking on back country strips
in my Tiger isn't the price of the machine.

It's the fact that the Tiger just isn't (IMO) a good back
country plane. It'll land short enough, but with normal
aspiration and a fixed prop typically pitched for cruise,
it just isn't a good climber at high DA. I love my Tigger-plane,
but I try to be honest about his weaknesses as well as his
strengths.

I know a number of 'Bo owners who are former Tiger owners
and are happy to take their 'Bos into and out of fields I'm
not comfortable taking my Tiger. Cliff Hansen and Andreas
come to mind. They tell me the 'Bo is a much better short/
rough plane than the Tiger (and again, it's not the price
tag that's the issue, obviously).

My point is, I just haven't heard much about how Columbia
and Cirrus fair as short/rough or high DA planes. I don't
know if that's because people who buy these planes just don't
want to do that kind of flying, or whether, like the Tiger,
that's just not their forte'.

So, Flynn, now that you're a Cirrus owner, tell us what the
gear is like and about the climb performance at high DA? How
does it handle at low speeds? What would you consider a
comfortable, consistantly achieveable landing distance? If
you wanted to hit some back country strips, would it do the
job?

Cheers,
Sydney

Oh I think my Tiger would get in and out of some pretty short fields (I
wasn't comfortable say going in and out of Ken Blackmans 1600' grass
strip...but he did all the time). It was more my comfort in my abilities.
In a high DA situation, you're right it was not a great performer at all.
Cliff did tell me that he thought the Bonanza was stout as all get out and
faster on nearly the same fuel as the Tiger.

The Cirrus, with only 35 hours in her, is an awesome climber in just about
everything I've hit so far. Highest DA for takeoff so far was around 5500'
in Helena. 2 aboard and full fuel we climbed out at well more than 1000'
per minute. Typically around here on anything approaching standard days to
say 1000' DA I'll sometimes hit close to 2000' fpm.

Gear's pretty stout and I believe built like the Tiger's...with the same
nose wheel pluses and minuses. Slow flight was surprising in that you've
got aileron authority so deep into the stall. I'm comfortable with 2000'
feet as a minimum strip depending on load, DA, etc etc. But that'll get me
out in 1/2 or less. The only thing I'd be real concerned about on a back
country strip are the wheel pants. The come down so low on the wheels that
I'd worry about cracking 'em.

All in all the transition for a Tiger driver is very easy. Sight lines are
similar, same care with landing speeds, same don't spin 'em....oh wait, that
started this monster thread didn't it? Heavier bird in feel but that
also smooths out the bumps.

Lots o'fun.

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"Flynn" wrote in message
news:jZetb.3278$Dw6.24546@attbi_s02...
I wasn't ready/willing to risk my $75,000 Tiger on Idaho back country
strips
either! For that, give me a Cessna 182...

Hi Flynn,

Well, I don't know what performance you felt you could get
from your Tiger (yours evidently differed from mine in several
respects), but my reason for not taking on back country strips
in my Tiger isn't the price of the machine.

It's the fact that the Tiger just isn't (IMO) a good back
country plane. It'll land short enough, but with normal
aspiration and a fixed prop typically pitched for cruise,
it just isn't a good climber at high DA. I love my Tigger-plane,
but I try to be honest about his weaknesses as well as his
strengths.

So, Flynn, now that you're a Cirrus owner, tell us what the
gear is like and about the climb performance at high DA? How
does it handle at low speeds? What would you consider a
comfortable, consistantly achieveable landing distance? If
you wanted to hit some back country strips, would it do the
job?

Cheers,
Sydney

In article , Snowbird wrote:
I know a number of 'Bo owners who are former Tiger owners
and are happy to take their 'Bos into and out of fields I'm
not comfortable taking my Tiger. Cliff Hansen and Andreas
come to mind. They tell me the 'Bo is a much better short/
rough plane than the Tiger (and again, it's not the price
tag that's the issue, obviously).

Lots of power, highly effective flaps, nosegear that isn't held on by a
bent piece of wire, and plenty of prop clearance all add up to making a
Bonanza a good short/rough field performance aircraft. The S-35 Bonanza
can land and stop in a shorter distance than a C172N.

Not only that, they go fast too once you're cruising, and they fly
incredibly nicely.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"