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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:59 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote: Stu, And you have what? A little more than an hour in each? Well, an hour was what YOU claimed was enough, wasn't it? (I have more, rest assured) Stu, there's no need to get upset, we're just trading opinions here. And trying to get some facts straight. BTW, there are no 30 year old aircraft that come even close to the level of interior design you find in a modern "plastic" aircraft, IMHO. I've seen some absolutely wonderful interiors in the Bonanzas, and although the plastic jobs are extremely well appointed, the factory interior can't compare to a refurbished one you see in some Bonanzas. Then again, most Cirrus and Lancairs haven't been around long enough for the customizers to get to them. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:02 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote: Stu, Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and pilots knew how to fly? Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get? Hardly a difference between recognizing an imminent spin then being able to maneuver (fly) out of it and being unable to get out due to design and pulling a chute, don't you think? My arms still hurt when I think about those old days, sonny! |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:07 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote: Stu, Wow! That's **** poor, isn't it? No, it's a wrong statement, that's all. Coming back to the original thread subject, from the reactions here, at least some owners of traditional aircraft must be really afraid of value depriciation - how else could one explain the totally non-rational reactions to the new aircraft? If the internet was around in the 30's, we would be having the same conversation about those new fangled aluminum aeroplanes that are riveted together. Wont last, they'll rust out. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message ... Tom S. wrote: Ummm....isn't the gear the same between the Nav and the Bo' ?? Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea? Who you callin' wacko? Would being wacko get me off a homicide charge? Other than the fact that they are both tricycle geared, there is very little simular about them. For starters, the Navion actuates the gear hydraulically, while the Bonanza does it electrically. And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing gear' nod to the Navion. Why? |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:00:27 -0500
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote: "R. Hubbell" wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:45:11 -0800 Jeff wrote: losing 1 of 2 is better then losing 1 of 1 .. ka-boom Not for my wallet. You don't have to pay for the hospital or funeral expenses? Losing one of two or one of one is the same to my wallet. Regarding the funeral expenses no I wouldn't have to pay those. ;-) Regarding the hospital expenses, if that happened I'd probably not be worried about the expenses but gald to be included in the living. That assumes that losing an engine means I crash. I be engine outs are low on the crash totem pole. R. Hubbell George Patterson If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging the problem. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:45:35 -0700
"Tom S." wrote: "R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:L5Ysb.1806$iS6.66@fed1read04... On 13 Nov 2003 09:44:05 -0800 (gross_arrow) wrote: "R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:tRNsb.1659$iS6.406@fed1read04... On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:32:02 -0800 Jeff wrote: If I had 300k to spend I would get a Barron You'll find two engines means you are twice as likely to loose one. Kaaaaaching! R. Hubbell perhaps, but the odds of losing (not loosing) _all_ of your engines simultaneously go up by several orders of magnitude. But it's the wallet that I was talking about. Those twins will wreck a good wallet in no time. Almost worse than having kids (twins, no less). Well, Kids are a great investment! No regrets there, but wih a twin I'd sure have regrets. Now if I overflew water often a twin would make a good choice, but then I'd want an inline twin. Adam aircrafts? R. Hubbell |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Where in the heck did you get THAT wacko idea?
Who you callin' wacko? Uhhh, I was saying your IDEA was wacko. I can't say anything about you. "On the internet no one knows you're a dog." And, as a Bonanza owner, I would have to give the 'stouter landing gear' nod to the Navion. Why? I'm no expert on the Navion, so Ron or Margie is going to have to correct me here but... 1) Larger tires 2) Larger gear struts 3) more travel in the oleos 4) most (all?) linkages are larger Indeed most everything on a Navion is larger/stronger than on a Bonanza. Its also a heck of a lot heavier. -- Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Stu,
The point I make is that you may not have sufficient experience to make the statements you've made. Well, thank God you're around, since your opinion counts, and mine doesn't, right? The facts I'm talking about are regarding accidents, spin characteristics and certification. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|