Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

"Tom S." wrote:
Well, just yourself in the fool categoy. You and Borchardt.

Go to hell, c...

Pathetic.

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
anyday.

Ummm....isn't the gear the same between the Nav and the Bo' ??

Not in the least. First off the Navion has 7.00x8 tires on it, much larger
than the Bo, and the gear struts are much stouter on the Navion.

We have a 1974 V35B with a Millenium reman IO-520, Garmin GNS430, Avidyne
MX20, Sandel EHSI, some other assorted doo-dads. The paint and interior are
a solid 9/10, 'almost new'.

While it's not the state of the art glass panel in the Cirrus line, it's
more than adeqaute, with 3 moving maps, terrain readout and an approach
coupled autopilot. Cruise is 170 KTAS at 8000', burning less than 15gph.
The plane is easy to fly, and becomes a docile little puppy when you drop
the gear.

Total acquisition and upgrade cost was just shy of $185k. I can't imagine
calling it obsolete when compared to a $300k+ SR22. Then again, I prefer my
50 year old remodeled house over any of the more expensive newly constructed
ones in our neck of the woods... Go figure.

That said, I'm happy to see the Cirruses (Cirrae?), LANCAIRS and Diamonds
roll of the production line. In the long run competition is a good thing,
and it's nice to see there's a choice when it comes to spending your
aviation Dollars and Euros. Some like the latest and greatest, and prefer
to buy new. For me, having researched, priced and flown all the alternatives
it was an easy choice: Old reliable Beech.

"Potential Bo Buyer" wrote in message
om...
Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
at work in this market.

Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
than the Bonanzas I'm considering.

It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?

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

Plural for Cirrus is Cirri!
BTW, I completely agree that whether a Bo' is better or not, what the
overall health of GA requires is new aircraft entering the fleet at rates
that exceed what we've seen of late (say the last, sadly, 20 years?).
Cessna hasn't done anything of note that wasn't powered by Jet-A. Piper's
best offerings have been problematic but at least they're trying. Beech is
slowly but surely working it's way out of the "low" end (say less than
$million). Diamond, Cirrus, Lancair and a few others are turning out some
terrific aircraft at much more reasonable prices. I hope that the Piper 6X
entries do well too. It's good for all.


"Windecks" wrote in message
. com...
We have a 1974 V35B with a Millenium reman IO-520, Garmin GNS430, Avidyne
MX20, Sandel EHSI, some other assorted doo-dads. The paint and interior
are
a solid 9/10, 'almost new'.

While it's not the state of the art glass panel in the Cirrus line, it's
more than adeqaute, with 3 moving maps, terrain readout and an approach
coupled autopilot. Cruise is 170 KTAS at 8000', burning less than 15gph.
The plane is easy to fly, and becomes a docile little puppy when you drop
the gear.

Total acquisition and upgrade cost was just shy of $185k. I can't imagine
calling it obsolete when compared to a $300k+ SR22. Then again, I prefer
my
50 year old remodeled house over any of the more expensive newly
constructed
ones in our neck of the woods... Go figure.

That said, I'm happy to see the Cirruses (Cirrae?), LANCAIRS and Diamonds
roll of the production line. In the long run competition is a good thing,
and it's nice to see there's a choice when it comes to spending your
aviation Dollars and Euros. Some like the latest and greatest, and prefer
to buy new. For me, having researched, priced and flown all the
alternatives
it was an easy choice: Old reliable Beech.

"Potential Bo Buyer" wrote in message
om...
Why is the market for late model V35B's and F33A's so flat. The
economic climate (real and perceived) and 90's run-up have a lot to do
with it, I'll acknowledge that. But there seems to be something else
at work in this market.

Are the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus SR22 substitute products for the
4-place Bonanzas? (For the sake of this post V35B's and F33A's are 4
place not 6 place airplanes. Keep it real.) To be honest, if I had
300K + in my budget I would probably evaluate the Columbia and SR22
first before considering a Bonanza. After all, they're faster with
fixed gear, won't corrode, have modern avionics and are 30 years newer
than the Bonanzas I'm considering.

It looks as if the once assumed appreciation rate for Bonanzas is in
for a big change. Agree? Thoughts?

On 14-Nov-2003, Jeff wrote:

....great pilot, no, cautious pilot, yes......

Also your situation actually happened to me last winter, 11,000 ft over
the MMM VOR (north of las vegas) in IMC, light ice on the wings, I was in
my old
cherokee 180 and it did not have pitot heat.

Anybody else see a contradiction in the above? I, for one, would NEVER fly
an airplane without pitot heat in IMC, especially anywhere near freezing
conditions.



....but I also hit something, not sure what it was, but I think it was
wind sheer, I lost 30
mph in IAS and 1000 ft in a matter of seconds.....

Um, do you know that the static port on the Cherokee is co-located on the
pitot stalk, and is intended to be heated with the pitot heater? Your
indicated loss of speed and altitude could well have been due to partial
obstruction of the static port and/or pitot tube.

--
-Elliott Drucker

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

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:58 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Stu,

You're obviously not an owner!


And your point is?
The point I make is that you may not have sufficient experience to
make the statements you've made.

Just to clarify mine: A Bonanza owner will hardly dislike the Bo - for
Pete's sake, he bought one. For a more balanced view, you might have to
ask other people.



And it's ok that some people like brand B, while other like brand C
better. That's subjective. But some of the things discussed in this
thread are objective facts - let's at least get those straight.

Yes, lets! Reread the posts, then see what objective facts need to be
thrown in. Paint and styling are objective. Performance comfort and
utility are not.

On 14 Nov 2003 11:17:20 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

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

The styling and futuristic avionics packages are some of what is
attracting people to these aircraft. If it works for them, good!

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:16:05 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"Snowbird" wrote in message om...

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.

Hey, I'd stake the Navion gear against the Bo' (or the Cirrus or Lancair)
anyday.

First good thing I've heard you say for a few days. You slipping?