Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

Stu,

Agree!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan,

Volunteering more than is asked for is always
dangerous with the feds.


and it makes aircraft more expensive,too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Pete,

troll feeding can be so much fun.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Flynn,

total agreement.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"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.

Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you
were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have
atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is
baloney. Perhaps you meant something else.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Thats apples and oranges. You said if I was going to spend 300K? I
own a V35 Bonanza and I can tell you there are no V tail Bonanzas that
cost 300K. I bought mine about 6 months ago, with new engine, paint,
interior, avionics and maintained to perfection by a member of the
technical staff of the american bonaza society for a thirs of what you
are saying. Why buy a Bonanza over a new Cirrus, answer they cost
about a third less and do the same thing, thats why. Money no object?
Buy a King Air or lear

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
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."

Actually, it wasn't my IDEA, it was my QUESTION??? You know, an
interrogative statement used to gain knowledge...".


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.

And gross weight/useful load?

"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.

Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you
were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have
atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is
baloney. Perhaps you meant something else.

The whole PIECE wasn't me; I have no idea what Cirrus insurance rates are.
You snipped my response to which someone else added the comment about
insurance rates.

Since I don't fly my own plane, I don't know what either insurance rate
would be. I fly only our company planes and would have to ask the
controller what the insurance costs were. :~)

I'm looking to buy my own (first time) right after New Years, so it would be
interesting as my first choice right now is a F33A. However, if I was going
to go _new_, I'm thinking more Lancair rather than Cirrus.

"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

"Tom S." wrote in message ...

An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to
recover
than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal
category,
it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at
the
controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft,
including
those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to
recover
from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern.

1000 feet does not sounds like "3 seconds/ first turn"....

Hi Tom,

The catch, if you read the Part 23 certification standards, is that
after 3 seconds or the first turn (whichever is LONGER), the plane
must recover "w/in one additional turn".

IOW, 1000-1500 ft may actually represent more than one turn of
spin, if the plane in question really snaps around quickly, PLUS
an additional turn to recover.

Hope this clarifies?

In his excellent out-of-print book "Stalls Spins and Safety", Sammy
Mason points out that a plane which takes a full turn to recover
after proper control inputs are applied has *lousy* spin characteristics.

Well, apparently there are a number of planes certified in the normal
category, which have just such *lousy* spin characteristics.

My point is don't bet the rent that a plane certified in the normal
category can recover from an incipient spin in less than 1000 ft.

Reading the NTSB accident reports, it sounds like they've had quite a few
spin accidents (some fatal, some not...I'm looking at ALL
accidents/incidents, not just the FATAL ones)

I defer to you here. I'm not familiar with the spin accident
record of the Cirrus.

My point was to direct attention to the actual certification
requirements, and to correct any misapprehension that planes
certified in the "normal" category to recover from an incipient
spin with normal control inputs, necessarily have a realistic
chance to recover from a low-altitude spin (say, at traffic
pattern altitude)

Hopefully I've done that.

It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs
Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's amazing. I
saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the F33
has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air.

The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have been
successful.

This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also
have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring
the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the
F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports;
does this seem plausible?

Regards,
Sydney