Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete?

Jeff wrote
I dont agree with fixed gear being safer in IMC, I have a turbo arrow and
putting the gear down is second nature.
By the time you get to your FAF you have it in landing configuration, no
problems..

That's not what he's talking about. The risk we're concerned with is
not gear-up landing (which is, for all practical purposes, a financial
rather than a life-and-lib risk) but loss of control in IMC. Having
the gear hanging out means it takes that much longer to overspeed the
airplane, giving the pilot that much more time to recover from the
unusual attitude.

Michael

I dont agree with fixed gear being safer in IMC, I have a turbo arrow and
putting the gear down is second nature.
By the time you get to your FAF you have it in landing configuration, no
problems..

The issue is not forgetting to put your landing gear down. This is not a
serious safety concern in retracts because leaving the wheels up on landing
is damaging only to the pilot's pocketbook. There are almost never any
injuries.

The safety issue is loss of control, something casual, non-professional
pilots do all too often. Retracts are MUCH more susceptible to loss of
control accidents due to the much quicker speed buildup when control is
lost. (Retract pilots should be trained to lower the landing gear the first
sign of an upset -- gear damage due to excessive speed be damned -- but they
typically don't.)

Retract singles have approximately twice the fatal accident rate of
fixed-gear singles. This trend holds generally and holds for comparable
aircraft which are otherwise identical except for their gear (e.g., C182 vs.
C182RG, Cherokee Six vs. Saratoga, etc.). A retract is much more likely to
kill you.

- Mark

"markjen" wrote in message
news:ViAsb.184140$Tr4.511893@attbi_s03...
There is insufficient time-in-service to really be able to say much about
Cirrus accident rates. The Concorde went from having the best airliner
accident rate to the worst with one accident.

Wrong context.

That's the problem with new
airplanes - insuffiicent experience with the fleet.

For the few numbers in service and it's short history, there's a hell of a
lot of accidents.

"Tom S." wrote:
That's the problem with new
airplanes - insuffiicent experience with the fleet.

For the few numbers in service and it's short history, there's a
hell of a lot of accidents.

True, but the record is too short and the numbers too small for
statistical reliability. And by the way, Bonanzas certainly don't have
anything to brag about, safetywise.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Inexperienced pilots with a pocketful of money. They view this as a
toy that's a better deal than a Bonanza, not requiring the special
skills we all need to have, even ultralighters.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:47:29 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote:

The accident reports are pretty interesting.

There were five fatal flights:

1 - Flew into powerlines
3 - Flew into terrain
1 - spin w/out parachute deployment

Only the spin accident has a final report, which basically says the pane
entered a spin and the parachute was not deployed. No comment on whether the
parachute was tried. In a non-fatal accident a month earlier the parachute
deployment was attempted and failed.

There is not enough data or info here to draw any real conclusion, but some
speculation...

On one hand, unless there was a control failure, the flights into terrain
and powerlines appear to be pilot error. On the other hand, this many CFIT
accidents in such a short time in such a small population of planes does
cause some concern. Is the plane difficult to handle? Is it so "slippery"
that pilots are losing control? Is it being flown by pilots that can't
handle the performance - the stereotypical "doctor-killer" story?

Michael



"Tom S." wrote in message
...

The accident reports, particularly Cirrus, keep me at bay.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:5Mysb.185403$e01.666293@attbi_s02...
The accident reports are pretty interesting.

There were five fatal flights:

1 - Flew into powerlines
3 - Flew into terrain
1 - spin w/out parachute deployment

Only the spin accident has a final report, which basically says the pane
entered a spin and the parachute was not deployed. No comment on whether
the
parachute was tried. In a non-fatal accident a month earlier the parachute
deployment was attempted and failed.

There is not enough data or info here to draw any real conclusion, but
some
speculation...


Check the disparity in the non-fatal's as well.

Tom,

Bonanza's, being a proven product (in contrast with Cirrus and Lancair) will
be around after many of us are dead and gone.


Like flintstones, steam engines and the telegraph? ;-) Ever heard of
"progress"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Tom,

Bonanza's, being a proven product (in contrast with Cirrus and Lancair)
will
be around after many of us are dead and gone.


Like flintstones, steam engines and the telegraph? ;-) Ever heard of
"progress"?

So let's send all the Bonanza's to the junkyard.

Let's send all the cars over 10 years old there too.

Gee, some V-tails are older than most people in this group.

Hint for the slow: We're talking USED aircraft.

"Tom S." wrote:
So let's send all the Bonanza's to the junkyard.

Let's send all the cars over 10 years old there too.

Gee, some V-tails are older than most people in this group.

And they're still being maintained and flown because, until recently, a
new airplane was virtually the same as a thirty-year old one. There was
little incentive to buy new. You could by an old Bo in decent shape and
make it as good as a new one (or better) for a lot less money.

Hint for the slow: We're talking USED aircraft.

....and the effect that the new designs may be having on used aircraft
prices. I was in the market for about an '85 model Bo or 210 a while
back, but now I'd seriously think about spending a little more and
getting a Cirrus.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." wrote:
So let's send all the Bonanza's to the junkyard.

Let's send all the cars over 10 years old there too.

Gee, some V-tails are older than most people in this group.

And they're still being maintained and flown because, until recently, a
new airplane was virtually the same as a thirty-year old one. There was
little incentive to buy new. You could by an old Bo in decent shape and
make it as good as a new one (or better) for a lot less money.

Hint for the slow: We're talking USED aircraft.

...and the effect that the new designs may be having on used aircraft
prices. I was in the market for about an '85 model Bo or 210 a while
back, but now I'd seriously think about spending a little more and
getting a Cirrus.

That's nice, but read the subject line.

I hope to hell a current design can obsolesce a design that is basically 55
years old, and which has not been produced in nearly ten years.