I think the "Cessna" Columbia's have a different fuel system.

The 182's went to a wet wing, 90 some gallons. Don't remember the year, may be as late as the early 80's. The problem the Mooneys had was an inferior sealant whose installation was critical. Cessna used a different type and you really don't hear about leaking Cessna wings.

Wow, that's an unpleasant job. The Ovation's a nice plane, real shame to have early trouble like that on one.

My 69 Arrow had "wet wings", i.e. the tank was part of the wing structure. They never leaked. If it does need to be resealed, you just remove about 100 screws and send it off to be sealed. It's a pain but considerably less expensive and less complicated than replacing the bladder on a Bonanza. Removing the tank is also a good opportunity to get into the wing, remove corrosion and replace the old fuel lines.

Diamond apparently also has a wet wing, but I don't know of a single case of fire.

I was just reading the AOPA mag about a flight in a G22... single lever control in a normally aspirated IO-550 means 2700 RPM at 15,000 with 17" MP. Noisy and no way to change the formula. That's has to be a bummer.

I have wet wings in my Cessna, I dont know of any Cessna with metal tanks ex maybe C140s, most are bladders or wet wings like mine. Never had any problems or leaks, I know some owners had problems with bladder that rippled and would keep water in the tanks or could not use all the fuel. I wish Beech had wet wings that way you would not need to replace bladders.[/quote]

What Cessna is that ? The 152 has 2 metal fuel tanks. I would guess the 172 also ?[/quote]

Not sure on the C150/172, I know on the C185 they came out with the wet wing in 1979.

Kelly, there is a little detente if you move the power lever back a hair or so and that brings the RPM to 2500.

-Neal

Interesting topic, since Cirrus seems to know marketing and sales, whereby Beech seems to only want to sell the Hawker and King Air.

Personally, I have never flown a Cirrus, but I think part of the flaw is the side stick controller. As you know, it has springs to center the flight control to neutral, but that doesn't solve the problem when you have flight loads. I have been in many simulators, from King Air's to Falcon 10's, and when the airplane isn't responding correctly, it is easy to postion the control wheel neutral elevator and aileron. Once the aircraft is controllable, then manuever as necessary. It is when you get disoriented, and are in a panic response mode, you input what you think will have the airplane recover to the proper attitude. However, if it does the opposite, you end up searching for the “neutral” and get airflow properly going over the flight controls. I think the sidestick is one of the problems. Keep in mind, the Airbus uses sidestick...but it goes to a computer that takes all the input parameters and decides for you what control input to put in the aircraft. Airbus designed the airplante to be flown by a 250 hour pilot, therefore you can't exceed 60 degrees bank, and limited pitch parameters.

Regarding the Beech fuel cells. I think they are the safest fuel cells in the business. Anytime you go with a wet wing, and you have deformation of the structure, you will leak fuel. If you look at racing cars, can't say for NASCAR for sure, but Indy and F-1 have a rubber bladder fuel cell for crashworthiness. Those cars are engineered to keep the driver as safe as possible, because fire is one fear that most drivers are aware of. With the rubber bladder fuel cell, during an impact, it remains in tact, and gives the most crashworthiness chances of fuel not leaking after impact.

Obviously, a Beechcraft Bonanza is a superior airplane to the Cirrus, both in quality and utility. If I would compare an A36 to the SR22, wouldn't you rather have the huge double doors, club seating with a fold out table? I think if Beechcraft would have a demo flight back to back, most pilots would prefer the solid feel of the Bonanza. I know Cirrus is constantly looking for more efficient ways to manufacture, and Beechcraft should have taken a look at this also, as they probably could price the A36 with the Cirrus very easily. My wish was that they would have made the airframe lighter, so there would me more useful load, and get the weight forward a little, to make for a more usable C.G.

I never understood why they never pressurized the airframe, like they did the Beech Baron 58P, and compete against the Malibu...oh, which is a real PIG! Beechcraft at one time, put a Garrett turboprop engine on the airframe, and designated it the Beech Lightening, but they never certified it, they were ahead of their time, and Linden Blue wanted to go all composite in the Beech Starship.

I believe the Bonanza could be made a profitable entity for the manufacture. There are a lot of positives to the airplane, and if they would take the flight characteristics, stability, wing and landing gear. Those of us who have owned and flown Bonanza's, would never be happy with a Cirrus, and a lot of Cirrus pilots would be all over the airplane if they were aggressive in letting the consumer know how well the Bonanza stacks up against the Cirrus.

Pretty sure it was the Q model in '77 that went to bladders

I owned a Mooney M20 for about 20 years and 1 time after about 15 yrs. I noticed a little staining around a couple of under wing panels. I had them resealed at annual and don't remember it being a big deal. I do remember alot of talk and articles in Mooney MAPA about resealing wing tanks so I guess it's a common problem.

Given the excellent input on this topic, I am preparing to register on COPA and offer my comparison. It will be interesting to see what the response is. I can tell you that their site is nothing to compare with Beechtalk, simply old school posting.

Good job to our Admins for a very successful forum and web design!

Pretty sure it was the Q model in '77 that went to bladders

The old 182s had bladders. The old 172s had metal tanks. My 1959 172 has metal tanks in the wings. There is a cover plate on the top of the wing where you can take out the screws, take off the plate, and take out the gas tanks. Later 172s and 182s had wet wings. I don't know when they changed it.

The safest in the business? The Diamond DA40 has ZERO post-crash fires. The recent Bo crash in Van Nuys was described as seeming to be survivable minus the fire. I've seen too many pictures of nose ash and tail post crash Bo's. This is my obsession because it seems like the only less than best element of a Bonanza. Of course, the Cirrus loses on every count.

I thought I read where the parachute was required since it failed part 23 spin testing.

Marketing turned it into a feature.

I could be wrong.