BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 08:39

Not sure why there are more Cirrus drivers on BT than Bonanza / Baron drivers. Maybe there isn't a CirrusTalk and they have to come here. At the end of the day, Cirrus has its following and Beech has its following. I choose to fly Beechcraft products and look forward to the camaraderie that comes with that.

Now back to the Single vs Twin Debate... :stir:

Since I now fly both, guess I have to be the fence on that one....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 08:46

I'd consider buying a Cirrus if and only if it had large double doors on the fuselage, held 6 seats, had retractable gear and most importantly change the terrible seats to more comfortable ones.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 08:47

BT is the "Owner flown" forum. Forget the "Beechcraft" part of it. I wouldn't want to be here if we only talked about Beech. They haven't made a change since 2005. What would we talk about?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 09:24

The perspectives on handling qualities between airplane types are interesting. But I find I can't find enough difference in any of the types I've hand flown including aerobatic, Bonanza, P and C types, to conclude what's a "pilots" airplane or smooth, etc.

I need more starch wing experience to detect one airplane feels better than another. perhaps the rigging hasn't been that good on some of the examples?

I suppose it's relative. From my perspective as a Helo guy, when you move the controls a little bit or a lot, on any of the fixed wing machines, you have to wait before something happens.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 09:29

Username Protected wrote:

Is this the start of another 15-page thread on BeechTalk about the Cirrus? :scratch:

God forbid.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 09:32

What makes an airplane fun to fly?
It's no surprise we have different definitions of fun. Pointing a beautiful Swiss machine at the sky, making money with it, taking friends and loads of gear, beating the airlines at their own game, is fun.
Throwing a Pitts around with your fingertips, that's fun (less so landing, for me, anyway). Riding a 182 rock solid down the rails of an ILS (don't forget the nose up trim) is fun. Sitting in a flying BMW with all the world displayed before you (on the panel), is fun. Going to airshows, parking in the display area, roped off behind the crowd line with guys leaning over saying, "That's some airplane", is fun.
The thing about a Beechcraft is how many things it can do, and still be fun. Carrying ability? Check. Speed? Check. Light, harmonized controls? Double check. Makes you look good to your passengers when you land? Definitely.
There's got to be a connection between what you want, and what the machine can provide. Different wants, different machines. Different definitions of fun.
There's a German by the name of Von Pflugk who wrote about ships in a way that reflects how I feel about airplanes:
"If you feel, when laying your hand upon a rail, that you are in contact with something alive, responsive to your slightest touch, something that is part of you, something that you truly love, then you are in a good position to become an expert at shiphandling.".

Robin

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 09:38

Username Protected wrote:

. . . and we all know intellect doesn't sell nearly as well as emotion.

Except in politics.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 09:40

Username Protected wrote:

The perspectives on handling qualities between airplane types are interesting. But I find I can't find enough difference in any of the types I've hand flown including aerobatic, Bonanza, P and C types, to conclude what's a "pilots" airplane or smooth, etc.

I need more starch wing experience to detect one airplane feels better than another. perhaps the rigging hasn't been that good on some of the examples?

I suppose it's relative. From my perspective as a Helo guy, when you move the controls a little bit or a lot, on any of the fixed wing machines, you have to wait before something happens.

I agree with you here. Everyone should be required to fly a helicopter. Flying a helicopter makes you a much better airplane pilot. There are no ham-fisted helicopter pilots. That is one quality about the Glasair, Lancair, SX-300, etc. that I like - they are light on the controls and control pressure is all that is needed to get an instant response. When you fly a helicopter you truly are a part of the machine. You feel a 10 RPM change in the rotor, you feel the tail move even the slightest amount. Everything is thought out as you fly a helicopter. It makes flying fun since you actually have to fly the machine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 09:49

Username Protected wrote:

BT is the "Owner flown" forum. Forget the "Beechcraft" part of it. I wouldn't want to be here if we only talked about Beech. They haven't made a change since 2005. What would we talk about?

Hence my comment that this the name should be changed to something more representative . . .

And Tim missed it on this . . . it is not about something as easily defined as '60s muscle car vs new, my E92 M3 would destroy a 66 GTO in any performance metric, plus traction control, anti-lock brake, A/C, airbags, the list goes on.

And a 33/35 can easily match any performance metric of an SR22. You can put FIKI, turbo, A/C, similar if not in someways superior avionics (GTN750 w/ airways, holds etc) . . . except . . . yes the chute.

It's interesting that Jason and I are the same page on this. He sees it even if others don't.
This is about the mindset of the particular demographic each appeals to, and age is not the determinant,

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 09:52

Username Protected wrote:

if we could ask the airplane's opinion, it might be something like this: " There are pilots and there are aviators". :pilot:

What? No pudknockers?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 10:02

Username Protected wrote:

Have you flown one, Robin?

In several aspects, I find it MORE fun to fly.

Landing is not one of them. Nothing lands like a Bonanza.

Not true - nothing lands like a Pilatus. Even a chimp can make a smooth landing...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 10:04

For twenty three years, flew two 36”s, a 33 and, for seven of those years, a 58. Why? Because they fit the mission, the budget and my preferences. During the past two years, I have flown an SR-22 Turbo. Why? Because I did not need the space of the 58, it could fly the Cirrus higher, faster and cheaper than the 58 and the chute made up for the second engine. In other words, it fits the mission.

Now, I am switching to a Piper Mirage. Why? because flying an unpressurized plane at 18K is kicking my ass even with oxygen. The turbo may perform flawlessly in the flight levels buy, IMHO, a pilot does not belong up there without pressurization for that long. The Piper now meets that mission.

They are all wonderful planes each with its own “personality”. For handling? Nothing compares to a beech product. I swear sometimes I thought my Baron was anticipating my inputs. The Cirrus is sprightly on the controls, sometimes too sprightly. The Cirrus however is a wonder of modern technology, Comfortable, great visibility and yes, the chute, it’s important, very.

The Mirage? Well let’s just say it reminds me of my Chevy Silverado truck. I swear, Piper should dedicate a whole section of the POH to instructing a 6’2” 220 pound pilot on how to insert himself into the front seat. But, it fits the mission.

Whether I fly a Beech, a Cirrus or a Piper, I will always read and comment on Beechtalk, COPA and MMOPA because at the end of the day, they all do the same. Allow a bunch of cantankerous, opinionated and passionate pilots inform and berate each other. What’s wrong with that?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 10:12

There is also one more thing playing here. Money. There is huge (I think) population of owners that simply can not afford Cirrus (me including) but they can afford and fly nice mid range Bonanza. And as we all know every pilot owner is the first to admit that they can not afford something. it's way easier to blame the chute.

My dream was/is to own capable cross country machine for (way) under $100k. There's no Cirrus that fits that bill.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 10:20

Username Protected wrote:

In an ongoing thread regarding pilot's conversion to the Cirrus, there has been an active volley from both sides regarding Cirri's long suits and short comings, if any.

I think the reluctance to "buy in" is based on a very pronounced demographic shift in this web site, the buying pattern of the newer proponents of Cirrus and their creative use of the tax code to make purchase price and depreciation almost irrelevant.

Many members joined 5 - 8 years ago and had purchased their "once in lifetime" dream machine, a Beech Bonanza in the halcyon days when Beech was king and the buy in fairly significant. It took about $150 K (+/- 10 - 20%) to get a nice example and then "personalize" it from there. The Cirrus initially was not particularly well received by experienced pilots, had a perception of plastic flimsiness and a chute that was reputed to avoid rigorous certification standards. That didn't make it a bad machine, just not the equal of Beech. Now obviously much of that has been refuted or corrected, but to some the perception remains.

At about the same time as the financial meltdown, Cirrus' product improved, the pilot demographic morphed into the younger tech savvy individualist (this group is very well represented within BT and perhaps dominant) and some of the older Bonanza owners were looking to move on with their life as their flying days wound down.

If there is any doubt about this generational division look at the group of 33/35 owners who were former military/airline/old line corporate/GA who have said they'll never own a Cirrus . . . and why would they? In their mind they own the best 4 place GA aircraft and have survived 30 - 40 - 50 years without a chute. Then compare with the newer BT member who is a younger successful entrepreneur that really buys into technology as a method to improve the life experience.

As can be expected, the supply of really good used airplanes suddenly became very competitive and 'most' of that competition came from that danged plastic airplane.

So what we end up with is a few "old dinosaurs" flying their mil-spec high quality Bonanzas
being replaced with an airplane who's best quality is "it has a chute".

It does make for some interesting reading.

Cheers from London

I'm a young tech savvy individualist (Computer Science Professor and owner of a computer consulting business). I own a K35 because it was always my dream to own a V-Tail bonanza. I would never own a Cirrus for two reasons. 1) The cost is outrageous (both in fixed purchase cost and recurrent costs) 2) Its design is crazy. To explain #2, the pitch angle on landing is VERY critical. Too high and you strike the tail resulting in a totaled airplane, too low and you strike the prop resulting in a totaled engine. There are other issues I have with it (like fixed gear) but that pretty well explains why I don't like the beast.

To each his own, but to the Cirrus pilots out there, if you strike the prop, pull the power and slam on the brakes... DO NOT GO AROUND. Too many have been lost in that maneuver.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 10:38

Username Protected wrote:

There is also one more thing playing here. Money. There is huge (I think) population of owners that simply can not afford Cirrus (me including) but they can afford and fly nice mid range Bonanza. And as we all know every pilot owner is the first to admit that they can not afford something. it's way easier to blame the chute.

My dream was/is to own capable cross country machine for (way) under $100k. There's no Cirrus that fits that bill.

Couldn't agree more! :thumbup:

Also I wanted to add that there seems to be a lot of younger entrepreneur type guys like myself that are flying old beech airplanes and fixing them up into amazing machines for far less than some newer Cirrus. The few guys on here that have bought new Cirrus are not what I'd call young guys. Sorry Tony, Nate and Jim :bud:

Why some may not be a Cirrus convert