Going from memory alone - the 58. Probably by a good margin. Especially when comparing my fat propped turbo. It's a brick.

Again, from memory, but doesn't the 58 with the feathered props glide better than the Bo? And the Bo gets a 1/2 mile per 1k ft more than the SR22TN.

Oh. And, sorry Bill. I was tired.

I recall the SR22 having a best glide range of ~9.5 miles per 1000ft; at MTOW.
The Bonanza variants were between 10 and 11 miles from what I recall.

For the BE58, I would guess in the 5-6 miles per 1000ft. But I really have no clue.

Tim

You're thinking glide ratio, Tim. My TN is 8.5:1. Non turbo is 9.6:1, I think.

I figure 1.5 miles per 1k.

(All unverified from memory)

So as not to confuse me with the "New" Bill, I now wish to be referred to by the name painted on all the F-16s I crewed in my glory days and that is "Wild Bill".

Tim , you are right, that as for my Bonanza it does not prevent spins. That is part of the pilot's job. If you don't stall the plane, except the last few inches landing, then it doesn't spin. And if you don't stall it with the an undcoordinated yaw, the ball out of the center, then even a stall is likely to be mostly straight and not a spin.
If anyone has an mind open to some learning and hasn't already concluded that a Cirrus is the perfect airplane, you can get a T-6 lesson, with a good CFI, and go up high and practice stalls and recoveries. If you do a power on cross control stall and you are not brain dead, it should give you a clue not to do this inadvertenly and for sure not down low.
Two of the planes I fly, two of the most successful and best ever, are from the 40's and will certainly spin, but will also recover with normal controls and not using a chute, for plane or pilot. I have spun and recovered them and made a normal landing after. For normal flying, not stalling or spinning is part of the pilots job.

MAKING A BONANZA "SPIN RESISTANT".

I have a 1988 B36 and I really want it to be up to date and "spin resistant".
I have considered wing and other aerodynamic changes, but found a simpler way.

I am going to hire an advertising and pr man from Cirrus.

Presto, instant perfection.

Re Machines and Egos:

Think about this a bit, folks.
The machines we own really have little to do with who we are as people and our character as a person.
I know people who are as big a cultist or disciples of Apple as you guys are of Cirrus. They act like it is a threat to their soul if you don't went to pay twice as much for an APPLE as the equivalent Dell. Same as some folks about their car, Lexus vs Mercedes or even Ford vs Chevy, It ain't true , it don't matter to that degree.
If O J or Dick Cheney went out and bought a Cirrus and a new Iphone 6 and the latest Ipad and had bet on Seattle in the superbowl, they'd still be bums.

If you are lucky enough to own some great airplane or other machine, about all you can take credit for is having good taste.

Got it . . . Wild Bill . . . Wild Bill.

Kinda has a nice ring doesn't it.

Bill,

I think we need to look at what the planes are built for. A Cub, 172, 140, etc was primarily built for training and these planes were built to fly into unimproved strips. They were slow and rugged. Many of them had no instruments other than airspeed and altimeter. If they found themselves above a cloud deck they could not get down from the standard procedure was to spin the plane before entering the clouds and recover when the exited the clouds. They did not have stall warnings, AOA, or synthetic vision to help keep them right side up.

Technology is replacing the need to have a plane that recovers from a spin. Instead, the focus needs to be efficiency of the wing and safety in case things do go bad. I will gladly take Bonanza speed with fixed gear and a parachute along with high G seats and possibly give up the ability to recover from a spin that I will most likely never see.

People hated ABS brakes, traction control, and airbags in cars initially, but now they demand those features. With the advent of backup cameras and cars that with park themselves we are finding more and more people that want these features and will not look at vehicles that do not have these options.

I also believe that the "new" aircraft owner really does not care what the airplane will be worth in 30 years as they have no intention of keeping the plane that long. They are looking for the latest and greatest in technology - just like their automobile and their cell phone.

Sadly, I think you're right. We've entered the era of disposable assets (albeit a 20 year lifespan or more?). Kinda like cars. Before technology, marketing, and media began selling the idea that you had to have the latest and greatest you could own a car 20-30 years and maintain it fairly economically with a repower, overhaul, or new interior.

A twenty year lifespan for some of these G1000 type aircraft may not be that far from reality.

If an airplane is coming up for engine overhaul, chute repack and then "bang" there goes an unsupported or out of production part of the G1000, it may well be past the point of continuing with it's required maintenance.

That's why I've wondered if a later 33/35/36 or 55/58 might be a better "investment" than a newer G1000 version. At some point China will quite making some part that is required and what will the options be at that point?

I'm buying a plane for a mission. In my case, that's travel on a schedule, including night flight and over LIFR. Safely. Or, at least, more safe.

That about sums it up Nate.

Good job!!!!!

Props feathered it's about 2 miles for every 1,000 feet. I did not believe it either when told. Better than my Mooney!!

Arlen, as Paul responded, this is not accurate.

Cirrus test pilot Scott Anderson died while flying the prototype SR20 when testing an aileron issue in 1999. The test involved changes to the aileron hinge position, such that it bound in flight, rending the aircraft very difficult to control. Scott made it close to the runway but crashed about 1/4 mile away. Regrettably, the prototype SR20 did not have a CAPS parachute recovery system installed. I don't know if he had a personal parachute, but he was about pattern altitude close to the airport when he crashed.

Scott flew the SR20 during CAPS testing, in which they deployed the parachute 8 times.

Scott is memorialized by the ANDOE waypoint on the ILS RWY09 approach into Duluth International Airport.

Cheers
Rick