KSMooniac Posted May 30, 2014 Report Posted May 30, 2014 If the Cirrus and the Cessna 400 (previously Columbia) planes have been in the market essentially the same length of time, why would the "better designed" plane be outsold by a 5-1 margin? From my perspective as a professional mechanic & flight instructor with experience on all the planes in this comparison, I can say the Cessna is what it is: a heavily revised home built design with many shortcomings. The Cirrus is a clean sheet design that is easy to service, durable, and modern. The Mooney is a wonderful evolution of a good design, with the Bravo being superior to the Acclaim as far as engine durability. You are 100% wrong about the Lancair/Columbia/Cessna 400. It was a clean-sheet design and shares no common parts with the Lancair Super ES from which it was originally supposed to evolve. The plan was to certify the ES, but it quickly became apparent that it was not certifiable from the handling qualities perspective for Part 23, so the new plane started completely from scratch. Cirrus certainly won the market with the 22 and that is indisputable. Quote
chrisk Posted May 30, 2014 Report Posted May 30, 2014 It is not just marketing but the buying public perceived the Cirrus as having a better value or bang for the buck compared to the other planes. My brother bought a Cirrus 11 years ago because he thought the Cirrus with the PFD, MFD, wide cabin, parachute, speed,looks and expected "lower" maintenance due to having the gear fixed simply offered more bang for his buck. I remember the Ovation cost more or was about the same as the Cirrus so he went for the Cirrus, although he was really torn as he liked the Ovation a lot. I would not under estimate the value many pilots put on fixed gear. I don't think it is the "cost of maintenance". I think it is the fear of gear ups, additional sign offs, and a Complex Endorsement. Most pilots looking at a new Cirrus or Columbia 400 probably have flown a 182 and have the High Performance Endorsement. Also, there has to be some psychological effect about dropping big dollars on a plane you legally can't fly. I know it was there when I bought my 231. I needed the high performance endorsement since the 231 has 210 hp and the F I flew before only had 200 hp. 2 Quote
manoflamancha Posted May 30, 2014 Author Report Posted May 30, 2014 Right now I'm leaning toward a nice Ovation since prices are a good deal for under 200K one can be had. Definitely would take one over a Cirrus. 1 Quote
kmyfm20s Posted May 31, 2014 Report Posted May 31, 2014 Ovation/Eagles are great! You can still generate 190Hp up to 10K-12K and that is 60% power in which the engine was designed for. I have the 310Hp I can get 60% up to 16K if I feel like running up the RPM. The very few times I climb higher I'm willing to accept the slower air speed than a turbo. From the charts that I have seen at moderately high altitude airports I'm still getting off the ground with equal or less runway compared to a Bravo. They fit my mission well!! I really like all the models and there is hopefully one that will fit your mission perfectly. Quote
jetdriven Posted May 31, 2014 Report Posted May 31, 2014 I would not under estimate the value many pilots put on fixed gear. I don't think it is the "cost of maintenance". I think it is the fear of gear ups, additional sign offs, and a Complex Endorsement. Most pilots looking at a new Cirrus or Columbia 400 probably have flown a 182 and have the High Performance Endorsement. Also, there has to be some psychological effect about dropping big dollars on a plane you legally can't fly. I know it was there when I bought my 231. I needed the high performance endorsement since the 231 has 210 hp and the F I flew before only had 200 hp. Fear of upgrading beyond something percieved as a fast Warrior, but actually is more deadly (and expensive to maintain, not including payments even) than a Bonanza? Why bother, just buy a fixed gear airplane that burns 19 GPH. No worry, that complex gear, prop, mixture, throttle is too complicated. Dont bother me with all that shit, I aint got time for that, just check me out, turn me loose. This is a new day, a new time. 150 hours total time, cross the country regardless. I got the money I make it happen. if the SHTF I got a parachute for that. Disregard it doesnt meet the stall/spin requirements without that parachute. Its almost like they are marketing their product to low-skilled pilots with lots of money who dont know any better. Oh wait... they even market their plane to nonpilots too. Anything to make a buck. http://cirrusaircraft.com/ondemand/ 2 Quote
carusoam Posted May 31, 2014 Report Posted May 31, 2014 They used to bring it to big fairs with very few pilots... Best regards, -a- Quote
manoflamancha Posted May 31, 2014 Author Report Posted May 31, 2014 It's funny because after only a few hours of flying a retract for my complex checkout in a Piper Arrow to be honest the new stuff with landing gear and constant speed prop was not hard to learn. After a few hours in a Cessna 182, high performance was not difficult other than getting things prepared in advance and slowing the faster aircraft down. I don't think learning an Ovation or Bravo will be difficult coming from flying a Cessna 182, Mooney 20F and Piper Arrow. The flying clubs make a bigger deal out of things than necessary. Quote
DaV8or Posted May 31, 2014 Report Posted May 31, 2014 Its almost like they are marketing their product to low-skilled pilots with lots of money who dont know any better. Oh wait... they even market their plane to nonpilots too. Anything to make a buck. http://cirrusaircraft.com/ondemand/ Exactly the way Beechcraft did back in the day! I am convinced that Beechcraft marketing killed Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, the Big Bopper and ultimately the naive pilot that day. Now the Bonanza is considered to be the pilot's plane and the ultimate family vacation machine. Is it not possible that the Cirrus SR-22 could hold the same esteem in the future? People said GA was in the doldrums and there weren't enough new planes, or pilots. Cirrus stepped in and created both with the only method known to actually work. The promise of the personal airliner. Tell people they can go anywhere, anytime safely with the whole family loaded up and folks will pony up lots of money. Just leave out the bits about potential death if you push the boundaries from the brochure. Funny how on aviation forums you will find folks bashing the hell out of all things Cirrus for their reckless promotion of safe, reliable passage for the average man, but yet on another thread in the same forums, they will boast how they routinely boast of 97%+ dispatch rates on their personal journeys in their own aircraft. The Cirrus SR-22 has everything else any other single piston engine airplane has to offer plus more... and then there's the parachute. The SR-22 does have the potential to be the safest and most capable "personal airliner" ever built. Maybe 50 years from now?? The Cirrus bashing has to stop. They are the only ones actually trying to advance GA other than our friends over in the experimental camp. They are to be applauded IMO for doing something in a field of quagmire. 1 Quote
chrisk Posted May 31, 2014 Report Posted May 31, 2014 The Cirrus bashing has to stop. They are the only ones actually trying to advance GA other than our friends over in the experimental camp. They are to be applauded IMO for doing something in a field of quagmire. From the prospective of some one who is not going to buy a new plane, my issues with Cirrus come down to its value in the used market. Other planes (Mooney and Beechcraft) seem to be a better value. I'd be happy to fly one. Quote
manoflamancha Posted May 31, 2014 Author Report Posted May 31, 2014 Nothing against Cirrus as the parachute and marketing is quite nice but for me, I prefer Mooney and Bonanza. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.