Is it a sin to buy a Cirrus?

[carusoam]

How well is this poll going over on CiSpace..?

Take a good look at the Mooney pic... it is nicely displaying that beautiful pilot side door...

-a-

[ArtVandelay]

Life is short, buy what you want.

I’ve been told Cirrus has higher maintenance costs, partly due to the parachute. Savvy’s main business is helping Cirrus owners to try to control their expenses.

[MatthiasArnold]

As mentioned before it really depends on your style and mission.

From my point of view Cirrus is more about convenience and not being so deeply involved in technical details.
My wife (she's an aviator as well) states Cirrus is like a flying Thermomix (a highly automated kitchen aid with cloud connection for recipes, touch screen, etc, very popular in Europe) compared to hand made meals..

I personally prefer retractable landing gear, efficiency and deep technical involvement (just had my owner assisted annual two weeks before) - but that's me, not someone else.

(When it comes to efficiency: with AVGas prices at app. 10USD/gal in Germany (and other European countries) this is something to consider over here.)

Best,

Matthias

[NJMac]

6 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I can't argue with any of this. Well thought out and well said.

I do have an issue with that particular Cirrus. All that Avidyne stuff and yet the GPS's are the worst you can install in any airplane. GTN650's, two of them!? I'd make the offer contingent on them replacing both with an IFD540/440 stack. 

Thanks. Having a 440 now, I am reasonably curious how the change will be to the Garmin universe.  

[Hank]

53 minutes ago, NJMac said:

I am reasonably curious how the change will be to the Garmin universe.  

Welcome to the dark side . . . .

Don't expect the interface to be user friendly or logical.

[ArtVandelay]

Thanks. Having a 440 now, I am reasonably curious how the change will be to the Garmin universe.  

It’s like religion or politics, if you have chosen sides I doubt you’ll change your mind.

I would get the simulator and spend a little time playing with it.

[GeeBee]

It is like the Boeing/Airbus argument. Each has their points and detractions. What you don't want is to be a little bit of the other. That is how you end up with the Max.

 

[Ibra]

13 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

How about two airplanes with the same engine.  A later model M20R vs a same year SR22 - including acquisition, and the multi-year maintenance costs how do you feel they compare in cost?

I would put Turbo-SR22 FIKI with oxygen in a different league to all Mooneys in terms of weather capabilities and load, if one can afford it MX & fuel bill it's a very decent airplane, pitty it's fixed gear and they teach people to land that truck bloody fast at +85kts, surely one will need 12kft runway, tailhook and parachute !  

NA-SR22 would be similar to 310hp Ovation, I have flown both, costwise what you hit on RG MX and insurance go into CAPS repack? the diffrence is mainly eficiency and style: you are either in sports cars or family trucks, the NA SR22 I flew was FIKI but after few attempts being restricted at oxygen levels I can argue that any NA aircraft going level at 10kft in weather instead of punching up to FL200 in the next 10min is like flying a mikey mouse, funny how even a non-FIKI turbo Skylane with oxygen would handle better in a quick 5min climb  

I don't have an issue with parachute, me & wife can fly aircrafts (and gliders) wing level few kts above stall down to 0AGL, it should be enough to walk away and tell a story (we scratched the tail once), but I had a quick doubt once over Pyrénées mountains at night where we start thinking about twins & parachutes (Alps would have been fine, plenty of landing spots even at night ), nonetheless it was a peaceful one-off flight in M20J and engine did his best !

@NJMac if Citrus  fits the bill go for it and hopefully plenty of flying, but make no joke we will laugh at your fuel bills and landings 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Ibra

[Will.iam]

Cirrus is like a bicycle with training wheels. It’s safe keeps you upright and some people are more than happy to ride like that. But once you experience a bike without training wheels and lean through a turn rarely do you want to go back to the bike with training wheels. Mooney retracts its training gear. Hands on is more rewarding in a mooney IMO. I also prefer a stick shift sports car over an automatic for the same more hands on involvement. 

[GeeBee]

Going to a Cirrus from a Mooney is like a second wife. You learn to appreciate both of them!

 

[alextstone]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Going to a Cirrus from a Mooney is like a second wife. You learn to appreciate both of them!

 

Yeah, but to be able to afford the second one, you have to pay the first one off first!

[dzeleski]

I think you just buy the airplane that meets your goals and ignore all the other noise :P.

That being said I flew a few SR22s in preparation to possibly buy one, I hated the side stick and the control feel. It feels like you are flying an RC plane, no feed back. Its a great airplane, amazing avionics, super comfy, it sucks its fixed gear which is another reason why I passed. All of the ones I was looking at were coming up on a chute repack which I didnt want to deal with.

I decided to go with a decent J and put a few AMU into upgrading it. Personally I like the control feel in my J more, yea its a bit tight, yeah one door is kind of annoying, but my early J has 1005lbs of useful, which is going to increase even more when I get my new AP and vac system removed. I currently have 630lbs of useful at full fuel. The J just made more sense for me personally.

Buy what makes sense and what you can afford, if its got wings its cool.

[aviatoreb]

I don't have a parachute or a twin engine, so I consider that to be an absence of a backup plan for flying at night or low IFR. So I do not fly at night or in low IFR. Period.  That is how I mitigate that risk.

If I had to fly night or low IFR then I would get either a parachute or a twin.  Preferably a twin.

At 300k I would consider also twins in that price tier.  I mean for expanding the operation dispatch more safely.  Not for the concept of excitement, speed or what not.

Have you considered a Diamond DA42?  I think those might be a good price counter point to a 300k SR22.

 

[rbridges]

my buddy has a G3 22.  It's a nice plane.  I've never flown it as PIC, but the cockpit is great.  His useful load isn't wonderful, and he averages 165 ish knots which is faster than my mooney but slower than comparable 6 banger mooneys.

His annuals are steep.  I would grasp my heart at what he pays, but I'm comparing a vintage mooney to a fairly modern cirrus.  I don't know how annuals compare with a early 2000s Ovation to a 22 cirrus.

 

[Skates97]

16 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Beauty, sex appeal, desire, etc. is all in the eye of the beholder. And so damn the engineering and the numbers, retracts are exponentially sexier than fixed gear trikes. And so for my money, it's got to be a retract... or a tailwheel. 

The sexiest option of all is a retractable conventional gear airplane, i.e. P51 or Spitfire. 

The first time I flew my Mooney and pulled the gear up I felt like I was really flying. 

11 hours ago, Will.iam said:

My personal opinion but I’ll take a steel roll cage over a chute any day. Once you pull the chute you’re at the mercy of the wind and where that puts you. I’d rather control it all the way to the dirt in a tank. Most people can solo within 10 hours or so. Teach the spouse to steer it in - in case for when she is with u if you happen to become incapacitated. 

I took a friend to Catalina Saturday. I think his only time in GA planes is the three flights I have taken him on. We were walking around and he was asking about the different planes there. A Cirrus pulled up and I was telling him about them and that one of the biggest points for the person in the right seat is that option of the parachute, it makes them feel safer. His response was, "But with the parachute you don't know where you're going to land, right?"

However, if the only way my wife would be comfortable flying was with a plane with a parachute that is what I would own. Flying is better than not flying, and if she wasn't on board with the flying I probably wouldn't be doing much of it.

[Will.iam]

It’s interesting how some people get nervous getting into the right seat of a GA airplane but think nothing of hopping on the back of a motorcycle. I think its the unknown factor more than anything else. My mom didn’t learn to fly out of fear pop would croak it was out of the necessity to get the airplane back home after we dropped pop off for work. 

[aviatoreb]

2 minutes ago, TheMartinAlliance said:

All general aviation planes have their ups and downs; some catch the eye more than others. The Cirrus is a high-performance plane and has some pretty nice advanced features (including those shiny Garmin avionics). However, the glass cockpit and ballistic chute can fool pilots into thinking it's a more capable and safer plane, when it isn't. And man are those things expensive!  As aviatoreb mentioned, you could buy some very nice twins (like the Baron, DA42, etc) with the Cirrus price tag. I do still like the Cirrus for a handful of its features and capabilities, but I'd prefer a vintage plane with a normal yoke over those awful side sticks any day.

Yeah - a Beech 55 is a gorgeous and exciting twin.  Much cheaper to acquire but more expensive to feed and probably similar or more expensive to maintain.  Much faster.  Much more exciting.  I would prefer a twin at night or low ifr than a parachute.

[aviatoreb]

Just now, TheMartinAlliance said:

After all, buying a plane is the cheapest part. After that, it gets very expensive! 

True - but if I can acquire a really really cream puff example of a B55 for $150k vs $300k for that cirrus - then 150k goes some way toward buying fuel and maintenance.

[Parker_Woodruff]

17 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

 

The sexiest option of all is a retractable conventional gear airplane, i.e. P51 or Spitfire. 

If you're going to have both those, then it may as well be able to float, too.  Grumman Widgeon.

[MooneyMitch]

1 minute ago, Will.iam said:

 

It’s interesting how some people get nervous getting into the right seat of a GA airplane but think nothing of hopping on the back of a motorcycle

 

I would have to be extreme dire straights to hop on the back of a motorcycle driven by another.... and I don’t do it..... ever!!!

Cautious about flying right seat    with a PIC left seat..... absolutely!! That’s a very rare occasion for me.  I must know that person extremely well, and trust their capabilities completely.

[Will.iam]

Rode in a  neighbors baron twin the other day. 6 seats roomy 1700# useful load was my biggest envy. Putting along at 170kts but at 25 gallons an hour! That’s twice the gas i use and it’s not even 10% faster. Aaaah but that useful load. 

[Danb]

18 hours ago, NJMac said:

One of my aviation mentors is pushing me into a Cirrus.  He had 2 mooney's and then 2 Cirrus's.  Being a 5 min flight from Steel also helps with any mx and annuals.   One I'm looking at has TKS and 1080 useful.  It's a pretty compelling value proposition IMO.

This being Holy Week, who’s going to move the boulder you may not be able to get out. 

[Will.iam]

5 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

True - but if I can acquire a really really cream puff example of a B55 for $150k vs $300k for that cirrus - then 150k goes some way toward buying fuel and maintenance.

My neighbor is an AI that owns the baron says compared to the maintenance bills the fuel is practically free and he doesn’t even budget for that. Said he had to become an A&P before he could even afford to buy the baron to keep the costs down.  Just put 2 new 3 blade props on at the tune of 30k in parts alone. Out of my price range. 

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Rode in a  neighbors baron twin the other day. 6 seats roomy 1700# useful load was my biggest envy. Putting along at 170kts but at 25 gallons an hour! That’s twice the gas i use and it’s not even 10% faster. Aaaah but that useful load. 

Twins don't exist to be fuel efficient.   They exist first for that greater useful load.  Second for their redundancy.  A distant third would be speed.  And there is always panache.

I think if I had 400 or 500k burning a hole in my pocket - the next airplane I would buy if I were buying would be the turbine bonanza.  I always thought that was neat.

[Wayne Cease]

They are nice traveling planes. Roomy inside for a single engine 4-seater. Not as efficient as a Mooney.

I fly a 2006 SR22; I own 1/3 of it. I could see buying a newer one with AC some time in the next few years.



Wayne