Sternone - Have you not read anything in this thread? Have you not done any research? Why is it that the current theme on the internet is that people just repeat things again and again that aren't true with the idea that they will somehow become fact? Some of what you say is correct. A lot is completely wrong. One more time, here are facts:
* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?
True for the reasons stated in an earlier post. Unfortunately, it may not be true in the future due to present management not pushing development as fast as Alan K. did. Time will tell. What it does mean is that used SR22's are screaming good buys. The SR20 has been made in smaller numbers. Since some of the depreciation is due to the fact of large yearly production runs, the SR20 has suffered less, but still significant depreciation. Also, the depreciation curve as a plane goes form being 1 year old to two years old is different form one going from being 20 years old to being 21 years old.
* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.
True except for the price. However, it won't be cheap. Factor this into hourly operating cost. This cost is here because the plane has a parachute. Decide for yourself whether it is worth the cost.
* Insurance rates are higher on a Cirrus than on a Bonanza, Mooney or Cessna Corvallis
Based on personal experience not true at least in the US. The main determiner is hull value. Since Cirrus aircraft have higher hull values than, for example, a 20 year old Mooney, then the insurance is higher.
* Have high post crash fires
Unknown at this point. No post crash fires when coming down under canopy. However, there have been fires in other accident scenarios including some landing accidents. This is one where the Cirrus COULD be worse than other aircraft.
* Sidestick always needs trimming
Another misstatement by sterone. The trim switch is sensitive. It is electric and trims fast. That makes it touchy. Once set it holds trim so it does not always need trimming. It is more of a pain to get the trim set than on a C172 with its manual trim wheel.
* Lack of a prop rpm lever (10% waste of fuel)
Not true for the most point. This one is like manual vs. automatic transmission on a car. It can be a personal preference items. I have no issue with people preferring a separate prop control. I used to. However, I now prefer the way Cirrus has done it. You do need to understand how it works. As you push the throttle forward you initially get an increase in manifold pressure and an increase in RPM up to 2500 RPM. At that point RPM flattens out. Further movement of the throttle causes manifold pressure to increase. Finally you reach a point where the throttle is wide open. At that point moving the throttle further forward results in a prop pitch change smoothly until 2700 RPM (on my plane actually about 2680) is reached. This is not as flexible as having a separate prop control. In typical cruise flight there is no decrease in fuel economy relative to having a separate prop control. All you have to do is look at efficiency. With fixed gear my SR22 has about the same fuel efficiency as my friend's V35B Bonanza. Considering that I have a roomier cabin and gear hanging down that is pretty good. If you operate in other power regimes then there is probably some inefficiency. It is more of a theoretical issue than a practical one for most use profiles. I happen to like the increase in simplicity and the resulting reduction in pilot workload.
Agreed. Turbos are quieter than NA aircraft so the turbo Cirrus is quieter than the normally aspirated one. A turbo Saratoga is noticeably quieter than an NA (non-turbo) Cirrus. A V35B Bonanza is quieter but the difference isn't as dramatic. The bottom line is that the CIrrus is noisy. Fly it and judge for yourself how much it matters to you.
* Cirrus airframe limit is 15.000 hours ( I rather have a plane with a non-life limit)
This is a great example of sternone ignoring or not comprehending my earlier post. I agree that it would be great if there was no airframe life limit. However, EVERY newly FAA certified aircraft has an airframe life limit. You can avoid this by getting a plane certified to older, less strict, standards. However, it is doubtful that those airframe could pass present certification standards as is. That doesn't mean they are bad airplanes. I think the long history shows they are solid. But... the FAA has become much stricter. I watched them require a backlight color change from orange because the FAA thought it might distract from noticing warning messages. For those reading these posts, a lot of the FAA certification standards are public if you care to dig through them.
* A cirrus wing with ice up drops the speed much more than the same type of laminar wing than on a mooney
With different wording I might give sternone a pass on this one but, as usual, he takes facts and misstates them. Both the Mooney and the Cirrus have laminar wings. However, they aren't the same wing. Just take a look at them. The Cirrus wing is not a very ice friendly wing. That is especially true of it compared to a C182. Also, sitting on a ramp a Cirrus will accumulate frost before the metal planes do. There are plenty of advantages to the wing design including strength, ride and efficiency. Read Fuji Abound's last post and take it to heart. One of the wonderful things about GA is that there are a lot of nice planes out there. The designers have made different tradeoffs knowing that people are different with a different balance of priorities. Choose what suites you.
* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside
G1 planes have a somewhat fragile interior. G3's are much better with G2's close to G3's. Look at it and decide for yourself. Certainly Mooney and Beech do nice interiors. The Cirrus interior is much more modern. Especially on G1's I think the Cirrus doesn't like a life in the sun. Use shades or hangar. Well taken care of the interior will stay nice but, if you don't use seat covers, the seats will eventually need to be redone like any other plane.
* Aviation consumer : "The cirrus accident record can be summed in a single word: disapointing" The fleetwide fatal rate for Cirrus is 2.2/100.000 compared to a GA fatal rate of 1.2/100.000 according tot he NTSB
I agree with the disappointing statement. Considering all of the safety features the rate is about the same as other high performance singles including Mooney. In other words, the record is dominated by the mission of the plane. Read the accident reports and decide for yourself if the plane was the issue.
* Financial status of Cirrus, it depends on 1 oil sheik.
This is a valid concern. However, there is more than a little humor seeing it come from a Mooney owner. If you are worried about this then stay away from Mooney. They have totally shut down production trying to stay alive and have been bankrupt several times. Piper isn't strong nor is Beech. Get a Cessna. The fact is that there are a lot of Cirrus aircraft out there. The SR22 continues to be the best selling aircraft in the world in terms of unit volume. Just like Mooney, the fleet is too large to let it go unserviced.
Hopefully my comments have helped people decide what is best for them and not for me or for sternone.