Ok, again point by point. First I did say that SOME of what you posted was correct. Much however is misleading. Here again is a point by point reply.
* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?
I can't find one 1999 Cirrus for sale. I suspect this comment shows your lack of knowledge of the type and your willingness to post about what you know so little. Considering that the only thing sold 10 years ago by Cirrus was the SR20 for around $180K I doubt the depreciation has been worse. If I take the middle of the price range for a 2000 SR20 it is $120K. A 2004 SR22 GTS loaded is $235K vs. a Mooney at $295. However, the Mooney has only 275 hours and sold for a lot more new. The Cirrus has 940 hours. I picked the only 2004 GTS for sale on Controller since the GTS is the closest in initial sales price to the Mooney but still sold for a lot less. A fully loaded 2002 SR22 sold for around $330K at the start of the year. CIrrus prices have risen a lot over the years.
(You are comparing a cirrus rate with a 20 year old mooney ? Haha, compare a cirrus rate with a new mooney or a new bonanza and then come back, CIRRUS IS MORE EXPENSIVE)
Wrong! I have direct experience. I am saying that in the US a Bonanza or a Mooney cost just as much to insure as a Cirrus if hull values are the same and pilot qualifications are the same.
Ok you agree the trim switch is sensitive on a Cirrus. It is MUCH more difficult to trim compared to a Mooney or a Bonanza. Ask anybody who has flown a Cirrus, if you say that the trim is normal then you are just lying. So this is CORRECT and it's a known problem on the cirrus planes, you can't deny that.
I agree it is sensitive to get trimmed properly. That is VERY different form needing constant trimming which is what you said. Read what you wrote.
As far as the prop control I am saying there is no difference under typical use i.e. in typical cruise flight but I do agree you can dream up instance where there is a difference. It is a personal preference but I wouldn't place fuel efficiency as an issue here. There are bigger things at play. In the end look at the fuel efficiency of different planes and take personal circumstances into account. For example, a Mooney is a very efficient plane not only compared to a Cirrus but to a Bonanza. The Bonanza is no more efficient than the Cirrus and is a retract with the added complexity. However, it has seating for 6. Choices, choices, choices. There is no one right plane. Heck, now my wife wants a Cub.
orrect, I'm not lying here am I ? Buy a NEW mooney or a NEW Bonanza and you don't have this limit. Are you trying to say that a New Mooney or a New Bonanaza won't be able to pass the FAA tests ? Are you kidding me ?
No I am not kidding you and that is what I am saying. I doubt the changes would be substantial. I am saying that, if certified today, the Mooney and the Bonanza would have an airframe life limit. That is a FACT.
Quote:
* A cirrus wing with ice up drops the speed much more than the same type of laminar wing than on a mooney
You said that the Cirrus is not good in dealing with ice 'just like all plans with a laminar wing' well the mooney has a laminar wing also and doesn't have that big problem as the cirrus has.
You want everything to be digital. I am pointing out that there are degrees. The Mooney wing is NOT as good at taking on ice as non-laminar flow wings. The C182 carries ice better than a Mooney. I have no doubt the Mooney carries ice better than a CIrrus. I don't have enough experience. I do know the Cirrus is sensitive to ice and I have stated as much from the beginning.
Quote:
* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside
Correct, you agreed it yourself.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said it varies with model. A G3 with 400 hours will look awesome inside.
Quote:
* 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
Correct, you agree also.
Don't put words in my mouth. People can read what I wrote. I have spent a lot of time looking at Cirrus numbers. I suspect I have spent a lot more time than Aviation Consumer. The numbers are similar to Mooney and Bonanza. Yes, I find that disappointing. I wish they were better than Mooney or Bonanza.
Quote:
* Financial status of Cirrus, it depends on 1 oil sheik.
Correct, that's not a lie from me is it ? You agree but you say it's a concern with Mooney also, and it's true, it's a big concern with Mooney but I'm talking about Cirrus and I'm not lying.
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree as to whether it is a deciding factor. Personally I think people buying a Mooney or a Cirrus will be ok but the odds are much worse for Mooney than Cirrus. Do me a favor though and don't proclaim that it is great to get a Mooney if you feel as stated above.