LoPresti make these replacement parts for Cirrus wheels:

http://www.speedmods.com/newsletter/...skate-nose.jpg

Don't know if they are any good.

"when some Arab oil man wakes up and say's he had enough of it, it's over at Cirrus"

The Mooney Airplane Company (MAC) is a U.S. manufacturer of single-engined general aviation aircraft. Mooney has been a leader in civil aviation even though the company has gone bankrupt and changed ownership several times.

So, even if worst comes to the worst and Cirrus pays the ultimate price for not delivering the product that the mooniac values above all others, I doubt its "all over" - not with a delivered fleet of 5000 aircraft in the last ten years.

-------
2008 Production Halt

On Monday 16 June 2008 Mooney announced that it would lay off 60 employees and cut production from eight aircraft per month to five. Mooney CEO Dennis Ferguson said:[2]
“ These decisions will not have an adverse effect on the quality or safety of our products, nor will they delay scheduled aircraft deliveries. They were made to create corporate resiliency in the present economic conditions. Our plans include positioning Mooney as a strong contender in the international market...We are strengthening our business in Europe, South America and Australia, where Mooney's high performance, efficiency and pricing are especially appealing. Our focus is to ensure the long-term viability of the company through prudent management and expansion of our market reach.[2] ” The reasons for the cutbacks and layoffs cited by the company include the weak US economy and the high price of fuel inhibiting sales.[2]
On 5 November 2008 the company announced that it was halting all production and had laid off 229 of its 320 employees, due to an excess unsold inventory of aircraft as a result of the economic crisis. Virtually all the laid-off employees were on the production line. The company said all other operations would continue and that all customer support and existing customer orders would be filled.[3]
In carrying out the lay-offs the company did not comply with the notification requirements of Texas law. In a statement Mooney said:
“ These unexpected and unforeseeable conditions are beyond Mooney Airplane Company's control. It was impossible for Mooney Airplane Company to predict this sudden collapse in demand at the time when notice would have been required. [3] ” In a third round of lay-offs in December 2008 the company let go an additional 40 workers leaving only about 50 employees at work. The company had 25 unsold aircraft at its factory in December 2008.[4]



Yep, if I loved all things Mooney I would be real sore.

And we hear you loud and clear; you don't like Cirrus build quality, and and and, and now Alan K, and now Cirrus Jet, and ...

Why not give yourself a break? Time to moo-ve on. Enjoy your choice, let other people enjoys theirs - they are all flyers and flying ,sharing the sky, be happy for them whatever they are flying.

If seeing a Cirrus on the ramp spoils your day, well sorry about that. Let go of the banana, or maybe just sit back and wait for your 'told you so' opportunities.

[duplicate post]

I'll let you know about the IceSkates if I ever receive the set I have had on order for two years. Not one set has been delivered. Worse they were developed using a plane I once owned one quarter of. The access door is being relocated and they will now include the "mushroom" piece at the top of the strut fairing. This is one area where the G3 has much better fit and finish and I hope the IceSkates will clean things up a bit along with making valve stem access easier. I still think an access door should be made standard by Cirrus.

Well, if the discussions with Cirrus lovers have to end with :"please give it a rest and shut up" ... then it's a sad world for aviation internet forums !!! And freedom of speech.

Funny thing is, everytime I type something in here I find something new that I don't like on the Cirrus !!

The facts remain. There is a huge list of problems and complains about the cirrus planes.

There is not a huge list of complains and problems with for example Mooneys or Bonanzas.

Strange, because they build bonanzas for over 60 years and have more then 15000 of them in the fleet, some of those first ones still flying and looking VERY GOOD!!

That will not happen with the Cirrus, believe me. The depreciation on a new Cirrus is just stunning. How much value does a Cirrus hold after 10 years ? It's a complete disaster. Not a word from the cirrus lovers on this part (again) I have posted some real issue's, some of them cirrus lovers replied to (not really good) but most of them ignoring a descent reply.

That, my dear, is to agree with it, in silence.

Sternone - you should put in an offer for one of these, assuming they have not been broken for spares.

I suppose there is a shortage of Mooney tanks. These pictures look dreadful.

http://www.willmarairservice.com/tank.php

Hey if it's one thing I don't really like on the Mooney it's the wet tank. WTF ??

That is just asking for problems. It's an expensive and nasty work, re-sealing those mooney tanks !!

About the numbers Mooney sold.. what can I say. They deserve much better ofcorse, they are much better planes than Cirrus. Cirrus ends up at the lowest bottom of my score on all points. People who know aviation tend not to be the big buyers out there. It's the people with the big (credit) wallet and almost no aviation expierence who are buying planes, and Cirrus eye catching hiding the facts marketing is working on them.

Sternone - Actually you haven't responded when it has been pointed out that many of your comments are flat out wrong. You have claimed items of fact are mere opinion and not responded when it has been made clear that an item is indeed fact. You talk about what you don't know and then when you are called out on it you shift to something else without a response.

In all of your anti-Cirrus tirades you did bring up one interesting point:

Perhaps I missed an earlier question about depreciation since I have not, as you pointed out commented on it. I didn't know it was a topic you wanted a comment on. The high depreciation is indeed a fact. It is one of the few you have given. It is due to many reasons. Even prior to the recent economic crash Cirrus aricraft had high depreciation. They also had lots of repeat buyers due to the constant improvements being made. I know several people on their 5th Cirrus. If they had had all of the problems you state I doubt they would be repeat customers. Unlike a lot of other makes there was a real difference year to year so older planes depreciated. Furthermore, buyers wanting the new stuff were putting their older Cirrus aircraft on the market. That put pressure on pricing and resulted in depreciation. The recession hit hard including some of the core constituency of Cirrus. The SR22 is a great plane for developers to use to travel to different projects. A lot of Florida developers had Cirrus aircraft and these went on the market when the downturn hit. The final one is an item of supply. The SR22 has been the number one selling aircraft in the world for about 8 years running. With few buyers for aircraft of any kind in the recent downturn this has meant strong downward pressure as owners have had to get rid of their aircraft.

There you have it. I doubt facts and logic will count for much with you but perhaps they will matter to others who read this thread.

Paulp,

thank you for your informative posts.

...and your patience. ;)

Sternone

Is this still an issue with the M20M? 300 hundred hours and major work being required is not good on a turbo Mooney. My mate has had no such problems with his turbo Cirrus.

I think very few turbo engines make TBO.

Presumably this is not because of the turbo but because the engine can pull 75% all the way to high altitude.

It's no good telling the pilots because those who buy turbo planes buy them so they can do precisely that :)

IO540

That may well be true but my post was motivated by slightly different mischief making.

The point being as much as Sternone sings the praises of Mooney's (and they are a good aircraft) and derides Cirrus (and they have their problems) it is not too difficult to find issues with most aircraft. Mooney have their own unique and not so "unique" issues some of which I have highlighted. There are more.

Some one who purchased a new Ovation two years ago I suspect might be facing more depreciation that a Cirrus owner of the same vintage.

So in a sense I am simply pointing out that the passion with which Sternone derides Cirrus is misplaced. We each will speak well of the aircraft we fly because often we fly that particular type because we have satisfied ourselves it is the best aircraft for us.

I hope having been fortunate enough to have flown a fair few types I can be a little more dispassionate. For that reason I still believe all other issues aside the Cirrus is a very good aircraft - it has it faults, and it is not cheap to own and operate but perhaps not that much different from any new high performance aircraft. The Mooney is also a very good aircraft.

I have nothing against a thread that explores the problems of any given type but I think the way Sternone is intent on comparing a Cirrus with a Mooney diverts our attention from an otherwise interesting thread particularly when you might conclude the Mooney doesnt suffer from any "problems". It does - some the same, some different.

If you are in the market for either it is a matter of assessing which of the problem sets you are more comfortable with! :}

Let me summarize the items so far on the Cirrus that are really worrisome :

* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?
* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.
* Insurance rates are higher on a Cirrus than on a Bonanza, Mooney or Cessna Corvallis
* Have high post crash fires
* Sidestick always needs trimming
* Lack of a prop rpm lever (10% waste of fuel)
* Noisy cockpit
* Cirrus airframe limit is 15.000 hours ( I rather have a plane with a non-life limit)
* A cirrus wing with ice up drops the speed much more than the same type of laminar wing than on a mooney
* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside
* 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
* Financial status of Cirrus, it depends on 1 oil sheik. I give another example here :

At AOPA convention a week ago Cirrus was selling "takeover" positions from prior depositors on the cirrus jet. Basically, you could buy a prior depositor out for their deposit, get the benefit of "5,000 a year in upgrades" and take over the original depositor's delivery position for the price of the original deposit plus a $15k transfer fee. On a question to Cirrus why are they doing this since these deposits were supposed to be fully refundable they answered: "because we are refunding them from cash flow and there isn't much of that right now."

I want potential Cirrus buyers to look out for other things and think twice before they go with the marketing lie. Ofcorse Mooney and Beechcraft planes have their problems. Just not as much as Cirrus.

One thing I don't like about the Cirrus is its lack of engine RPM control, which IME results in about a 5-10% fuel wastage due to running at max RPM, compared with say 2200.

Together with the fixed gear, they are probably chucking away 10-15% of the fuel.

I see this as a very successful but unfortunate dumbing down of the market, in the name of marketing.

Ably assisted by Socata's fantastic marketing skills, which after 20-30 years of "selling" planes in the USA still leaves a situation where many American pilots have never heard of the company.

And, in an acknowledgement of its great marketing, Socata then stopped the production of piston planes in 2001 :ugh:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Little weak responses from you, I'm disappointed.

Little extra example:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...#ht_500wt_1182


2007 Cirrus SR22 Turbo GTS Single Engine Airplane Price: US $285,000.00

280k on controller with 195 hours on it and pretty much every option including tks.

This plane had to be well north of 600k new. that equates to over 1600 dollars an hour for depreciation!

A lot is completely wrong ? Let's see how much is completely wrong of what I resumed here.

Quote:
* Depreciation on a cirrus is stunning, how much value drops the Cirrus compared to other planes after 10 years ?

Correct.

Quote:
* the BRS parachute needs to be replaced every 10 years, IMHO at least a $25.000 job in Europe.

Correct (price not known, but I won't be far off)

Quote:
* Insurance rates are higher on a Cirrus than on a Bonanza, Mooney or Cessna Corvallis

Correct.

(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)


Quote:
* Have high post crash fires

Correct.

Quote:
* Sidestick always needs trimming

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.

Quote:
* 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.

So what you are saying is it's true but doesn't make a big difference on the cirrus right ? So again I'm CORRECT.

Quote:
* Noisy cockpit

Correct.

Quote:
* Cirrus airframe limit is 15.000 hours ( I rather have a plane with a non-life limit)

Correct, 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 ?

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.

Correct. I'm not lying here.

Quote:
* Cirrus planes looks beat up after 400 hours inside/outside

Correct, you agreed it yourself.

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.

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.

You see, can you count how many lies I told here like you tell me ?

Please do. There are maybe 1 or 2 that you disagree with me that doesn't make me lying ??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said it varies with model. A G3 with 400 hours will look awesome inside.

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.

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.

paulp
Not correct. There is a big difference between 2200 and 2500 and especially 2700.
Indeed :)

Which is virtually a WW2 design, and is this a LOP v. LOP comparison, at the same IAS?

Yes, a good bit of marketing :)

Based on my tests I would bet on a 10% minimum range difference between 2200 and 2500. But nobody can verify this because at 2200 the SR22 won't be going anywhere.

A good bit of marketing. One can't argue with that. I won't even say that Cirrus were wrong to do this. After all, an SR22 (or my TB20 will go further than some turboprops or light jets, and their manufacturers can't all be stupid (can they?).

But it is a poor technical solution - on a plane whose mission capability would benefit significantly.

the decider...
 

I have to apologise to the majority of Cirrus lover out there (who keep buying and flying these aircraft), but like Sternone I just don't get the Cirrus thing - I fear it is completely lost on both of us.

IMHO the worst thing any manufacturer can do to their client base is constantly revise and rebrand their product line. This instantly devalues the last few marques the second the new label is announced.

BTW I sold my 5 year old Mooney Ovation 2 GX privately last month with 550h TT. It had depreciated by only 23% since new. The Mooney is definitely a niche machine with a small niche market of "cognoscenti" owner/pilots. Each of the prospective buyers knew what they were looking for, mainly TKS deiced IFR capability with stunning range and performance. One had flown a Mooney around the world a decade previously.

I would predict that Cirrus will continue to dominate the market for light singles. So long as they reinvest so much of their turnover in glitzy marketing then there is no question that they will keep sales going.

SB

Personally I think the Mooney is a piece of Shyte, and yes I have flown them. Why because it has a cramped cabin, poor visiblity, ailerons that feel like they were set in cement and they are universally reviled by mechanics because they are so hard to work on....BUT since this thread is not about Mooneys it is as the thread header plainly says, about the SR22, I don't think many readers of this thread really care about what I think about Mooneys.

Since I have never had the chance to fly one, what I personally would like to hear is how actual SR22 owners have found the aircraft to operate and what the maintainance trouble spots are.

Interesting. I'll have to dig into this more since Hartzell claims max prop efficiency for my prop is around 2500 but what would they know. Considering how well the SR22 competes with planes like the A36 for efficiency then if this is true they could do really well.

This is an area where I can understand the preference for something other than the choice Cirrus has made. Having owned a Fiat 124 Spyder, Porsche 914/6, Mazda RX7 and Acura NSX (which I deeply miss) I can sympathize with wanting a less "automatic" system. Cirrus chose operational simplicity. There was an automatic version of the NSX but I didn't want it.

It's more than that. For many a fixed gear makes a plane less attractive. For those who want a fixed gear plane Cirrus (and Cessna Corvalis) are planes which give similar efficiency to a retract but with a fixed gear. Room also makes a difference. Some people willingly trade comfort for efficiency. Different planes go after a different balance. Cirrus chose a roomier cockpit. This is more than good marketing. It is choice.

You may get your wish with current management. However, a car company makes no money when an owner sells his used car. A car company makes money by convincing a person to buy a new car. When used is almost the same as new it raises used values until new doesn't seem that much more expensive but there is little incentive for the present owner to trade for a new item (car or plane). It was Cirrus' move to all glass that forced the hand of other manufacturers. It also made many people who already owned a Cirrus to trade up. That drove down used prices. I mentioned that in an earlier post. A company should be out to make a profit. That means generating sales. That means constantly generating excitement about the product and new reasons to buy. Consider other items you own. Your computer has been greatly devalued each year. Would you prefer that no new microprocessors or software were available? It would strengthen the marked for your used computer. How about automobiles? Have you been opposed to adding electronic engine control, anti lock brakes, air bags, crumple zones etc.? Each of these devalued older vehicles. The period when airplane values held up the best was when Cessna stop producing single engine piston planes. Crazy me but I don't want to go back to that just to shore up used prices. If we can just shut down Cessna, Cirrus and Diamond then used prices will firm up. That means they will be doing great. Oh wait, they won't be selling anything. Never mind.

beat up Cirrus
 

sternone - Well I read your post and you really have me here:

At 772 hours my plane must be really trashed out since it is almost twice your 400 hours. Go to 772_hour_Cirrus and view the carnage. I tried to take pictures that would show the trashed out interior, dilapidated leather and the dash falling apart. BTW the weather here was awesome today as was the flying.

Prop efficiency maybe but engine efficiency variation is a lot bigger than prop efficiency variation.

I can take you up in my TB20. We climb to FL100, WOT, just into LOP, and play with the prop rpm (2200-2575) while watching the MPG readout on the GPS. It is an impressive confirmation of Cirrus Marketing :)

But hey as they say (or used to say) in the USA: fuel is the cheapest thing you can put in your engine :) :)

I would like to buy a new aircraft – yeah, I know, fly it out the show room and you have lost 20%, but I want a new aircraft, just like so many people want a new car.

A Mooney, sorry sir, we went bust. Socata, now they make very nice aircraft, sorry sir, we pulled out of piston aircraft. A Piper, yes of course sir, but anything close to the performance of a Cirrus will cost you a lot more. I could go on.

You see for me that is the point. Surviving as an aircraft manufacturing is a tough, a very tough business. It inevitably means compromise. It inevitably means giving people very good reasons to buy new aircraft. It inevitably means a good advertising campaign. It inevitably means some compromises. Cirrus may not be the most fuel efficient aircraft for example but I find myself asking even in these times of very costly fuel how much of a factor is an extra gallon or two an hour if you can afford a Cirrus. If fuel was such an issue Jag, Mercedes and BMW would have been bust years ago, and the anti 4 x 4 brigade would be in Westminster.

So here is the thing, Cirrus may not do it for you, but if you are in the market for a new aircraft (and a great many people have, a few still are, and hopefully many more will be in the future if GA is to survive) Cirrus are one of the few acts in town.

They are not perfect and many of those imperfections are because of compromise. Americans are big and fat, Europeans are getting that way, and they don’t want to squeeze into a Mooney. Make a large comfortable cockpit and it costs fuel – Cirrus can’t change the laws of physics. It is a fact many pilots want simple controls. How many Americans would dream of buying a manual shift? FADEC – well yes of course, who hasn’t got it in their car – or the equivalent? Cirrus has gone some way with the single leaver; doubtless full FADEC will be the next step as soon as it is proven, and when it is dual leavers will not get close to competing with FADEC. As to the chute, well my wife likes it, and everyone I fly with likes it, so whether or not they like it for the right reasons or not it’s probably better with it than without it. I could go on.

Could a better light single be conceived? Of course. However I doubt anything could ever be designed that would suite everyone. I believe glass is the way forward. I wouldn’t buy a new aircraft without glass. However I suspect IO540 wouldn’t buy one with. He’s not wrong, just takes a different view for very good reasons.

Who said you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time but you cant please all of the people all of the time.

At the moment Cirrus, Diamond, Piper and Cessna are the only acts in town so far as four seat touring aircraft are concerned – each making very different aircraft, which is as it should be. Historically a truly innovative aircraft manufacturer has never survived but both Diamond and Cirrus have used established technology in an innovative way (well with the exception of the Theilert engine), and for that reason I take my hat off to them for dragging light singles into the 21st century!

Mooney had a chance to be the fifth, but they didn’t take it. It is not often you get a second chance in this business.

All in all I think Fuji and Paulp sum it up much better than I attempted, as a part owner all I can say it has revitalised my personal interest in fixed wing flying and I can not see my self changing soon.

In the last few days I have flown Diamond DA40 and a DA42 twin for a few hours and I think they are also nice planes, in fact the DA40 was much better than I expected.

The Cirrus can really get you places fast and comfortably (we made Jordan quite easily in 2 days last week with 2 fuel stops) andI can not imagine it being quite so comfortable or achievable in any other GA aircraft that I am aware of.

And as Fuji says if you were buying knew I do not see any other viable competition.

Regarding Sterones claim about Alan K making a ridiculous offer to buy the Jet, is that your assumption or do you have any knowledge of what the offer was? he seemed pretty serious and to have a huge ammount of goodwill from the existing deposit holders. I dont think this story has fully played out yet.

The jet is a potential problem for Cirrus and I am sure if they could turn the clock back they would have not started and stuck to the SR existing line, but testament to the existing business model they are still in business and sold more planes in category than everyone else added up so far this year, so if it was just down to clever marketing I think the other guys better get new agencies.

There is a lot to love about the SR22. Compared to the SR20 the biggest difference is climb. Having lots of power is nice. The wheel pants are tight so they are not a back country plane. Similarly, G1 and G2 aircraft have 7" of prop clearance. The G3 has more. Fit and finish improved year to year. G1 to G2 was a big improvement in fuselage related fit and finish. G2 to G3 had a big improvement in gear strut fit and finish. There is just a touch of truth to the beaten up Cirrus comments in that I have seen some that were pretty trashed out. However, they were fleet planes with close to 2,000 hours and had been left outside in the hot Georgia sun for years without even a sunshade in windscreen. There is too much use of velcro and double sided tape especially on G1's but when properly maintained everything works well.

As far as avionics, avoid the ARNAV in the used aircraft (personal opinion) and the Century HSI. The Sandel 3308 is massively better.

Join COPA (www.cirruspilots.org) if you are even remotely thinking of getting one. There is a massive amount of info there. Get the pdf of the Cirrus Pilot magazine issue that covered year to year changes if you are thinking of buying used.

If buying new, thee will be massive depreciation. Look at www.controller.com and get settled in on what to expect. If you buy everything you can on the plane there won't be a lot of useful load left. This is almost but not quite as bad as a fully loaded Mooney. Just run the numbers and make the tradeoffs that are best for you.

As far as flying qualities, the side stick is great. However, the spring centered trim system removes some feedback of air over the control surfaces. Harder to adjust to is the sight picture. If you are coming from a C182 you will have to get used to seeing the runway straight ahead in the flair. New pilots have trouble with this because of the vastly better forward visibility of the SR22. Another adjustment is speed management. Until you know what you are doing a good rule is 20" of manifold pressure when 20 nm out from your destination. Always get flaps in even if you have to go nose up to do it. It works fine once you get used to it but you don't have speed brakes or a draggy gear to drop down. If you get a turbo then the fat prop acts like a speed brake when the throttle is pulled back. It is a comfortable trip plane and will suck you in to long cross-country trips. Plan accordingly. WHen I flew a 172 I just looked outside for most trips. Even a go nowhere fun flight can take you a long way so always check weather.

Parts cost can be bad on some things but its certainly isn't any worse than a Beech. There is more maintenance because when you have more goodies in a plane there is more to go wrong. This isn't really type specific but most Cirrus aircraft are/were sold close to loaded. That means TAWS, Skywatch, Stormscope, ...

If you buy new schedule extra days beyond the transition training and do a good prebuy. Insist everything be fixed right there. Cirrus has cut staff and small issues like bad paint spots can slip out. Be picky.

Documentation, training etc. is first rate except they will teach you to land too fast. Speed management in a Cirrus is important. Go to the website and you can get the POH ahead of time. Perspective is powerful but complex. Synthetic vision is awesome. EVS is pretty cool too. However, Perspective is typical Garmin and just like a 430 it isn't natural the first time. My wife hates Perspective which is one reason we have a plane with Avidyne R9.

I don't have a turbo but owners are pretty much uniformly in love with them. They are simple to operate and have great performance.

The plane is great in turbulence and awesome to land in a crosswind. Unlike a V35 Bonanza, there is little to no tail waggle in turbulence.

Oh one more flying comment, the plane will slip with full flaps just fine. However the body is slick so make sure the slip is in the proper direction to present the side of the plane to a crosswind if you want to fall like a rock (usually why you are doing a slip).

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have specific questions. Got to run.

Paulp, I would like to have a comment from you on my previous posted finding :


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...#ht_500wt_1182


2007 Cirrus SR22 Turbo GTS Single Engine Airplane Price: US $285,000.00

280k on controller with 195 hours on it and pretty much every option including tks.

This plane had to be well north of 600k new. that equates to over 1600 dollars an hour for depreciation!

Sternone, What part of Paulp's explanation did you not understand about depreciation?

What vehicle, plane, boat has not depreciated dramatically in this market?(other than your Mooney)

People do not buy a brand new Cirrus as an asset in finacial terms they buy it to use to go places, likewise top ends cars depreciate heavily as you drive it away from ther forcourt.

Anyone in the market for any brand of plane should be able to get a phenominal deal right now, so if you have the cash go shopping.

As 007heli says it cuts both ways.

If you are in the market for a good second hand Cirrus now you will get an excellent deal and IF the market recovers over the next few years you might be surprised how little depreciation you have suffered.

Sternone,

I am only reading this thread as amusement, however, before posting figures, get out your calculator:

600-280 = 320k $

320/2(years) = 160k$/p.a.

160/365(days) = 438 $/day

438/24(hours) = 18.25 $/hour

Still a pretty sharpish rate of depreciation, but nowhere near your (shouted := ) figure of $ 1600.

Now go, and play with your Mooney....

Oh sorry 172driver, In my world we calculate per flying hour, which is 1641.- USDOLLAR / FLYING HOUR

And your quoted calculation hurts also IMHO...

Quote:

---

At the moment Cirrus, Diamond, Piper and Cessna are the only acts in town so far as four seat touring aircraft are concerned

---

Think we can rule out Piper at the moment; the Warrior and Arrow (and Seminole) are trainers and the Archer is out of production. But I hear the Archer should be returning next year.

Why does one have to buy brand new? A 2002 TB20 GT is up to date except the glass cockpit. It's a world apart from the 1950s hardware.

Interesting plane to pick. G2 Turbo suffered depreciation in 2008 due to introduction of G3. Turbo adds about 50 lbs. In G2 to G3 80 lbs were removed from the airframe by going to a carbon fiber wing spar. Numerous owners upgraded form G2 turbo to G3 turbo after less than one year of ownership. W&B is also better on the turbo models with the G3. NA models have a very wide CG range and allow very flexible loading. G2 turbo with heavy guys in form need the rear 18 lb tail weight mod that came out later to correct the W&B issue. If you would actually read my posts you would see I mentioned the constant improvements causing depreciation on older version.

No comments on the pics of the ratty old Cirrus?

Of course one doesnt.

I have never bought a brand new aircraft or car or house.

My parents always wanted a brand new house, and bought one.

Why? I suppose some people love the idea of spec'ing it as they wish, like the idea that it doesnt come with a "history", like to feel they have the benefit of a full warranty, want the latest offering - in short there are plenty of reasons without which all these industries would collapse and we would have no used examples.

Mind you I was thinking today whether we are "dumbing" down some "consumer" items. I was discussing yachts with someone today. He made the point that nearly all the quality manufacturers have gone. You can take your pick of mass produced 50 foot yachts but few of them will last. As Cirrus stands accused they will also look tired very quickly. There are a multitude of "ultra" light new aircraft but none of them look like they will last very long. I flew a Bambi I little while ago. Very fast, very up to date, but as flimsy as a paper dart compared with a Cirrus. Of course price is a factor. You can make a 50 foot yacht for £400K and enough people will buy, you can make the same yacht to the quality being built only five or six years ago but it will cost double that - the market is all of a sudden a great deal smaller.

Cirrus could build in metal, fit traditional instruments and use the best quality leathers etc - the whole thing would be a work of art, but you would need to double the price.

I find myself wondering if their is a market for a hand crafted aircraft - albeit a very small market. People will pay the price demanded for a Veyron. The trouble is people are buying into a reputation. It is doubtful anyone would buy into a reputation in the light end of aviation because almost nobody has one.

I came very close to buying a new 42. I love the aircraft and still do. I suspect the 42 with Lycomings is everything the diesel version should have been - thank goodness I didnt.

The other issue with aircraft at the top end of the GA market is their utility value to most pilots. How many Cirrus in the UK are privately owned by a single person? In reality even if money is no object people find it difficult to justify the utility value against the cost where half a million dollars is involved; £100K and its a very different matter.

A TB20 will get you from A to B in the same time as makes no difference as a Cirrus and will do so in as much style. Sure it doesnt have pretty screens and sure some may say it is a bit dated but are the screens and styling worth and extra £100k plus a great deal more depreciation? Then again you could buy a perfectly serviceable Archer with a zero timed engine for half that cost. It would add maybe 25% to the journey time but a clean example will take you there in as much style and comfort and given you only get in an out once each journey does the single door really matter that much.

I drive a Hyundai - albeit a nearly new Hyundai. It gets me from A to B safely, its got pretty much all of the gimmicks including the auto pilot :) but it is not a Merc. I ask myself why I would want a Merc and cant find a good enough reason. When I buy my yacht to sail around the world I dont want a mass produced one simply because in my opinion it will not do the job any where near as well as an Oyster. If I had a need for a 90% despatch rate with business throughout Europe I would buy a turbine, but how many private pilots have such need.

So what point am I seeking to make - only that we are each motivated by different considerations, all a manufacturer has to do is appeal to enough of us to survive. Clearly Mooney has failed that test - in other words it doesnt matter how good the product, if not enough people buy it you are stuffed. :)

Paulp: I'll take you to some 400 hours examples who really really look worn out.

I'll keep an eye on the G3 series since you tell me that Cirrus fixed that (I don't believe it)

Double the price ? A Mooney or a Bonanza isn't double of the price !

Ahum... Beechcraft is making a plane at roughly the same price WITH the best quality leathers and in METAL, and not the piper metal.

Why people buy more Cirrus than a Beechcraft G36 who you can upgrade to a G36TN TAT is beyond my imagination.

Luckily we have forums like this where people who look beyond the Cirrus marketing machine are looking and spitting their opinion. Something that isn't really allowed by the Cirrus owners so it seems. It's not my fault you believed the cirrus marketing and ended up with a plane who carries a depreciation value of $1600 per flying hour or $18 per hour that you live.

I don't think Cirrus need to go to metal to deliver build quality.

It's just that to deliver build quality in composite you have to spend loads of money on tooling. Accurate expensive moulds. Not the sort of "plus or minus a few mm" moulds which Cirrus and Diamond went for, and are only gradually improving on. A properly constructed swimming pool is built to a better tolerance than that :)

One also needs accurate tooling / jigs for metal but if one doesn't have them one can conceal it, by making the mating parts to fit. Whereas with composites this is harder because the stuff comes out of a mould and there is only so much one can trim in 3D.

What Cirrus (and Diamond) need to do is to greatly improve attention to detail. And underneath the skin they need to use better quality metal fittings. The rapid corrosion just adds to the depreciation.

But maybe the more rapid tired look is an inevitable characteristic of all modern planes, because (like all cars from the last 40 years) they use a lot of trim. A Cirrus that has been kicked around looks rough. But a TB20 that has been kicked around also looks rough, despite being a 20 years older design; it has a fair bit of trim too, which looks crap when it comes loose. And clumsy maintenance (the norm) just knackers it really fast. Whereas you never take off the trims in a car unless you need to fix something - and when you do, they rattle and don't go back properly. Whereas a C182 that has been kicked around looks just like it always used to - a flat instrument panel, minimal trim, and not too much that can look tired. Same with a Mooney - all the old iron looks rather agricultural IMHO :) The glass cockpits just make it look a bit weird. Like screwing a G1000 into a Russian combine harvester.

This is one of the few newish Bonazas I can find:

Beech Bonanza G36 Piston Single Engine: Aircraft for Sale on AvBuyer.com

Compare that with the price of a Cirrus of the same age.

The two aircraft are not comparable.

I am not sure how relevant moulds are. Clearly the door needs to be made accurately to fit correctly but unlike a car there are very few panel joins in an aircraft that are unfilled. I cant think where on a Cirrus or Diamond better tolerances would help other than maybe the door on the Cirrus.

All the panels inside are covered in fabrics one way or another. If good quality materials are used and innovative design which does not rely on too much trim a good interior will result. I dont see too many problems with the interior of the G3 Cirrus - yes better leathers would look better for longer but generally the standard is pretty good. If anything Diamond use materials of lesser quality.

I agree there is no excuse for some of the corrosion I have seen on Diamonds and Cirrus.

As I said earlier cut it as you will who else has survived in this business over the last few years and who else is still producing aircraft. Diamond and Cirrus are far from perfect but they are the only game in town where they sit in the market. If they have it so horribly wrong and Money (or anyone else have it right) it should be easy to take over Mooney and do as good a job - strangely I dont see a line forming. :)