Buying an SR22 to train in

A nice G3 turbo with some deicing equipment would take care of all but transcontinental trips. They're good up to FL250 and even make it across the Atlantic in three stops on the aircraft's own internal tanks. If you're up high and pass out it will descend you automatically down to 14,000 '. Upon first squirt of de-icing fluid it looks at the fluid tank level and puts a line out on your course line to show you how long the fluid will last. It just takes care of so much of the knucklehead factor. I NEVER used to like them until I learned about them.
 
Noob, no offense, seriously, but I think you're going to catch some flak when in your first post you indicate that you haven't even begun any training (which is perfectly fine btw) and then in the more recent post you mention "Visionjet"

The deal is that you haven't even started flying yet and you're talking about the first 1000 hours. There's just no way you have a clue yet what your mission profile will be like and/or how much you will enjoy aviation. You may love it and own a Visionjet in 10 years, but just know that the majority of us pilots are flying a different bird than we originally thought we would. You'll learn so much in that first 100 hours.

Good luck and enjoy but just keep an open mind. Go flying. If $ isn't an obstacle I'm betting you can get you some time in various airplanes (including a cirrus) prior to buying. Your call.
 
About 10 years ago I picked up a student who was struggling to get solo'd in his own SR22. He thought it was a problem with his instructor.

I generally take such observations by a student with a HUGE grain of salt. But for whatever reason, I got him solo'd in short order and got him through his private. We then did his instrument training and he got that rating as well.

So no reason one can't learn to fly in a Cirrus. And I would never second-guess someone who chose to go that route. After all, the Air Force uses SR20's for primary training. That said, my preference would be a simpler plane through private, and then a transition to the Cirrus. I just feel the basics come more easily in a more basic plane. And it would certainly be cheaper overall,if that's a factor.
 
arkvet said:
Noob, no offense, seriously, but I think you're going to catch some flak when in your first post you indicate that you haven't even begun any training (which is perfectly fine btw) and then in the more recent post you mention "Visionjet"
Click to expand...

OMG, someone has means and ambition to look beyond flying circles in a 172.

Bryan.jpg
 
arkvet said:
Noob, no offense, seriously, but I think you're going to catch some flak when in your first post you indicate that you haven't even begun any training (which is perfectly fine btw) and then in the more recent post you mention "Visionjet"

The deal is that you haven't even started flying yet and you're talking about the first 1000 hours. There's just no way you have a clue yet what your mission profile will be like and/or how much you will enjoy aviation.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I postfixed that with: "it's not something I can say at this point". I was just answering the question about whether it's "end game". What's "end game" anyway? Life if fluid. But the SR22 is basically the minimum useful plane I can get into that won't purely be a trainer. Who knows what comes after that.
 
noob said:
I agree. That's why I postfixed that with: "it's not something I can say at this point". I was just answering the question about whether it's "end game". What's "end game" anyway? Life if fluid. But the SR22 is basically the minimum useful plane I can get into that won't purely be a trainer. Who knows what comes after that.
Click to expand...

Just one thing. Don't tell us one day how you are going to buy a STOL plane and a piece of land in the boonies and the next day inquire on how to become a partner in a Yak. Oh, and don't tell the DPE how he is doing it all wrong ;) .
 
weilke said:
Just one thing. Don't tell us one day how you are going to buy a STOL plane and a piece of land in the boonies and the next day inquire on how to become a partner in a Yak. Oh, and don't tell the DPE how he is doing it all wrong ;) .
Click to expand...

Running joke on the forum I assume?
 
noob said:
Running joke on the forum I assume?
Click to expand...

Yes. A poster who made the rounds through many of the aviation forums a couple of years ago. Also very ambitious when it came to his flying pursuits.
 
You've gotten plenty of input on the topic at hand. Things that will make your training go faster/be more effective:
1) do ground school in advance, before you start logging hours. You wont spend time in the air trying to learn what what you should have on the ground
2) Make your schedule where you can fly 2-3 times a week 1-2 hours per session. You will develop your skills more quickly and you will keep them fresh. You will spend less time "re-learning" things than if you spread sessions out over longer intervals. This is typically seen with folks who cant afford the training tempo in the first place.

I've not flown a cirrus. Cant comment on anything other that what I've read about it. As with any higher performance airplane, things happen quicker, and can be less forgiving than a slow, underpowered primary trainer.

Once upon a time, the Bonanza got a reputation as a forked-tail doctor killer... The plane wasn't dangerous per-se. The issue was people with money who could afford a nice, high powered airframe, who didn't develop the skills to handle it, and got in over their head for one reason or another. Wheras other folks who couldn't afford a hot-rod would develop skills on something slow, and build time and eventually develop the skills to handle more powerful aircraft over time. Whatever you choose to fly, recognize your limitations, and train/train/train.
 
There's a whole club on my home field that specializes in and trains people in Cirri. They added some other types for those who really want to fly them, but they had nothing but Cirri for years.

If you want to buy and fly a Cirrus, just do it.
 
Do it. Why not.

They are amazing airplanes.
 
James331 said:
And that's different from any other plane how? I've never heard of a plane where speed management wasn't critical, they all seem to stall below stall speed, and don't like their flaps dumped above VFE, etc..
Click to expand...

If speed and procedures are managed well in landing, the 22 will practically land itself. For me it's been the easiest plane I've encountered to land- from flying 150/152, 172, Pa28 line, Tomahawk, Citabria, Decathalon, and even the SR20. Right from the start it was easier for me to land the 22. Maybe it was because I was more experienced, who knows. However, it seems a lot of accidents have occurred in Cirrus in the base to final leg. That is where speed management is crucial in this bird. Cirrus has developed portal training for standardized landing training in response to these accidents.
 
Noob, do it, if you have the money and inclination. It's a light plane for sale to the private pilot population - not the space shuttle or a century series fighter. Everyday people fly them, and all the other common GA airplanes. Keep the AOA below the critical angle, gas in the tanks, and out of weather beyond your skills, and live forever. . .
 
asgcpa said:
If speed and procedures are managed well in landing, the 22 will practically land itself. For me it's been the easiest plane I've encountered to land- from flying 150/152, 172, Pa28 line, Tomahawk, Citabria, Decathalon, and even the SR20. Right from the start it was easier for me to land the 22. Maybe it was because I was more experienced, who knows. However, it seems a lot of accidents have occurred in Cirrus in the base to final leg. That is where speed management is crucial in this bird. Cirrus has developed portal training for standardized landing training in response to these accidents.
Click to expand...

Poorly trained people have been killing them selves on base to finals long before the cirrus was ever even a thought in a designers mind.

Again, nothing special as far as "flying by the numbers" goes.

Go too slow, you're going to stall, and if really poorly trained spin
Any plane

Go too fast and you're going to float and maybe end up going off the end if you really do it, or if REALLY poorly trained go the whole "PIO" game and bend something.
Any plane

Learn to fly the plane properly, you'll make nice pretty landings most times, maybe a little firm with a chirp sometimes, non events.
 
I'm close to 100 hours and bought a Cherokee 180 early in my training for my wife and I to get our ppl in. She is currently at 7 hr and I am dragging my feet on getting my ifr cert. I have already turned down more money for the airplane than I have in it and am glad that I bought this particular model even though it's not my ultimate "end game"; as it fits my current mission. Along with that, I have learned the other costs associated with airplane ownership that would have been far more expensive lessons in the airplanes that I was looking at when I was less that 10 hrs into my ppl training. If you're able to buy an SR22 go for it and let the haters line up, but don't discount a solid trainer that you can resell when it's time to buy your next one! Good luck and let us know what you end up buying when you pull that trigger!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
noob said:
You were kind'a supportive earlier, why this attack now? And I didn't say anything about buying a new SR22. And the mission is training and building hours with 2 to 4 people on board in a way that's practical for where I live.
Click to expand...

And where do you live that requires an SR22 for water and mountains?

I live in Reno, Nevada and recently flew my Dakota to Cuba. That involved crossing lots of mountains and 90 miles of water. I didn't need an SR22 to do that.
 
just something to think about....you might want to beat up the rental vs. that nice new shiny thang. :D

Once you get good with your landings....and have a few hours under your belt...upgrade to shiny.
 
I'm on the fence now about it. Some unknown factors. Insurance cost on 300g hull could be pretty expensive. The older slower planes have some things they can teach and if your cirrus is ever down for awhile (which it will) you will probably have to rent the older slower anyway. The maintenance costs can also skew your figures big time also. One of the guys I know with cirrus always has 10,000$ annuals and another person has 4000$ ones. I started with a 172 and gradually worked my way up. Don't regret at all. I think with all of the planes I've had to this point I'm probably about even on what I have spent. Have made some money on some, lost some on one or two and broke even on several. Had a lot of fun in meantime. Don't know what I will end up with or if the one I have now will be the last. Not to worried about it.
 
DesertNomad said:
And where do you live that requires an SR22 for water and mountains?

I live in Reno, Nevada and recently flew my Dakota to Cuba. That involved crossing lots of mountains and 90 miles of water. I didn't need an SR22 to do that.
Click to expand...

Pacific North West. I read up on your trip, and it sounds amazing. But doing that in a PA-28 is above my and my families level of comfort. When I grew up my dad on 4 separate occasions lost friends that he went to flight-school with in mountainous and ocean terrain. A chute would have helped in 2 of those, and better avionics in the other two (this was 80's). I admire the people who take up their 172's daily here and buzz around the mountains. But it's not for me. And it's not just me, but also to give my family still on the ground who had to live through that some extra comfort.

If I lived in Iowa this would be totally different. I have a brother in law who builds and sells experimental aircraft (Cub equivalents) and his stuff lands in the fields more often than not. Well not quite, but some days it feels like it. And never any injuries.
 
noob said:
Pacific North West. I read up on your trip, and it sounds amazing. But doing that in a PA-28 is above my and my families level of comfort. When I grew up my dad on 4 separate occasions lost friends that he went to flight-school with in mountainous and ocean terrain. A chute would have helped in 2 of those, and better avionics in the other two (this was 80's). I admire the people who take up their 172's daily here and buzz around the mountains. But it's not for me. And it's not just me, but also to give my family still on the ground who had to live through that some extra comfort.

If I lived in Iowa this would be totally different. I have a brother in law who builds and sells experimental aircraft (Cub equivalents) and his stuff lands in the fields more often than not. Well not quite, but some days it feels like it. And never any injuries.
Click to expand...

They were obviously incompetent and we're lacking instruction from our experts here.

BTW. The justification to buy a SR22 is: "because I want to buy an SR22" . You"ll still have to deal with the jealousy of those who can't afford it, but don't get into discussions about the merits of the chute, integrated avionics, known icing etc. Its's like justifying that you live in a nicer house than someone else or take an overseas vacation. 'I buy it because I want it and it won't cause my children to starve' is all the justification you ever need.
 
Doggtyred said:
You've gotten plenty of input on the topic at hand. Things that will make your training go faster/be more effective:
1) do ground school in advance, before you start logging hours. You wont spend time in the air trying to learn what what you should have on the ground
2) Make your schedule where you can fly 2-3 times a week 1-2 hours per session. You will develop your skills more quickly and you will keep them fresh. You will spend less time "re-learning" things than if you spread sessions out over longer intervals. This is typically seen with folks who cant afford the training tempo in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a great point. I won't even look at Controller until I've passed the written (and medical of course). It works out well - gives me something to do over the fall and winter.

Would sim time in a redbird help before starting formal training?
 
noob said:
Yes, this is a great point. I won't even look at Controller until I've passed the written (and medical of course). It works out well - gives me something to do over the fall and winter.

Would sim time in a redbird help before starting formal training?
Click to expand...
Sims aren't too useful for private pilot. They really help during instrument training and procedures.
 
noob said:
Would sim time in a redbird help before starting formal training?
Click to expand...

On your own: No. Your CFI will have to spend time to unlearn stuff you picked up.

With your CFI so you learn the G1000 knobology without burning real fuel it may be helpful.

Find a school with SR20s and get started on your actual training. Maybe even solo in the schools plane. Work with different instructors, find a CSIP who is retired from his real job and able to stick with you through the IR.
 
weilke said:
They were obviously incompetent and we're lacking instruction from our experts here.

BTW. The justification to buy a SR22 is: "because I want to buy an SR22" . You"ll still have to deal with the jealousy of those who can't afford it, but don't get into discussions about the merits of the chute, integrated avionics, known icing etc. Its's like justifying that you live in a nicer house than someone else or take an overseas vacation. 'I buy it because I want it and it won't cause my children to starve' is all the justification you ever need.
Click to expand...

If you wouldn't do the flight without the chute and without a glass panel, you shouldn't do the flight in the first place. This is the thought process which caused the initial higher fatal rate in these things.

As far as your "hater" theory, my aircraft ain't exactly a cheapie, nor did I say he shouldn't buy the SR22 as his first plane, heck I've recommended a turbine 210 to folks in his same profile on a few occasions, my only qualm is with the very dangerous thinking that a glass panel makes you "safer", or when people start changing their risk assessment based on having a BRS.
 
weilke said:
On your own: No. Your CFI will have to spend time to unlearn stuff you picked up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, absolutely not on my own. Would be more a way to see how well I'm capable of learning before investing too much. But a few hours in a plane before the winter would accomplish the same. Was just curious.


James331 said:
If you wouldn't do the flight without the chute and without a glass panel, you shouldn't do the flight in the first place. This is the thought process which caused the initial higher fatal rate in these things.

As far as your "hater" theory, my aircraft ain't exactly a cheapie, nor did I say he shouldn't buy the SR22 as his first plane, heck I've recommended a turbine 210 to folks in his same profile on a few occasions, my only qualm is with the very dangerous thinking that a glass panel makes you "safer", or when people start changing their risk assessment based on having a BRS.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine the "hater" comment was directed at you.

I agree, the BRS is a secondary safety. My primary safety over water would be to be out over gliding distance in the first place. By my "more modern avionics" comment above I didn't mean glass vs. steam, but dead reckoning/celestial nav vs. RNAV/GPS.
 
weilke said:
They were obviously incompetent and we're lacking instruction from our experts here.

BTW. The justification to buy a SR22 is: "because I want to buy an SR22" . You"ll still have to deal with the jealousy of those who can't afford it, but don't get into discussions about the merits of the chute, integrated avionics, known icing etc. Its's like justifying that you live in a nicer house than someone else or take an overseas vacation. 'I buy it because I want it and it won't cause my children to starve' is all the justification you ever need.
Click to expand...

My top 10 reasons I bought a 22:

1. More comfortable for me than an Archer or Dakota (I'm a big guy)
2. Didn't want a retract but wanted the speed.
3. Decent useful load (see number 1)
4. Gas burn pretty good when leaned out.
5. Chute
6. Good range
7. Newer avionics
8. Great support from manufacturer and pilots group.
9. Well laid out panel with autopilot.
10. TKS

Those were my reasons.

Good luck.
 
I'll just answer the part about buy "a" plane rather than renting from a school. I did it. It ain't no Cirrus but my little Cherokee 140 is all I'll need until I build my RV-7. I put down 20% and got 5.9% financing for 15 years which may be on the steep side but I can live with it. My payments are $209 per month which is less than ONE flight with instructor at the school. I pay $275 per month for a hangar at my chosen airport. My insurance was $815 the first year because I had 18 hours and no certificate; it went down to $565 the next year after I got my PPL. Just remember that you'll pay dearly for repair and sometimes annuals aren't cheap.

If you can afford it, go for it.
 
Last edited:
asgcpa said:
1. More comfortable for me than an Archer or Dakota (I'm a big guy)
2. Didn't want a retract but wanted the speed.
3. Decent useful load (see number 1)
4. Gas burn pretty good when leaned out.
5. Chute
6. Good range
7. Newer avionics
8. Great support from manufacturer and pilots group.
9. Well laid out panel with autopilot.
10. TKS
.
Click to expand...

And each of these preferences could be argued at nauseum. A 182 has more room, bleed air fired hotwings are better and my old Piper autocontrol is so much smoother than that ghastly digital GFC700. Also, I heard from my cousins brother that someone once had a blue screen of death on his G1000 and that's why I think only a fool would want one.
If you say 'I want a SR22 because I like it' there is no possible counter-argument that is not silly.
 
James331 said:
If you wouldn't do the flight without the chute and without a glass panel, you shouldn't do the flight in the first place.
Click to expand...

There are people who'll refuse to fly something that isn't glass? Wow. Times have changed. LOL
 
denverpilot said:
There are people who'll refuse to fly something that isn't glass? Wow. Times have changed. LOL
Click to expand...

Lots of people say they are safer, so if that's the case, logic would state that in a risk analysis it could make the difference, for some people, from a go to a no go, it me its all the same info I get from a good steam panel, so it's all the same to me.
 
James331 said:
Lots of people say they are safer, so if that's the case, logic would state that in a risk analysis it could make the difference, for some people, from a go to a no go, it me its all the same info I get from a good steam panel, so it's all the same to me.
Click to expand...

I've never met anyone who wouldn't fly something because it didn't have glass. You're saying they're out there somewhere. That's why I asked. I suppose there's some Instrument snobs somewhere...
 
denverpilot said:
I've never met anyone who wouldn't fly something because it didn't have glass. You're saying they're out there somewhere. That's why I asked. I suppose there's some Instrument snobs somewhere...
Click to expand...

Nor have I, but even in this thread glass and saftey have been combined in the conversation.
 
weilke said:
OMG, someone has means and ambition to look beyond flying circles in a 172.

View attachment 47390
Click to expand...

Many of us have that ambition and means... But we all start by flying circles. There are also plenty of us that have the ambition and it fizzles at some point early on or we realize our goals aren't as realistic as we'd hoped. Money aside, Weather (regardless of your $ or ratings) makes scheduled flights in GA difficult. No way to understand that fully until you're newly minted ppl holder having to tell some friends or family it's a "no go".

I wish noob nothing but good luck. He came asking questions and a variety of answers he's going to receive.
 
noob said:
In what way? A 182 is 42" wide. A SR22 is 49".
Click to expand...

There are you again with your pesky 'facts'. This is an airplane discussion.

I am 6'3" and have lots of headroom in the 182S and 182T --> everyone must like the 182 as much as I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top