Cirrus killer?

Salty said:
182 is nice in many ways, but it's too slow for my coast to coast mission. :(
Click to expand...
Indeed, this is why I have a Mooney: I needed them knots more than I needed the ease of entry. Still, if I needed a coast-to-coast plane on a budget, I'd be looking at C310.
 
zaitcev said:
Indeed, this is why I have a Mooney: I needed them knots more than I needed the ease of entry. Still, if I needed a coast-to-coast plane on a budget, I'd be looking at C310.
Click to expand...
My IA is trying to sell me his 310. The price is right, but I just can't justify the operational expenses and the extra complexity. Also, the fact that he NEVER flies it and wants to sell it says a lot.
 
zaitcev said:
Indeed, this is why I have a Mooney: I needed them knots more than I needed the ease of entry. Still, if I needed a coast-to-coast plane on a budget, I'd be looking at C310.
Click to expand...

I love to fly private, but when I go from coast-to-coast I fly commercial. I'm not particularly fond of flying commercial, but long flights make it more tolerable. Traveling at 500 knots makes up for some woes when going long distances.
 
Salty said:
and the extra complexity
Click to expand...
This would be my biggest thing too.. looking at the twin accidents and the recent threads here a twin can really only be justified if you're putting a lot of time on them each year (well over 100 hrs) and can maintain strong proficiency with a good training regimen
 
Tantalum said:
This would be my biggest thing too.. looking at the twin accidents and the recent threads here a twin can really only be justified if you're putting a lot of time on them each year (well over 100 hrs) and can maintain strong proficiency with a good training regimen
Click to expand...
It doesn't take too many coast to coast flights to hit 100 hours, but yeah, I wouldn't want to fly a twin to get a hamburger - which is the next problem, then I need a fair-weather airplane - which means less competency in the twin. I've thought hard about it, but it just doesn't make sense to me right now.
 
Tantalum said:
This would be my biggest thing too.. looking at the twin accidents and the recent threads here a twin can really only be justified if you're putting a lot of time on them each year (well over 100 hrs) and can maintain strong proficiency with a good training regimen
Click to expand...

I get your point, but I really find it funny trying to JUSTIFY any of this insanity. (To which I'm a party as well!)
 
I had the pleasure of meeting and sitting down with George Pereira a couple months ago at his home in Sacramento. We spoke for a few hours and I walked out the door with a set of GP-4 plans. I don't suspect the OP wants to scratch build his plane, but for comparison's sake, it's interesting to mention the GP-4.

Besides looking awesome, its design and performance are top notch. It cruises at 210 knots (at any altitude) on 200 HP (IO-360) at around 10 GPH, has a range of 1,200 miles at max cruise, and will carry 2 full-size adults plus 100 pounds of your stuff. I figure it'll cost me around $100K to build with a new engine and cutting edge avionics—maybe a little more. Word is it flies like a fighter. Very responsive and neutral. Recommended training prior to test flight is in a Glasair or a Lanceair.
 
Clip4 said:
Wing loading on a Grumman is about 15 compared to 23 on an SR 22.

Constant speed v fixed pitch prop, 310 hp vs 180, basic empty weight 2300 v 1300.
Click to expand...

The constant speed prop on the Cirrus is largely irrelevant, given that you can't adjust it independently.

But don't ask me, I've only flown both. Ask Tantalum, who has also flown both.
 
Tantalum said:
I was always dubious of Cirrus actually stalling at that 60 knot requirement.. the plane really doesn't feel right and you start losing elevator around 70-75 knots lol. I wonder if you actually wind tunneled it under various conditions where it would realistically stall at. Not saying they fudged the numbers, but it was certainly determined under ideal conditions!
Click to expand...

They have to test it in the air, so it makes sense that it does. The plane is just heavy, so you're going to notice it starting to want to nose down on its own when at low power.
 
Tantalum said:
This would be my biggest thing too.. looking at the twin accidents and the recent threads here a twin can really only be justified if you're putting a lot of time on them each year (well over 100 hrs) and can maintain strong proficiency with a good training regimen
Click to expand...

I think you could stay proficient at that level but you need a solid primary experience in training from an instructor who’ll not accept flying it in any other way than like the pros do. Numbers every time. Takeoff briefings and expecting things to quit not being surprised when they do. Abort ANYTHING that isn’t a stable approach. Etc.

Get an instructor who’ll allow laziness in primary twin training and you’ll always fall back to it. You really want an ass kicking during the add on. Not a quickie 10 hour flight review with engine outs.

You also need an instructor who’s ass won’t pucker too bad while they let you make a couple of mistakes to see how quickly it can get out of hand before they recover.

One of my approaches in the Seminole was so low I was seeing the tops of runway light towers. My bejillion hour instructor let me get down there and didn’t touch a thing. He just said “get ... it... UP!”

Then pointed out after the landing that it’ll come out of the sky like a rock if you try to pull two engines and two props that go flat back to idle to fix an altitude problem.

He knew if I saw that I’d NEVER do that again.
 
N1120A said:
The constant speed prop on the Cirrus is largely irrelevant, given that you can't adjust it independently.

But don't ask me, I've only flown both. Ask Tantalum, who has also flown both.
Click to expand...

I have flown both as well. No comparison.
 
N1120A said:
Ask Tantalum, who has also flown both.
Click to expand...
Clip4 said:
No comparison
Click to expand...
Not sure how I got in the middle of this! But since I've been called upon I'll share my thoughts
-obviously there are massive objective differences between the two airplanes, what I find generally similar though are some of the handling quality between both.. I think the aircraft are in the same genre, so to speak.. like how a Celica is to a Miata vs something else

If I couldn't fly a Cirrus Id fly a Grumman. and at least in my experience, you generally find that people who own or fly more than one type of airplane it is generally these two types.. look at 6PC. I have no real data to support this other than the four or five people I happen to know who fly both

but I will definitively say though, is that the tiger does demand a little more finesse than your typical Piper or Cessna trainer.. a Tiger for example would not be my first pick for someone with a fresh pilot license who is looking to buy a plane and go straight into instrument training

My $0.00
 
NoHeat said:
Oh my, a gear-up landing with a fiberglass fuselage? I bet that’s complicated to fix.
Click to expand...
I have heard it is not by builders experienced with composites.
 
zaitcev said:
Ease of boarding is an important consideration, and rather than a Cirrus, I see a 182 in your future. We all are getting there.
Click to expand...
Ironically, I've been doing a lot of analysis on this topic and my wife has been having more issues boarding (and we've been flying a lot more :) ) I've come to the conclusion I'm going to start looking for a good deal on a 182. I really want something faster, but I can't even really afford a 182 that's as nice as my Mooney, so faster isn't an option right now. I'm in no rush, the Mooney is working fine. I've spent the last 3 years making it nice, shame to sell it.

I've been really spoiled by the utility and economy of the Mooney. I'm going to have to spend a LOT more to move sideways into a 2 door high wing. :(
 
Salty said:
Ironically, I've been doing a lot of analysis on this topic and my wife has been having more issues boarding (and we've been flying a lot more :) ) I've come to the conclusion I'm going to start looking for a good deal on a 182. I really want something faster, but I can't even really afford a 182 that's as nice as my Mooney, so faster isn't an option right now. I'm in no rush, the Mooney is working fine. I've spent the last 3 years making it nice, shame to sell it.

I've been really spoiled by the utility and economy of the Mooney. I'm going to have to spend a LOT more to move sideways into a 2 door high wing. :(
Click to expand...

Take up yoga, you'll be amazed at how much easier day to day stuff becomes, barring illnesses of course, but even then it still helps.
 
PaulS said:
Take up yoga, you'll be amazed at how much easier day to day stuff becomes, barring illnesses of course, but even then it still helps.
Click to expand...
Convince my wife of anything she doesn't want to be convinced of. It will take more than yoga. ;)
 
Salty said:
Ironically, I've been doing a lot of analysis on this topic and my wife has been having more issues boarding (and we've been flying a lot more :) ) I've come to the conclusion I'm going to start looking for a good deal on a 182. I really want something faster, but I can't even really afford a 182 that's as nice as my Mooney, so faster isn't an option right now. I'm in no rush, the Mooney is working fine. I've spent the last 3 years making it nice, shame to sell it.

I've been really spoiled by the utility and economy of the Mooney. I'm going to have to spend a LOT more to move sideways into a 2 door high wing. :(
Click to expand...

182RG!
 
Salty said:
Ironically, I've been doing a lot of analysis on this topic and my wife has been having more issues boarding (and we've been flying a lot more :) ) I've come to the conclusion I'm going to start looking for a good deal on a 182. I really want something faster, but I can't even really afford a 182 that's as nice as my Mooney, so faster isn't an option right now. I'm in no rush, the Mooney is working fine. I've spent the last 3 years making it nice, shame to sell it.

I've been really spoiled by the utility and economy of the Mooney. I'm going to have to spend a LOT more to move sideways into a 2 door high wing. :(
Click to expand...

130 knots at 11.5GPH isn't great, but it'll still get you places. That's what we get in ours running 2200-2300 RPM and leaned to best economy.

And your passengers will thank you for the ease of entry and massive amount of interior space compared to most other 4 place singles (outside of the Cirrus). Forget measurements, the 182 much wider in practical terms than most everything else and the backseats have a ton of legroom.
 
birdus said:
I had the pleasure of meeting and sitting down with George Pereira a couple months ago at his home in Sacramento. We spoke for a few hours and I walked out the door with a set of GP-4 plans. I don't suspect the OP wants to scratch build his plane, but for comparison's sake, it's interesting to mention the GP-4.

Besides looking awesome, its design and performance are top notch. It cruises at 210 knots (at any altitude) on 200 HP (IO-360) at around 10 GPH, has a range of 1,200 miles at max cruise, and will carry 2 full-size adults plus 100 pounds of your stuff. I figure it'll cost me around $100K to build with a new engine and cutting edge avionics—maybe a little more. Word is it flies like a fighter. Very responsive and neutral. Recommended training prior to test flight is in a Glasair or a Lanceair.
Click to expand...
And you'll be able to tell us all about it when you get it built.

...in 2041.

PaulS said:
Take up yoga, you'll be amazed at how much easier day to day stuff becomes, barring illnesses of course, but even then it still helps.
Click to expand...
Funny you mention this. Mrs. Steingar had an uneasy time getting in when I first got the Mooney. She started yoga (not of my doing!) and now has a much easier time getting into the aircraft.
 
steingar said:
Funny you mention this. Mrs. Steingar had an uneasy time getting in when I first got the Mooney. She started yoga (not of my doing!) and now has a much easier time getting into the aircraft.
Click to expand...

I'm telling you, I haven't done any for a couple years now, but I went from not being able to put my hands half way down my legs to being able to put them flat on the floor in about 6 months. I was roped into a Pilates class 10 years ago by a guy in the gym. This guy was a muscle head weight lifter, special forces retiree, private government security contractor guy. I thought he was pulling my leg when he told me to give it a try. He told me it was a tough class, I thought he was joking but did it. First class the instructor, a petite woman, kicked our butts. The second class was a little easier and I was hooked. I need to get back to it as everything starts tightening up again.
 
Salty said:
What other plane can match up to or beat a used, sub $250k cirrus in all these areas?

1. Cruise speed
2. Ease of entry (2 doors)
3. Price
4. Useful load
5. Relatively modern avionics
6. Comfort (space and design)
7. 4 seats

A chute is extra credit. ;)

Cost of ownership is not on the list. I want to take that off the table.
Click to expand...
I only have experience with FG Cardinals, but i'm thinking that a Cardinal RG with a Tornado Alley Turbo kit might be competitive with your $200k Cirrus.

Start with this guy and stick a turbo on. https://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?id=1508295&catid=17393
 
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Glasair Sportsman yet.
 
How about a person finds a run out Cessna 182S or 182T with decent avionics/paint/interior. Then get the Texas Skyways conversion. So probably pretty close to $250K but you'll have a 200mph plane with 2 doors, easy entry (for pilot and co-pilot) and fantastic climb rate up through 10K. They also have 285hp conversion for the older Skylanes. They'll be burning more fuel than the SR20 and the Mooney but more payload at full fuel and less runway needed. Classic 182 carb ice also all but eliminated
 
Hard to beat a 182 for the average pilot needs. I said needs, not wants. But I’m partial I guess. I want a lot of things, but overall my 182H fits most all of my flying needs
 
Sinistar said:
How about a person finds a run out Cessna 182S or 182T with decent avionics/paint/interior. Then get the Texas Skyways conversion. So probably pretty close to $250K
Click to expand...

Maybe a few years ago. A run out 182S or T these days goes for 200k or more. That conversion ain't cheap. Tack on an extra $50k.
 
wheaties said:
Maybe a few years ago. A run out 182S or T these days goes for 200k or more. That conversion ain't cheap. Tack on an extra $50k.
Click to expand...
My bad then.

I was thinking a run out S or T would be like $125k. I am pretty sure the 300hp+ Skyways conversion is well over $100k, maybe over $125k so this combo would exceed the OP's $250k limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top