Cirrus v. Bonanza

[Checkout_my_Six]

I think the Bonanza is a sexy, beautiful airplane. I love the way they fly, and a Bo (especially a V-tail) sitting on the ramp invokes an emotional response - kind of like walking down the street and seeing a vintage sportscar. The Cirrus is a very capable airplane and has some modern features that are certainly attractive. I like the side stick. But to me, it's merely a machine that gets 4 people from A to B. It might as well be a Honda Accord.

Purely subjective, I know.

yup.....

 

[gkainz]

When our club started the process to replace our Bonanza, we looked hard at Cirrus. After a number of conversations with 2 different FBOs with Cirri locally about cost of ownership long term, we replaced our F33 with another, newer F33. Cost of ownership was a factor, but also experience and familiarity with Owner Maintenance on our Bonanza helped cement the decision.

 

[wayne]

The SR22 is nice for the two doors and wider cabin. My wife loved not having a yoke in front of her.

I was flying a 2002 version with over 1,100 lbs useful. That meant the four of could go on a trip with luggage; helps to have girls and neither my wife or I are heavy.

Working on getting checked out in a baron 58, and it's noticeably narrower.

I was always amazed in the SR22 how well it dealt with cross winds. Often it seemed like there was far less that what it was.

 

[Talan2000]

very nice club!

 

[John Collins]

When our club started the process to replace our Bonanza, we looked hard at Cirrus. After a number of conversations with 2 different FBOs with Cirri locally about cost of ownership long term, we replaced our F33 with another, newer F33. Cost of ownership was a factor, but also experience and familiarity with Owner Maintenance on our Bonanza helped cement the decision.

I will bet they were both F33A and not an F33. Not many of the F33 ever made, maybe 20.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

I can see you flexing your fingers so you can bang out a quick response!! Let me first describe the opportunity and then you can fire away.

Good friend and I are on the road to become co-owners in an airplane. He and I have been and continue to partners in several hobbies and it has been very positive experience for both parties.

Qualifications: 500hr+ pilots with instrument rating/HP/Complex.

Age: 30's

Where we differ in this endeavor is the use of the airplane.

Pilot #1 works in the GA industry and travels within the region visiting his dealer network and the end user (GA Pilots) The airplane must be attractive, a common certified make/model, and reliable enough to use for business. He also flies for fun with his family. After a few years of renting 172's he is ready for a change.

Pilot #2 What brought about the change in my flying requirements is the arrival of my son last year. My wife isn't too excited about the prospect of putting him in a rental plane with the exception of a Cirrus. The cost to rent and the hassle involved in scheduling the Cirrus has completely turned me off.

Our family is 250+ miles away in an area that isn't convenient to a major airport so we flew to seem them quite often. We also fly several trips for vacation and I have business 300+ miles away that requires me to come by once per quarter. The past year we have been burning the road up and I'm really missing my time in the airplane!! Flying myself around the pattern just isn't enough to satiate my habit and quite frankly I miss flying with my wife.

Common questions we have received:

1st question "how did you narrow it down to only Bo's and Cirrus?"
They are very common, we both have experience in each and an efficient travelling plane for our type of flying.

2nd question, "can you afford to purchase, maintain and fly them?"
Yes, we have both waited over 5 years to buy an airplane so we aren't jumping in blind

3rd question, "will you both get adequate use of the airplane?"
We both plan ahead while remaining flexible. This has proven true on each of the cars, boats, etc. that we share. When there is a conflict we hash it out and move on. We have learned that most issues have been avoided by simply planning ahead and making your intentions known. Wish I could do a better job of this in my marriage!

4th question, "what's your budget"
Budget including acquisition costs is 100K-150K

5th question, "why don't each of you go buy your own plane"
Through work Pilot #1 gets access to items that I would otherwise not be able to afford. Pilot #1 also hs free space in a hangar to help offset fixed expenses

Changing market for used aircraft:
With Cirrus aircraft appearing in our single piston budget they are very attractive. Despite all the positives for a Bonanza (Received my instrument ticket in a 68 model) it's hard to ignore the comfort and appeal of an airplane built in the past 20 years.

Can someone check my thinking and tell me why we shouldn't only consider a Cirrus SR-20/22?

If there is another thread that answers my questions feel free to pass it along. I don't have thin skin so fire away with your ideas and punch some holes in my thinking. That's the whole reason for going through the exercise.

Thanks for your feedback.
Bill D.

Simple: Kids. Wife. Depend on you? Then Cirrus parachute wins.

SR20 = Trainer. SR22 = decent useful, great economy for speed (170 knots, 11.8gph). Cirrus fatality rate now leads industry.

 

[GRG55]

Simple: Kids. Wife. Depend on you? Then Cirrus parachute wins.

SR20 = Trainer. SR22 = decent useful, great economy for speed (170 knots, 11.8gph). Cirrus fatality rate now leads industry.

About five years ago my turbo-Mooney owner aeromedical doctor made the comment that Cirrus had replaced Beechcraft as the new "doctor killer". Things have sure changed.

The data is pretty clear on that (and compelling). But it would likely be more than just the airplane and the availability of the parachute system involved in achieving the dramatic change.

 

[GRG55]

About five years ago my turbo-Mooney owner aeromedical doctor made the comment that Cirrus had replaced Beechcraft as the new "doctor killer". Things have sure changed.

The data is pretty clear on that (and compelling). But it would likely be more than just the airplane and the availability of the parachute system involved in achieving the dramatic change.

Here's perhaps a more informative chart that provides a bit of insight into what might be going on. All the planes involved in the 31 fatalities in 2011 were also equipped with parachutes. So it has to be something more than just the airplane and its equipment at play here.

 

[denverpilot]

Which would you feel better about flying on a night x/c ? Which would you feel better about flying over large stretches of water or rough terrain ?

A King Air?

 

[GRG55]

A King Air?

I was thinking more along the lines of Boeing 777...

 

[denverpilot]

I was thinking more along the lines of Boeing 777...

I'm not greedy. Haha.

 

[GRG55]

I'm not greedy. Haha.

You just want to one up Eggman

Seriously, I was probably keying on the "...Which would you feel better about flying over large stretches of water..." part of the comment. About a decade ago I flew on an Emirates B777 non-stop Dubai to Perth. Following along on the inflight screen over the Indian Ocean it struck me we were long way from land - that's a lot of water to cross. I listened carefully to the tone of those two engines the rest of the flight thinking they would never find us if they quit. At that time the B777 had an exceptional safety record, no hull losses (the first came later at Heathrow) and no MH370.

 

[Ted]

747

 

[FastEddieB]

Cirrus fatality rate now leads industry.

To be clear, that means the fatality rate is very low, not high.

Right?

 

[GRG55]

To be clear, that means the fatality rate is very low, not high.

Right?

Correct. That is what he meant. I had the same question when I read that post and looked up the data. See the charts in posts 47 and 48 above

 

[brian]]

This year has been pretty rough for bonanza numbers. I'm definitely no expert, but I do know it was a lot easier to get into an older bonanza than a cirrus of any stripe. Then the reality that this aircraft was not a trainer set in. Then the reality of deferred maintenance set in.

Guess what I'm trying to say is both aircraft are very good buys IF you join COPA or ABS and PRTICiPATE. Aircraft ownership is nearly a second full time job.

 

[GRG55]

747

One of those would probably be a continuation of my multiengine experience to date - the capital cost of entry is beguilingly "cheap", the operating costs wipe out all remaining disposable income

 

[Ted]

Aircraft ownership is nearly a second full time job.

This is 100% correct. Except it's like college because there's a ton of homework and costs a lot of money.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Simple: Kids. Wife. Depend on you? Then Cirrus parachute wins.

SR20 = Trainer. SR22 = decent useful, great economy for speed (170 knots, 11.8gph). Cirrus fatality rate now leads industry.

To be clear, that means the fatality rate is very low, not high.

Right?

Correct. That is what he meant. See the charts in posts 47 and 48 above

well....those charts don't show that.

The trend is good...but those charts aren't normalized to flight hours nor do they show a comparison to other aircraft.

 

[Ted]

From a safety perspective, I think the planes are close enough that the deciding factor should be mission fit. An A36 wins there.

 

[GRG55]

well....those charts don't show that.

The trend is good...but those charts aren't normalized to flight hours nor do they show a comparison to other aircraft.

Valid point. The Cirrus fleet is undoubtedly increasing in numbers throughout that time period. It's possible with age and attrition all other single GA aircraft added together may be decreasing?

I would assume that tracking flight hours for the fleet and for any individual type within the fleet has to be estimated, so that might be why the chart is limited to absolute numbers and not ratios. Anybody here know how COPA or the FAA or NTSB (or whoever) compiles flight hours?

I have never flown in a Cirrus and never paid much attention to them (seemed too expensive for a single engine airplane to me - the price of a late generation SR22T is comparable to a low time Piper Meridian and I know which one of those I would choose). Regardless, I still found the charts pretty compelling. The second one in particular I think is quite insightful as something is definitely going on with Cirrus training, or Cirrus pilot attitudes to pulling the chute, or something like that.

Finally, the chute is not the end all and be all imo. The stall characteristics of the Cirrus have come under some criticism from the likes of Richard Collins, and if the airplane enters a spin apparently the chute must be deployed to recover. So there's still a lot of factors beyond the chute in deciding between a Cirrus and other alternatives.

 

[txnightster]

Why does the Cirrus SR-20 get placed in the "trainer" category? Lack of useful load? Cruise speed?

It seems pretty on par with other 4 place planes.

 

[brian]]

This is 100% correct. Except it's like college because there's a ton of homework and costs a lot of money.

Agreed. Both are worth it, but neither are for everyone.

 

[Ted]

Finally, the chute is not the end all and be all imo. The stall characteristics of the Cirrus have come under some criticism from the likes of Richard Collins, and if the airplane enters a spin apparently the chute must be deployed to recover. So there's still a lot of factors beyond the chute in deciding between a Cirrus and other alternatives.

The Cirrus is a nice handling plane, but so is the Bo. I haven't stalled a Cirrus, but the reality is that a pilot with marginal stick and rudder skills (especially who turns the AP on at 10 AGL and off again at 10 AGL) won't recover from a stall in either and will just spin it into the ground. Handling is fine. What the Cirrus fleet suffers from is a lack of stick and rudder skills by the pilots.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

....
Finally, the chute is not the end all and be all imo.
......

but....that is the point. Cirrus is training that the chute "is" the end all be all....and the number 1 go to item.

Hence the reason for the improvement in the trend in the frequency plots posted.

The chute is a wonderful tech addition.....but the pilot's lack of judgement accounts for +80% of all causality in general aviation fatalities.

 

[ktup-flyer]

What about the DA40?

 

[denverpilot]

One of those would probably be a continuation of my multiengine experience to date - the capital cost of entry is beguilingly "cheap", the operating costs wipe out all remaining disposable income

You just described all aircraft ownership.

This is 100% correct. Except it's like college because there's a ton of homework and costs a lot of money.

College is a cake walk compared to real life. In college, there's someone there to tell you if you're screwing up.

 

[Ted]

College is a cake walk compared to real life. In college, there's someone there to tell you if you're screwing up.

I gave specific areas where it compares to college.

 

[FastEddieB]

but....that is the point. Cirrus is training that the chute "is" the end all be all....and the number 1 go to item.

That is simply false.

 

[denverpilot]

I gave specific areas where it compares to college.

Fair point. Still applies though. Homework done wrong in college will get corrected. Homework done wrong in the real world aviation environment may not work out so well.

 

[hindsight2020]

Why does the Cirrus SR-20 get placed in the "trainer" category? Lack of useful load? Cruise speed?

It seems pretty on par with other 4 place planes.

On par? I don't think so. Not per-dollar indexed it ain't. I don't really place much stock in whether people use the trainer moniker or not, as it has the same handling qualities as a SR-22, but think about it. 2900# gross airplane on 200HP. Real world samples are 2150+# empty. Yikes. It's a pig and you don't get 150 knots from it at 65% LOP like you can a smooth Mooney J, and is within 5 knots from indignant substitutions like short body mooneys and even my unsightly 40K Piper Arrow. The 3 bladed 20s are even worse. Good luck running a TCM 360 at full bore ROP to get 150+ TAS for very long. And that's 182RG/Comanche fuel mileage, and you get a hell of lot more airplane (useful, climb rate and range) with a comanche/182rg than a Sr20. The climb rate is also predictably low, worse than my Arrow. It's just physics.

What you do get is the ergonomics comfort of a new airplane, and the chute, for those for whom that is more important but cannot spring for a 22. It's essentially a modern version of picking a Beech Sierra or Commander and accepting the performance hit for comfort. If the used prices were consistently in the 75K range I'd consider it a good value. At over six figures however, no thanks. It's not so much that off-brand cheaper options (like Mooney) eat its lunch on a used price point basis, it's the SR-22 itself that cuts the 20s at the knees.

 

[weilke]

but....that is the point. Cirrus is training that the chute "is" the end all be all....and the number 1 go to item.

It is not the 'end all be all', but there are situations where it will make a difference.

The A36 that crashed in NC last week would be an example of a single engine crash that could have ended better with a chute. Then there are of course other situations, like the SR22 that crashed on a circle to land last month, where the chute makes no difference.

 

[jmp470]

On par? I don't think so. Not per-dollar indexed it ain't. I don't really place much stock in whether people use the trainer moniker or not, as it has the same handling qualities as a SR-22, but think about it. 2900# gross airplane on 200HP. Real world samples are 2150+# empty. Yikes. It's a pig and you don't get 150 knots from it at 65% LOP like you can a smooth Mooney J, and is within 5 knots from indignant substitutions like short body mooneys and even my unsightly 40K Piper Arrow. The 3 bladed 20s are even worse. Good luck running a TCM 360 at full bore ROP to get 150+ TAS for very long. And that's 182RG/Comanche fuel mileage, and you get a hell of lot more airplane (useful, climb rate and range) with a comanche/182rg than a Sr20. The climb rate is also predictably low, worse than my Arrow. It's just physics.

What you do get is the ergonomics comfort of a new airplane, and the chute, for those for whom that is more important but cannot spring for a 22. It's essentially a modern version of picking a Beech Sierra or Commander and accepting the performance hit for comfort. If the used prices were consistently in the 75K range I'd consider it a good value. At over six figures however, no thanks. It's not so much that off-brand cheaper options (like Mooney) eat its lunch on a used price point basis, it's the SR-22 itself that cuts the 20s at the knees.

I put over 150 Hrs on my Sr20, it averaged 145 kts at 10 GPH. I bought it will 49 hours total time and my insurance was 1580 ish per year.... The climb rate was similar to a 172, about 700 FPM. Over all it was a great plane to own and a joy to fly.

 

[jmp470]

This topic is very much of interest to me. I use to own a Sr 20 and now with 5 in the family I'm looking at a Bonanza. I'm looking at the V35 or an A36. I really like the looks of the V-tail, but I'm still learning about them. Thus, I cannot comment on the differences, but OP, your not the only one thinking about this!

 

[gkainz]

I will bet they were both F33A and not an F33. Not many of the F33 ever made, maybe 20.

You are correct. F33A

 

[brian]]

I put over 150 Hrs on my Sr20, it averaged 145 kts at 10 GPH. I bought it will 49 hours total time and my insurance was 1580 ish per year.... The climb rate was similar to a 172, about 700 FPM. Over all it was a great plane to own and a joy to fly.

Wait... An SR20 only gets about 700 FPM and 145KTS on a 200 HP engine?

With an RPM restricted engine to 165HP, I get between 1000-1200FPM and the same 145KTS in cruise. Guess my beater bonanza isn't that bad of an airplane after all....

 

[hindsight2020]

Wait... An SR20 only gets about 700 FPM and 145KTS on a 200 HP engine?

With an RPM restricted engine to 165HP, I get between 1000-1200FPM and the same 145KTS in cruise. Guess my beater bonanza isn't that bad of an airplane after all....

You may get 150+ if you goose it at 12GPH ROP (crappy fuel mileage) but nobody runs a TCM engine like that without eating cylinders. On 56gals useful, the range is low at that setting. The stated climb rate is about right real world when loaded. The fact is that 2900# max gross rating is heavy for 200HP. By comparison my Arrow II is 2650# rated on the same horsepower. It's also a full 400 pounds lighter. That's where the hokey certified numbers come in. The manufacturer starts cutting the margin on the climb rate to certify it at the right useful load, then they lie about it on the brochure with winter day climb marketing numbers and summer day cruise ones. They couldn't sell it with a straight face if it had 600# useful load. The airframe is too heavy, it's a 250HP airframe minimum imo.

To be fair to Cirrus, all manufacturers do this. Piper did the same BS with the Six/Saratoga weight increases, even the Arrow II -> III is rated at 100 lbs higher in order to keep the useful the same when the 72 gallons useful were introduced. It's all a shell game, which is why I'm not impressed with certified POHs nor do I consider their "guidance" as an absolute. Bottom line, The sr20 is a beech sierra. Another exercise in compromise. When the chute and car interior is critical for the buy-in of the passengers, compromises like the SR20 are borne. Not my cup of tea, but there's a market for that compromise, and that's alright.

 

[bikert]

I'd go for the Cirrus. The Cirrus is safer. Fact. The cirrus has a more comfortable cabin. Fact.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

This topic is very much of interest to me. I use to own a Sr 20 and now with 5 in the family I'm looking at a Bonanza. I'm looking at the V35 or an A36. I really like the looks of the V-tail, but I'm still learning about them. Thus, I cannot comment on the differences, but OP, your not the only one thinking about this!

5?....that rules out the V35. I'd never put a kid in the back and expect to bring any bags. With the CG issues I try and put heavy stuff in the middle and light stuff in the back.

The Six is the only plane I'd consider with 5 pax in a single. A 300 HP six is nice. The A36 is CG challenged also....with limited baggage space.

 

[weilke]

You may get 150+ if you goose it at 12GPH ROP (crappy fuel mileage) but nobody runs a TCM engine like that without eating cylinders. On 56gals useful, the range is low at that setting. The stated climb rate is about right real world when loaded. The fact is that 2900# max gross rating is heavy for 200HP.

You keep repeating an incorrect number for the max gross. It's 3050, not 2900.

It's heavier than your mooney because it's better.