Cirrus v. Bonanza

GRG55 said:
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.
Click to expand...

First, a Cirrus can be recovered form a spin. It does take aggressive rudder i.e. it isn't a 172. The cuffed wing gives great early stall recovery. On the other hand, I find the controls more numb than say a 182 where I can better feel the air over the control surfaces.

I used Flightaware to try to compare actual hours flown and then ran fatality rates. The BE35 is about the same (slightly lower) than the SR22 IF you consider chute pulls to be fatals. If you only take actual fatals then the SR22 is significantly better. This look didn't include 2015 which was a good year for Cirrus and a horrible Bonanza year.

Insurance seems to go more by hull value than by SR22 vs. Bonanza.
 
Here are my thoughts on used Cirrus aircraft vs.BE35:

1) I would take an older SR22 over a newer SR20. The extra power is transformational. Speed is the smallest difference. Climb and high altitude performance differences are huge. I love cruising at 12K-17K on long trips.

2) On the SR22, there are major differences between serial number ranges and not just by version number. The G2 is very different from the G1 but even then there are difference in the G2 such as when the ventilation got redone or ALT1 went from 60A to 100A or instrumentation going from SIU to DAU. Early G1 aircraft are prone to instrument wiring issues. May G1 aircraft have had the wiring issues fixed.

3) Depreciation needs to be considered in context. A brand new fully loaded 2002 SR22 cost about $330K. At that time an A36 cost a LOT more.

4) SR22 ingress and egress is easier than a Bonanza.

5) CAPS is a nice safety feature but budget about $15K for replacement every 10 years. That means a $1500/year reserve.

6) An SR22 (except G2 turbo) is great for loading because it is almost impossible to get out of CG. A BE35 needs to be calculated over the fuel burn for proper CG. A friend often has to move weight from the baggage compartment to the back seat.

7) Speed management is harder on an SR22. If you get a recent enough BE35 so that you have 150 knot gear extension then you can come in screaming all the way to short final. Gear down and full flaps will have things flying forward and the plane will quickly slow down. This is a nice option when getting slam dunked. On an SR22 you need to manage speed and descent or you can get into trouble. The plane is slick. Getting flaps in is key. If it is a slam dunk then you need flaps before the descent or you will never get slow enough to get flaps in.

8) If buying a Bonanza take a hard look at the autopilot including the servos. This can be a big limitation going forward. Just about any Cirrus can be upgraded to an Avidyne DFC90 without replacing the servos. The DFC90 is an excellent AP. The DFC90 blows away the STEC 55X which is itself a nice AP. A Bonanza with King servos will usually require servo replacement to get to an equivalent AP or even a 55X.

9) The SR22 is noticeably smoother in turbulence than the BE35. The SR22 also lacks the dutch roll of the BE35 so back seat passengers are happier in the SR22.

10) The SR22 has dual electrical systems.

12) Seat belts are better in the SR22.

13) The SR22 has better visibility. The side yoke arrangement allows a low glare shield. When I moved from a 172/182 I tended to comb because of the different sight picture. I remember it being weird to see the runway straight ahead while in a landing flair.

14) The BE35 is better on grass. The tires are bigger and there are no tight wheel fairings to deal with.

15) It is easier to smoothly land a BE35. Bigger tires and shocks on the struts really make a difference. Speed management is key on an SR22 or you can get into PIO.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
V35A TC Bonanza owner here.....

IMHO, both are fine aircraft.

If you must have "new" technologies....the Cirrus glass panel and chute are preferable.

From a cost to own, aesthetics, performance.....either would fit the bill and be an equal choice in my book.

Now...if you meant BE-36....that's really not a "real" Bonanza in my opinion. :D
Click to expand...

I agree with this post. I am a J35 Bonanza owner just for comparison. The one thing I'd say about the Cirrus is that you need to add the cost of the decenial chute repack. Otherwise I agree with everything that is stated above.
 
Are there any benefits to the V tail? Aerodynamically better? Easier to fly? Besides looking different.
 
UngaWunga said:
Are there any benefits to the V tail? Aerodynamically better? Easier to fly? Besides looking different.
Click to expand...

Less wetted surface than a piper tail.

Beech did an experiment and built the 33 and the 35 at the same time. When equipped with the same engine/prop, they achieve pretty much the same performance.

Looks cool and you can look down on lesser planes.
 
So, they're "different" just to be different? No benefits in flight?
 
UngaWunga said:
So, they're "different" just to be different? No benefits in flight?
Click to expand...

Take a V-tail design where the two tails are 90 degrees to each other. Rotate 45 degrees. Now slide the horizontal surface to be in the middle and you have a conventional elevator and rudder where rudder is equal in size to elevator. If you want different sizing then adjust the angle between the two tails of the V-tail. As you flatten the V you get more elevator in exchange for less rudder.

Cirrus used it on the jet strictly to get the tail out of the way of the exhaust. That said, it looks cool and makes for a gorgeous plane (both Cirrus jet and Bonanza).
 
kinda like this guy too..... :D

landscape-1447362154-cobalt-side.jpg
 
UngaWunga said:
So, they're "different" just to be different? No benefits in flight?
Click to expand...

At the time Beech was designing the plane the apparent objective was simpler, lighter construction compared to a conventional tail, and less drag from less wetted area.

My hangar partner, who has owned Bonanzas continuously for almost 4 decades including both straight tail Debonairs and V-tails, says that the Dutch roll reputation of the V-tail is overstated and at least from the left front seat he's never noticed much difference in turbulence. As another post has already noted there's apparently not much notable difference between the conventional tail 33 and V-tail 35 when it comes to drag/speeds according to him.


btw, if anybody needs parts for a Bonanza let me know. He has the hangar completely cluttered with everything you would ever need to keep a short body Bo in the air, and I would love to get my 1/2 of the space back again. And I mean everything :yesnod:
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
At the time Beech was designing the plane the apparent objective was simpler, lighter construction compared to a conventional tail, and less drag from less wetted area.

My hangar partner, who has owned Bonanzas continuously for almost 4 decades including both straight tail Debonairs and V-tails, says that the Dutch roll reputation of the V-tail is overstated and at least from the left front seat he's never noticed much difference in turbulence. As another post has already noted there's apparently not much notable difference between the conventional tail 33 and V-tail 35 when it comes to drag/speeds according to him.


btw, if anybody needs parts for a Bonanza let me know. He has the hangar completely cluttered with everything you would ever need to keep a short body Bo in the air, and I would love to get my 1/2 of the space back again. And I mean everything :yesnod:
Click to expand...

PM me if you find a beech 215 electric prop in there.
 
brian];2023382 said:
PM me if you find a beech 215 electric prop in there.
Click to expand...

You and about 300 others....
 
Dutch roll is much more of an issue for back seat passengers.
 
UngaWunga said:
Are there any benefits to the V tail? Aerodynamically better? Easier to fly? Besides looking different.
Click to expand...

Sorry - had to have a "real keyboard" to add some details. For the V tails - go back 70 years and you have mostly round engined biplanes like the stagger wing for business transportation. The C195 was just coming out.

By comparison, the returning GIs were flying very aerodynamic aircraft (e.g. the P51). Beech (and others) were also looking for something cheaper to build. So the design of the V-Tail began as WW-II was coming to a close. (Test flights were in 1945 - also used a laminar flow wing!)

The "big bore" continentals were cutting edge tech. At 165HP - they packed a lot of power in a relatively small, light and aerodynamic package - unlike the radials. But the power was still much smaller. So Beech (Ryan and others) built an airframe around the new engine.

Beech focused on speed, being quiet, and something a lady could fly. Seriously! We Bonanza drivers are flying girly airplanes ;)

I have a book somewhere that shows how many MPH was gained by various mods - typically just a couple of miles for each mod:
- 2 instead of 3 tail feathers
- retractable gear (that was a biggie)
- retractable step
- Flush rivets
- and the list goes on..

By the way, they did so well compared to the competition that the following were optional:
- An AM radio with antenna that could be deployed out the rear of the aircraft (seriously - with crank!)
- Safety flares (pop them to see the unlit runway below - pulled due to being a fire hazard)
- paint was optional (mine was originally painted - the cool ones are polished :( )
- and some nice avionics - for the day

Oh - and the designed assumed unimproved runways (e.g. grass).

All this for the low price of $7,500 - not including options. (The Stagger wing was being sold for well over $14,000.)

Anyway, the history on these oldies is interesting. Still amazing aircraft by today's standards. My oldie competes very well if your "mission" is a pilot with maybe 1-2 others plus modest bags. Speed is 145KTS on 10GPH - MOGAS. Pretty much take off and land anywhere. Oh, and it is kinda interesting when you come back from the FBO and the old girl is posing for a picture by a stranger...

(Yep, I'm originally from Kansas ...)
 
Let your wife decide. Really.

They are both great choices (and consider a Comanche too).

In general, IME, wives are equally split loving the chute and loving the club seating. If I could find a plane with club seats and a chute, I think I'd get one for Christmas....Happy wife, Happy life....
 
peppy said:
Dutch roll is much more of an issue for back seat passengers.
Click to expand...

Problem goes away with the STEC servo Yaw Damper.:yes:

Flip the switch and it feels like someone put the tail in a fixed track.

Made this one of the requirements for my purchase.
 
Bill,

I'm someone who was in your exact place only two months ago. I was originally planning on spending around $100k on a Bo or a Deb for mainly leisure and business flying. However, as soon as I got in a Cirrus for a demo flight I did on a whim, I was sold on it, and right there my budget had to go up to $150k to afford one. I originally did not want to get a Cirrus, partially because there's a lot of derision for Cirrus pilots in the GA community.

I flew a couple of Bo's and the Cirrus and for me there was no comparison. I personally love glass avionics (I had only flown steam prior and was ready to move on), and the Cirrus is both extremely easy and a joy to fly. Usually, families and wives love the chute from what I've read. I bought a 2003 Cirrus SR20 for $137.5k with 1100 hours just over a month ago and couldn't be happier with it. Cirrus has all kinds of training materials exclusive to their aircraft and avionics that really makes transitioning into and understanding your aircraft easier.

I will say that it will be extremely difficult to find a decent SR22 in that price range. Most of them under $150 will either be near TBO or have damage history. I talked to dozens of brokers and spent lots of time online and most people agree that if you're on a budget, the SR20 is the way to go. Everything is exactly the same inside and outside the aircraft, the 22 is just quicker and has better useful load, which isn't that big of a deal in the 20 anyways, the other day I flew from Dallas to San Antonio with nearly full tanks and four guys, no problems.

I live in the Dallas area, if you'd like, shoot me a PM and we can take her for a spin and see what you think.
Good luck!
 
Yeah, I was in a similar situation. I ended up purchasing an early model SR20, just over $100k. I opted for the SR20 as most of my flying right now is in Florida, though going out of state isn't a huge deal (I'd save about 30-45 minutes flying from Tampa to Texas in an SR22) but I'm also flying at 9k feet burning only 8gph. As an early pilot doing my instrument work, it's been fantastic. The SR20 is a very docile plane. I love the parachute as a lot of my flying is at night. I have more technology in my plane than most used BO's I looked at (Digital engine monitor, synthetic vision PFD, weather, WAAS, etc). 900 Useful load.

Would I love a faster plane? Sure.. but I certainly don't regret my decision. The plane is spacious, comfortable and cruises at 148kts, I'm a happy owner.
 
mohamedpac said:
Everything is exactly the same inside and outside the aircraft, the 22 is just quicker and has better useful load, which isn't that big of a deal in the 20 anyways, the other day I flew from Dallas to San Antonio with nearly full tanks and four guys, no problems.
Click to expand...

Having flown both, I think that glosses over what I consider the biggest advantage of the SR22 - climb out ability.

On a warm day with higher terrain around, the SR22 will climb steeply to avoid terrain - the SR20, even modestly loaded, certainly cannot. I can think of airports around me in N GA that my SR22 handled easily that could have had me sweating bullets in an SR20. 9A0 in Dahlanoga taking off northbound comes to mind.

An SR20 is clearly safe if its limitations are considered, but the SR22's climb performance is what really sets it apart.
 
An SR 20 at gross has a power to weight ratio of 15.25 lbs/hp which is actually worse than a 152. They cruise at a decent speed because of great aerodynamics, but nothing makes up for the lack of HP in climb.

Extra HP is nice for a lot of reasons. Getting out of the bumps fast, cruising at a higher altitude in smooth cool air, short field performance....
 
A wise man once told me.... "Look at all the planes you wish to, but buy the one the wife likes". Airplanes are expensive and if you want to keep a happy marriage, and keep the wife flying with you, you buy the plane she likes. QED!
 
Wife said the old Bo was "cute". The rest is history...

At the end of the day- you have to get the aircraft you won't mind spending the MX $$s on. Flying aint cheap!
 
mohamedpac said:
I originally did not want to get a Cirrus, partially because there's a lot of derision for Cirrus pilots in the GA community.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll bite, why would you give a crap? Your money, your airplane, and people who's opinion you need not pay any attention to, whatsoever.
 
denverpilot said:
Ok I'll bite, why would you give a crap? Your money, your airplane, and people who's opinion you need not pay any attention to, whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I agree with you exactly. At first it kind of mattered since I was vetting aircraft based on the opinions of people online, but when I actually flew one I completely stopped caring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
Having flown both, I think that glosses over what I consider the biggest advantage of the SR22 - climb out ability.

On a warm day with higher terrain around, the SR22 will climb steeply to avoid terrain - the SR20, even modestly loaded, certainly cannot. I can think of airports around me in N GA that my SR22 handled easily that could have had me sweating bullets in an SR20. 9A0 in Dahlanoga taking off northbound comes to mind.

An SR20 is clearly safe if its limitations are considered, but the SR22's climb performance is what really sets it apart.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. It isn't the speed difference. It is the ability to climb when in the mountains and to get up high for long flights. Dahlanoga is a great practice airport. You get your choice of going around the hill and coming in at a 45 degree angle to the runway or going over the hill, doing a slip, and pulling out of the slip just before touching down.
 
dell30rb said:
An SR 20 at gross has a power to weight ratio of 15.25 lbs/hp which is actually worse than a 152. They cruise at a decent speed because of great aerodynamics, but nothing makes up for the lack of HP in climb.
Click to expand...

A Mooney M20F has a ratio of 13.7 lbs/hp and we are supposed to believe that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
 
Everyone knows the M20J is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

They are not stellar in climb, but they are fast. And get 20+mpg
 
The Bonanza will be faster, but if the Cirrus can turn inside and maintain the shooting angle, it can probably get off a kill shot.
 
Cirrus. Nothing really wrong with the Bo, but the Cirrus is nicer, especially from a non-pilot perspective. Two doors, nice seats, wider cabin and a parachute. My wife really likes not having a yoke in front of her; a single throw-over yoke in a Bo would do too. An early model, such as a 2002, can have a useful load just over 1,000 lbs and wide CG range. I've seen plenty of Bo's with more useful but such a narrow CG range that it's hard to use it all. I also like the avionics closer to me. Having the stack on the right side in older Bo's/Barrons is annoying.
 
Just to circle back I wanted to let everyone know that we are nearing the end of the purchase process on a 67 model V35. We are very excited about how everything is coming together and look forward to sharing pictures after the deal is complete.

Thanks again for all the advice.

Bill D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top