Cirrus v. Bonanza

[RotorAndWing]

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

 

[weilke]

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.

Some A36 are aft CG challenged. Ours is nose-heavy.

With 5 in the family, you still have one seat empty. Take one seat out, install a cargo net and take all the luggage your little heart desires.

 

[GRG55]

Some A36 are aft CG challenged. Ours is nose-heavy.

With 5 in the family, you still have one seat empty. Take one seat out, install a cargo net and take all the luggage your little heart desires.

Friend of mine has a B36TC Bonanza, and flies his family (they have 2 boys early teens) and their luggage all over the continent. He's owned a series of Beechcraft including a Tornado Alley modified V35 before this one. I haven't asked him, but can't recall him ever mentioning anything out of the ordinary with CG loading or luggage space, both I which I am assuming are better than his V-tails.

I looked very seriously at A36s (my ultimate dream airplane when I was putting about in Cherokees) but found the payload with full fuel a bit limiting and opted for an Aztec.

 

[weilke]

I looked very seriously at A36s (my ultimate dream airplane when I was putting about in Cherokees) but found the payload with full fuel a bit limiting and opted for an Aztec.

The stock A36 doesn't have the greatest useful load. Various combinations of 300hp engines, turbo and tip-tanks can get you useful loads in the 1400-1500lb range. That said, a BE36 loaded to almost 4000lb sure likes its runway and takes some patience on a climb to altitude.

 

[hindsight2020]

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.

I was being gracious to the fiberglass bathtub by quoting first-generation numbers from 2000. But you're correct homie, 3050# is the next-gen gross weight numbers, and the empty weight is HIGHER than listed above too (2138#), which is even worse. Thank you for further reinforcing my point.

My Mooney? Nah. I'm a just a lowly Piper owner. Like I said no dog in this fight. I've flown SR20s. Not my cup of tea. Sideyoke yields awkward wrist motions for coupled pitch/roll control, the springloaded trim null zone yields lack of control surface feedback. The non-selectable CS prop is straight up stupid from a noise/engine management front. 200HP on 3000# is simply too little. The performance merits I've already posted about. The subjective qualities are merely my opinion. Relax.

 

[txflyer]

Do what the wife wants.

You'll live longer flying or otherwise.

 

[weilke]

I was being gracious to the fiberglass bathtub by quoting first-generation numbers from 2000. But you're correct homie, 3050# is the next-gen gross weight numbers, and the empty weight is HIGHER than listed above too (2138#), which is even worse. Thank you for further reinforcing my point.

The table you quote shows a BEW of 1950. What is your point ?

 

[hindsight2020]

The table you quote shows a BEW of 1950. What is your point ?

That the HP remained the same. And that it's too low to support that kind of airframe weight in a way that makes it competitive with other 200hp samples, which is evident by the much better market reception for the SR22. That was my response to my original quoted poster asking why was the SR20 dismissed/not brought up in Cirri discussion. It's not an inherently bad airplane, but imo it's not a good airplane precisely because of the horsepower selection. That airframe needs 250hp minimum, but that makes it a de-rated SR22, which Cirrus isn't about to cannibalize.

 

[weilke]

That the HP remained the same. And that it's too low to support that kind of airframe weight in a way that makes it competitive with other 200hp samples, ....

Who else is selling a 200hp aircraft at this time ?

Piper. Once a year they sell two or three Arrows.

 

[GRG55]

That the HP remained the same. And that it's too low to support that kind of airframe weight in a way that makes it competitive with other 200hp samples, which is evident by the much better market reception for the SR22. That was my response to my original quoted poster asking why was the SR20 dismissed/not brought up in Cirri discussion. It's not an inherently bad airplane, but imo it's not a good airplane precisely because of the horsepower selection. That airframe needs 250hp minimum, but that makes it a de-rated SR22, which Cirrus isn't about to cannibalize.

According to the GAMA data the SR20 isn't a popular option with Cirrus buyers.

The most recent data I could find was for 2014. Cirrus sold 31 SR20s, 117 SR22s and 160 SR22Ts.

Like the other manufacturers Cirrus' total sales have never recovered to the pre-financial crisis numbers (721 total units sold in 2006), but sales of the SR22 and the SR22T (introduced in 2010 according to the GAMA data) have held steady between 200 and 250 annual units combined since 2009, while sales of the SR20 have continued to decline.

SR20 sales peaked at 156 units in 2006 (including 6 stripped down SRV trainer versions), versus 565 SR22s sold that same year, and have fallen off pretty steadily since, with the exception of a small bounce to 84 units in 2012.

Your point about the airframe being a bit heavy is valid, but that seems the case with pretty well all composite airframes. The carbon fibre spar wing in the G3 apparently reduced the weight of the plane quite a bit, but then "option creep" with more stuff in the panel and more elaborate interiors and soundproofing seems to have used that up.

That's not a problem unique to Cirrus. My first airplane was an early Cherokee 160 with a useful load of 960 lbs. Our flying club had two Warriors with gross weights 200 lbs more than my Cherokee, but their empty weights were almost 400 lbs more, so they carried considerably less.

Who else is selling a 200hp aircraft at this time ?

Piper. Once a year they sell two or three Arrows.

According to the GAMA data Piper last sold an Arrow in 2008

 

[weilke]

According to the GAMA data the SR20 isn't a popular option with Cirrus buyers.

The most recent data I could find was for 2014. Cirrus sold 31 SR20s, 117 SR22s and 160 SR22Ts.

You also have to put it relative to other manufacturers sales in that neighborhood. Nobody else but piper makes a 200hp 4 seater.

Even if you open it up to 180-250hp and 4 seats:

Arrow 5
Maule 13
Archer 25
SR20 31
Skylane 33
DA40 75
172 143

They are in the middle of the pack. The only two piston singles that sell in meaningful numbers are 172s and SR22s.

 

[weilke]

According to the GAMA data Piper last sold an Arrow in 2008

2015 GAMA report lists 5 deliveries.

In 2008 I inquired whether they would build me one and and they said that I needed to bring 10 orders.

 

[GRG55]

The only two piston singles that sell in meaningful numbers are 172s and SR22s.

That pretty well bookends the piston single range. Apparently no current manufacturer can compete with the 172 as a trainer and none can compete with a new SR22 as a high performance single.

Here's an excerpt from an email I received yesterday from a corporate pilot friend of mine. One of the owners of a company he flies jets for has a personal turbo SR22 that he often flies for him:

"...The SR22 GT is a lovely airplane - still can't believe sitting at FL250 doing the same speed as a Cessna 421 - with the wheels hanging out!"

 

[GRG55]

2015 GAMA report lists 5 deliveries.

In 2008 I inquired whether they would build me one and and they said that I needed to bring 10 orders.

Piper seems to be suffering from a serious lack of development funding. Even the pictures of most of the planes on their website suck. The Arrow has a paint scheme that looks 20 years old. No wonder Cessna is outselling them.

Even at the top end Piper only sold 27 Meridians in 2015 versus SOCATA's 51 TBM 900s. Not a good sign...

Cirrus is now owned by the deep pocketed Chinese government. It shows.

 

[Ted]

"...The SR22 GT is a lovely airplane - still can't believe sitting at FL250 doing the same speed as a Cessna 421 - with the wheels hanging out!"

Of course, a lot of SR22 owners upgrade to 421s for the cabin, useful load, pressurization...

 

[GRG55]

Of course, a lot of SR22 owners upgrade to 421s for the cabin, useful load, pressurization...

Even if the geared engines and avgas cost of running a 421 are a concern, seems to me a low time Meridian is comparable in cost to a new SR22T...

 

[Ted]

Even if the geared engines and avgas cost of running a 421 are a concern, seems to me a low time Meridian is comparable in cost to a new SR22T...

Yes, and a 421 can be bought for about 1/3 or even 1/4 the cost.

 

[weilke]

Yes, and a 421 can be bought for about 1/3 or even 1/4 the cost.

You can get a Lear or a Gulfstream II for even less

 

[GRG55]

Yes, and a 421 can be bought for about 1/3 or even 1/4 the cost.

Which buys a lot of avgas!

Same thing played into my buying the Aztec - more capable airplane, significant purchase price discount to any comparable high performance single, years of gas money in the pocket. (Aztecs are just unloved airplanes these days).

Actual experience; airframe maintenance costs uncannily identical to my hangar partner's 265 hp V-tail Bonanza, fuel burn at the same TAS is exactly double his, engine maintenance has been more than double (not just oil, filters & plugs but I have replaced both ignition systems, serviced all 4 mags, changed out both starters and overhauled one prop). The main difference - the Aztec flies more often while his Bonanza remains in the hangar if weather questionable.

 

[Ted]

You can get a Lear or a Gulfstream II for even less

Yes, but we all knows those will make up for the cost difference the first flight.

 

[Ted]

Which buys a lot of avgas!

Same thing played into my buying the Aztec - more capable airplane, significant purchase price discount to any comparable high performance single, years of gas money in the pocket. (Aztecs are just unloved airplanes these days).

Actual experience; airframe maintenance costs uncannily identical to my hangar partner's 265 hp V-tail Bonanza, fuel burn at the same TAS is exactly double his, engine maintenance has been more than double (not just oil, filters & plugs but I have replaced both ignition systems, serviced all 4 mags, changed out both starters and overhauled one prop). The main difference - the Aztec flies more often while his Bonanza remains in the hangar if weather questionable.

Yes, long run the more expensive twin will cost more, but still offers more capability. Depending on what your mission is, this may not matter. Obviously I wouldn't say everyone who buys a Cirrus should buy a 421. But, you do see a lot of people upgrading from a Cirrus to a 340, 414, or 421 because they need more capability.

 

[weilke]

Yes, but we all knows those will make up for the cost difference the first flight.

And the 421 makes it up by the third flight.

It is disingenuous to count dollars saved on the purchase as money you can spend on avgas. You wouldn't take out a loan to pay for the higher DOC, so don't treat capital as available for expenses if you are blessed enough to have it as cash in hand. Count the interest saved per year as fuel and maintenance money.

 

[EvilEagle]

The stock A36 doesn't have the greatest useful load. Various combinations of 300hp engines, turbo and tip-tanks can get you useful loads in the 1400-1500lb range. That said, a BE36 loaded to almost 4000lb sure likes its runway and takes some patience on a climb to altitude.

The newer the worse the UL from what I've seen. I've never talked to a 36 owner with CG issues. I have never even come close to the CG limits in mine. My UL was 1283 without the tip tank addition. New engine brought me up 100# and I lost 48# in the change to NA. Well over 1400# now and for $900 to D'Shannon I get another 90. (No thanks).

 

[weilke]

The newer the worse the UL from what I've seen. I've never talked to a 36 owner with CG issues. I have never even come close to the CG limits in mine. My UL was 1283 without the tip tank addition. New engine brought me up 100# and I lost 48# in the change to NA. Well over 1400# now and for $900 to D'Shannon I get another 90. (No thanks).

We have 3840 (1350 UL) right now and could get 4027 by writing a check to Osborne. Anyone who has flown the plane at 3840 vehemently objects to spending the extra money. Now if one of us wanted to take the plane for skiing trips, getting the additional payload may make sense, for a summer departure, 3850 is all I ever want to lug into the air.

 

[GRG55]

And the 421 makes it up by the third flight.

It is disingenuous to count dollars saved on the purchase as money you can spend on avgas. You wouldn't take out a loan to pay for the higher DOC, so don't treat capital as available for expenses if you are blessed enough to have it as cash in hand. Count the interest saved per year as fuel and maintenance money.

I don't agree with that at all. One of the reasons light twins sell for such a discount is the high fuel costs to fly them. You can't ignore that in your ownership/purchase decision.

One of my primary performance measures in every business I have ever been involved in is ROCE. Although an airplane purchase for personal use is hardly an "investment" or business decision, the trade off of up front capital versus higher/lower operating costs amortized over time is perfectly valid. I did the usual compulsive engineer spreadsheet thing and compared in detail every alternative high performance single and light twin (that fell within the bookends of my mission criteria) I considered over nearly a year of research with the objective of securing the highest value for the total dollars spent over a theoretical 5 year ownership period, including estimated disposition value at the end.

Pay now or pay later; there's only one "taxpayer" when it comes to a personal airplane.

 

[weilke]

One of my primary performance measures in every business I have ever been involved in is ROCE. Although an airplane purchase for personal use is hardly an "investment" or business decision, the trade off of up front capital versus higher/lower operating costs amortized over time is perfectly valid. I did the usual compulsive engineer spreadsheet thing and compared in detail every alternative high performance single and light twin (that fell within the bookends of my mission criteria) I considered over nearly a year of research with the objective of securing the highest value for the total dollars spent over a theoretical 5 year ownership period, including estimated disposition value at the end.

So if you had lets say only 10% of the 5 year budget in cash, you would be perfectly fine with having a loan for 90% at the end but no plane.

Pilots are fascinating.

 

[GRG55]

So if you had lets say only 10% of the 5 year budget in cash, you would be perfectly fine with having a loan for 90% at the end but no plane.

Pilots are fascinating.

If I had only 10% of the 5 year budget in cash I wouldn't be shopping for or buying a personal airplane...

 

[weilke]

If I had only 10% of the 5 year budget in cash I wouldn't be shopping for or buying a personal airplane...

The net result is the same whether you squandered 500k you had in cash or whether you squander only 50 and end up with a 450k note.

 

[GRG55]

The net result is the same whether you squandered 500k you had in cash or whether you squander only 50 and end up with a 450k note.

Only if you assume equity and debt carry the same cost of capital...which is rarely the case. And that's my last word on the topic as we seem to have strayed well away from the original purpose of this thread.

 

[txnightster]

Thanks for the posts up to this point. I'm staying quiet and learning a lot.

More to the original topic let pose an idea and get your feedback.

Owning and flying a bonanza or any other 60's or 70's isn't a bad option and it's one that I'm pretty excited about. My partner are i just trying to avoid be the last guy that is stuck with a flying relic.

Allow me to speak in general terms just to prove a point. For 55k you can buy the nicest 1960 bonanza on the market. For 125k you can buy the nicest 1970. There really is no major difference except for the year model, again I'm speaking in general terms. So, the 1960 and older are being purchased as antiques as opposed to "modern" aircraft.

My theory is that the same reasoning will be true in 10 years. 1970 models will be nearing the end of their useful life and will drop significantly in value.

Looking at this as a newish pilot and 1st time aircraft buyer I could make the argument that both models of Cirrus are the best thing to happen to GA in the last 30 years?

Airplanes are finally depreciating because of a few factors. 1. Less pilots / aging pilot population and 2. The flood of new aircraft into botht the new and used market.

For example: of the 1970 single engine planes on controller.com 12% are cirrus aircraft. Of the model year 2000 and newer 28% listed are Cirrus.

Would anyone agree that the falling prices in the market is going to be a huge benefit to the future of aviation?

 

[weilke]

An early Cirrus is more of a relic than a late V-tail.

 

[txnightster]

I never compared a late v tail to an early cirrus.

What's your point?

 

[weilke]

I never compared a late v tail to an early cirrus.

What's your point?

You said this:

Owning and flying a bonanza or any other 60's or 70's isn't a bad option and it's one that I'm pretty excited about. My partner are i just trying to avoid be the last guy that is stuck with a flying relic.

If your concern is not to own a relic, then an early Cirrus which was superceded by better models may not be the best option.

 

[txnightster]

I hadn't really considered how the early Cirrus models will be viewed in 10 years.

You bring up a good point.

 

[GRG55]

Thanks for the posts up to this point. I'm staying quiet and learning a lot.

More to the original topic let pose an idea and get your feedback.

Owning and flying a bonanza or any other 60's or 70's isn't a bad option and it's one that I'm pretty excited about. My partner are i just trying to avoid be the last guy that is stuck with a flying relic.

Allow me to speak in general terms just to prove a point. For 55k you can buy the nicest 1960 bonanza on the market. For 125k you can buy the nicest 1970. There really is no major difference except for the year model, again I'm speaking in general terms. So, the 1960 and older are being purchased as antiques as opposed to "modern" aircraft.

My theory is that the same reasoning will be true in 10 years. 1970 models will be nearing the end of their useful life and will drop significantly in value.

Looking at this as a newish pilot and 1st time aircraft buyer I could make the argument that both models of Cirrus are the best thing to happen to GA in the last 30 years?

Airplanes are finally depreciating because of a few factors. 1. Less pilots / aging pilot population and 2. The flood of new aircraft into botht the new and used market.

For example: of the 1970 single engine planes on controller.com 12% are cirrus aircraft. Of the model year 2000 and newer 28% listed are Cirrus.

Would anyone agree that the falling prices in the market is going to be a huge benefit to the future of aviation?

Early model Cirrus aircraft have depreciated far more than their age would suggest.

Because the aircraft are "new" there's a lot of development improvements and differences between the earliest models and later ones (including the G3 wing and the avionics packages - steam, Avidyne, Garmin), and the price differentials certainly reflect that.

 

[GRG55]

You said this:



If your concern is not to own a relic, then an early Cirrus which was superceded by better models may not be the best option.

Agree.

This is the reason I think its usually best to tryto buy the newest version of an aircraft type that still fits the budget.

In the early years of any new airplane type the development changes tend to be rapid and significant. In later years the changes tend to be fewer, but some of them on some models can still be important - reductions in fuel system complexity, enhancements that were optional become standard in later years, better instrument panel layouts and so forth.

Buying a very early model Cirrus is somewhat analogous to buying a 1950 Bonanza.

 

[weilke]

Because the aircraft are "new" there's a lot of development improvements and differences between the earliest models and later ones (including the G3 wing and the avionics packages - steam, Avidyne, Garmin), and the price differentials certainly reflect that.

The same has happened with the V-tail. A 50s era 'classic' model is very different from a 1981 V35B.

 

[Ted]

I would argue that the a 1960 Bo is nowhere near the end of their useful life. Barring a crash, the planes really can go on for a long time.

In the case of the 310 world, the R models fetch the most money. Why? Big cabin, nose baggage, and (big one), the last ones made. The earlier ones are still going strong, with people even still flying the old straight-tail ones on long trips. It's all in how you maintain them.

Bonanzas are still being made, so maybe they will age more and depreciate accordingly, but likely not. I also think an A36 is the way to go with a family.

 

[txflyer]

Looking at it like if I hit the lotto, I would go get the latest Cirrus for my barn.

Then maybe a Bo.

 

[MyassisDragon]

The same has happened with the V-tail. A 50s era 'classic' model is very different from a 1981 V35B.

This is a good point. I ended up with a 1971 V35B so I could stay in my budget but still have the latest V35 air frame (Beech had only minor changes for the next 10 years).

Since the interior and paint have been re finished one might not be able to tell the difference and the only upgrade I would have liked so far is the 28v system on the newer models.