Dakota Vs SR20

AnthonyS1

AnthonyS1

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
139
Location
KVAY
Display Name
Display name:
AnthonyS1
Hi all....My uncle and I are currently about to put our 82 Archer II up for sale as we are looking to move up to something with a better avionics package and something that can move through the air a bit quicker. Currently looking at Piper Dakotas and possibly exploring the Cirrus SR20 and maybe the SR22( would have to be financed if we go the SR22 route and this is something I'd like to avoid.) budget is around 100-150k (without financing). Currently going to look at a 79' Dakota this week that I found on controller that is not far from our home airport in Southern NJ. It is listed at 109k but, the engine is run out (2100SMOH) owner says compressions are great and we'll get another few hundred hours out of it no problem blah blah. An overhaul on the O540 goes for around 40-45k so that brings this aircraft to around almost 150k. I would post the link if I could but dont have enough posts. It has an excellent avionics package (Aspen Evolution 1000PFD GNS430W Garmin audio, xpdr ADS B IN/OUT, and a brand new interior. Looking to hear what some Dakota owners think about their airplane performence and operational costs wise vs the SR20 and the 22. The owner of the aircraft we are going to see says he plans 125KTAS... I thought the Dakota was capable of 140??? He says on short hops down low he runs it at 21/2100RPM and on long flights at altitude he runs it at 21/1800RPM and LOP. I thought this was a strange cruise setting but he has a lot of time in the Dakota so I am not one to question. We really want something that can move about 140KTAS.. I think the SR20 is capable of that but I'm afraid it will be vastly more expensive to maintain with also much less useful load. We usually only fly with 1 or 2 passengers. Very rarely with all seats full so useful load isn't a huge concern. Can any Dakota/ SR20 or 22 owners/pilots chime in with their performance numbers and operation costs??? One other thing to consider.. I'm vastly more experienced than my uncle... He only has about 500TT all in PA28s and only his PPL No IFR. Hes also 66 so hes quite a bit slower than me on the learning curve. I'm a bit concerned a cirrus with its higher stall/landing speeds and side yoke may be to much for him to take in an adjust to safely. What do some of you with cirrus time think of this??? Moving from an Archer to a Dakota would obviously be much easier. Thanks for any and all responses.
 
If you trade from an Archer to a Dakota for speed, you are going to be disappointed. That's a trade worth making for useful load and the ability to actually lift that load on a warm day.
Have you thought about a Bonanza or F33 ? Your budget would get you into a nice example.
 
For the SR20 plan on a block speed of 135 KTAS.
For the SR22 plan on a block speed of 160 KTAS.
For the SR22T plan on a block speed of 180 KTAS.

The side yoke takes five minutes to get used too.
Stall speed is about the same 55ish knots dirty.
The difference is flying Cirrus is the view out the window gives the plane a very late looking landing. This causes a lot of pilots to mismanage the flair on landing. To compensate they fly faster and fly the plane onto the runway.
Last difference when flying them is the Cirrus does not have the drag tools, so energy management takes more planning.

Go fly them all and see what you like. Cirrus is a travel plane. And it shows.

I would avoid any plane with the R9 system installed. There have only been around 125 installs, so it is kinda like an orphan.

Last point, if serious about the Cirrus, join COPA.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
I was considering similar planes to you and long story short, I ended up with a very nicely equipped bonanza. It’s faster (165kts LOP & 172-175kts ROP w/almost new io520), cheaper and burn around 12.5-13gph LOP. I can also put 4 adults in my plane w/ 4+hrs fuel. I’d recommend checking one out if you haven’t. Good luck with your search, it’s half the fun!
 
ajulian3 said:
I was considering similar planes to you and long story short, I ended up with a very nicely equipped bonanza. It’s faster (165kts LOP & 172-175kts ROP w/almost new io520), cheaper and burn around 12.5-13gph LOP. I can also put 4 adults in my plane w/ 4+hrs fuel. I’d recommend checking one out if you haven’t. Good luck with your search, it’s half the fun!
Click to expand...

Are these numbers for the F33 or the A36? I have never flown a bonanza, dont really know anyone that has one near my home airport. I never really have been able to get over the style and appearance of the F33 and pre 1984 A36 panels. They seem hideous and the flight control/yoke assembly seems like a monstrosity! Maybe I just need to fly one... Could you compare the cabin of the f33 to the taper wing PA28 cabin?? I really wouldn't want anything tighter than the cabin of the PA28.
 
Mine is a H35 Bonanza with io520 upgrade. It came with an Aspen 1000PFD, avidyne IFD540, and EDM900 engine monitor for under your budget. There is a more room than a PA28, but not as much as a SR22, especially in the backseat. Although, I’m 6’2 and never had any issues. I regularly a have adults in the back and never had any complaints. If you can, fly one. I did, and never looked back.

That said. I have flown a SR-22 and they are awesome. But you are going to pay nearly double and there is a lot in there to break and always a looming chute repack.
 
Last edited:
Photo of our panel

EBD1A143-E9CA-4141-ADF1-D3DF5F794FB2.jpeg

The center bar is a bit different for the first hour or two... then it becomes a non-thing.

Biggest thing I learned is how much Bonanza flying is about the various numbers. Once you've learned what numbers to set for which flight condition, and how much trim is needed when gear is deployed or flaps are lowered, the airplane is a complete joy to fly.
 
If you’re thinking of an SR22, go check it out. It’s a great plane. But maintenance is expensive. A few thousand here, a few thousand there. We have spent about $30K and counting so far this year on maintenance for our G2 SR22 NA. Hopefully next year will be a bit less. If money is a bit tight, it might not be the right plane for you. But it’s a joy to fly. Great power for flying the mountains of the West Coast. Spacious. Awesome avionics in many. Very comfortable for long trips. Ours has traveled from the Atlantic to the Pacific. A joy to hand fly, unlike what others might say. I just spent more than 7 hours in a day flying the canyons and mountain airstrips of the Sierra Nevadas, 90% of which was hand flying. Fly the Vref and adjust for landing weight and you’ll be fine. For two people less than max weight, a typical landing speed is 75 kts, not the 80 kts in the book. It’s easy to land. But it requires tons of money for training with CSIPs. It’s not a plane to skim money on, maintenance wise or training wise. And of course it has the chute when sh*t happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
4 adults for 4 hours in a bonanza? American adults? I wouldn't assume that as a given. They're c.g challenged when light on fuel. Some of the later ones have EW cg in the 80+ range, which makes the backseat very limited. My arrow with a useful load of 980# can handle a 1+2+bags layout mission (front pax empty) no problem, some later bos even with 85 extra hp and higher useful load, fall aft with the same piddly payload. So you have to no kidding check the specific loading of the actual sample you re intending to buy. Its really layout dependent, something you generally don't have to worry about on the piper offerings.

Otherwise, no question, for the speed and money, its a real good buy.
 
I have a V35B in the hangar and it performs well. It is great to fly when you gotta get somewhere fast but really a boring airplane to fly. Last week coming home from Uvalde I had a slight tailwind and the GPS showed 222mph all the way home.
If i'm not in a hurry I will hop in the Cub or Stearman anyday over the Bonanza :) For me fast and straight isn't to much fun.
 
If you want more speed, other than bragging rights, you'll need to pick up more than another 10 or 15 knots. You may notice that on your ground speed, but you won't really notice it as much on your watch.

A Dakota typically has quite a bit of useful load. If you need that, it's a good option. It won't be noticeably faster though.

The SR22, or one of the faster Bonanzas, will be a game changer for traveling. Not only do they cruise faster, but they climb faster too. That's a big help. You get to your cruise speed sooner by getting to your cruise altitude faster. That also means you get up in the cooler smoother air quicker. With more power it makes it easier to climb a little higher to clear a few more clouds when necessary.

I flew a 2002 SR22 for 4+ years. It had just over 1,100 lbs of useful load and would cruise at 170 knots LOP, ~12.5 gph. One with TKS will cruise slower, about 5-7 knots slower. Look for a 2002 model and you may find some around the $160-180k range over the winter when people aren't flying as much. That's a bit over your price range though.

The side stick in the Cirrus takes almost no time to get used to. I was concerned about that at first. Then after my first flight I realized I wasn't even thinking about it. Unless you are landing on very short runways I wouldn't be concerned with the difference in stall speed.

The big difference in cost in the Cirrus is the chute repack. That's a calendar thing, so it doesn't matter how much or how little you fly, it has to be done every ten years.

The challenge may be with insurance for these planes. More speed makes it easier to cover more ground, which means the likelihood of more changes in the weather and more variation from the weather forecast. Insurance really likes an instrument rating for traveling planes. You can get it, but the first year or two could be a bit pricey. The Bonanzas will have a similar issue, plus retract if either of you do not have any or enough retract time. Again, only for the first year or two.

Good luck and happy shopping!
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Are these numbers for the F33 or the A36? I have never flown a bonanza, dont really know anyone that has one near my home airport. I never really have been able to get over the style and appearance of the F33 and pre 1984 A36 panels. They seem hideous and the flight control/yoke assembly seems like a monstrosity! Maybe I just need to fly one... Could you compare the cabin of the f33 to the taper wing PA28 cabin?? I really wouldn't want anything tighter than the cabin of the PA28.
Click to expand...

The throw-over yoke is a feature, not a bug. You fold down the pedals and your right front pax can move around without interfering with the operation of the plane.

As for the panel layout. In 70s vintage planes, the only difference is the position of gear and flap switches. But they are distinctive in shape so it's easy to confirm that you have the right one. Older Bo panels take some getting used to.
You should really go up in one before you dismiss it out of esthetical considerations.

For 4 adults on a regular basis, an A36 is really preferable over the alternatives. Plenty of room and payload. Comes at a bit of a premium over a similar vintage V-tail.

Just reread the comments about your uncles ability to step up. If he is comfortable with the Archer, there is a lot to be said for just sticking with what you have. Adding complexity and speed can be a lot to absorb. If you can find a 200hp Arrow that hasn’t been beaten to death as a trainer you may be able to gain a couple of kts without changing much else. But as others have mentioned, 10kts extra doesn’t make that much difference when traveling. 30kts does.
 
Last edited:
CrimsonFlyer said:
If you’re thinking of an SR22, go check it out. It’s a great plane. But maintenance is expensive. A few thousand here, a few thousand there. We have spent about $30K and counting so far this year on maintenance for our G2 SR22 NA. Hopefully next year will be a bit less. If money is a bit tight, it might not be the right plane for you. But it’s a joy to fly. Great power for flying the mountains of the West Coast. Spacious. Awesome avionics in many. Very comfortable for long trips. Ours has traveled from the Atlantic to the Pacific. A joy to hand fly, unlike what others might say. I just spent more than 7 hours in a day flying the canyons and mountain airstrips of the Sierra Nevadas, 90% of which was hand flying. Fly the Vref and adjust for landing weight and you’ll be fine. For two people less than max weight, a typical landing speed is 75 kts, not the 80 kts in the book. It’s easy to land. But it requires tons of money for training with CSIPs. It’s not a plane to skim money on, maintenance wise or training wise. And of course it has the chute when sh*t happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Curious, what aspect of the Cirrus is expensive compared to a Bonanza or TTx....
Basically except for the chute, the why would Cirrus cost more?

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Curious, what aspect of the Cirrus is expensive compared to a Bonanza or TTx....
Basically except for the chute, the why would Cirrus cost more?
Click to expand...

Newer and typically better avionics (versus the Bonanzas). Could be some about supply and demand as well.
 
Thanks for all the responses guys. I love how this has turned into a bonaza thread lol. I guess the consensus is before we make a decision we'll have to track down and fly in a bonanza. I think some of you are right, a step up to the Dakota for speed will ultimately leave us wanting more in the end unfortunately. Maybe an older model SR22 without glass. I see these aircraft are much cheaper than the glass cockpit ones. Is there any worry about resale on the older Cirrus aircraft that are not equipped with glass cockpits?? I guess what I'm saying are they even desirable due to the fact that they were only made I think 2 years without glass.
 
CrimsonFlyer said:
If you’re thinking of an SR22, go check it out. It’s a great plane. But maintenance is expensive. A few thousand here, a few thousand there. We have spent about $30K and counting so far this year on maintenance for our G2 SR22 NA. Hopefully next year will be a bit less. If money is a bit tight, it might not be the right plane for you. But it’s a joy to fly. Great power for flying the mountains of the West Coast. Spacious. Awesome avionics in many. Very comfortable for long trips. Ours has traveled from the Atlantic to the Pacific. A joy to hand fly, unlike what others might say. I just spent more than 7 hours in a day flying the canyons and mountain airstrips of the Sierra Nevadas, 90% of which was hand flying. Fly the Vref and adjust for landing weight and you’ll be fine. For two people less than max weight, a typical landing speed is 75 kts, not the 80 kts in the book. It’s easy to land. But it requires tons of money for training with CSIPs. It’s not a plane to skim money on, maintenance wise or training wise. And of course it has the chute when sh*t happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This frightens me a bit.. What was the 30k this year spent on?? Was it mostly due to avionics, engine or airframe related problems?
 
wayne said:
Newer and typically better avionics (versus the Bonanzas). Could be some about supply and demand as well.
Click to expand...
That is comparing an apple and an orange.
Compare a glass Bo with a Cirrus.
I have owned a 2004 SR20 G2, and now a 2003 SR22 (fairly recent).
I have yet to see Cirrus specific parts that cost a fortune outside of the chute.
In fact, Cirrus has fewer systems and parts compared to the Bo.


Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Thanks for all the responses guys. I love how this has turned into a bonaza thread lol. I guess the consensus is before we make a decision we'll have to track down and fly in a bonanza. I think some of you are right, a step up to the Dakota for speed will ultimately leave us wanting more in the end unfortunately. Maybe an older model SR22 without glass. I see these aircraft are much cheaper than the glass cockpit ones. Is there any worry about resale on the older Cirrus aircraft that are not equipped with glass cockpits?? I guess what I'm saying are they even desirable due to the fact that they were only made I think 2 years without glass.
Click to expand...
No one can truly predict the market. I went for a 2003 SR22 with some partners recently. Avidyne PFD and MFD, it is worth the extra for situational awareness and easy scan.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Maybe an older model SR22 without glass. I see these aircraft are much cheaper than the glass cockpit ones. Is there any worry about resale on the older Cirrus aircraft that are not equipped with glass cockpits?? I guess what I'm saying are they even desirable due to the fact that they were only made I think 2 years without glass.
Click to expand...

A 2002 with a six-pack is nice if you don't want glass. Very few had TKS (~100). Cirrus switched to glass as standard in 2003. I think there are some 2003 models with a six-pack. They should resale fine. Plenty of people learned on six-packs and the early models are the cheapest.

The 2001 models seem to be a mishmash. Looks like Cirrus made a lot of changes in the first year of the SR22.

The cabin is noticeably wider than a Bonanza; so much so that the center armrest had storage space in it. Two doors are really nice as well.
 
What are some of you cirrus guys seeing for yearly maintenance expenses? And what are those expenses usually going to? Not including the chute. I'm curious as to how much more expensive it would be compared to the bonanza.
 
I was contemplating the same decision a while back, and decided that for the price of Cirrus training and hearing how much more maintenance was costing one of the clubs near me for care and feeding of the Cirrus flock, I chose a Dakota, an F-33 Bonanza and a Saratoga. :) See TenHi Flyers planes in my sig link.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
What are some of you cirrus guys seeing for yearly maintenance expenses? And what are those expenses usually going to? Not including the chute. I'm curious as to how much more expensive it would be compared to the bonanza.
Click to expand...
In Boston area, the annual inspection including all Cirrus recommended service items runs between 2700 and 3500.
Repairs extra.

I shopped around prices for an A36 and a Piper Comanche (options I considered) prices were 3000 to 4000 for inspection and recommended service items.

A short body Mooney was the cheapest at 2500 to 3000 (IO360 engine).

I never compared the recommended items between manufacturers.



Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
gkainz said:
I was contemplating the same decision a while back, and decided that for the price of Cirrus training and hearing how much more maintenance was costing one of the clubs near me for care and feeding of the Cirrus flock, I chose a Dakota, an F-33 Bonanza and a Saratoga. :) See TenHi Flyers planes in my sig link.
Click to expand...
Cirrus provides the embark program to get you started for free.
After that, training is no different.

My perception is that on balance, Cirrus owners on average have a greater commitment to training. However when you look at the Beech type group, for that those participate it is the same level as Cirrus owners.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
That is comparing an apple and an orange.
Compare a glass Bo with a Cirrus.
Click to expand...

That's the point. The price difference is due to the differences. They aren't the same, so the price is not the same.

There are newer G36 Bonanzas, but those are six seaters. A newer G36 is pricey, just like a SR22, if not more so. When someone is quoting $80k they are talking about older Bonanza, and with generally with less avionics and much more time on it. Nothing wrong with that option, but it is different.
 
tspear said:
Basically except for the chute, the why would Cirrus cost more?
Click to expand...

Apparently the required items for the annual is rather lengthy for the Cirrus, which makes just the basis inspection fee go up.

[This I heard from my A&P when discussing the base cost of various planes]
 
Some very nice PA24s out there.

But yeah, Dakota is not a upgrade, nor a 20 IMO
 
Ravioli said:
Apparently the required items for the annual is rather lengthy for the Cirrus, which makes just the basis inspection fee go up.

[This I heard from my A&P when discussing the base cost of various planes]
Click to expand...
If Cirrus has a longer list, then your A&P is doing you a disservice.
Composites do not have corrosion inspections, no wing bolts, does not have gear.... they both have io540 engine, same props...
The chute has a 30 second inspection (check the cover).

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Thanks for all the responses guys. I love how this has turned into a bonaza thread lol. I guess the consensus is before we make a decision we'll have to track down and fly in a bonanza. I think some of you are right, a step up to the Dakota for speed will ultimately leave us wanting more in the end unfortunately. Maybe an older model SR22 without glass. I see these aircraft are much cheaper than the glass cockpit ones. Is there any worry about resale on the older Cirrus aircraft that are not equipped with glass cockpits?? I guess what I'm saying are they even desirable due to the fact that they were only made I think 2 years without glass.
Click to expand...
Great questions for @SixPapaCharlie and the other older Cirrus operators
 
Dakota will give you some more useful load, range, and better density altitude performance. But it would probably be only about 5-10 knots faster than your Archer, at the cost of 3 more gallons per hour. IMO a speed increase alone of anything less than 25-30 knots is not enough to make a significant difference in your quality of life. I like Dakotas, and would consider one if I needed more range and/or high-altitude performance, without springing for a turbo -- but not for the speed.

And of course the Dakota cabin is identical to your Archer, so there's no increase in cabin room or comfort.
 
tspear said:
Curious, what aspect of the Cirrus is expensive compared to a Bonanza or TTx....
Basically except for the chute, the why would Cirrus cost more?

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The SR22 is my first plane so I have no comparison to other high-performance airplane. I was just sharing my cost. “New” MCU, SIU, starter probs, flaps problems, a few other problems, and the high costs of labor in the San Francisco Bay Area all added up. It might be a bit cheaper in Boston? I really hope that my 2019 will be much less expensive. Mine is a G2 with Avidyne Entegra, IFD 550/440, DFC90, remote transponder with ADSB-In/Out. Absolutely love this plane.

On average, most SR22 owners probably spend $30K - $40K to fly about 100-150 hours per year, if I remember correctly from the COPA forum. Tim, what are your numbers like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Simple advise: Check insurance rates before deciding. Composites are quite a bit more expensive to insure.

Composite construction, pilot ratings, experience, and time in type drive the rates. Sometimes greatly to the upside.
 
@CrimsonFlyer

Ouch, sounds like some deferred MX. Once you get past the deferred MX I would expect you costs to come down a lot.
I do not have a full year with the SR22. But from what I recall, 30-40K sounds right from what others have posted.
For the SR20, I was around 30K all in, including engine/prop reserve, but excluding capital costs for 150 hours a year.

Tim
 
NordicDave said:
Simple advise: Check insurance rates before deciding. Composites are quite a bit more expensive to insure.

Composite construction, pilot ratings, experience, and time in type drive the rates. Sometimes greatly to the upside.
Click to expand...

Mooney and Bonanza quotes were higher than Cirrus SR22 for me six months ago. I had less than 10 hours in each type. My Cirrus SR20 gave me no credit with the insurers.
Note: This was for identical hull values and liability limits.

Although DA-42 was the most expensive, certified by a large margin.

Tim
 
tspear said:
My Cirrus SR20 gave me no credit with the insurers.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I'm doing my training in an SR20, but my longer-term plan is to eventually switch to an SR22. If I was ever fortunate enough to buy a piston single, it would be an SR22. Interesting how SR20 time didn't reflect on SR22 insurance prices. I'll have to keep that in mind.
 
@AnthonyS1 - a lot of suggestions for the Bonanza...but all of your original suggestions had fixed gear if I understand correctly. Is a retract an option for you?
 
Skyrys62 said:
hmmm....wonder why. Just because it's a twin?
Click to expand...
I have roughly 350 hours in an Aerostar, so I have the high altitude, retract, twin.... time.
From what I recall, the difference was hull rate, not liability. Which leads me to suspect ground damage, specifically the long wings.

Tim
 
30k a year? I'm going to assume that figure includes high faluting new england or west coast hangars AND financing costs, otherwise a piston twin is cheaper to own.
 
hindsight2020 said:
30k a year? I'm going to assume that figure includes high faluting new england or west coast hangars AND financing costs, otherwise a piston twin is cheaper to own.
Click to expand...

And insurance, property tax, data subscriptions, set-asides for (chute, reef cutters, and paint), Savvy services, paying someone to wash and wax the plane, annual including deferred maintenance and more.

Maybe $30k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top