DinoCirrus vs. Steam Injected Cessna

A

asicer

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
10,026
Display Name
Display name:
asicer
Bump.

50 views, 22 hours, 0 replies. I guess POA ran out of opinions? :)
 
I'd probably go for the Cirrus if those prices are right.
 
Depends. I think the Cirrus needs more runway than a 182, but once aloft they are faster.

The mission should be the deciding factor, not (only) the price.
 
Whichever one the spouse gives the nod to. ;)

Seriously, what you plan to use it for makes a difference. If it is purely long distance cross country cruising the Cirrus wins. The Cessna is the more versatile plane, especially if one wants to get off paved runways onto grass or gravel, and hauling a load on shorter trips is needed.
 
I would go for the Cirrus, hands down. Unless you need something very utilitarian I just can't help but see the high wing Cessnas as either training birds, or back country trucks. A proper gentleman's plane needs to have the wings on the bottom

Oh... and just to keep this all things PoA, skip both and get this instead
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/19421927/1983-beechcraft-a36-bonanza
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18396885/1976-beechcraft-a36-bonanza
 
asicer said:
I've noticed that 1998-2001 Cessna 182's (Lycoming IO-540) with steam gauges are running about $170k-$215k while the early G1 and G2 Cirrus SR22's are going for about $140k-$170k, which is $30k-$50k cheaper. A 'chute repack is about $15k, so that accounts for some of that difference. What accounts for the rest? Given the choice, which would you choose?

1998 182S $167k
1998 182S $215k
2000 182S $212k
2001 182T $170k

2001 SR22 $140k
2002 SR22 $148k
2001 SR22 $165k
Click to expand...

The other posters have answered the "which is better for XXX" part of the question. I'll take a stab at the "why are the prices the way they are" part. I think it is due to the fact that Cirrus has made so many new planes since those early 2001 models and has been improving them steadily over the years. That naturally creates a much steeper depreciation curve than the Cessnas since those of that era that aren't all that different from a brand new 2017 model today. Add to that the fact that the 182 has been produced for decades and they seem comparatively younger within their production run. It results in a weird perceptual bias where many Cirrus people think that a 2001 SR22 is pretty ancient but a mid 1990s Bonanza, Mooney or Cessna is still considered pretty recent.

As an example, I upgraded from a 2006 SR22 to a 2012 SR22TN because I wanted the newer capabilities of the plane but if my first plane had been a 2006 C182, I'm 99% sure I would not have 'upgraded' to a 2012 C182.
 
Is any of the price difference caused by the difference in annual maintenance expenses?

At the end of the day, supply and demand control the transaction price at which sellers and buyers meet. There must be a greater demand or lesser supply for that era Cessna vs that era Cirrus? Beyond that general statement, I can't add anything to this topic.
 
How about airframe lifetime? 182s last essentially forever. Isn't the SR22 composite and lifetime limited?

Electronics also has a tendency to obsolesce far faster than analogs.
 
Tantalum said:
I would go for the Cirrus, hands down. Unless you need something very utilitarian I just can't help but see the high wing Cessnas as either training birds, or back country trucks. A proper gentleman's plane needs to have the wings on the bottom

Oh... and just to keep this all things PoA, skip both and get this instead
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/19421927/1983-beechcraft-a36-bonanza
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18396885/1976-beechcraft-a36-bonanza
Click to expand...

Damn that is a nice bonanza for 134k
 
CC268 said:
Damn that is a nice bonanza for 134k
Click to expand...
Yep, there's a reason I have it bookmarked! lol
BUT, if you look carefully it is has over 2,000 hrs since overhaul, the avionics are starting to get up there in age, and there are some other missing / broken elements on it that are disclosed and evident in the close up pics of the interior. Also, I find it odd that the listing would state "This airplane made the two-hour flight home flawlessly" <- a plane like this should be able to handle a 2 hr flight without even thinking twice, not sure why that is noteworthy that it was able to stay airborne for 2 hrs...

I wonder if you offered $100K in cash what they would do...

To the OP's point though. Unless you *need* the utility of a 182 the Cirrus will give you a faster and more comfortable ride
 
Comparing the 2001 182 to the 2001 Cirrus SR22.

These planes have slightly different missions. Since the prices are nearly the same and the passenger positions and useful load and crusing speeds are nearly the same the real decision point? How will the plane be flown.

If 50% local and short cross country flights with 50% possible grass or off hard surface landing or rough runways then the Skylane.
If 100% local and short to long cross country flights the Cirrus.
 
GRG55 said:
Seriously, what you plan to use it for makes a difference. If it is purely long distance cross country cruising the Cirrus wins. The Cessna is the more versatile plane, especially if one wants to get off paved runways onto grass or gravel, and hauling a load on shorter trips is needed.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I would think that the number of people wanting a fast cross country cruiser outnumber those that want a short/soft field machine. Plus, I would also think that the post-restart 182's compete with the pre-1986 182's further driving the price down. As a matter of fact, I would have expected someone looking for a short/soft field performer would prefer the older 182 over the steam injected one.
 
asicer said:
I've noticed that 1998-2001 Cessna 182's (Lycoming IO-540) with steam gauges are running about $170k-$215k while the early G1 and G2 Cirrus SR22's are going for about $140k-$170k, which is $30k-$50k cheaper. A 'chute repack is about $15k, so that accounts for some of that difference. What accounts for the rest? Given the choice, which would you choose?

1998 182S $167k
1998 182S $215k
2000 182S $212k
2001 182T $170k

2001 SR22 $140k
2002 SR22 $148k
2001 SR22 $165k
Click to expand...
Well I'll be danged. All the makin fun of cirrus's here has actually affected the market. Power to the POAians!!!!!!!!!
 
RudyP said:
I think it is due to the fact that Cirrus has made so many new planes since those early 2001 models and has been improving them steadily over the years. That naturally creates a much steeper depreciation curve
Click to expand...
I agree. And this by the way is why I do believe that "THE JET" will have some impact on the prices of the planes... maybe not in the first few years, but give it 5-10 years, I doubt Cirrus will be able to ask close to $1M for their top of the line piston if someone will be able to buy a used jet (by that point) jet for maybe only a little more. I know in the other thread people were adamant that the jet will not meaningfully affect prices, but I think it will for the reasons above. Plus, Cirrus is definitely marketing their jet to high end SR22 buyers who are looking to "move up" to a jet, but maybe haven't because traditional jets, even VLJs, don't have the niche convenience that the Cirrus Jet does. The one person I sort of personally new who had a beautifully decked our SR22 was selling it to move up to a jet... I mean, if not an old multi than where else do you really move up from an SR22? PC12, TBM, maybe, but the jet will feel like a smaller/easier/more convenient plane I bet to the buyers.

My $0.02 and the proof will be in the pudding

P.S. - in the other thread someone else said "a new Lambo doesn't affect the price of used Fords" (or something to that effect), but I wouldn't equate the Cirrus Jet to a lambo... Lambo is more like Gulfstream territory, and yes, new Gulfstreams have ZERO effect on our GA planes. BUT, the new jet may be more similar a new Range Rover.. luxury (non exotic) cars really don't hold their value at all for the same reasons. You can buy a very decent Range Rover for well under $40K today
 
Tantalum said:
I agree. And this by the way is why I do believe that "THE JET" will have some impact on the prices of the planes... maybe not in the first few years, but give it 5-10 years, I doubt Cirrus will be able to ask close to $1M for their top of the line piston if someone will be able to buy a used jet (by that point) jet for maybe only a little more.
Click to expand...

A used Eclipse 500 today is less than a new SR22. It hasn't impacted the top-of-the-line SR22 price.

Also, amortize $1m over 20 years and:
A $1m SR22 flown 100 hours per year will run you $85k per year
A $1m SF50 flown 100 hours per year will run you $137k per year

So even when the Jet costs the same, it's still 60% more expensive.
 
Tantalum said:
Yep, there's a reason I have it bookmarked! lol
BUT, if you look carefully it is has over 2,000 hrs since overhaul, the avionics are starting to get up there in age, and there are some other missing / broken elements on it that are disclosed and evident in the close up pics of the interior. Also, I find it odd that the listing would state "This airplane made the two-hour flight home flawlessly" <- a plane like this should be able to handle a 2 hr flight without even thinking twice, not sure why that is noteworthy that it was able to stay airborne for 2 hrs...

I wonder if you offered $100K in cash what they would do...

To the OP's point though. Unless you *need* the utility of a 182 the Cirrus will give you a faster and more comfortable ride
Click to expand...

Ahh I didn't catch the hours on the engine
 
deonb said:
A used Eclipse 500 today is less than a new SR22. It hasn't impacted the top-of-the-line SR22 price.
Click to expand...
Agree on the other points, but two things on this one:
-does an Eclipse appeal to the same buyer (two engines, no chute, not a "simple" transition)?
-we don't know if it has impacted it.. without an alternate parallel universe we're not sure if the top of the line pricing would be more/less

But I still think the SF50 redefines "personal" in ways that other VLJs have not
 
deonb said:
A used Eclipse 500 today is less than a new SR22. It hasn't impacted the top-of-the-line SR22 price.

Also, amortize $1m over 20 years and:
A $1m SR22 flown 100 hours per year will run you $85k per year
A $1m SF50 flown 100 hours per year will run you $137k per year

So even when the Jet costs the same, it's still 60% more expensive.
Click to expand...

There are a fair amount of former SR22 guys who have upgraded to Eclipses (as well as Mustangs, P100s, TBMs, Meridians and PC12s) but in total the number is in the several dozens range, not 600 (the number of positions Cirrus has on the SF50). I'm not ready to upgrade yet but if I were, I'd be more likely to upgrade to a used Mustang for $1.5M than a new SF50 for $1.6-2M.
 
deonb said:
A used Eclipse 500 today is less than a new SR22. It hasn't impacted the top-of-the-line SR22 price.

Also, amortize $1m over 20 years and:
A $1m SR22 flown 100 hours per year will run you $85k per year
A $1m SF50 flown 100 hours per year will run you $137k per year

So even when the Jet costs the same, it's still 60% more expensive.
Click to expand...

If you own the jet you won't need to fly it as many hours to make all the same trips you would in a year in the SR22. I don't think the 100 hr to 100 hr comparison represents how people will actually make the trade up decision. It will be based more on "I can get there faster, higher, smoother, more comfortably than I can in a 22".
 
GRG55 said:
"I can get there faster, higher, smoother, more comfortably than I can in a 22".
Click to expand...

True, but I suspect for most people "there" in a SR22 and "there" in a SF50 won't be the same place.

But you have to fly a minimum number of hours to remain safe and current, regardless of where you actually need to get to. Maybe it doesnt need to be 100, maybe it can be 50. But you should probably not own a twin Jet if it's much less than that.

I understand and agree with your point that for the exact same mission you're not going to spend that much more on the Jet, but it's unrealistic to think you'll keep with the same mission.
 
deonb said:
True, but I suspect for most people "there" in a SR22 and "there" in a SF50 won't be the same place.

But you have to fly a minimum number of hours to remain safe and current, regardless of where you actually need to get to. Maybe it doesnt need to be 100, maybe it can be 50. But you should probably not own a twin Jet if it's much less than that.

I understand and agree with your point that for the exact same mission you're not going to spend that much more on the Jet, but it's unrealistic to think you'll keep with the same mission.
Click to expand...

This is where you and I differ.

Although the Vision Jet may have the word "jet" in the name it is not that much more capable in most respects than an SR22T. It's primary attractions are the pressurized cabin, the higher cruise speed and the fact you don't have to crawl over the wing to get in it. Those come at a price; the full fuel payload of the V-jet (a paltry 428 lbs) is just a bit more than half that of a fully loaded (incl. extra weight of the A/C + FIKI) SR22T.

The V-jet is much more of a creature comfort step up from the top end piston Cirrus than it is an airplane that opens up significant new, more ambitious mission profiles. It's not even that much better at getting above the weather, with its 28,000 ft max service ceiling (I would guess RVSM compliance is the practical limiting factor here).

More than anything else this might be a testament to just how capable an airplane Cirrus has created in the SR22T.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
It's primary attractions are the pressurized cabin
Click to expand...

Pressurized cabin can be a significant mission changer if you frequently travel with babies, toddlers or pets. Also don't forget JET-A which makes Europe a bit more practical.
 
ktup-flyer said:
I'd much rather have a 182R with a 520/550 swap
Click to expand...
And there lies my confusion. Steam gauge injected 182's (I.e. 1997-2002) are more expensive than comparable year Cirrus and less desirable than carbureted 182's. Doesn't make sense.
 
asicer said:
And there lies my confusion. Steam gauge injected 182's (I.e. 1997-2002) are more expensive than comparable year Cirrus and less desirable than carbureted 182's. Doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Idk. I'm in the market for a higher end 182 right now, and ruled out the restart 182 from the beginning. They just don't have the performance that the older ones do.
 
ktup-flyer said:
Idk. I'm in the market for a higher end 182 right now, and ruled out the restart 182 from the beginning. They just don't have the performance that the older ones do.
Click to expand...
The performance is fine.

They are heavy. A 182T is 150 lb heavier than a 182R, with all the same performance and limitations. That's a whole adult.

The older (N or P) models are even lighter.
 
asicer said:
I've noticed that 1998-2001 Cessna 182's (Lycoming IO-540) with steam gauges are running about $170k-$215k while the early G1 and G2 Cirrus SR22's are going for about $140k-$170k, which is $30k-$50k cheaper. A 'chute repack is about $15k, so that accounts for some of that difference. What accounts for the rest? Given the choice, which would you choose?

1998 182S $167k
1998 182S $215k
2000 182S $212k
2001 182T $170k

2001 SR22 $140k
2002 SR22 $148k
2001 SR22 $165k
Click to expand...

Most the early Cirrus did not have WAAS 430s and it very expensive to upgrade even when Garmin had their upgrade deal going.
 
Clip4 said:
Most the early Cirrus did not have WAAS 430s and it very expensive to upgrade even when Garmin had their upgrade deal going.
Click to expand...

Isn't the lack of WAAS also true of the steam injected 182's since they shipped with the KLN-94?
 
Tantalum said:
To the OP's point though. Unless you *need* the utility of a 182 the Cirrus will give you a faster and more comfortable ride
Click to expand...

Or, put another way, unless you *need* the car-like feel of the Cirrus interior the Cessna will give you nose wheel steering.

It all depends on how silly you want to be to justify buying an airplane. ;)
 
6PC's instructional videos have me scared of the Cirrus. So 182 it is!
 
Blah, blah, blah...$15k for a chute repack? :eek:

Is it an actual re-pack or a replacement? If it is indeed a re-pack, what caused it to be unpacked? Can someone explain why on Earth would it cost so much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top