New angle on the recurring theme of “what airplane should I buy.”

B

BPM

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
95
Location
DFW, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
BPM
New angle on the recurring theme of “what airplane should I buy.”

Obviously there are nearly infinite number of ways to analyze the buying decision. The angle I would like to explore is the merits/demerits of a newer, modern airplane vs a much older model. For example, a 15 year old Cirrus vs a 30-50 year old Piper/Bonanza.

As I evaluate my options for a first plane to buy, it seems that question is what my options, and therefore my decision, are ultimately distilled down to.

Said differently in plain English, I think 4-place, great condition Bonanzas and Comanches are beautiful and cool aircraft that fit my mission. However for the same price, I could get a modern ~15 year old Cirrus. And I can’t help but think the latter is the wise, fiscally responsible choice.

I would love to hear what the members of the board think.
 
When talking about a Cirrus you have to consider the cost of the chute repack, around $10k.
 
Primary mission is 300 mile cross country solo. Secondary is cross country with family (wife + 2 small kids).
Understand the Cirrus cost $ repack chute.

For purposes of this discussion, let's assume costs are a wash. That's what it appears to me. I want to isolate the debate on merits/risks of 50 year old airplane vs modern design.

Assuming acquisition + maintenance costs are essentially the same - how do we weigh the new vs old?
 
a chute is a life savior .. not always, but mostly. at least it gives you some options.
 
I always consider the airframe to be about 1/3 the value of a plane. The engine and the avionics make up the other two thirds. Just focusing on an airframe that has a warn out engine and old avionics may be a bad choice. On the other hand, you could probably find a 30 year old airframe with an engine rebuild and a panel upgrade so it would be a better buy.
 
tough call really. so many unknowns with newer or older. how the plane was maintained, be it new or old, is mostly all you have to go on. you could get a newer plane that was neglected or an older plane that no expense was spared. really hard to say, but if money was no object at all, I think I would lean towards newer fo sho. what I wouldn't do is lean towards a newer plane that I didn't REALLY want vs an older plane that was ideal for me.
 
Do you care about how your car steering feels? Do you insist on a certain kind of suspension? Have you spent any appreciable time in a Mercedes S Class? Or a Lotus Elise? Most people couldn’t care less about such things, and they tend to see cars as a variation of Sunbeam toasters - appliances, as it were. If that’s like you then just buy the (aeronautical) appliance you like.

Me, I have to like the way the controls feel. Go fly a Bellanca Viking, then jump in a Cirrus and tell me the later doesn’t fly like tank. Comanches, Bonanzas, all of the Van’s RVs, Bellancas all fly very nice. C-210s and Mooneys and Arrows/Lances/Saratogas fly ...okay. You might discover that there’s a reason those older airplanes hold their value.
 
BPM said:
Assuming acquisition + maintenance costs are essentially the same - how do we weigh the new vs old?
Click to expand...

Same make/model? Newer.

Same price point/opex? Go with emotion. I’ll take an older Ovation before I’d take a newer Cirrus.
 
When buying just about anything major and expensive, one of the first questions that should be asked is how long will you keep it. So how long will you keep it?

I really like the Cirrus. But as has already been pointed out there's that recurring $10k chute repack to add into your analysis if you're going to keep it 20 years

IMO, something else to factor in is the fact that its a plastic airplane. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but for me its a bit of an unknown. Go find just about any mid 60's Cessna or Piper and take a look at the engine cowl. If possible, take both the top and bottom cowl off the airplane and really look over it. Looks that the edges. Look at the attachment fittings. Chances are it won't look museum grade pristine. But chances are also that while it shows its age, its still perfectly serviceable. Then go pull the cowl off a Cirrus and really look at it. Then ask yourself how you think it'll look after 50 years worth of flying and 50 years worth of being pulled off and set on the ground while the aircraft is being serviced. Is that plastic going to crack? How are the edges going to fair when its on the ground and rookie mechanic accidentally kicks a toe into it as he's trying to walk around it? What's the repair procedure once that happens? How well will that repair hold up?

I'm not knocking the Cirrus here. As I said I really like it but for me these sorts of questions are an unknown because to my knowledge there are no 50 or 60 year old composite light singles with plastic cowlings that we can look at and gauge how durable they still are. With aluminum, we know what they look like when they're 50 years old. With composites? Its a dice roll. If you're only going to keep the plane 5 years, then it probably doesn't matter. But if its going to be your forever airplane then I think its definitely something worth considering before purchase.
 
Last edited:
I think there’s merit to considering the airframe as a fraction of the value of the plane. I’m not sure it’s an even 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 ratio, but that’s probably close enough to start.

I haven’t looked at the market much lately, but my memory from the last time I did was that the Cirruses that were in the same range as Bonanza had much older avionics. Bonanzas/etc. in the $175k range have mostly had recent panel updates, recent interiors, and recent paint. $175k Cirruses had 15 year old paint, panels, and interiors.

The lifespan of composite airplanes is well known. There are lots of Lancairs, Glasairs, EZs, gliders, and others that are old enough to see how they look as they get really old. It’s going to easily outlast any of us.

Cirrus has a lifetime airframe limit of something like 9,000 hours. Say you found one that’s flown 3000 hours a year for 15 years. It’s at half of its life. How long would the remaining 4500 hours last you? For most of us, that’s more than a lifetime’s worth of hours.

The one big difference financially is that the legacy airframes are appreciating when kept in good condition. I don’t think the same is true if the Cirruses, though the older ones are probably fully depreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BPM said:
Primary mission is 300 mile cross country solo. Secondary is cross country with family (wife + 2 small kids).
Understand the Cirrus cost $ repack chute.

For purposes of this discussion, let's assume costs are a wash. That's what it appears to me. I want to isolate the debate on merits/risks of 50 year old airplane vs modern design.

Assuming acquisition + maintenance costs are essentially the same - how do we weigh the new vs old?
Click to expand...

If the acquisition and maintenance costs are the same, then buy on differences in performance, or just on emotion.

Are you instrument rated? Got retract time? HP time? If you are missing time for that type of plane the insurance will get you for at least the first year. If you aren't instrument rated those cross countries could be more challenging to get in; which part of the country you're changes the impact of that. On our trip last weekend I made four landings and shot three approaches.

How big are the kids and how big are you two (part of that is how big will the kids get)? I had to change planes due to useful load and my kids are not big, nor my wife and I'm fairly light compared to most men nowadays. Fortunately for a 300 nm trip means you probably don't need full fuel tanks.

I like the Cirrus, but that's a personal preference. You can get Bo's with similar performance, but you do have to pay attention to the W&B on many of them. Some have more useful load, but the balance part makes it hard to take full advantage of that. Having two doors helps load passengers. The side stick is nice to have "out of the way", but it also has an odd feel with the springs. Most cross country flying is done on autopilot though, so not a big deal on the feel. If your kids are really young I can tell you the 4 point harnesses in the Cirrus are a PITA to connect through a child's car seat.
 
Useful load on an SR22 won’t let me take 4 adults and gear on a real trip. 22’s also won’t fit in most T-hangars and you don’t want to park a fiberglass airplane outside all the time. Most people will require Cirrus-approved training for insurance.

The chute is nice to have! Newer avionics are nice- and expensive to work on.

Comes down to mission IMHO.
 
BPM said:
As I evaluate my options for a first plane to ....what is the wise, fiscally responsible choice.

.
Click to expand...

I missed this key statement.

There is no fiscally responsible choice in sole ownership. Fiscal responsibility would drive you to club, partnership, ore straight up renting.

Buy what you want, but don’t think anything about it is fiscally responsible.
 
EvilEagle said:
Useful load on an SR22 won’t let me take 4 adults and gear on a real trip. 22’s also won’t fit in most T-hangars and you don’t want to park a fiberglass airplane outside all the time. Most people will require Cirrus-approved training for insurance.

The chute is nice to have! Newer avionics are nice- and expensive to work on.

Comes down to mission IMHO.
Click to expand...

It really depends. The non Turbo Cirrus (especially early G1/G2 or late G5/G6) have plenty of useful load for 4 adults on real trips. The mid generation turbos with all the options (FIKI, AC, etc) are really two person planes with full fuel or short hop planes for 4 people. I happen to have one of the lowest useful load SR22s (G3 Turbo with every option) and it is fine for my use but definitely fits what you said above.
 
BPM said:
New angle on the recurring theme of “what airplane should I buy.”

Obviously there are nearly infinite number of ways to analyze the buying decision. The angle I would like to explore is the merits/demerits of a newer, modern airplane vs a much older model. For example, a 15 year old Cirrus vs a 30-50 year old Piper/Bonanza.

As I evaluate my options for a first plane to buy, it seems that question is what my options, and therefore my decision, are ultimately distilled down to.

Said differently in plain English, I think 4-place, great condition Bonanzas and Comanches are beautiful and cool aircraft that fit my mission. However for the same price, I could get a modern ~15 year old Cirrus. And I can’t help but think the latter is the wise, fiscally responsible choice.

I would love to hear what the members of the board think.
Click to expand...

It's an airplane. You're gonna pay the piper... It's just a matter of which piper you're gonna pay. If you'd rather your money be earned by your bank, buy the newer plane. If you'd rather the money be earned by your local A&P, buy the older one.

Another way of thinking about it would be in terms of risk. The older the airplane, the more likely you are to run into a sudden major maintenance issue that essentially makes the plane worthless (or worth salvage value), or at least eats up a large amount of money with little to no return on resale. Example: We discovered both a fuel leak and some corrosion on our old club 182 at the same time. It was about $15,000 to fix both. Now, on a 182 that level of problem is worth fixing since the plane is worth several times that, but it sure sucks to have to pony up that kind of dough unexpectedly.
 
It is more fun to fly with the spouse and kids.
Take them flying in both. List the pros and cons on paper. Then ask wife and kids.

Cirrus has rather heavy wing loading, more spacious co-pilot, two doors....
Bonanaza has not room in back for kids, if A36 you can get club seating with spouse and kids in the back. Many love this...


Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
the chute is a gamechanger & has easy appeal for new folks, 2 doors is a huge bonus even fixed wheels

i'd say maintaining value vs others is on another level, kinda like one of the perks with harleys, generally, as far as maintaining value
 
Unless you are shopping conventional tailed Bonanzas you can get a very nice earlier model V for half or less than an SR20.
 
I had a 1970 V35B for eight years. In that time, almost 100% of the maintenance money I spent went to the Continental under the hood. I sold it for $148k. A comparable Cirrus would cost twice as much to buy, and maintenance would be at least the same.

Cirrus has many things to commend it, but fiscal responsibility isn’t one of them.
 
Stuart Fraley said:
I had a 1970 V35B for eight years. In that time, almost 100% of the maintenance money I spent went to the Continental under the hood. I sold it for $148k. A comparable Cirrus would cost twice as much to buy, and maintenance would be at least the same.

Cirrus has many things to commend it, but fiscal responsibility isn’t one of them.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the response but take a look at the Sr20 market. There are ~10 priced similarly to what you sold the Bo (under $200k).

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...ge_size=100&s-sort_key=price&s-sort_order=asc
 
You have taken money out it, but I think money is a factor. The opex on a 30+ year old aluminum aircraft and a 10-15 year old carbon fiber aircraft are radically different. I get that you just want to compare them as aircraft, in which case buy the sexy sleek white one that goes super fast. It is a better airplane that will do more and make you feel better about flying. Plus you will have an excuse to drink Zimas again.

Or if money is really not a factor then just buy both and see which one you like.
 
I just went through that exercise. I wanted a single engine airplane that would do 145-150 knots cruise for my wife and I, and occasionally another two pax on short flights. I looked at 2004-2006 SR20s with mid time engines, good paint, interior, and avionics, and they cost about $150k. Instead, I went with a Cardinal RG, mid $60s with low time engine, no corrosion and fine mechanically. It'll require paint, interior, and avionics, and will be like new in a year or two. The SR20 has a Continental (a negative in my book), and would be more expensive for annuals and would require recurring chute maintenance. The 177RG will end up with the exact paint, interior, and avionics I want, and will be easy to get in and out of as we get older. I should also be able to add a freon air conditioner to the Cardinal if I decide I want one, although it'll take a field approval. As far as what is wisest: A fairly new airplane, or a rebuilt old airplane... Both are pretty stupid from an investment standpoint - electric airplanes or these new overgrown drone things could reduce all our gas burners to scrap prices overnight. So figure out your mission and decide if you like to do TLC on an old airplane, or would rather just rely on an A&P to keep it the way you want it. The $150k SR20 is probably not at the bottom of its depreciation, whereas the Cardinal will probably command $150k in the condition I describe, but it would certainly take a while to sell. There are lots of very nicely equipped Bonanzas, Mooneys and other retract, single engine (and twin) planes out there for under $100k, so a $150k 177RG is probably foolish, but I don't care.
 
If you are talking about a 200k airplane you are going to get a much better Bonanza than an SR20.
 
The unfortunate reality with aviation that I did not realize prior to jumping in, is that all airplanes are annoying in some way. So the key is the find something that you can comfortably afford to purchase and maintain and that has items that are less annoying that the competing airplanes. Another unfortunate thing is that until you fly a bunch of airplanes, you don't really know what annoys you and even more annoying is that it's really difficult to test fly a bunch of different airplanes to figure out what annoys you. The whole process is annoying, although I'm easily annoyed.
 
To me, the annoyance factor of minor mechanical issues was always more important than the money. You can spend a lot of time and scrub a lot of flights chasing intermittent breaks in old wiring and repairing ancient hoses. Had to do the static hoses in my old Mooney and it was very aggravating, not because of the cost, but because of the time.

People tend to focus on the big ticket items, but for me the leaks and old bushings and smell of old feet has been a powerful inducement to always always buy as new as possible.
 
I don't get it. What's the new angle?
 
Challenged said:
The unfortunate reality with aviation that I did not realize prior to jumping in, is that all airplanes are annoying in some way. So the key is the find something that you can comfortably afford to purchase and maintain and that has items that are less annoying that the competing airplanes. Another unfortunate thing is that until you fly a bunch of airplanes, you don't really know what annoys you and even more annoying is that it's really difficult to test fly a bunch of different airplanes to figure out what annoys you. The whole process is annoying, although I'm easily annoyed.
Click to expand...
You said a mouthful. I went from a Bonanza to a Cessna 185 and expected to pine over the lost speed. Pfft! I don't care about the lost speed. But I never realized how annoyed I was at the Bonanza's single door!
 
Eric Gleason said:
Cirrus has a lifetime airframe limit of something like 9,000 hours. Say you found one that’s flown 3000 hours a year for 15 years. It’s at half of its life. How long would the remaining 4500 hours last you? For most of us, that’s more than a lifetime’s worth of hours.
Click to expand...

Math is hard. Also, that is a lot of hours per year.
 
BPM said:
New angle on the recurring theme of “what airplane should I buy.”

Obviously there are nearly infinite number of ways to analyze the buying decision. The angle I would like to explore is the merits/demerits of a newer, modern airplane vs a much older model. For example, a 15 year old Cirrus vs a 30-50 year old Piper/Bonanza.

As I evaluate my options for a first plane to buy, it seems that question is what my options, and therefore my decision, are ultimately distilled down to.

Said differently in plain English, I think 4-place, great condition Bonanzas and Comanches are beautiful and cool aircraft that fit my mission. However for the same price, I could get a modern ~15 year old Cirrus. And I can’t help but think the latter is the wise, fiscally responsible choice.

I would love to hear what the members of the board think.
Click to expand...


Have you flown these different planes yet?

That would be a good place to start.
 
Last edited:
Eric Gleason said:
Cirrus has a lifetime airframe limit of something like 9,000 hours.
Click to expand...

Per the latest Type Certificate Data Sheet, it's 12,000 hours. Used to be 5400 back in the early days. I don't know if they have any plans for further extensions.


Say you found one that’s flown 3000 hours a year for 15 years. It’s at half of its life. How long would the remaining 4500 hours last you? For most of us, that’s more than a lifetime’s worth of hours.
Click to expand...

I think you mean 300 hours a year for 15 years. ;) But now that you bring that up, some of these flight schools that use them could easily put 800 hours a year on them and have a very expensive paperweight after 15 years!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top