Older Cirrus SR20?

S

shyampatel94

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
116
Display Name
Display name:
Shyam Patel
Is there anything wrong with the older SR20s? Like 2004-2000? I've been looking at some of them on controller and trade a plane. They seem like they are up for good prices? Is there anything significantly wrong with them?
 
They will need the chute repacked after x number of years. Quite pricey, and it is mandatory.

The - 20 is a little underpowered, but manageable from what I've been told.
 
Geico266 said:
They will need the chute repacked after x number of years. Quite pricey, and it is mandatory.

The - 20 is a little underpowered, but manageable from what I've been told.
Click to expand...

How many years for chute repack? I saw a 2001 cirrus that was repacked in 2011?
 
There's nothing "wrong" with them, just that much of that fleet shares several negatives compared to more recent models:

Steam gauge, or early Avidyne instead of Garmin Perspective.
In 2007, the SR20 adopted a newer wing that added speed.
Engine approaching TBO.
Chute approaching re-pack time.

All of those are going to affect value, along with the general wear-and-tear that a 13 year old plane have show, compared to a brand new model, especially if it was used as a trainer.
 
Geico266 said:
They will need the chute repacked after x number of years. Quite pricey, and it is mandatory.

The - 20 is a little underpowered, but manageable from what I've been told.
Click to expand...

doesn't it cruise in the 140-150 knot territory? I have a '65 M20C, and I thought their numbers were pretty close to mine.
 
Being advertised by the service center in TX. They should have all the service records and invoices (unless they have used the CSR cop-out and discarded them) for prior work, so you should be able to get a fair picture of actual costs. Their hangar is about 200 yards from mine.

shyampatel94 said:
I feel like they still have better performance than C172 and Archers? Correct me if I am wrong. I have been looking at some of the models and like this one.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CIRRUS-SR20/2003-CIRRUS-SR20/1293785.htm

Low hours, Chute repacked in 2012, and seems like a good price?
Click to expand...
 
I would want at least a G2 as the cost of the repack is MUCH cheaper
 
Skylane81E said:
Depends how long you will keep it
Click to expand...

Much more to the equation. How much more would he pay for a newer model? What's the decline curve for both? If newer, when will the 10-year date occur?

You can't base a an aircraft purchase decision on a single factor that occurs on 10-year cycles and is of little import in the big scheme of things.
 
Yeah if the chute is a 10 year cycle then I have no problem buying an older model. I am looking to build hours and get on with my commercial and multi engine. By the time I get my multi engine I will be looking to buy a multi engine aircraft. So the chute repack won't affect me much. Looking to keep an aircraft for 3 to 5 years and then sell.
 
shyampatel94 said:
Yeah if the chute is a 10 year cycle then I have no problem buying an older model. I am looking to build hours and get on with my commercial and multi engine. By the time I get my multi engine I will be looking to buy a multi engine aircraft. So the chute repack won't affect me much. Looking to keep an aircraft for 3 to 5 years and then sell.
Click to expand...

Why wait to get the multi engine then? That SR-20 doesn't look like a bad deal though. What are your intentions for aviation?
 
One qualm with the early model SR20's is - if I'm not mistaken - they the tail sits very low, making the plane a bit more prone to tailstrikes, particularly if you come in slow. Gotta land em pretty flat - at least that's what I can recall from the 2 or so hours I have in one from a while back.
 
Tail strikes...yes...early models were more prone to strikes. Also, I understand that prop strikes were more likely. Later models are higher off the ground.

There were many incremental improvements, but it's still a solid, comfortable plane with a 'chute. One thing to watch: Can't fly four big adults and full fuel...not even close. And watch those high altitude warm day take off's. Some surprising combinations of altitude and temperature are prohibited in the POH on ANY length runway.

One other note, because I'm considering a purchase also: According to my broker, for not that much more $20 - $35K you can get an SR22 with 310 HP (and a fuel thirst to match). Weight limits go up, and it climbs like a rocket.
 
Last edited:
I would rather have an older SR22 than a newer SR20. The extra power is transformational. A 2002 SR22 carries about 600 lbs when topped at 81 gallons.
 
shyampatel94 said:
Is there anything wrong with the older SR20s? Like 2004-2000? I've been looking at some of them on controller and trade a plane. They seem like they are up for good prices? Is there anything significantly wrong with them?
Click to expand...

Aside from the chute repack, I'd avoid anything with Avidyne. Too unreliable, and insanely expensive to replace when they die.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Aside from the chute repack, I'd avoid anything with Avidyne. Too unreliable, and insanely expensive to replace when they die.
Click to expand...

Avidyne seems to have solved the reliability issues. Complaints on COPA have pretty much disappeared. A bigger concern is Avidyne's continued viability. They continue to slip intro dates for new products.
 
peppy said:
Avidyne seems to have solved the reliability issues. Complaints on COPA have pretty much disappeared. A bigger concern is Avidyne's continued viability. They continue to slip intro dates for new products.
Click to expand...

And the market has shown that given the choice, consumers pick Garmin every time (judging from the few models where you could pick either - DA40 and Columbia, both for a relatively short time).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
And the market has shown that given the choice, consumers pick Garmin every time (judging from the few models where you could pick either - DA40 and Columbia, both for a relatively short time).
Click to expand...

I talked to a Columbia rep and got a test ride just before the sold to Cessna. He said that since they began offering the G-1000, they sold 1 Avidyne ship.
 
Henning said:
I talked to a Columbia rep and got a test ride just before the sold to Cessna. He said that since they began offering the G-1000, they sold 1 Avidyne ship.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There was also only one Avidyne Diamond.
 
I prefer the Garmin hardware and it tends to be more feature rich but I wish Garmin would take usability lessons from Avidyne. Avidyne R9 has it all over Perspective when it comes to usability and human interface design.
 
I've been flying a 2005 SR20. It's not a bad airplane, though the useful load could use some improvements. It's been tough for me coming from 1300 pounds useful to 950 and less fuel. 3 adults including me are headed on a ~2hr trip and I am going to have to be a PITA and ask the line guy to fuel it tabs (13gal) plus 6 or so to give me 19/gal aside 42 total, 14 less than full but that will give me enough room for our bags. I don't find the Avidyne very difficult to work and the autopilot is pretty simple too and flies pretty well. Easy to land but pretty flat, especially coming from a Cessna. A full-stall landing will be firm though not teeth rattling, so try to land it with a little speed.
 
I wonder if you can switch the chute planes to experimental and not remove or repack the chute?
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I wonder if you can switch the chute planes to experimental and not remove or repack the chute?
Click to expand...

I kind of think it would be more trouble than its worth. The chute is there for spin recovery and its on the type certificate.
 
An SR20 costs roughly the same as a Cessna 172 of the same year. About $110k for a 2001 model. So it's a good choice for somebody who wants to travel cross country and has a budget for a Skyhawk.
 
Z06_Mir said:
I've been flying a 2005 SR20. It's not a bad airplane, though the useful load could use some improvements. It's been tough for me coming from 1300 pounds useful to 950 and less fuel.
Click to expand...

So, what's the difference in full-fuel payload? Speed should be roughly the same, but the SR20 should also use less fuel... For the trip you're flying, what would the max load be on each bird?

And, of course, why aren't you taking the R182? Seems it'd be a fine bird for the mission...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So, what's the difference in full-fuel payload? Speed should be roughly the same, but the SR20 should also use less fuel... For the trip you're flying, what would the max load be on each bird?

And, of course, why aren't you taking the R182? Seems it'd be a fine bird for the mission...
Click to expand...

SR20 full fuel payload is 615. The R182 is 775. So not only is it 160 pounds, but I don't need 88 gallons to get to Vegas, I'd probably want like 30 aside. Where the SR20 I need to be a pain and have them do around 20 aside, or tabs +7. A pain for the line crew, but I don't have another option. :(:dunno: The tabs are only 13 aside and that's not enough for legal reserves much less comfortable reserves.

It is a fine bird for the mission, but it got hangar rashed and two replacement parts have been ruined in shipping :( :( :( So I've been borrowing a friends TR182 and his 150 for just fuel, and renting this Cirrus. The FBO insurance is reimbursing everything, including the airlines tickets I've had to buy from not having the 182 and all the rental fees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top