Older FIKI Twin vs FIKI Cirrus

[koehn]

I'm trying to compare the safety, costs, and dispatch rate of two different aircraft types that could meet my mission objectives. I live in Minnesota (FCM) and would like to use a personal aircraft to transport me around the US (primarily East of the Rockies) year round, figure 200 hours per for ten years, mostly just me and maybe one other person (I'm not very worried about useful load).

The types I'm considering are an older FIKI twin e.g., Baron or Seneca II versus what I'm assuming would need to be a newer FIKI single e.g., SR-22.

My first question is about capability and dispatch rate: how would the planes compare? I realize neither plane can handle all the weather I'll encounter up here between icing and convective; I assume the extra engine degrades dispatch rate, but by how much?

My second question goes to total cost: I know FIKI Cirrii have a lot of depreciation left on them; so including depreciation (assuming I sell after ten years), insurance (I'm a 200-hour ASEL & instrument-rated), initial and recurrent training, and operating costs, how do the types compare, and what am I missing (NextGen upgrades come to mind)? I'm wondering how what I'm assuming is the higher operating cost of a twin compares against what I'm sure is the higher depreciation of a FIKI SR-22.

 

[Ted]

I've been operating FIKI piston twins for about the past 1600 hours. The fleet has included a 310, Aztec, and a couple of Navajos at times. I have very little Cirrus experience.

The capability of piston twins in my mind is far superior. You have twice the power, more space, and much better redundancy. One that is well maaintained can be very reliable. In those 1600 hours, I can count on one hand with fingers to spare times when I've had to scrub a trip due to MX, and about the same for weather. So probably one filled hand for both combined. Having two alternators, two vacuum pumps, etc are nice to have definitely allowed me to perform and complete trips that otherwise I would not have been able to do with a single. The planes also handle turbulence better than a Cirrus, which is important if you're flying in bad weather.

Cost wise, the 310 is about $300/hr wet. We burn 27 GPH or so to do 185-187 KTAS with 520s (upgraded engines). The Aztec I used to own was about $250/hr wet, but it was also 30 kts slower. So cost per mile wasn't much different. It burned 21 GPH for 155 KTAS. The planes are also depreciated enough that you won't lose much in your investment on depreciation - just minor market fluctuations. Meanwhile a Cirrus will absolutely lose value.

On the other hand, a Cirrus will burn half or 2/3 the fuel to go a bit slower than a 310 or a Baron. The interior is nicer if you onlt have 4 people in the cabin, and the extra door is nice. The Cirrus will have the latest avionics, whereas a classic twin will probably need avionics upgrades.

If you're not talking about flying over hostile terrain, a single might be fine for you. It also depends on your risk assessment. I am heavily biased towards twins. We also fly over the North Atlantic in winter and remote, hostile areas. Nope, not going to catch me in a single. Twins have pneumatic boots which are expensive to replace, so you want to buy a plane with them in good condition. I like boots and are happy with them. Others like TKS.

Fly both and see what you like better.

 

[EdFred]

No brainer, you will be money ahead after 10 years with a Cirrus. With every thing considered, a multi typically costs 3x more to operate than a hp single.

If it's just about costs, then he may as well drive.

 

[Ted]

No brainer, you will be money ahead after 10 years with a Cirrus. With every thing considered, a multi typically costs 3x more to operate than a hp single.

That is not at all correct. The 310 is about $300/hr wet. You're telling me an SR22 FIKI is $100/hr wet with depreciation?

Also tell me how far ahead you are when the one engine quits over the North Atlantic in the winter.

 

[EdFred]

That is not at all correct. The 310 is about $300/hr wet. You're telling me an SR22 FIKI is $100/hr wet with depreciation?

Also tell me how far ahead you are when the one engine quits over the North Atlantic in the winter.

Of course. Cirrus, like Mooneys, and RV's actually have a negative fuel burn.

 

[Ted]

Of course. Cirrus, like Mooneys, and RV's actually have a negative fuel burn.

Let's try to be useful for at least one page before degrading into our typical banter.

 

[JHW]

No brainer, you will be money ahead after 10 years with a Cirrus. With every thing considered, a multi typically costs 3x more to operate than a hp single.

Spoken like someone with no experience.

As an example, my fixed gear PA32 cost me $162/hr to operate over 5 years. Beech 95 twin over similar times costs $221/hr. Now ratio that hourly difference out at 165kts vs 135kts and the difference in cost per mile becomes rounding error.

 

[Ted]

The actual cost increase between a single and comparable twin is about 30%. The catch can be finding a comparable twin. But factoring in other factors, a Baron or 310 is probably 30% or so more per mile.

 

[N747JB]

The direct cost of operating a FIKI twin vs a FIKI Cirrus are going to be a good bit higher, fuel, oil, hangar, maintenance etc. The big spread is going to be depreciation, buying a really nice Seneca II, Baron or 310R with FIKI should be pretty much depreciated out, other than engine times, it shouldn't drop a lot more in the next 5-10 years. This is a theory, no one knows what will happen in the market. The most you can lose on a $125K airplane is $125K right? A $400K used FIKI SR22 has considerably more room to drop, % wise the twin will be way ahead on depreciation. If you lose 35% on both, which I think is light on the SR22 over 10 years that's enough in depreciation alone to pay to BUY the twin. That extra $275K will buy a LOT of fuel and maintenance over the next ten years.
If you are depending on the plane for transportation, I would prefer a twin, but I have owned and flown twins for 20 years. I don't feel real comfortable in any piston airplane with or without FIKI flying in icing conditions, to me the FIKI makes it legal and hopefully gets me out of the icing conditions.
If you look at twins it's very important to buy a GOOD one, not a fixer upper, you will spend enough fixing up the good ones, a cheap one will break you.

 

[Alexb2000]

These comparisons are almost impossible to make. If we compared a new Baron G58 to a new Cirrus. OK that works because they are both new. Comparing new to old never does. Why?

Someone that maintained a twin to showroom standards with no expense spared or concern for spending more on the airplane than it is worth will probably have a very good dispatch rate and the cost will be relatively low (except for acquisition). However, when hull values are near $100K or less for many twins then most operators don't want to drop $100K for a firewall forward or fresh panel. They don't want to paint it or do the interiors either. They keep flying them as long as they can economically until the maintenance cost become excessive, then they sell tantalizingly cheap.

The market is self regulating. If someone could by a twin and operate it cheap, we wouldn't we all be flying one?

 

[Ted]

Someone that maintained a twin to showroom standards with no expense spared or concern for spending more on the airplane than it is worth will probably have a very good dispatch rate and the cost will be relatively low (except for acquisition). However, when hull values are near $100K or less for many twins then most operators don't want to drop $100K for a firewall forward or fresh panel. They don't want to paint it or do the interiors either. They keep flying them as long as they can economically until the maintenance cost become excessive, then they sell tantalizingly cheap.

The caveat here is that a lot of twin owners use their machines as tools, and so they accept the cost because it enables them to do their job. Sure, there are lots of bad twins out there, so the trick is picking a good one and keeping it that way.

 

[Alexb2000]

The caveat here is that a lot of twin owners use their machines as tools, and so they accept the cost because it enables them to do their job. Sure, there are lots of bad twins out there, so the trick is picking a good one and keeping it that way.

That's another great point, the higher on the food chain you go the more important it is for the airplane to have a job. Turbines especially, but it would sure help with a twin. Just being able to buy fuel pre-tax would make a HUGE difference.

 

[N747JB]

I tend to agree with your observation regarding a lot of twins, heck a lot of airplanes that get sold follow your scenario. There are exceptions, like a doofus I know that bought a really well cared for 421B, upgraded the avionics, paint, made sure everything was just right and sold it cheap to buy a Conquest.
The key is finding a twin that has been maintained with an open checkbook, the price isn't that much different and the savings will be huge.

These comparisons are almost impossible to make. If we compared a new Baron G58 to a new Cirrus. OK that works because they are both new. Comparing new to old never does. Why?

Someone that maintained a twin to showroom standards with no expense spared or concern for spending more on the airplane than it is worth will probably have a very good dispatch rate and the cost will be relatively low (except for acquisition). However, when hull values are near $100K or less for many twins then most operators don't want to drop $100K for a firewall forward or fresh panel. They don't want to paint it or do the interiors either. They keep flying them as long as they can economically until the maintenance cost become excessive, then they sell tantalizingly cheap.

The market is self regulating. If someone could by a twin and operate it cheap, we wouldn't we all be flying one?

 

[SkyHog]

I guess the question is, if a Cirrus goes down in the middle of the frigid North Atlantic, will it still burst into flames?

 

[Ted]

I guess the question is, if a Cirrus goes down in the middle of the frigid North Atlantic, will it still burst into flames?

Yes. But since you have a parachute, it will burst into flames and descend slowly giving you more time to contemplate why you should have bought a twin.

Ok I'll go back to attempting to be useful.

 

[Ted]

That's another great point, the higher on the food chain you go the more important it is for the airplane to have a job. Turbines especially, but it would sure help with a twin. Just being able to buy fuel pre-tax would make a HUGE difference.

The previous owner of the 310 is a great example of that. He and I share similar philosophies on aircraft ownership and MX, and I can say from experience that a plane he's owned is a good machine. The catch is that he didn't mind writing checks when it was necessary and doing upgrades when it made sense.

The RAM upgrades can easily cost more than the Twin Cessna they go on. They've still got people coming in for upgrades.

 

[Alexb2000]

Yes. But since you have a parachute, it will burst into flames and descend slowly giving you more time to contemplate why you should have bought a twin.

Ok I'll go back to attempting to be useful.

I can't afford a twin, so instead I pack a small bar for over water flights. In case of engine failure I'll be able to mix up a nice martini for the ride down.

 

[peppy]

Depreciation may well make a twin the answer. I don't know. However, on the Cirrus, just to be clear, you have dual alternators and dual batteries and two electrical systems. Also, there is no vacuum system. If you are considering a FIKI Cirrus then it needs to be a turbo. I think FIKI and turbo should be paired. That means fuel burn of about 17 gallons per hour and speed between 180 and 215 depending on altitude. Because they aren't pressurized most people fly below 18k to avoid using a mask. That means speed in the 180 to high 190's range. I don't fly a turbo so I am ball parking these numbers from reading others talk about what they see. The FIKI system is extremely good.

For over the water flights a twin sure seems like a good idea. For other flights the trade offs aren't as clear to me since CAPS provides a nice set of options.

 

[Ted]

I can't afford a twin, so instead I pack a small bar for over water flights. In case of engine failure I'll be able to mix up a nice martini for the ride down.

Better be a stiff one!

Depreciation may well make a twin the answer. I don't know. However, on the Cirrus, just to be clear, you have dual alternators and dual batteries and two electrical systems. Also, there is no vacuum system. If you are considering a FIKI Cirrus then it needs to be a turbo. I think FIKI and turbo should be paired. That means fuel burn of about 17 gallons per hour and speed between 180 and 215 depending on altitude. Because they aren't pressurized most people fly below 18k to avoid using a mask. That means speed in the 180 to high 190's range. I don't fly a turbo so I am ball parking these numbers from reading others talk about what they see. The FIKI system is extremely good.

For over the water flights a twin sure seems like a good idea. For other flights the trade offs aren't as clear to me since CAPS provides a nice set of options.

Keep in mind that to get that speed out of the Cirrus that means you're flying in oxygen levels, so you do still have to wear cannulas. The naturally aspirated twins (310, Baron) can do 180-190 without wearing oxygen. Some people don't mind wearing cannulas, some people do.

Since the Cirrus FIKI is TKS, that means you need to keep on buying fluid for it. If you're going on a long trip, you have to carry it with you or make sure it's available where you go. I'm not sure how much it costs, but I can't imagine it's cheap. I've heard good things about its operation, though, and it seems that TKS is gaining popularity over boots for various reasons - Wiggins paid a bunch of money a few years ago to convert all of their Caravans from boots to TKS. TKS is also easier to use, just turn it on when you think you might potentially enter icing, and leave it at that. Boots require some more finesse, but aren't hard, at least for me. So one could consider that a positive or a negative, take your pick.

 

[NoHeat]

Mike Busch, the writer/A&P, has long flown a turbocharged Cessna twin. He recently wrote that he would now likely choose a turbocharged SR22 instead, mainly because of ownership cost.

I'm not sure how his mission compares with that of the OP, though.

 

[bbchien]

Well, I chose a Seneca II 15 years ago. Total cost was about 250/hr over 2100 hours. That includes engine time. I don't think you can operate a Cirrus for that. The depreciation just clobbers you.

I can see the 310 just clobbering you.

 

[Ted]

I can see the 310 just clobbering you.

Only if you buy a bad one. By my numbers, the 310 is about $50/hr higher than your Seneca, but is also faster unless you go up very high.

 

[wabower]

Trying to peg costs on an hourly number is a fool's errand. Anyone who watched the first big run-up in fuel prices in 2007 (as all of the FBO's were forced to do while they watched their avgas sales gallonage decrease by 30-50%) knows that the estimated 200 hours per year can easily be 50 hours the next year and the hourly costs go off the chart.

The real cost numbers over time are a combination of capital costs, fixed costs and variable costs divided by time or use, depending on the analysis being performed. In any case, all the Wall Street analysts agree that rolling stock costs are "money in minus money out divided by whatever you want to measure.'

 

[AdamZ]

Let's try to be useful for at least one page before degrading into our typical banter.

Well you started it you Cirrus Fanboy!

 

[peppy]

Keep in mind that to get that speed out of the Cirrus that means you're flying in oxygen levels, so you do still have to wear cannulas. The naturally aspirated twins (310, Baron) can do 180-190 without wearing oxygen. Some people don't mind wearing cannulas, some people do.

Agreed. A pressurized plane is worth considering although pressurization adds a lot to maintenance costs. Then again you get a lot in return especially if you carry passengers. At non O2 altitudes the SR22T will be in the 180's for speed and still at 17 gph.

 

[weilke]

A G3 Cirrus is not the only option for a FIKI single.

A post 1984 A36 without tip-tanks and FIKI TKS would set you beck less in initial outlay and probably behave better depreciation wise than a G3 Cirrus. The makers of TKS just upped the price for the TKS to a silly number (somewhere in the 50s), so you would want to find one that already has it installed. IF you consider the ability to climb through ice to be important, an A36 with TAT turbonormalizing system would be the ticket, again about a 50k item.

There is a gentleman who commutes to the branches of his company between the Twin Cities, the Dakotas, Montana and Wyoming in a Turbo 210 with boots and radar. His dispatch rate has been very high.

If it is just you and a briefcase, a Mooney Bravo with TKS could also fulfill your bill. I talked to a gentleman who flies out of Lake Elmo. At the time he had a very nice green Ovation II GX with FIKI TKS and iirc he was looking to get an Acclaim for the better climb ability. For lowest capital outlay, climb ability and fuel efficiency (fuel prices will only go one way and that is up over the 2000hrs you propose to keep the plane), a Bravo is going to be your best investment. But you got to fit into the thing without a shoe-horn, I dont.

The TAT A36 with FIKI TKS is going to be plenty of aircraft compared with the Mooneys. I took my kids flying in the A36 this past sunday. You have a separate passenger door to get them and their stuff in and out and space to move around inside to get them situated. The Mooney is really a plane for either one person or two who really like each other.

All three of those options (brand B, C and M) dont give you the chute. Occasionally, you would have situations that are unsalvageable in a single, like the couple in the Columbia 300 found out in Wake Forest last month. If the fan quits over low IFR, you are in trouble. IF you are flying a single for 200hrs/year, your annual flying budget is going to be 30-35k. Occasionally you'll have to spring for one of those $1200 same-day airline tickets if you really have to be somewhere and it is '1/2sm ceil indef' for the entire trip between FCM and KC.

 

[Ted]

Agreed. A pressurized plane is worth considering although pressurization adds a lot to maintenance costs. Then again you get a lot in return especially if you carry passengers. At non O2 altitudes the SR22T will be in the 180's for speed and still at 17 gph.

I've flown about 2000 hours without pressurization and 50 hours with. You're talking about a really big price jump to get there, at least on MX. The luxury is there without question, but it's not necessary.

If you're going to fly in oxygen altitudes, I certaianly agree it is nice. That said, I've done quite well flying below oxygen altitudes and naturally aspirated at that. So, while I would like to have turbos and would have used them in my past missions (dog flying), I'd probably not actually use them now as much.

Then you also need to consider the extra time and fuel to climb. If you look at the 310 I fly vs a RAM 340, I'd bet that under 600 nm, the block time difference would be under 15 minutes. On the surface assuming cruise speeds of 185 vs 210 there's a 25 minute difference, but the 340 needs to get to the flight levels to do that. Factor in around 15 minutes more of climb time, during which the 310 is faster, and it balances out to be pretty close. I imagine if you looked at the block times between a Cirrus SR22 turbo and a 310/Baron you'd find them to be a few minutes higher on the Cirrus.

And then there are other de-iced singles. Honestly, a great deal comes down to what you want for a plane and a cabin, and how you feel about two fans vs one. If I had my ideal plane, it would be the 310 but add turbos. I could go either way on boots vs TKS, but the advantages of TKS might leave me inclined to give that a shot. We also like the space of the 310, especially luggage space. An SR22 with 4 people won't do great on luggage. We can do 6 and light luggage, or 4 and pack the whole house.

 

[Alexb2000]

Agreed. A pressurized plane is worth considering although pressurization adds a lot to maintenance costs.

I hear this a lot. The pressurization system itself isn't that complicated, so what adds a lot to maintenance cost? Or is it that pressurized aircraft have a lot of systems plus redundancy and are just overall complex and therefore expensive?

 

[Ted]

I hear this a lot. The pressurization system itself isn't that complicated, so what adds a lot to maintenance cost? Or is it that pressurized aircraft have a lot of systems plus redundancy and are just overall complex and therefore expensive?

Basically it's not expensive until it is. Windshields are about $30k a side plus install. Everything needs to go through a pressure vessel. Then you have leaks that need to be fixed (seals, etc.).

The lots of systems do play into it, but looking at a 340 vs a T310R the 310 is faster and cheaper for the same engines.

 

[Alexb2000]

Basically it's not expensive until it is. Windshields are about $30k a side plus install. Everything needs to go through a pressure vessel. Then you have leaks that need to be fixed (seals, etc.).

The lots of systems do play into it, but looking at a 340 vs a T310R the 310 is faster and cheaper for the same engines.

I sometimes read other forums for non-aviation interests. The notion of $30K plus install for half a windshield is just bat crap insane for the rest of the world. You should go to a Mitsubishi forum and talk about a $30K half windshield and gauge the reaction.

 

[Ted]

I sometimes read other forums for non-aviation interests. The notion of $30K plus install for half a windshield is just bat crap insane for the rest of the world. You should go to a Mitsubishi forum and talk about a $30K half windshield and gauge the reaction.

Seeing as Mitsubishi drivers are mostly cheapskates who try to figure out how to get the most power on lowest budget, I can figure the answer to that.

You can spend the same money on a Navajo windshield, too. And I think $50k for a Commander 690.

While I'll admit to liking pressurization (when you fly with it it's hard not to like), it represents a jump in financial risk for sure. Spending the same money as an engine overhaul... On a windshield!

 

[wabower]

The correct answer is Choice D--All of the above.

Some of stuff you might otherwise never think about includes condition and repair of cabin side windows.

If you can catch a fingernail in a surface scratch or nick, the window must either be polished (by somebody who knows what they're doing) or replaced, depending on remaining thickness.

If you buy a plane has been repainted and the prebuy didn't include checking the window surface edges at the point the meets the skin, you may be faced with several thousand dollars repair from the resulting groove caused by the stripper eating away the plastic around the tape. $6-8K bills for this work are somewhat common. The price can double if a cockpit side window is involved, and triple if a front windshield is damaged. The heated windshields for FIKI planes are $6-10K for each side (total 2 per plane) some as high as $15-20k.

An outflow emer safety valve (each plane has two almost identical valves, one for control of the system and one as overpressure emer) failed the function test on a recent inspection. Replacement (overhauled) part was $3,200.

The aft lower cabin hinge door on a 421 showed a crack during a recent inspection. It obviously required replacement, at which point the crack was found to have migrated through the skin and mounting structure of the door. Ka-ching. Some of the damage was obviously due to people using the air-stair door, some was due to the pressurization cycles.

Cracks around windshield and window mounting/retaining screws are common, and some are permissible. When the pressure cart and soapy water used for leak checks cause your windows to look like a front-load washer with too much detergent, you can assume that you're in for a long day. Ditto door seals, emer hatch seals, and other places where the air can show through.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Need more?:wink2:

I hear this a lot. The pressurization system itself isn't that complicated, so what adds a lot to maintenance cost? Or is it that pressurized aircraft have a lot of systems plus redundancy and are just overall complex and therefore expensive?

 

[Ted]

Gee, Wayne, why do you have to interject reality?

 

[Alexb2000]

Seeing as Mitsubishi drivers are mostly cheapskates who try to figure out how to get the most power on lowest budget, I can figure the answer to that.

Sounds like pilots.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Need more?:wink2:

Nope, that was confirmation that I'm still wearing short pants.

 

[wabower]

I got my own dose yesterday, trying to replace a repaired fuel selector valve that had started to leak around the O rings and gasket. I don't know the exact age at which the novelty of crawling around under the plane working through an inspection hole in the belly and then (repeatedly) getting up to work through a hole in the cabin floor wears off, but I'm past it.

Gee, Wayne, why do you have to interject reality?

 

[Ted]

Sounds like pilots.

Why do you think I drive a 20 year old Mitsubishi and drive a 46 year old Twin Cessna?

That said, I do appreciate being able to do a certain level of work on the 310. Helps keep the costs more reasonable.

 

[Ted]

I got my own dose yesterday, trying to replace a repaired fuel selector valve that had started to leak around the O rings and gasket. I don't know the exact age at which the novelty of crawling around under the plane working through an inspection hole in the belly and then (repeatedly) getting up to work through a hole in the cabin floor wears off, but I'm past it.

Clearly you've never owned a Mitsubishi. I don't recommend you start now. I'm reminded of this as I look at my busted knuckles.

 

[N747JB]

Good news about the windshields, it's $20-25K for a heated glass pilot side installed and the right side isn't heated so it's only about $9K installed.
I think the labor for one side is 70 hours and both sides runs around 110 hours, so it's better to replace both of them if you have to replace the heated one.

 

[Ted]

Good news about the windshields, it's $20-25K for a heated glass pilot side installed and the right side isn't heated so it's only about $9K installed.
I think the labor for one side is 70 hours and both sides runs around 110 hours, so it's better to replace both of them if you have to replace the heated one.

The Mitsubishi owners will like that number way better!

 

[Skylane81E]

Regarding windshields, isn't the one on the P210 a life limit part?