SR22 vs Twin Comanche

[hindsight2020]

Just start with your starters. They are basically car starters that engage with a bendix drive into the flywheel. Cheap car stuff. A 550k uses that godforsaken case mounted starter adapter with a failure prone Rube Goldberg mechanism to engage it. The thing needs overhauls and if it breaks, not only does it cost a small fortune to overhaul, it may even trash your engine. Same with the alternator (or generator if still so equipped). A belt, a pulley and a $350 chrysler alternator.
If you ASI on the PA30 goes TU, you swap in an overhauled unit from an number of parts houses. If you get a blue screen on an Avidyne unit or one of many LRUs on a Garmin gives up the ghost, you are paying 'decent used car' level money to get them replaced.
Yes, you have two more cylinders to feed, but those are straight valve Lycoming cylinders that rarely ever die all by themselves. Conti jugs, particularly on a tightly cowled plane like the Cirrus seem to delight in burning up valves or cracking at random intervals.
My comparison has been between a PA30 and a A36TC and even without the difference in Avionics expenses, I can easily see how someone can maintain the comanche on a lower budget than a SR22.

All points on the Conti jugs, accessories and starter boondoggle vs the Lyco equivalents are indeed noted, I have written the same thing myself many times before. I was thinking more along the lines the Cirrus airframe would be much cheaper to mx. The avionics I didn't think about. And you're correct, in the Cirrus you don't have the choice to insulate yourself from consumer grade overpriced shenanigans. Thank you for your input.

 

[weilke]

All points on the Conti jugs, accessories and starter boondoggle vs the Lyco equivalents are indeed noted, I have written the same thing myself many times before. I was thinking more along the lines the Cirrus airframe would be much cheaper to mx. The avionics I didn't think about. And you're correct, in the Cirrus you don't have the choice to insulate yourself from consumer grade overpriced shenanigans. Thank you for your input.

Otoh a poorly maintained Twin comanche can eat your lunch just the same. Fuel bladders, gear transmission, push-pull conduits etc. all offer opportunity for expensive oopsies.

 

[hindsight2020]

Otoh a poorly maintained Twin comanche can eat your lunch just the same. Fuel bladders, gear transmission, push-pull conduits etc. all offer opportunity for expensive oopsies.

That was precisely my point to the other poster when I mentioned the airframe.

 

[DeeG]

My hangar number has a Twin Comanche that I've flown with him a few times. I'd take the SR22. Those twins are 50 years old.

And our Stinson was born in 1946. What's the big deal?

 

[GRG55]

Otoh a poorly maintained Twin comanche can eat your lunch just the same. Fuel bladders, gear transmission, push-pull conduits etc. all offer opportunity for expensive oopsies.

A poorly maintained anything will eat your lunch...or potentially even more than that.

The earliest SR22s are a decade and a half old. I'm sure there will be "bargains" starting to come on the market as they continue to age.

 

[fusatod]

This was a very interesting discussion! I fly a Mooney in the Chicago area. When I fly to/from the North West, ATC keeps me down to 3000-4000ft for about 30min over the city and densely populated suburbs. Often, IFR weather. Realistically speaking, it's very hard to predict if you could escape an engine failure on a single, even with a parachute onboard. Homes and towers everywhere. You or the parachute will pick one. Sometimes you see a a park or a field, but almost always, power lines are there too.

I have 70hr on a Cirrus G2. I loved it. But I fear engine failure when I fly over the city and the cold lake. The parachute would not help, a second engine, yes! Can I kill myself on a twin? Absolutely, but it would be my fault.

 

[KLRDMD]

The following discussion makes one re-think single engine night flight. A 'chute probably would have saved him, a second engine almost certainly would have.

https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=146839

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Interesting Cirrus prices appear to be going up.
The cheapest 3 or 4 SR22s I see w/ the same time / avionics as ours is $40k+ or more than we paid in 2015.

Yeah so get the Cirrus. It will appreciate it seems.

 

[KLRDMD]

Interesting Cirrus prices appear to be going up.

All airplane prices are going up. It has been for about six months now but the last six weeks has been noticeable. Airplanes are also selling for much closer to asking price than I've ever seen them. Just my observation.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

You can get a Cirrus for 10 bitcoins.

That is weird to think about.

 

[Ravioli]

I bet a Twinkie on one engine will come down slower than sr22. With no engine.

What's the descent rate on a one engine Twinkie vs. a SR-22 with the the chute deployed?

How are you defining "come down slower"? Vertical speed? Distance Traveled?

 

[GRG55]

You can get a Cirrus for 10 bitcoins.

That is weird to think about.

We need a daily AMU to Bitcoin conversion rate, just like $/€ or $/¥ ​

 

[GRG55]

Interesting Cirrus prices appear to be going up.
The cheapest 3 or 4 SR22s I see w/ the same time / avionics as ours is $40k+ or more than we paid in 2015.

Yeah so get the Cirrus. It will appreciate it seems.

It's the Trump effect. Real estate goes up, stocks go up, art goes up, vintage cars go up, Bitcoin goes up. Cirrus' will go up. Apparently. Unless you pull the red handle. Then they go down.

 

[Skepilot]

I have 70hr on a Cirrus G2. I loved it. But I fear engine failure when I fly over the city and the cold lake. The parachute would not help, a second engine, yes!

Yeah, it's interesting to ponder. The parachute covers both engine failure and pilot incapacitation. For pilot incapacitation, the only source I found was this, which states that 3 out of 1,000 accidents, (and 15 out of 1,000 fatal accidents) were a result of pilot incapacitation. I couldn't find the equivalent stat for engine failures.

Of course, many would say the answer is, "get a twin and teach your wife to fly, then you've got both situations covered." But really, for her to be safe, she would need at least her private, multi and instrument ratings. And, she would probably need to fly a lot more than our usual trips to stay proficient. I fly about 80 hours per month at work, but probably only 30 hours per year in GA planes.

Getting all that training is a lot to ask for someone who would probably rather not fly "little airplanes" at all. If it were up to her, we would just stay on the airlines! (Although she does now appreciate the ability to come and go when we please, not having to deal with TSA and not having to worry about being bumped off, since we fly non-rev/standby on the airline.) And yes, flying the airline is definitely the safest bet, but we could also just stay at home all the time and be even safer, but where's the fun in that?

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

You can get a 182 and add a BRS. You'd give up some speed (and there's the embarrassment of flying a high wing) but the same load, comfort, and save a lot of bucks.

 

[iamtheari]

You can get a Cirrus for 10 bitcoins.

That is weird to think about.

Considering that the first known transaction involving bitcoin was in 2010, when 10,000 of them were paid for two pizzas, I am feeling really dumb for eating all those pizzas back then instead of trading them for bitcoins and holding out for the day I could get a couple hundred new SR22’s for my investment.

 

[PaulS]

(and there's the embarrassment of flying a high wing) .

 

[Brad Smith]

Twin-engine redundancy when flying over water or mountainous terrain with an experienced/current pilot at the controls is the only advantage you're going to have over the SR22. Also, you mention you average about 30 hours a year in GA airplanes. If it wasn't too much of an inconvenience, renting would save you bundles of cash each year and relieve you of the burden of dealing with aircraft ownership.

 

[Skepilot]

If it wasn't too much of an inconvenience, renting would save you bundles of cash each year and relieve you of the burden of dealing with aircraft ownership.

Yeah, that's pretty much been my conclusion so far. I'm renting from a place that has two SR22s, availability is great and I can take a plane for as long as I want with no daily minimums or overnight fees. Kinda hard to beat that. If I owned I might end up flying more, but even then it would only make sense in a partnership.

I think I would like to own something in retirement. Once the FAA kicks me out of the left seat at the airline, I'm sure I'm still going to want to fly! And then I'll have a lot more free time!

Of course, that's 17 years down the road for me. By then there should be plenty of 30+ yr old Cirrus planes around, maybe for a reasonable price. (Hopefully their airframes have held up!) I'm also hoping that by that time these aviation diesel engines are all over the place and we can all fly around burning 40% less fuel! And maybe, with the continued growth of electric cars, alternative fuels, green energy, etc, oil prices (and therefore Jet-A prices) will continue to drop.

 

[CJ Rader]

Noob question here from a noob pilot: Even used SR22's are CRAZY expensive, costing more than some brand new airplanes. What is it about this particular airframe that makes it so hooty-snooty pricey? Is there gold-inlay in the control surfaces? I'm asking in a humorous way, but I'm genuinely curious.

 

[hindsight2020]

Noob question here from a noob pilot: Even used SR22's are CRAZY expensive, costing more than some brand new airplanes. What is it about this particular airframe that makes it so hooty-snooty pricey? Is there gold-inlay in the control surfaces? I'm asking in a humorous way, but I'm genuinely curious.

Marketing is on point and successful in capturing the hooty snooty demographic. To be fair, I consider all new aircraft pricing hooty snooty, and that includes ugly airframes like the Cessna high wing archaic design lineup still in production. so Cirrus is really not alone in the dynamic you describe. For a lot of people, paying more for something is in fact their motivating factor.

 

[CJ Rader]

Marketing is on point and successful in capturing the hooty snooty demographic. To be fair, I consider all new aircraft pricing hooty snooty, and that includes ugly airframes like the Cessna high wing archaic design lineup still in production. so Cirrus is really not alone in the dynamic you describe. For a lot of people, paying more for something is in fact their motivating factor.

Well, its a pretty airplane. Looks like a car inside. I shall now place it in the McLaren MP4-12C category of vehicles that are pretty to look at but shall never grace my check book with their presence.

 

[GRG55]

Noob question here from a noob pilot: Even used SR22's are CRAZY expensive, costing more than some brand new airplanes. What is it about this particular airframe that makes it so hooty-snooty pricey? Is there gold-inlay in the control surfaces? I'm asking in a humorous way, but I'm genuinely curious.

They are expensive in part because they are well equipped and they are "new" by piston GA standards. The oldest Cirrus airframes are only 16 or 17 years old.

In the 1960s & 1970s the GA industry was pushing out thousands of new airplanes per year, peaking in the late 1970s just before the double recessions of the early 1980s. Most of the Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft and Mooneys we PoAers own date back to those two decades - 35 years to 50 years old, or more - so much less expensive than the younger Cirrus'.

However, there has been a steady depreciation of older Cirrus airplanes compared to current prices. Part of that is age related, and part of it is due to the significant improvements and upgrades from Generation 1. I think the older SR-22s are starting to be good value, and it will be interesting to see what they go for when the next recession finally hits (the best time to buy discretionary toys like a personal use airplane).

 

[MIFlyer]

Twin-engine redundancy when flying over water or mountainous terrain with an experienced/current pilot at the controls is the only advantage you're going to have over the SR22. Also, you mention you average about 30 hours a year in GA airplanes. If it wasn't too much of an inconvenience, renting would save you bundles of cash each year and relieve you of the burden of dealing with aircraft ownership.

i think that highly built up areas and forests don't look super appealing for a forced landing either. in our area, the terrain is mostly water, mountians, buildings and trees, with a few farming valleys here and there.

either fly high (cant' because class B above you), buy a twin, or have a chute, or fly a STOL so you can mostly stop in the parking lot that you end up forced down in

 

[labbadabba]

They are expensive in part because they are well equipped and they are "new" by piston GA standards. The oldest Cirrus airframes are only 16 or 17 years old.

In the 1960s & 1970s the GA industry was pushing out thousands of new airplanes per year, peaking in the late 1970s just before the double recessions of the early 1980s. Most of the Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft and Mooneys we PoAers own date back to those two decades - 35 years to 50 years old, or more - so much less expensive than the younger Cirrus'.

However, there has been a steady depreciation of older Cirrus airplanes compared to current prices. Part of that is age related, and part of it is due to the significant improvements and upgrades from Generation 1. I think the older SR-22s are starting to be good value, and it will be interesting to see what they go for when the next recession finally hits (the best time to buy discretionary toys like a personal use airplane).

Aren't Cirri also subject to an airframe time limit?

 

[Brad Smith]

Concerning airframe time life, here is an article from whycirrus.com:
Useful Life and Inspections
Cirrus airplanes require only routine maintenance to the extent of their published useful life. An alternative is to develop major (or “heavy”) inspections at certain intervals to check the structure and replace suspect components.

At Cirrus we chose to test for a useful life of 12,000 flight hours – about 60 years of average use. Most of our major structures, however, have been tested for twice this lifetime. At Cirrus we also chose to demonstrate that the structure is good for this design life without the need for any interim, heavy inspections – with their associated cost and inconvenience.

At Cirrus we expect that, as real-life aircraft approach 12,000 hours, a further round of testing, analysis, and inspections will determine how to extend the useful life.

Other manufacturers use different combinations of life and inspections. For example:

• Cessna (formerly Columbia) 350/400 have a lifetime of over 25,000 hours but with an extensive (bonded seams, checks for de-lamination, thirty wing bolt replacement, flight control removals, etc.) airframe inspection every 3,000 hours.
  
  These aircraft are certified for utility category (0.6G additional structural substantiation over the normal 3.8G) but are significantly compromised: landing weight reduced 180 lbs from maximum takeoff weight; Vne (Never Exceed Speed) reduces with altitude to under 175 knots (KIAS); and advertised speed at 25,000 feet is about 20 knots above the corresponding Vno (maximum structural cruising speed).
  
  
• Diamond DA-40 training airplanes have no published useful life. Those airplanes are, somewhat similar to older designs, dependent upon regular “heavy” inspections to identify structural issues arising from routine use.
  
  These airplanes have an extensive “wings-off” inspection every 1,000 hours and even more intrusive structural inspection every 2,000 hours.

All of these approaches produce sound, strong airplanes – probably the best general aviation airplanes ever produced. Different engineering approaches, though, produce different trade-offs. At Cirrus we prefer the simple, uncomplicated approach – which we believe offers the highest level of convenience and economy for our customers.

 

[CJ Rader]

They are expensive in part because they are well equipped and they are "new" by piston GA standards. The oldest Cirrus airframes are only 16 or 17 years old.

In the 1960s & 1970s the GA industry was pushing out thousands of new airplanes per year, peaking in the late 1970s just before the double recessions of the early 1980s. Most of the Pipers, Cessnas, Beechcraft and Mooneys we PoAers own date back to those two decades - 35 years to 50 years old, or more - so much less expensive than the younger Cirrus'.

However, there has been a steady depreciation of older Cirrus airplanes compared to current prices. Part of that is age related, and part of it is due to the significant improvements and upgrades from Generation 1. I think the older SR-22s are starting to be good value, and it will be interesting to see what they go for when the next recession finally hits (the best time to buy discretionary toys like a personal use airplane).

That’s reasonable. Generally the really affordable planes are also really old. Now that you mention it, the older Cirrus’ just are not all that long in the tooth, yet.

 

[weilke]

Noob question here from a noob pilot: Even used SR22's are CRAZY expensive, costing more than some brand new airplanes. What is it about this particular airframe that makes it so hooty-snooty pricey? Is there gold-inlay in the control surfaces? I'm asking in a humorous way, but I'm genuinely curious.

What brand new planes are you comparing them to ?
Imnho there is only one directly comparable new plane and that is the Cessna TTX. Conditionally, the Beech G36 appeals to a similar clientele.

 

[iamtheari]

That’s reasonable. Generally the really affordable planes are also really old. Now that you mention it, the older Cirrus’ just are not all that long in the tooth, yet.

Compare them to even a Cessna 172 that’s about the same age and similarly equipped. There are a couple of 15-year-old 172’s on Barnstormers right now with almost 8,000 TTAF asking in the range of $150,000. Add 50% to that price and you can go 75% faster in a same-year, lower-time SR22. Or cut that price by 30% and go not as much faster in a same-year, lower-time SR20.

 

[CJ Rader]

Compare them to even a Cessna 172 that’s about the same age and similarly equipped. There are a couple of 15-year-old 172’s on Barnstormers right now with almost 8,000 TTAF asking in the range of $150,000. Add 50% to that price and you can go 75% faster in a same-year, lower-time SR22. Or cut that price by 30% and go not as much faster in a same-year, lower-time SR20.

Reasonable as well. I think my 'sticker shock' resulted from an error on my part in assuming the Cirrus fell into the LSA category rather than in the Cessna/Beech/Mooney category. Cirrus wasn't a name I had heard anything about until I found my way into this forum. Comparing Cirrus to Cessna, then yes, the pricing is not all that dissimilar. Compared to the LSA category, there's quite a bit of difference in pricing. But, as I said at the beginning, "Noob question" on my part. Thanks all for the informative replies. I learn something new every time I hop on this site.

 

[Tantalum]

There are a couple of 15-year-old 172’s on Barnstormers right now with almost 8,000 TTAF asking in the range of $150,000. Add 50% to that price and you can go 75% faster in a same-year, lower-time SR22. Or cut that price by 30% and go not as much faster in a same-year, lower-time SR20.

Yeah, a friend and I recently sat in a near brand new SR22T perspective, I think the owner paid around $800K for it? Amazing that you can find used Cirruses (Cirri?) on the market in the $150K-$250K range.. I think that's incredible. Cirrus is changing the landscape for sure, now that we're seeing more and more on the used market

Aren't the airframes lifetime limited though, 12,000 hrs TT? I've heard of Cherokees and Skyhawks flying with over 20,000 hours on them. You won't see a Cirrus get there. There's also a stark price difference in the g1/g2 vs later model I find

 

[olasek]

What is it about this particular airframe that makes it so hooty-snooty pricey? Is there gold-inlay in the control surfaces? I'm asking in a humorous way, but I'm genuinely curious.

Part of the reason is the completely integrated flight deck, with autopilot, etc - avionics tend to add lot of value, I would say it is at least $100 K extra.

 

[CJ Rader]

Part of the reason is the completely integrated flight deck, with autopilot, etc - avionics tend to add lot of value, I would say it is at least $100 K extra.

For sure, that flight deck doesn't look like your everyday GA airplane. Mucho money there.

 

[Skepilot]

Noob question here from a noob pilot: Even used SR22's are CRAZY expensive, costing more than some brand new airplanes. What is it about this particular airframe that makes it so hooty-snooty pricey? Is there gold-inlay in the control surfaces? I'm asking in a humorous way, but I'm genuinely curious.

With airplanes, you pay for performance, utility, efficiency, comfort and redundancy/safety. You can get used SR22s for under $200k, some as low as $160k. I don't know of any "brand new" airplane with similar performance, utility, efficiency, comfort and redundancy/safety features of a SR22 that costs less than a used SR22. Which brand new airplane are you speaking of?

Now, comparing to other used aircraft probably makes more sense. Airplanes which are perceived to have higher operating expenses are discounted in the marketplace. That's one of the reasons twins are often cheaper to purchase than singles that have similar cruise speeds. You can often buy them for cheaper, but they will cost you more to operate, or so goes the logic in the market. Planes that burn more fuel also get cheaper when fuel prices climb.

To stay apples-to-apples, you could compare it to other fast singles of the same vintage. The oldest SR22 you'll find is a 2001. Looking at Trade-a-Plane, 2001-2002 SR22s are listed for $160k - $190k. A Bonanza of the same vintage is around $370k. A Mooney of the same vintage is around $250k. A Saratoga of the same vintage is around $270k. Even a slow Piper Archer of the same vintage is $170k, and a 2000 Cessna 182 is $200k!

Yes, you can get a much older airplane with similar performance and save a lot of money on the purchase, but then you're really not comparing apples-to-apples, IMHO. Further, when you go back to my original requirement of having some redundancy in case of engine failure, you're really back to the Cirrus or a twin. (Yes, you can put a BRS chute in a Cessna, but those are too slow for me.)

 

[CJ Rader]

With airplanes, you pay for performance, utility, efficiency, comfort and redundancy/safety. You can get used SR22s for under $200k, some as low as $160k. I don't know of any "brand new" airplane with similar performance, utility, efficiency, comfort and redundancy/safety features of a SR22 that costs less than a used SR22. Which brand new airplane are you speaking of?

I mistakenly thought the Cirrus brand was an LSA-type airplane (false assumption on my part) and said as much in an earlier post. It's a brand I had never heard of until recently. So that's why my query inadvertently didn't make an apples to apples comparison. In any event, good information in your post and I appreciate it. I didn't know about the marketplace discounting planes that have higher operating expenses. It makes sense, though. It's similar in theory to being able to find a nice, older Porsche for $30,000, but the maintenance will still cost as much as if you paid $180k for the car.

Interesting side point: My older brother flies 777's for work and is also named Mike.

 

[Skepilot]

Yeah, I didn't see your post about LSA planes until after I made my reply. Re: operating expenses, it always blows me away how cheap you can buy old light jets for, many for under $100k! But the operating expenses will kill you. On the flip side, you can buy very efficient jets now, but the loan payments will kill you! Bottom line, you're gonna pay one way or another!

 

[CJ Rader]

Yeah, I didn't see your post about LSA planes until after I made my reply. Re: operating expenses, it always blows me away how cheap you can buy old light jets for, many for under $100k! But the operating expenses will kill you. On the flip side, you can buy very efficient jets now, but the loan payments will kill you! Bottom line, you're gonna pay one way or another!

That is so true. One way or another, something is going to get your money, either on the front-end or the back-end. I didn't realize it until just now, but it was a Cirrus SR22 that Bill Simon (Formerly of Wal-Mart fame) brought down via parachute into the middle of MLK Blvd in my hometown of Fayetteville, AR back in 2015. I remember at the time thinking how cool it was that a small plane had a parachute built into it (and that of course, Wal-Mart money paid for it. lol).

 

[Ryan F.]

Howdy Mike,

I'm new to the thread and only scanned the previous 4 pages. We're kinda similar. I fly for a living. I have also owned a Twin Comanche since 2000. I taught in the Cirrus SR-20 and SR-22. I do some part-time instructing these days in various airplanes (not the Cirrus at present.) Hopefully I won't be too long-winded about this but I have a few things to say.

My view is pretty simple, and hasn't changed much since I bought my TwinCo. The Cirrus is a fine airplane, very fast, very capable. But it's still a single-engine ship at the end of the day, and the parachute is no substitute for a second engine.

I simply don't fly single-engine airplanes the way I do twins. My mission profile includes distance, IMC, night flying, and the occasional jaunt into high-elevation terrain. I don't feel comfortable doing the latter three in single-engine airplanes. (Call me crazy, especially since I taught full-down autos in helicopters years ago.)

So the advantages of the Cirrus, to me, are negated by its massive inherent limitations (which are shared by all single-engine airplanes, so it's not Cirrus-specific). I'll take my 50 year old twin into the conditions I frequent any day. The Cirrus, no way. To me it's basically a day VFR airplane with an awesome interior, great avionics and air conditioning. I would not be flying over widespread low IMC at night in a Cirrus, pretty much ever.

But that's just me. I'm 100 hours short of 11,000 total time. In that relatively short amount of time, I'm one of the only pilots to ever perform a precautionary in-flight shutdown of a Honeywell HTF-7000. I've had a TFE-731-50R blow all of its oil out at FL400. And I've had a -5BR have a similar failure due to a faulty oil o-ring installation. These are some of the most reliable engines ever made, yet the components attached to them failed in such a way that I still needed the other motor to get on the ground safely. Two relatively minor piston "problems" also occurred in that timeframe which caused me to conduct an immediate (on-field) landing. Figure 5 major events in 11,000 hours = one major powerplant-related failure every 2,200 hours. No major issues that money couldn't fix. Had they occurred in a single-engine airplane? Probably wouldn't be the same low-pulse rate results.

Over the years I've relied on the redundancy of other systems my airplane, too. I've had three separate vacuum pump failures (which I realize is starting to be rather old-school these days, but still), and in each case the other pump let me keep on flying with no problems. Had two AI failures (I ran two vacuum AIs in my plane until replacing one with a G5 last year.) Multiple generator failures (again, I have two.) The Cirrus does have some decent redundancy in these departments, but again, one powerplant drives it all.

These days, singles are more popular. You won't get a lot of advice from people telling you to buy a twin because not too many pilots fly twins anymore. I think most people believe the chute is a reasonable substitute for a second engine. I think that's crazy, personally, but it's better than nothing, I reckon. I refuse to change the way I approach my contingency planning in a Cirrus because of the BRS feature. I believe the only responsible way to fly it is to treat it like any other single. The chute is a last-ditch option, and a really crappy one. You might break your back. You might die. Bottom line, when you pop the chute, you become a passenger. I'd much rather fly the airplane to an airport of my choosing.

It's also widely misunderstood just how valuable the drift-down performance is even in underpowered light twins. When you're at cruise altitude you can often choose between airports within hundreds of miles.

I do accept that twins aren't for everyone. The financial aspect notwithstanding (which is ironic, because in this case, it's certainly going to cost you more to own and operate a new-ish Cirrus SR-22 than any Twin Comanche) there must be a commitment to training and proficiency. Some pilots identify that the twin isn't a good fit for them in that department. So I understand and respect the decision of many to stick with singles. It's true, a light piston twin can be a lot to handle.

We both fly professionally, and we both enjoy the benefits of multi-crew flight decks, great training, and great equipment. I can certainly feel the lack of a FO when I'm flying SPIFR in my Twin Comanche. I also miss some of the automation. Once in awhile I even miss my HUD and EVS! It's more challenging, even for someone who flies more than the average GA pilot and has access to the best training known to man. I do like the challenge and I do make it a point to stay current and proficient in my own little airplane, not relying on my day job to keep me sharp. But it does help to live and breathe aviation. I might feel differently about this if I was flying 100-200 hours per year.

Due to our profile similarities I figured it as worthwhile to mention all of those factoids. You're a good candidate for a light twin; you can maximize the safety benefit of the redundancy and I think you'd really enjoy cruising long (or short) distances without constantly scanning fields for good landing areas. I can't help it, any time I fly a single I'm constantly looking for a place to land. I do some instructing in a Piper Cub (among others) and although I love flying that airplane, I'm mentally picking my way across the ground from field to field as I claw my way up to 1,000' AGL... which takes a while for two people sitting behind a 65HP engine. LOL.

I flew to OSH from Jersey and flew over the fat part of Lake Michigan (and back again) with no sweaty palms. That's nuts in a Cirrus, but not even a minor consideration in the Twin Comanche.

It's not a high-performance twin, but it's very efficient. I usually cruise at 65% power and approx. 155 KTAS, and burn 15-16 GPH. I could get 160-165KTAS at 75% power, but the 10 knots make no difference to my total travel time. I have no regrets nearly 18 years after buying it.

The Twin Comanche is a bit understood. No, it's not a Baron, but I've conducted plenty of training in it over the years and properly loaded its single-engine performance is perfectly adequate. I can tell you a bit more about that off-line if you like. A family of three is a good fit. I fly mine at 3500ish lbs. (about 100 lbs. under MGTOW) pretty regularly. I'm confident I can climb out on one engine from most airports east of the Mississippi.

I fly my wife and two kids. That's why I fly a twin. I haven't put them in a single-engine airplane since... well, actually, maybe never. I certainly never traveled with them in one. I would do it, but day VFR only. So to me, the Cirrus is a low-utility airplane. But my risk tolerance is based on my exposure to what I've seen and done in aviation and will be different from others'.

Hope this helps.

 

[Skepilot]

The Cirrus is a fine airplane, very fast, very capable. But it's still a single-engine ship at the end of the day, and the parachute is no substitute for a second engine.

In the event of an engine failure, I agree. But in the event of pilot incapacitation, which I notice you didn't mention, the parachute is superior. I know it's not cool for us studly pilots to admit that we are mere mortals and could be incapacitated from something beyond our control, but it does happen. I'm pretty healthy and have never had any scares, but still, I'm getting older by the minute, as we all are! Now, if we want to discuss the relative likelihood of either of these events happening, I'm happy to, but I would want to see hard numbers, not just anecdotes. So far I've had a difficult time finding numbers to make accurate comparisons of these risk factors.

I would not be flying over widespread low IMC at night in a Cirrus, pretty much ever.

I hear you, and so far I've only flown my family in the Cirrus in day VFR.

But that's just me. I'm 100 hours short of 11,000 total time.

Cool. 14,000 hours here, if we're counting.

Over the years I've relied on the redundancy of other systems my airplane, too. I've had three separate vacuum pump failures (which I realize is starting to be rather old-school these days, but still), and in each case the other pump let me keep on flying with no problems. Had two AI failures (I ran two vacuum AIs in my plane until replacing one with a G5 last year.)

Good to note that the Cirrus I fly has 2 AI's, and zero vacuum pumps. Both are electric powered, and the airplane has 2 generators, and if both of those fail, it also has 2 batteries. Pretty damn good redundancy for a single.

These days, singles are more popular. You won't get a lot of advice from people telling you to buy a twin because not too many pilots fly twins anymore. I think most people believe the chute is a reasonable substitute for a second engine. I think that's crazy, personally, but it's better than nothing, I reckon. I refuse to change the way I approach my contingency planning in a Cirrus because of the BRS feature. I believe the only responsible way to fly it is to treat it like any other single.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. When flying with my family in the Cirrus, I don't really feel like I can relax. I feel like I owe it to my family to pay full attention to flying at all times, always have a landing site picked out in case of an emergency, keep rechecking weather, fuel burn, etc, etc. No big deal on a short leg, but after 3+ hours it just kinda drags on.

The chute is a last-ditch option, and a really crappy one. You might break your back. You might die.

I'm not sure it's as crappy as you paint it. From what I've read, of all the times the chute has been deployed within its published parameters, there have been zero fatalities. (Yes, there have been fatalities when it has been deployed at too fast of an airspeed, too low of an altitude, etc.. And most of those fatalities were WAY outside of limitations. There are several chute saves even outside of the published limits.) So, overall, that's a pretty decent backup, IMHO.

Bottom line, when you pop the chute, you become a passenger. I'd much rather fly the airplane to an airport of my choosing.

Agreed. (Assuming I'm not incapacitated!)

It's also widely misunderstood just how valuable the drift-down performance is even in underpowered light twins. When you're at cruise altitude you can often choose between airports within hundreds of miles.

Agreed.

Due to our profile similarities I figured it as worthwhile to mention all of those factoids. You're a good candidate for a light twin; you can maximize the safety benefit of the redundancy and I think you'd really enjoy cruising long (or short) distances without constantly scanning fields for good landing areas. I can't help it, any time I fly a single I'm constantly looking for a place to land.

Agree again there, as I mention above. I haven't ruled out a twin. I was recently offered a partnership in a Baron and almost jumped on it. (Only problem was the other partners wanted to base the plane too far away from me.) Even a Baron running LOP at conservative power settings can be pretty efficient.

It's not a high-performance twin, but it's very efficient. I usually cruise at 65% power and approx. 155 KTAS, and burn 15-16 GPH. I could get 160-165KTAS at 75% power, but the 10 knots make no difference to my total travel time. I have no regrets nearly 18 years after buying it.

The Twin Comanche is a bit understood. No, it's not a Baron, but I've conducted plenty of training in it over the years and properly loaded its single-engine performance is perfectly adequate. I can tell you a bit more about that off-line if you like.

Yeah, I might PM you if the right opportunity on a Twink comes up.

A family of three is a good fit. I fly mine at 3500ish lbs. (about 100 lbs. under MGTOW) pretty regularly. I'm confident I can climb out on one engine from most airports east of the Mississippi.

I fly my wife and two kids. That's why I fly a twin. I haven't put them in a single-engine airplane since... well, actually, maybe never. I certainly never traveled with them in one. I would do it, but day VFR only. So to me, the Cirrus is a low-utility airplane. But my risk tolerance is based on my exposure to what I've seen and done in aviation and will be different from others'.

Hope this helps.

Yes, thank you. Always good to have another perspective from a fellow professional.

 

[Ryan F.]

In the event of an engine failure, I agree. But in the event of pilot incapacitation, which I notice you didn't mention, the parachute is superior. I know it's not cool for us studly pilots to admit that we are mere mortals and could be incapacitated from something beyond our control, but it does happen. I'm pretty healthy and have never had any scares, but still, I'm getting older by the minute, as we all are! Now, if we want to discuss the relative likelihood of either of these events happening, I'm happy to, but I would want to see hard numbers, not just anecdotes. So far I've had a difficult time finding numbers to make accurate comparisons of these risk factors.

A valid concern, but as a realistic GA risk factor it approaches statistical insignificance. In the most recent Nall Report (26th edition) there were 147 fatal pilot-related accidents from 2014. As a cause, pilot incapacitation was thrown into the "other" category and was responsible for three (3) of those fatal accidents. Most, but not all, of the work being done to reduce accidents right now -- work I volunteer my time towards in fact -- are in the categories of LOC-I/G, fuel management, and VFR into IMC. An underlying theme to almost all of the accidents is ADM and risk management.

I'm not sure it's as crappy as you paint it. From what I've read, of all the times the chute has been deployed within its published parameters, there have been zero fatalities. (Yes, there have been fatalities when it has been deployed at too fast of an airspeed, too low of an altitude, etc.. And most of those fatalities were WAY outside of limitations. There are several chute saves even outside of the published limits.) So, overall, that's a pretty decent backup, IMHO.

This seems pretty bad.

I've been through several very long and involved BRS debates in the past. Not sure if I really want to "go there" again but I do feel that these things, as contingency options, belong in the "better than nothing" category. It's great that there are some documented saves, and I'm all for anything that improves safety. My issue is the belief of some that the chute is an equivalent safety tool to having a second engine. It just ain't so. Even a safe arrival to terra firma under canopy may put the aircraft occupants in a survival situation. If the touchdown point is in the Rockies, Lake Michigan, among high tension lines or the top of a hundred foot tree in the middle of nowhere, the expected lifespan of the people involved could measure anywhere between a few minutes to a few days. That's why even a tricked out 2017 Cirrus SR-22 with FIKI is nothing more than a pleasure craft from my perspective. The utility just isn't there as a serious traveling and IFR machine. I realize I may be in the minority here but based on my background, my risk tolerance, and my experience, I will only fly those missions in a multiengine aircraft.

Thanks for the discussion and I hope my comments are a semi-useful data point for you.