SR22 vs Twin Comanche

[Ted]

Not to derail the OP's thread too much, but if we're talking twins and $200K price range the Cessna 340 is a serious option. The OP mentioned his wife (?) was somewhat skittish about flying.. well a 340 would probably help quite a bit on that front as it definitely has that "real airplane" look to it.. and for a 1970s vintage it looks much more modern than many of the other 1970s birds flying around. What you'll save on the $15K repack fee you'll easily spend on overhaul reserves, gear maintenance, etc., but you'll have plenty of payload, good cabin comfort, the reassurance of a good redundancy, pressurization, and they have really nice ramp appeal (although that's subjective).

Personally the 340 is my "maybe-kind-of-attainable-one-day-real-airplane" goal. Mooneys and Cirrus (Cirri?) are real nice (each have their own merits and following).. but in my mind you can't replace payload ability with twin engine redundancy

340s are great airplanes. They're also pretty solid $500/hr airplanes (according to the Twin Cessna member survey, it's $550/hr average). An SR22 is not even close to that per hour, and certainly not per mile. Compared to a naturally aspirated SR22 you've got turbochargers (2x with an exhaust AD), two engines, and pressurization, all of which add to cost in one way or another. I would say a Twinkie and an SR22 are probably close on operating costs, but no way is a 340 close on operating cost.

 

[Tantalum]

Who cares about radar coverage? With a 402 ELT, they have your exact GPS coordinates. All you need to be doing is talking to ATC, then let them know you are going down.

I guess. But if I have the money then a twin would keep me from going down in the first place. But like with anything in life it comes down to compromises and costs, and with aviation in particular personal preference and choice

 

[genna]

Don't know if this is helpful, but my flight rental place has

2005 SR22 G2(Avidine/Garmin) GTS, leaseback................... 235 Wet
1979 Seneca PIPER PA-34-200T(all steam), owned by them..... 299 Wet.

 

[hindsight2020]

340s are great airplanes. They're also pretty solid $500/hr airplanes (according to the Twin Cessna member survey, it's $550/hr average). An SR22 is not even close to that per hour, and certainly not per mile. Compared to a naturally aspirated SR22 you've got turbochargers (2x with an exhaust AD), two engines, and pressurization, all of which add to cost in one way or another. I would say a Twinkie and an SR22 are probably close on operating costs, but no way is a 340 close on operating cost.

Bingo. It's not about acquisition cost parity, it's about yearly cash outlay. An SR22 is a sub 20K/yr airplane per 100hrs in MX/OPEX. About what one would expect out of a Twinkie (not indexing for dispatch rate variables) on a super light year, but certainly not anywhere in the vicinity of the rest of the twin pistons out there. Solid 30K+/yr/100hr airplanes.

 

[Ted]

Bingo. It's not about acquisition cost parity, it's about yearly cash outlay. An SR22 is a sub 20K/yr airplane per 100hrs in MX/OPEX. About what one would expect out of a Twinkie (not indexing for dispatch rate variables) on a super light year, but certainly not anywhere in the vicinity of the rest of the twin pistons out there. Solid 30K+/yr/100hr airplanes.

I would expect a Twinkie to be close to an SR22 on costs. They have two Lycoming 320s, which are effectively bulletproof and low-MX. I doubt hourly costs are much different.

But yes, yearly cash outlay is a big factor. Having started out with the Aztec, and then Cloud Nine getting the 310 and now the 414, I have watched the bills go up. And oh boy, do they go up...

 

[CC268]

nevermind

 

[tspear]

I would expect a Twinkie to be close to an SR22 on costs. They have two Lycoming 320s, which are effectively bulletproof and low-MX. I doubt hourly costs are much different.

But yes, yearly cash outlay is a big factor. Having started out with the Aztec, and then Cloud Nine getting the 310 and now the 414, I have watched the bills go up. And oh boy, do they go up...

Actually, like the post above a little Google searching shows the twinkie tends to have a slightly higher rental cost. Assuming margins are pretty constant between planes, that means the twinkie is likely more expensive to operate.

Tim

 

[mtuomi]

Actually, like the post above a little Google searching shows the twinkie tends to have a slightly higher rental cost. Assuming margins are pretty constant between planes, that means the twinkie is likely more expensive to operate.

Tim

Rental insurance on a twin is way more than on a single, whereas the difference in private use wouldn't be that big.

 

[tspear]

Rental insurance on a twin is way more than on a single, whereas the difference in private use wouldn't be that big.

When I price shopped the Seneca vs SR22, insurance was a wash based on similar hull values, even with both on leaseback.
Most people assume twins are more expensive, but that generally has more to do with time in type.

Tim

 

[wayne]

Don't know if this is helpful, but my flight rental place has

2005 SR22 G2(Avidine/Garmin) GTS, leaseback................... 235 Wet
1979 Seneca PIPER PA-34-200T(all steam), owned by them..... 299 Wet.

Nice rates.

Here in Atlanta, also wet, (plus 7% sales tax):

2004 SR22........ $300 (club) ... $335 (walk-in)
1976 Seneca II... $360 (club) ... $395 (walk-in)

 

[genna]

Nice rates.

Here in Atlanta, also wet, (plus 7% sales tax):

2004 SR22........ $300 (club) ... $335 (walk-in)
1976 Seneca II... $360 (club) ... $395 (walk-in)

Ouch! Our rates also add 6% tax, but there is a potential additional $40 "club" discount if you rent enough.

 

[weilke]

Not to derail the OP's thread too much, but if we're talking twins and $200K price range the Cessna 340 is a serious option. The OP mentioned his wife (?) was somewhat skittish about flying.. well a 340 would probably help quite a bit on that front as it definitely has that "real airplane" look to it.. and for a 1970s vintage it looks much more modern than many of the other 1970s birds flying around. What you'll save on the $15K repack fee you'll easily spend on overhaul reserves, gear maintenance, etc., but you'll have plenty of payload, good cabin comfort, the reassurance of a good redundancy, pressurization, and they have really nice ramp appeal (although that's subjective).

The most expensive plane you can possibly own is a cheap cabin twin.

 

[Wade]

My CFI has a nice looking in annual Cessna 340 Ram IV 325hp for $90k. I got my first hour of twin time in it, climbing at 1800 fpm and cruising over 200kts makes my 172 really boring. I wish I needed it for some reason.

 

[Todd82]

They're both above my current budget and pilot skill/comfort levels... But if I was buying I'd get the Twinkie.
1. Already depreciated. If 5 years from now it doesn't fit your mission anymore you can probably sell a Twinkie for about what you bought it for. Cirrus will be less.
2. Those two simple engines vs 1 Cirrus engine + 1 Cirrus chute repack reserve would basically be a push.
3. If an engine dies on a cold winter night in the mountains I'd rather have a 2nd engine than pull the chute and hope rescuers come before bears/wolves/hypothermia.
3a. I wouldn't go across the Great lakes in a Cirrus, I would in a twin.
4. You won't look like one of those pompous Cirrus pilots and won't have to hear "pull the chute" snark.

 

[GRG55]

I can report myself but I can't ban myself.

Ah ha! In case anybody is feeling triggered, I think we found the "safe space" on PoA.

 

[GRG55]

...A plane that is below the glide slope and slow on airspeed is the fault of the pilot not

the airplane. Any incorrect application such as full throttles to get back on the glide slope and air speed is still pilot fault, not airplane.

But yes, I understand what you are saying. There are those kinds of pilots out there.

Didn't one of those stuff a twin at SFO in July, 2013...

 

[GRG55]

The second engine vs. the chute have advantages depending on where you're flying and what you're doing. If you're flying over mountains out west, the chute probably is actually more helpful to you since the single engine service ceiling of the Twinkie won't be above ground level. If you're planning on flying over water or the flatlands mostly, the 2nd engine is more helpful. Your wife being able to learn the Cirrus easier and pull the chute are other considerations.

Airframe wise, I wouldn't worry about either of them. Everyone I know who has a Comanche of any form loves it. I love flying the things.

Ultimately they're both good airplanes, so it's a question of which pluses and minuses fit your wants.

I have a different view. I fly my twin over the mountains here in the west far, far, far more often than any of the piston singles I've owned. It was the defining reason I bought the twin. And the single greatest reason I probably won't change it for an SR22, as tempted as I have been on occasion when I study that possibility.

One thing that I have never forgotten from all the emergency and unusual attitudes training I've taken is the old adage "No matter what, never stop flying the airplane". When you pull the chute on a Cirrus you've done exactly that. You have eliminated any further ability to influence the outcome, and put yourself in the hands of Fate.

Don't misunderstand me; I think the Cirrus and other whole airframe parachutes are significant, progressive safety advancements. But in the steep terrain I fly over regularly there is no way of knowing if a chute pull is going to land you high on the side of a ridge that you subsequently tumble down with the collapsed chute trailing behind. Or get slammed into the side of a rock formation by the ever present high winds being funnelled by the landscape. There are large swaths where there is virtually no flat surface for miles, except perhaps a narrow band at the bottom of the canyons.



As for the SE service ceiling argument, heading over the rocks I always fly my Aztec light...loaded as though I am still flying a single. It's all about maintaining options. I would rather have the chute over the flatlands quite frankly.

 

[tspear]

Don't misunderstand me; I think the Cirrus and other whole airframe parachutes are significant, progressive safety advancements. But in the steep terrain I fly over regularly there is no way of knowing if a chute pull is going to land you high on the side of a ridge that you subsequently tumble down with the collapsed chute trailing behind. Or get slammed into the side of a rock formation by the ever present high winds being funnelled by the landscape. There are large swaths where there is virtually no flat surface for miles, except perhaps a narrow band at the bottom of the canyons.

Why would you pull the chute in that situation? If you can fly the plane, fly the plane to the valley and pull when 1500ft AGL.
If the plane is not controllable, I would rather take the risk of sliding down the edge of a mountain with the chute deployed than go down without any controll.

Tim

 

[Kritchlow]

Silly question imo.


If you are an experienced twin guy you should go with a twin.
You say you are experienced here...

Chutes over terrain... ????

 

[GRG55]

Why would you pull the chute in that situation? If you can fly the plane, fly the plane to the valley and pull when 1500ft AGL.
If the plane is not controllable, I would rather take the risk of sliding down the edge of a mountain with the chute deployed than go down without any controll.

Tim

I'm happy for you and your choices. Don't ask me to participate in them though.

 

[tspear]

I'm happy for you and your choices. Don't ask me to participate in them though.

Maybe I am missing something. You stated single engine plane with a chute over rather sever (and very awesome looking) terrain is bad because you will slide down the side of the mountain.
I asked why would you slide down the side of the mountain? And you reply with the above statement about participation?
You presented the basis for your logic, I found what I believe is a rather large and gaping hole in your logic. And this is the reply?
Come on. Shot me down, poke a whole in my thinking. Challenge my train of thought.

Oh, I would prefer a bigger twin. e.g. Aerostar, C421....

Tim

 

[GRG55]

Maybe I am missing something. You stated single engine plane with a chute over rather sever (and very awesome looking) terrain is bad because you will slide down the side of the mountain.
I asked why would you slide down the side of the mountain? And you reply with the above statement about participation?
You presented the basis for your logic, I found what I believe is a rather large and gaping hole in your logic. And this is the reply?
Come on. Shot me down, poke a whole in my thinking. Challenge my train of thought.

Oh, I would prefer a bigger twin. e.g. Aerostar, C421....

Tim

Go back a reread my original post you first responded to. The logic of my choice to transit such terrain should become abundantly clear.

 

[GRG55]

Maybe I am missing something. You stated single engine plane with a chute over rather sever (and very awesome looking) terrain is bad because you will slide down the side of the mountain.
I asked why would you slide down the side of the mountain? And you reply with the above statement about participation?
You presented the basis for your logic, I found what I believe is a rather large and gaping hole in your logic. And this is the reply?
Come on. Shot me down, poke a whole in my thinking. Challenge my train of thought.

Oh, I would prefer a bigger twin. e.g. Aerostar, C421....

Tim

You're at 16,000 ASL over the rocks in IMC. The remarkably reliable engine in your SR22 decides it's having a bad day. You are going to deadstick it to 1500 AGL into a canyon you can't see? Seriously?

You're at 11,500 ASL, VFR on top. It looks like this below you; cloud tops about 9500 to 10,000 ASL. Your SR22 powerplant runs out of dilithium crystals at the most inconvenient moment. What are you going to do?

Seriously Tim, what do you think the chances are of you and your family surviving either of those? And if you are going to leave your expensive, capable SR22 in the hangar on days like this...well, you might as well save your money and own a Cherokee 140.

 

[wayne]

You're at 16,000 ASL over the rocks in IMC. The remarkably reliable engine in your SR22 decides it's having a bad day. You are going to deadstick it to 1500 AGL into a canyon you can't see? Seriously?

Yep, it sounds great to dead stick it into the canyon until you think about not being able to see the canyon. Even over flat lands I wouldn't pull the chute at 11k. If I couldn't glide to a runway (which would be odd in the southeast from 11k) I'd glide over somewhere nice to land under the chute, get lower and then pull the chute. That way I'd have a somewhat reasonable idea of where I'm "landing". That of course assumes VMC, which isn't always the case. I flew over a solid sea of clouds on Monday (midwest to southeast); although the ceiling under them was not too bad in many places, but down to around 1,000' in some places. I was in the Baron on Monday, but I've done the same in a SR22.

Over the Rockies or Great Lakes a twin is a safer option.

 

[weilke]

Over the Rockies or Great Lakes a twin is a safer option.

That is if you are able to manipulate the facts and make 'engine failure in cruise' a significant factor in the safety equation.

 

[brian]]

Interesting thread. I’ll be curious what the op decides. Usually these threads are started by far less experienced pilots.

 

[Bonchie]

Twin vs. Chute, whatever. The chute is going to get you down safely in almost any situation. So is a second engine on a twin if you manage it properly and aren't too heavy. (although only discussing engine failures ignores a lot of other situations where the chute is still viable while a second engine provides no relief)

At this point, we are probably arguing over probabilities of a ridiculously minuscule nature. Yes, you could end up sliding down a shear face with a chute over the mountains if it happened to be total IMC up to the tips and you had no way to judge your location to the peaks via other means. Yes, you could go down in a twin with one engine if you make one of several mistakes, are too heavy, or are above the service ceiling.

The point is, I wouldn't choose one or the other based on safety at this point UNLESS you aren't going to maintain the time to stay proficient in a twin. You can think of a doomsday scenario for either.

For me, I've always flown older planes. If I had the chance to fly a newer, roomier, more comfortable, faster, glass equipped SR-22 with A/C and an autopilot that can do almost anything, I'd do it in a heartbeat over a 1960 era airplane that will likely be pieced together on the panel, lack modern technology, and have a less well designed cabin.

That's just me. If I can afford either and it fits my mission? Give me the SR22.

 

[Ted]

@tspear the difference in insurance for personal use vs. rental is huge. You'd probably be looking at close to $10k on a rental policy for a Twinkie, at a minimum, and significantly less for an SR22 (although still high). The issue comes down to a lot of training being performed which, in a twin, is higher risk. That extra cost has to get amortized out over hours, which are typically fewer in a twin.

For personal use you can get rates a lot lower and more reasonable.

 

[GRG55]

That is if you are able to manipulate the facts and make 'engine failure in cruise' a significant factor in the safety equation.

Engine failure, for any reason, is statistically lower for Cirrus than the fleet average (maybe because the average Cirrus is newer?) or some comparable high performance singles. And the fatality rate after an engine failure in a Cirrus is statistically lower, a lot lower. So I don't think anybody can argue that CAPS isn't both reliable and, with proper training, effective.

A Cirrus just isn't the end all or be all for every pilot and their family in every situation. But if I had to limit myself to a high-performance hard-surface runway single, I'd rather be in an SR22 than any other, no matter what.

 

[weilke]

Engine failure, for any reason, is statistically lower for Cirrus than the fleet average (maybe because the average Cirrus is newer?) or some comparable high performance singles. And the fatality rate after an engine failure in a Cirrus is statistically lower, a lot lower. So I don't think anybody can argue that CAPS isn't both reliable and, with proper training, effective.

A Cirrus just isn't the end all or be all for every pilot and their family in every situation. But if I had to limit myself to a high-performance hard-surface runway single, I'd rather be in an SR22 than any other, no matter what.

We are in agreement.

As long as 'loss of control', 'vfr into imc', 'poor ifr technique' and others continue to dwarf mechanical reasons, claiming the superiority of either twin or CAPS is a hard sell.

 

[tspear]

@tspear the difference in insurance for personal use vs. rental is huge. You'd probably be looking at close to $10k on a rental policy for a Twinkie, at a minimum, and significantly less for an SR22 (although still high). The issue comes down to a lot of training being performed which, in a twin, is higher risk. That extra cost has to get amortized out over hours, which are typically fewer in a twin.

For personal use you can get rates a lot lower and more reasonable.

Ted,

Like I posted above. I actually priced policy for an older Seneca II and Cirrus SR22 G2; both on leaseback to a local flight school.
The price was very close between them, with the same hull value (250K). (theoretical Seneca has new engines, new avionics....). I was crunching the numbers so see if it was worth it.

Tim

 

[tspear]

You're at 16,000 ASL over the rocks in IMC. The remarkably reliable engine in your SR22 decides it's having a bad day. You are going to deadstick it to 1500 AGL into a canyon you can't see? Seriously?

You're at 11,500 ASL, VFR on top. It looks like this below you; cloud tops about 9500 to 10,000 ASL. Your SR22 powerplant runs out of dilithium crystals at the most inconvenient moment. What are you going to do?

Seriously Tim, what do you think the chances are of you and your family surviving either of those? And if you are going to leave your expensive, capable SR22 in the hangar on days like this...well, you might as well save your money and own a Cherokee 140.
View attachment 57790

Sure. This is what TWAS, GPS... You get all those neat gadgets in the newer chute plane. And guess what, they are accurate enough to get you down through the clouds and tell you are 1500ft AGL.
As for survival, chances are very high.
Now, can you define a situation where the chute has higher risk? Sure. Engine failure which somehow takes out the batteries. However, the I would postulate fuel contamination is a higher risk factor and that would take out both engines in a twin.

I follow what you are stating, but I just do not buy it. The difference in risk to me is so small it likely cannot be calculated and is statistically insignificant.

Tim

 

[GRG55]

Sure. This is what TWAS, GPS... You get all those neat gadgets in the newer chute plane. And guess what, they are accurate enough to get you down through the clouds and tell you are 1500ft AGL.
As for survival, chances are very high.
Now, can you define a situation where the chute has higher risk? Sure. Engine failure which somehow takes out the batteries. However, the I would postulate fuel contamination is a higher risk factor and that would take out both engines in a twin.

I follow what you are stating, but I just do not buy it. The difference in risk to me is so small it likely cannot be calculated and is statistically insignificant.

Tim

The assessment of "risk" includes both the probability of an event occurring, and the consequences when it does occur. You and I have different views about the latter. And we each make different actual (or possibly theoretical) personal choices based on those. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[weilke]

Now, can you define a situation where the chute has higher risk? Sure. Engine failure which somehow takes out the batteries. However, the I would postulate fuel contamination is a higher risk factor and that would take out both engines in a twin.

I think 'over-water outside of coast guard range' and 'over cold water' scenarios make the second engine preferable over a parachute.

 

[tspear]

I think 'over-water outside of coast guard range' and 'over cold water' scenarios make the second engine preferable over a parachute.

Yup. Over water would be a concern with the Cirrus, as long as the distance is short. But if you need ferry tanks and are far from land, generally the single engine planes can go farther than the twins and have less risk.

And after the whole discussion, what is kinda funny is among the planes I am looking to purchase/build in a couple of years; I am more likely to go the twin route than the chute route.

Tim

 

[KLRDMD]

From what I’ve read, the normally aspirated Twinks cruise around 170 KTAS (depending on what speed mods it might have) burning around 16 - 17gph. That's pretty similar to the normally aspirated SR22, which might do a bit faster and burn a bit less LOP. The Twink should have a slight edge in useful load and range, but either will suffice for our needs. I know these types of comparisons are difficult at best, but I'd be interested in hearing opinions.

Having personally owned both, Twin Comanche hands down.

 

[hindsight2020]

Having personally owned both, Twin Comanche hands down.

Why?

 

[KLRDMD]

Why?

About the same speed on about the same fuel. Second engine wins for a current multi-pilot over a 'chute. Maintenance was less on my TC than Cirrus. Purchase price will be ¼ as much on the TC as the Cirrus and insurance will be significantly less on the TC versus a Cirrus for a high time multi-pilot. The seats in the Cirrus are horribly uncomfortable (at least mine were). The Cirrus will continue to depreciate, the TC is fully depreciated. Larger fuel capacity in the TC allows more flexibility. Six seats available in the TC (starting in '66) if you need them.

 

[hindsight2020]

About the same speed on about the same fuel. Second engine wins for a current multi-pilot over a 'chute. Maintenance was less on my TC than Cirrus.

On account of what? Genuinely curious. That's not so much a compliment to the twinkie as it would be an indictment on the Cirrus, with one less engine and associated accessories to worry about.

I've owned O-320s. They're cheap, but not significantly more so than other parallel valve Lycos, and a complete wash compared to parallel -360s. Running around on two IO-320s and their accessories stands to set me back considerably more than a single Conti -550K just on simple accessories' probability of failure (Pf) alone, never mind my dispatch rate will be lower on the twin based on the said Pf numbers. And I'm a Lyco owner and cheerleader mind you. What was it about the SR that became a mx hog to the tune of exceeding even a piston twin?

 

[weilke]

I've owned O-320s. They're cheap, but not significantly more so than other parallel valve Lycos, and a complete wash compared to parallel -360s. Running around on two IO-320s and their accessories stands to set me back considerably more than a single Conti -550K just on simple accessories' probability of failure (Pf) alone, never mind my dispatch rate will be lower on the twin based on the said Pf numbers. And I'm a Lyco owner and cheerleader mind you. What was it about the SR that became a mx hog to the tune of exceeding even a piston twin?

Just start with your starters. They are basically car starters that engage 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 regular overhauls and if it breaks, not only does it cost a small fortune to replace it may even trash your engine in the process. Same with the alternator drive. On the Comanche it's a a belt, a pulley and a $350 chrysler alternator.

If your ASI on the PA30 goes TU, you swap in an overhauled unit from any 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.