Upgrading from a Dakota
- Thread starter DesertNomad
- Start date
Unit74
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,992
- Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
I’m not a Cirri fanboi by any means. But I’m also not going to blow Bulshizen upskirt for the sake of making myself feel better about the rig I fly.
The SR22 will do what he wants and do it well. He will be paying for more aircraft than he really needs in a 6 place and your “LoL” just makes you look ignorant at best or full of sheets, which is more than likely the case. If it’s so LoL, please tell us why.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
There are lots of reasons. 1) SR22s tend to be overpriced relative to what they do, and come with added costs (chute repacks, etc.). 2) Someone used to the flying dynamics of a Dakota is going to be more comfortable switching to a Saratoga or Bonanza - if he was coming from a Grumman or Mooney, I'd say the SR22 would be a much easier transition. 3) In that price range, the OP may be looking at a functional downgrade in avionics with a 22. Something like an Entegra with dual 430 non-WAAS. Maybe I'm wrong on the last one and he can get an early G1000 plane? 4) With the DAs he's talking about, a turbo would be nice, and SR22Ts are $$$$, while a Mooney 252 or BE35/36 Turbo can be had for reasonable prices.
Stephen Shore
Pre-takeoff checklist
$250K price range:
2000-2003 Commander 115
G3 Cirrus with a re-pack
Mid 1990's Cessna 206
All three of the above will get you more speed and are big planes for a couple. All three have a pilot's side door. I would not consider any airplane that I have to crawl over a seat to get into my seat or touch shoulders with someone when I fly (even my wife).
$200K for a Bonanza will get you a 25+ year old plane without the panel that you have and will be cramped.
I have never flown or even ridden in a Cirrus, but the G3s are alot of airplane for the money compared to a Bonanza.
2000-2003 Commander 115
G3 Cirrus with a re-pack
Mid 1990's Cessna 206
All three of the above will get you more speed and are big planes for a couple. All three have a pilot's side door. I would not consider any airplane that I have to crawl over a seat to get into my seat or touch shoulders with someone when I fly (even my wife).
$200K for a Bonanza will get you a 25+ year old plane without the panel that you have and will be cramped.
I have never flown or even ridden in a Cirrus, but the G3s are alot of airplane for the money compared to a Bonanza.
$400k will quite a bit in a SR22, even in the current sellers market. It will get one into a G3 with Perspective avionics and GFC700 AP. EMax in the SR22 is very nice and the GFC700 will be a big step up from a STEC 30.
The G3 model had some improvements that helped bring the useful load back up. I doubt any of the SR22s have the useful load of a Dakota; maybe some of the G5’s come close, but that’s out of his price range.
Even AC is possible in that price range. Unfortunately TKS and AC eat into the useful load.
Plenty of Bonanzas will have what’s desired, but their avionics are a mixed bag. Some are absolutely fantastic, other leave one shaking their head. Same for the Mooneys. Being patient, yet ready to pounce and one can get a real gem.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Lots of ways to skin this cat, but probably none that are perfect.
$100 burger runs are doable by just about anything. Hell, there's someone near me that's been known to do a 40-nm $100 burger run in his Citation.
But, for flying long trips, especially based up higher and wanting to get around the big rocks, and having your wife on board, pressurization and speed would be nice. P-Baron or Cessna 340, or possibly a P210. However, if you tend toward shorter legs and/or $100 burgers and the longer trips are more occasional, you'll be spending a lot of money on operating costs the rest of the year for your few trips.
Take a look at performance charts for your desired planes. 2300 feet at 0 MSL and 4000 at 4000 can be a bit marginal for all of the above in hotter weather, though I believe the Bonanza will outdo the Cirrus and Mooney in that department I think it's likely doable if it's just you and your wife, and not too much fuel...
And this is why I've recently grown to love my Ovation even more. I've been flying TBMs, which are hot rods for what they are (single-engine turboprops), but we pretty much go as high as possible on every leg and you don't have that great of a view from up there. I really like my normally-aspirated Mooney for those times that I'd rather be down low, and even on long trips because I can stay low if I want to, or go higher if needed.
Personally, I don't like wearing O2 too much (dries out my nose something fierce) so I tend to stay at 12,500 or below most of the time, but I do have factory oxygen for those times I go higher and I've had it up to FL190. The plane performs best at about 9-10,000 feet anyway, so I generally only go higher than that for terrain, over-water, or weather reasons.
But, the Ovation is a great way to get maximum bang for your buck while still retaining good cross-country speed. At 9000 feet I get 175 KTAS on 12 gph. At 13,000 I've gotten 172 KTAS on 10.1 gph. She'll average 1000 fpm up to 10,000, and will climb at 500 fpm through 15,000. And the main thing is, because it's a normally aspirated piston powered plane, you won't feel bad for spending too much money on a $100 burger run. My cost per mile is at or below that of a C172.
The Bo is worth looking at for the shorter runways and more upright seating position, but it'll burn more gas at the same speed and has less shoulder and head room than the Mooney. However, it's also what got me thinking that the P-Baron might be good given the amount of travel you're talking about. Only you can decide whether the increased operating costs are worthwhile given the mix of short vs long legs that you fly and whether or not you're willing to go for a $400/hr burger run, and whether you want to be able to see the scenery on your longer flights.
Hope this helps!