A 2007/2008 NA SR22 G3 with Avidyne generally have ~1050 useful load with TKS and AC, or ~1080 with only one of those. A turbo model weighs more, so less useful load. Either NA or turbo will will run well north of $250k though, so.....
What plane should I buy?
- Thread starter golfmogul
- Start date
A 2007/2008 NA SR22 G3 with Avidyne generally have ~1050 useful load with TKS and AC, or ~1080 with only one of those. A turbo model weighs more, so less useful load. Either NA or turbo will will run well north of $250k though, so.....
Maybe you're right - I strongly prefer no retract, and really would like AC but those weren't dealbreakers. I'd compromise on the retract before the AC b/c of too many days this summer flying in heat. (someone recommended the Columbia 400 which I'm falling in love with & it seems to have everything in my list AND has turbo like the SR22T ... but its such a fast flyer that all my IFR training in it (at least early IFR training) would come at me super fast.
All that said, the ppl here who've said that MANY fathers, when just beginning as a pilot,think they'll fly often with their kids & then don't ... these comments have really made me think. I'd love to picture us going somewhere as a family 6-10 times/yr, but maybe 2-4 is more likely - and if so, maybe I should get trained up in a 4 seater that I can rent, but shift my purchase research towards a 2 seater that will fill the mission(s) I'll be flying most often: me solo XC, me and my older son solo XC, me flying locally for fun & for training, me flying with my CFI as I learn IFR, me flying with a friend or SO. I'm now seriously considering buying a plane that fits these primary missions, and just accepting the fact that the number of times I'll likely fly my kids XC w/me will be small enough annually to make more sense renting for those occasions. ?? IDK.
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
Probably the smartest choice you could make. Tons of people buy way more airplane than they need because they assume everyone else in the family will love to fly as much as they do and that assumption is usually wrong.
Also I have to say I don't understand the obsession with A/C. I would not dream of owning a car or a house without A/C. At the same time, I would not bat an eye at owning a plane without it. Its just never been something I've found myself wishing the airplane had. And I've got whole pages of entries in my logbook flying 8 hour days in summer and never once going above 800ft AGL. No arguing your desire for it, just saying its something I don't relate to.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
A/C has become a bit of a deal breaker for me too.. the club here has one Archer with A/C that I prefer to rent when my preferred plane(s) are unavailable. It may depend on location, but around here even up around 8K the OAT is often 20+.. with a beautiful sunny clear blue sky above you and an engine right in front with 350* CHTs and minimal cabin insulation I'm willing to bet the ambient temp in the plane, even at cruise altitude, is up around 25-30*C. I used to have a thermometer on my flight bag (don't anymore) but I recall flying in the summer in Boston and the cabin was always up near 30*C
It wears on you.. you get used to it, but the sweat, added fatigue, dehydration.. it's not pleasant. We've accepted noise cancelling headsets, RNAV approaches, minimum of 430 nav equipment, Foreflight, Stratus/Stratux.. the A/C is a huge benefit. There are many airports around here that are a fun one day destinations where from May through September the temp routinely hits well over 30*
For $150K-$250K budget that opens up a lot of doors to some good rental options in the interim (hell, there's a DA62 for rent in the LA area for around $600/hr!). Or if you really a want two seat plane then buy a Piper Tomahawk, you can probably find one *super freaking cheap*.. no AC but fixed gear low wing two doors and 2 seats and loads of fun. Get checked out in a local Cirrus club and if you fly your family somewhere then you've got that option too, replete with AC and all the bells and whistles. Best of both worlds?
It wears on you.. you get used to it, but the sweat, added fatigue, dehydration.. it's not pleasant. We've accepted noise cancelling headsets, RNAV approaches, minimum of 430 nav equipment, Foreflight, Stratus/Stratux.. the A/C is a huge benefit. There are many airports around here that are a fun one day destinations where from May through September the temp routinely hits well over 30*
why buy at all in that case? Rent and get your IFR on something like an Archer or C172.. you've already got your sights set on the RV10 and this will let you focus on training without the hassle of airplane ownership, especially if you plan to sell
For $150K-$250K budget that opens up a lot of doors to some good rental options in the interim (hell, there's a DA62 for rent in the LA area for around $600/hr!). Or if you really a want two seat plane then buy a Piper Tomahawk, you can probably find one *super freaking cheap*.. no AC but fixed gear low wing two doors and 2 seats and loads of fun. Get checked out in a local Cirrus club and if you fly your family somewhere then you've got that option too, replete with AC and all the bells and whistles. Best of both worlds?
Do you have good rental options near you? Do you plan those trips out far enough that you can get the plane? Booking a rental for the weekend or week is easier if you are good at planning ahead.
While we've done lots of trips when the kids were in school, youngest just graduated from college, it wasn't 6-10 times/year. Between vacation time and kids' activities that just wasn't possible on a regular basis. I flew more often by doing Angel Flight missions as well.
We did do trips that would have been hard to impossible to do any other way. The youngest loves the beach and we sometimes would go to the beach for the day. The oldest never loved flying, even commercial, and has never flown with me. The younger two love it. They love that we can go when we are ready, no lines to wait in, and we can get somewhere a lot faster than driving. When they were in college, their college football teams played each other, so we'd pick up the "away" kid and fly to the "home" kid. We'd get to see the game and spend the weekend together. It was a lot of fun. We would call/text as we departed and they could follow the plane on FlightAware, which let them get to the airport 5 minutes before we landed.
I agree with some others, find a good place to rental a good traveling plane. Then get busy on building the RV-10.
ktup-flyer
En-Route
182
ktup-flyer
En-Route
The Columbia/Corvalis/TTx is a better airplane than the Cirrus, almost to a fault. They're overbuilt, so the useful load isn't where it should be.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I agree with you. It's a real shame that this cutting edge plane, is no more. That wing and the G2000 avionics in the TTx are something else. The only thing I would change is ditch the vernier throttles - otherwise it's basically the perfect personal traveling machine. At least we have the Lancair Mako but it's not in the same league. Just one more reason I abhor Textron. But hey, they added buttercream as a seat color option for the new King Air!
Press F to pay respect:
ktup-flyer
En-Route
They shouldn't have certified it in the utility category. Cessna had lots of orders, but they had supplier issues when they moved production to Mexico. That ended up killing it.
Mooney would say pretty much the same thing.
Mooney and Columbia tried to sell to purists. Unfortunately for Mooney too many of their current owners are CSOB flyers and would never-ever spend $800k+ to upgrade to a new plane. They fly a Mooney because it was inexpensive to buy and inexpensive to operate and that $800k plane doesn't do much more than their $100k M20J. Cirrus sold to people for lifestyle. I don't know what happened at Cessna. Seems like someone wanted to it, but then couldn't get the support to actually market and sell it after they owned it. The production issues hurt, but that could have been overcome.
Apparently the market preferred a chute. Plus bigger cabin and slightly more useful load.
The Cirrus marketing reached out to people that have money and want to travel. Many of these people did not grow up in a "aviation family". They may travel for the company(ies) they own, or to their lake/beach/mountain/ski home. They bought for the lifestyle, not the aviation specs.
Marketing matters; I'm in IT, not marketing. I can't tell you how many posts and articles I've read from people at aviation events that all sound the same. Mooney and Cessna had a people there, and a plane, but were snobby and only wanted to talk to people that knew they were the best and had money. They were selling planes, and not just planes, but the "best" planes. They didn't reach out to people, just expected them to come by. Cirrus sends out lots of marketing literature and invites everyone in. Can't buy a plane right now? No problem, come in and see what we have and maybe later, possibly years later, you'll want one. They have a big party and focus not on the detailed specs, but what a Cirrus plane can do for you. Cirrus was selling people lifestyle, the ability to get to other company locations quickly in a day so one could be back with the family that night. They were selling a way to travel and enjoy life.
Cessna should have done that. They already had jets for people to move-up into. Maybe not as easy a move-up as to the SF50, but they had bigger/faster planes. Cirrus had plans for one, and now it's selling, but they didn't have it back in 2014. Cirrus owners don't just trade in for a newer model, many move up to turboprops or jets. Cessna could have done that and kept them in the Cessna family. While an $800k plane is not cheap, a lot more people can buy them than $5-20 million jets. More smaller companies/business owners can afford them too. Later when some of those companies grow, or find that a plane really does help them they can move-up to that more expensive jet, or turboprop.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
...and Mooney would be wrong. I'm not disagreeing with your post, you hit the nail on the head with marketing, the lifestyle they're selling, and the overall approach, etc. Well said, and with less rage than my posts usually have
This was evident at their tents in Oshkosh.. the Cirrus salespeople happily sat in the cockpits of the VisionJet and the SR22/20 series plane with people and their kids who obviously would never be in a position to buy any airplane, nevermind something over $800K.. a lot of locals attend EAA airventure just because it's a cool thing to do.
But it's not all about marketing, the product has to stand for itself, and the fact that one maker sold them by the hundreds on an annual basis while the other couldn't even squeeze out 10 is a sign of this. If the product was all just marketing smoke and mirror you'd see them being dumped shortly after being sold new, a flooded used market with low prices, and no new aircraft sales.
Why Mooney would be wrong:
Objectively, at least the last iteration of the Mooney, was in just about every way inferior to the Cirrus. Cabin comfort, useful load, avionics integration, overall interior aesthetic feel, bells and whistles (you cannot get FIKI, turbo, and A/C all on the same plane).. all fell short of what Cirrus offered. And while the glide range may be better on the Mooney and it has a "roll cage" that argument falls apart when you're telling a nervous wife who is not a pilot and their two young children that your airplane offers a parachute. No glide range or roll bar will top the sheer simplicity of "but Susan, if your husband dies and both wings break off you can always pulls the chute" - and for what it's worth, very few people take their unpressurized SE pistons above the mid teens.. at 16K the Mooney and Cirrus perform very close to each other in cruise speed. Plus, the whole "wow, this feels like my car" thing helps too.
The Mooney *is* a good plane - for the used market value of something like a J it's basically the "maximum plane" you can get for your money. But, like most general aviation, Mooney stopped innovating at some point many decades ago. People stopped buying Bo, Mooney, 210 (or whatever they're calling it now) because the products simply stopped the innovation cycle and it's not worth most people to spend $800K+ on something that is effectively a 60 year old plane with new seats and avionics. They can pick up on the used market the same for a fraction of the cost, and which typically has better performance. If you really want new avionics you can add those yourself for far less than it would have cost to buy a brand new plane
EugeneR
Pre-takeoff checklist
Exactly. I was even able to schedule a demo flight in a brand new SR22T a few years back even though I told upfront that I’m not in position to buy a new one yet. I was considering upgrading to a G2/early G3 Cirrus at that time though. No problem, I was still welcome and enjoyed our hour-long demo flight. Got to do maneuvers and a practice approach.
I was really impressed. I also got to sit in the new Mooney and it felt so cheap and cramped in comparison. TTx was OK, but I like Cirrus cabin more. None of those were willing to do a demo flight Cessna rep was friendly, Mooney people were a bit grumpy.
NordicDave
En-Route
Cirrus is a true sales machine in the best sense of the term.
With all respect to Mooney fans, Mooney is a bit of a lost cause due to confidence for longer term viability. The rinse and repeat of bankruptcy and ownership is challenging. They needed to stabilize and innovate, like adding that second door was needed years ago.
Anyone attend an aviation event other then Sun N Fun or OSH, and got any attention from a Cessna rep? Too frequently Textron brings a Bonanza or C206 or C182 and there are no sales people anywhere.
Spot on. They did an excellent job recreating the BMW experience in their interiors. Excellent comfort and ergonomics. Brilliant passenger experience. I personally found their seats more comfortable than commercial. They understand how to speak to their prospective customer base in terms of product and engagement.
Last edited:
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Yup, there's just (a) sad looking plane(s) there with no one around it, no sales info, no sales guy.. just a plane sitting there - I guess they assume it will sell itself, but I took it more as a sign that the Textron people absolutely couldn't care less
Having long since grown out of superficial crap, both in terms of my purchases and even more so the people I will spend money on, there is literally nothing that would repel me from a purchase more than what you describe.
Bobanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Always thought this an odd thing to say
"Thanks for helping set up the party Susan!"
"It was the least I could do"
It's meant to be polite, but it somehow objectively reads as rude
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 6,166
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
It isn't always the best mousetrap that people buy if all you judge it by is that it catches mice. It is also whatever convenience that can be built into it as well and whatever else the customer wants.
What do people want in an airplane? Dig deep and it's more than wings and an engine. People value convenience, experience, customer service, bragging, showing off a bit - and will pay more and be more loyal to get it. Cessna thinks it sells airplanes. Cirrus knows it sells the entire package - a good performing plane plus great service and you have a great package.
Somewhat like what Honda did years ago with "You meet the nicest people on a Honda". A great little motorcycle, great service, great reliability, and good positioning.
What do people want in an airplane? Dig deep and it's more than wings and an engine. People value convenience, experience, customer service, bragging, showing off a bit - and will pay more and be more loyal to get it. Cessna thinks it sells airplanes. Cirrus knows it sells the entire package - a good performing plane plus great service and you have a great package.
Somewhat like what Honda did years ago with "You meet the nicest people on a Honda". A great little motorcycle, great service, great reliability, and good positioning.
NordicDave
En-Route
That was an excellent campaign. Even if a person was not in the market, they created a space for general acceptance with non-motorcycle owners expanding the addressible market.
Textron literally comes off like: "If you really want one of our piston planes, pay our crazy prices and wait 9 months or a year; and we could get of of bed and make one for you if you pursue us". What would Cylde Cessna think? Rhetorical question.
Bobanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
Bless your heart.
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,636
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
Better, except that it has no parachute, doesn't have a large community behind it, aren't built any more, and that lower useful load thing. I did get to sit in one, it's a very nice machine. But not a 3/4 million machine.
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,038
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
Terrible advice. There are already too few Tigers available for me to buy. No one should by a Tiger. Ever.
Bobanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
Bless your heart
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
An Acclaim is quite a bit faster than an SR22T, and an Ovation will murder an SR22, and both will burn less gas at each step.
The TTx felt cheap to you? I’m looking at these and SR22Ts at the moment and the new cirrus is spendy Plus it almost seems too much of an auto flier and disconnected from the experience which is why I hate BMW for comparison. To be fair I haven’t flown one yet just what I read
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
I'm not a big fan of Cirrus, but I actually really enjoy the way they hand fly.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
The book puts the Acclaim Ultra at 202 ktas at 16K burning 16.5 gph, real world figures in my experience put the turbo Cirrus at 194 ktas at 17K and 16.5 gph. The Mooney is faster but only marginally and you'll spend that time sitting like this, curled up sitting sideways so your shoulders are staggered so they don't rub each other with one of your arms squeezed into the window.. mind you Paul is not a big guy. Granted.. if I had to sit in a cabin this uncomfortable I'd want to get there faster than anything else too!
Point is, there's more that goes into a plane beyond pure speed vs gph figures.
Attachments
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
The book puts the Acclaim Ultra at 202 ktas at 16K burning 16.5 gph, real world figures in my experience put the turbo Cirrus at 194 ktas at 17K and 16.5 gph. The Mooney is faster but only marginally and you'll spend that time sitting like this, curled up sitting sideways so your shoulders are staggered so they don't rub each other with one of your arms squeezed into the window.. mind you Paul is not a big guy. Granted.. if I had to sit in a cabin this uncomfortable I'd want to get there faster than anything else too!
View attachment 88599
You admit that, for whatever reason (maybe the way it was rebuilt before it was resold), the Cirrus you flew was markedly faster than POH numbers and the experience of others.
Also, the Acclaim achieves appreciable performance advantages throughout its fuel burn band. There's no question that it is the better airplane from a performance perspective - the Cirrus just has better cup holders and a chute that the Mooney cage mitigates as well
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
It would be worth a ride in one to see for yourself. I wouldn't say disconnected, it's tight, somewhat heavy, and goes exactly where you point it. Trimming takes some time getting used to though
where else am I supposed to put the complimentary Fiji and Voss waters? Just don't forget to use them gingerly else the cup holders fall apart
PA32s have cup holders too. Just sayin'.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
PA32s are lovely airplanes. They are also SLOW.
NordicDave
En-Route
To be fair the BMW comparison made earlier was in regards to seat comfort for passenger experience.
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,692
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
The book puts the Acclaim Ultra at 202 ktas at 16K burning 16.5 gph, real world figures in my experience put the turbo Cirrus at 194 ktas at 17K and 16.5 gph. The Mooney is faster but only marginally and you'll spend that time sitting like this, curled up sitting sideways so your shoulders are staggered so they don't rub each other with one of your arms squeezed into the window.. mind you Paul is not a big guy. Granted.. if I had to sit in a cabin this uncomfortable I'd want to get there faster than anything else too!
View attachment 88599
That’s probably because Paul has the intrusive camera mounted on the side window that he is trying to make room for...2020 problems. The trick every Mooney owner knows is to stagger the seat position so no twisting necessary. Certainly there is plenty of legroom in the mid and long bodies.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Al Mooney was a tall guy. And I still contend that the J models are the best value you can get in any airplane. But perception is reality, and for whatever reason (maybe for none other than sitting low on the ramp) they just strike people as small. Shoulder space is a pet peeve of mine
I'm still ****ed they bailed on their entry level model, with competent sales and management this would have (should have) sold like hot cakes:
THIS, is a SUPERBLY attractive plane. It keeps the Mooney lines and design aesthetic while also bringing into the 21st century
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,692
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
Except for the ugly legs. Yuk! ;-)
But seriously, the chute requires the fixed gear. Despite the image of a feather landing on a pillow it’s actually anything but. The gear is required to absorb some of the impact.
Define slow.
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,038
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
Never gets old. Oh... wait... yes it does.. and has.... and is uncalled for. Why?
Update: I'm getting serious about the DA40 - can't get excited about the Mooneys despite their speed, efficiency, longevity & holding their value, etc - just too old (the ones within my price range) and avionics old ... and before going to a retract I'd like more experience in a plane that's similar to the one I've been learning in (PA 28 - 140). The DA40 has an amazing safety record & is less complex & I can afford a newer one with a G1000 etc -- and its beautiful & confidence inspiring imo for ppl who will fly with me instead of me trying to explain to them that a 1973 Mooney is airworthy & safe despite its age.