So let's see... It's about 25% slower and 20% thirstier (only under some limited circumstances), and 50% cheaper. Sounds like a great deal.

My airplane is primarily a business tool. Economically, the SR22T is a nearly perfect tool for me for the many 150-250 mile trips I fly. Flying first class on trips longer than that combined with the costs of my current plane, not considering my time, is cheaper. Even considering the additional inconvenience and time of flying commercially, as opposed to a private jet, commercial is cheaper because the training time required more than balances the time saved in private jet travel.

But, life is short and I'd like to consider moving up.

The things I think about are:

1. The biggest expense for a low utilization operator are economic depreciation and carrying cost. So, what the airplane costs is a big deal, and what it's depreciation is matters a lot. The Cirrus, for someone who isn't a low number holder is going to cost $2.1-$2.2 million. As you point out a fairly new CJ1, Phenom 100, Mustang and Eclipse can all be had in that price range.
Money is money and I don't have to have a new airplane so the Cirrus is certainly not the cheapest option. Plus, all of the other options, to one degree or another, are available with reasonably low hours for far less than $2.1-$2.2 million. That money is in turn not subject to depreciation and carrying cost.

2. While I mostly fly myself or one or two others flexibility and ability to carry more is a nice thing to have for that kind of money. There are more flexible options. The Cessna and Embraer choices offer more here.

3. My plane is flown some by contract pilots flying employees. Also, I will need to fly for quite a while with a mentor pilot. Pilots with type ratings in Cessnas, particularly the 525 are much more readily available. This reduces cost and increases flexibility compared to the Cirrus, Eclipse and Phenom.

4. Having to travel for service is a PITA. Even having to fly 90 miles, as I have done for two years, to get to a service center is a big hassle. Cessna rises to the top here. Cirrus is at the bottom with only one place to get service initially.

5. The Cirrus will have a potty option that no one will ever use except possibly my wife when she is the only other person on board. The Eclipse has none. The others varying degrees of increased privacy and utility. The potty is a big deal to passengers even if they don't use it.

6. Pilot comfort matters to me since its my money and I'm at least one of the pilots. The CJ's are damned uncomfortable in my experience and I'm hoping the Mustang is better (I will find out next week). The Eclipse is pretty good actually but I haven't flown it yet despite Andy Boniface's efforts. The Cirrus, so far, is the most comfortable.

7. Operating costs are pretty important and are also pretty well known for the Cessna's and Embraer. Eclipse is a much bigger crapshoot in my opinion despite the low numbers a lot of owners have experienced (some haven't been so lucky). I think that, while new under warranty, the Cirrus may be less than some others but not enough to make a difference to me or to balance the bigger capital cost and depreciate expense.

8. When I bought the SR22T it was after a lot of careful thought about the relative safety of a twin or chute. I picked the chute and have been well satisfied with that decision. I think there "may" be an equivalent level of safety in the SF50 from death due to engine failure. But I'd prefer the option of continuing to fly (on the 2nd engine) as to the option of floating to earth. So, I could "live" with a single engine jet but my preference is for two. And, looking at the cost of the engine programs the Cirrus isn't much, if anything, cheaper for one than others are for two.

9. Management time. I don't have time, or desire, to screw around with an airplane that needs to be fixed all the time. New is appealing. But so is Cessna's mobile service. Newer is better as there is less to break due to wear.

10. Avionics familiarity. I have talked to some pretty experienced pilots who have convinced me that, once you have acclimated you can fly anything. But, I don't want to go back to scattered, disorganized, non integrated avionics. The Cirrus has a lot of appeal for that. But the Pro Line seems relatively straightforward, older CJ's can have a G1000 installed like Alex's, P100 has G1000 and I'm impressed with the Eclipse system despite its only child status.

11. Availability. Everything is available now except the Cirrus. A low serial number Cirrus might be available in 2017. And that might work out for me but I have planned for 2016 to be the year I move up if I can.

12. My wife loves the parachute. Especially when thinking about me being the sole pilot. I know what every pilot hear knows about the likelihood of a pilot incapacitation issue. But that doesn't matter to her and a lot of other people.

I could happily buy any of these planes I think. For cheapest, with a roll of the dice and held breath, a $1.2 million Eclipse looks terrific. That's $900k to $1 million less than Cirrus which pays for a lot of things that break. For $1.5 to $1.7 you can have a nice CJ or CJ1 with great avionics, P&I, engine program and world class service. For $2 or so, P100's have the best cabin, and maybe a bit more speed with great owner service, good depreciation performance and great ramp presence. The Cirrus is the only one with a chute.

We haven't talked about the Premier! I love that plane!

I haven't decided. Its fun to look. I'm not in a hurry. I know the day I pull the trigger I have to face SimCom or FlightSafety and that prospect isn't fun to think about. But I do. These are the things I think about and Cirrus doesn't really make it to the top of the heap. It will for a lot of people, and something could change my analysis, but that's why I am where I am today.

Tony,

My plane is primarily a business tool, too, but no airline can match it for time, money, or convenience.

In many cases, I can do a day trip for a business meeting, with 3-4 employees, where doing it by airline would take 3 days. Just in that one instance I have saved ALL of my yearly training in man days among my staff.

Recent example is a day trip to DC:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N305 ... /KEVV/KHEF
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N305 ... /KHEF/KEVV

Departed 7:30 am CST, was back home 9:00 pm CST, and spent 9+ hours on the ground.

Just try and do that on the airlines as a day trip.

Or, as I will soon do, EVV to OKC. The earliest airline flight comes in at noon and takes 6 hours. In my plane, I can be there at 7:30 am if I takeoff at the same time, and that doesn't count an hour for security, so I can sleep later! When I get to OKC, rental car is on the ramp, load and go. That's way faster than commercial. Sometimes the GA airport is substantially closer to my final destination as well (though this is not true in DC or OKC, alas).

There's no way the airlines are cheaper or faster when looking at my total missions per year when you include the secondary costs and time associated with working around the airline schedule and limitations. If I lived right next to KATL, KDFW, KORD, etc, that might be different, but I don't, and the cost to live in those areas more than pays for an airplane here.

In addition, I can take things we me that I could never have on an airline flight (and that was the case with the DC trip and will be true for OKC as well).

The airlines are late 20% of the time and cancel or divert 2% of their flights (which means a hub round trip has an 8% chance of suffering a cancellation). My record is way better having canceled only 1 flight for any reason (including weather) in the past 8 years.

Mike C.

Mike,

I get it. For me most of my trips are under 500 miles and with one or two aboard so the Cirrus is a terrific plane for the mission. BUT the majority of miles are trips over 500 although there are relatively few per year. There isn't any way I can say that owning a jet is cheaper based on my usage and destinations. The time spent in managing the plane, training, preflighting and flying is far greater than the time I would save by flying myself. But all the other things you say are true for me as well. Luckily, I'm not trying to justify anything...

Even at 500 miles, something faster helps a lot.

My return from DC (474 nm direct) was into 100 knot headwinds at 16,000 to FL200. An SR, even down at 8,000 ft (the lowest you can go IFR) would be facing 50-60 knot headwinds and probably turbulence over the mountains. Net ground speed would be around 120 knots, if you don't have to slow down for bumps.

It was nice to get 200 knot ground speeds even so and make the trip in 2.5 hours in mostly smooth air. In an SR, probably a 4 hour bumpy ordeal.

You buy a fast airplane not for the tailwind days, but for the headwind days.

At the end of the day, you are gong to spend a finite amount of time alive and an even less amount of time capable of being a pilot. You can either maximize your inheritance by flying an SR, or maximize your fun by flying a jet/fast turboprop. Which is more important to you?

Mike C.

Even at 500 miles, something faster helps a lot.

My return from DC (474 nm direct) was into 100 knot headwinds at 16,000 to FL200. An SR, even down at 8,000 ft (the lowest you can go IFR) would be facing 50-60 knot headwinds and probably turbulence over the mountains. Net ground speed would be around 120 knots, if you don't have to slow down for bumps.

It was nice to get 200 knot ground speeds even so and make the trip in 2.5 hours in mostly smooth air. In an SR, probably a 4 hour bumpy ordeal.

You buy a fast airplane not for the tailwind days, but for the headwind days.

At the end of the day, you are gong to spend a finite amount of time alive and an even less amount of time capable of being a pilot. You can either maximize your inheritance by flying an SR, or maximize your fun by flying a jet/fast turboprop. Which is more important to you?

Mike C.

Tony,
Sounds like a job for a TBM or PC12.





My airplane is primarily a business tool. Economically, the SR22T is a nearly perfect tool for me for the many 150-250 mile trips I fly. Flying first class on trips longer than that combined with the costs of my current plane, not considering my time, is cheaper. Even considering the additional inconvenience and time of flying commercially, as opposed to a private jet, commercial is cheaper because the training time required more than balances the time saved in private jet travel.

But, life is short and I'd like to consider moving up.

The things I think about are:

1. The biggest expense for a low utilization operator are economic depreciation and carrying cost. So, what the airplane costs is a big deal, and what it's depreciation is matters a lot. The Cirrus, for someone who isn't a low number holder is going to cost $2.1-$2.2 million. As you point out a fairly new CJ1, Phenom 100, Mustang and Eclipse can all be had in that price range.
Money is money and I don't have to have a new airplane so the Cirrus is certainly not the cheapest option. Plus, all of the other options, to one degree or another, are available with reasonably low hours for far less than $2.1-$2.2 million. That money is in turn not subject to depreciation and carrying cost.

2. While I mostly fly myself or one or two others flexibility and ability to carry more is a nice thing to have for that kind of money. There are more flexible options. The Cessna and Embraer choices offer more here.

3. My plane is flown some by contract pilots flying employees. Also, I will need to fly for quite a while with a mentor pilot. Pilots with type ratings in Cessnas, particularly the 525 are much more readily available. This reduces cost and increases flexibility compared to the Cirrus, Eclipse and Phenom.

4. Having to travel for service is a PITA. Even having to fly 90 miles, as I have done for two years, to get to a service center is a big hassle. Cessna rises to the top here. Cirrus is at the bottom with only one place to get service initially.

5. The Cirrus will have a potty option that no one will ever use except possibly my wife when she is the only other person on board. The Eclipse has none. The others varying degrees of increased privacy and utility. The potty is a big deal to passengers even if they don't use it.

6. Pilot comfort matters to me since its my money and I'm at least one of the pilots. The CJ's are damned uncomfortable in my experience and I'm hoping the Mustang is better (I will find out next week). The Eclipse is pretty good actually but I haven't flown it yet despite Andy Boniface's efforts. The Cirrus, so far, is the most comfortable.

7. Operating costs are pretty important and are also pretty well known for the Cessna's and Embraer. Eclipse is a much bigger crapshoot in my opinion despite the low numbers a lot of owners have experienced (some haven't been so lucky). I think that, while new under warranty, the Cirrus may be less than some others but not enough to make a difference to me or to balance the bigger capital cost and depreciate expense.

8. When I bought the SR22T it was after a lot of careful thought about the relative safety of a twin or chute. I picked the chute and have been well satisfied with that decision. I think there "may" be an equivalent level of safety in the SF50 from death due to engine failure. But I'd prefer the option of continuing to fly (on the 2nd engine) as to the option of floating to earth. So, I could "live" with a single engine jet but my preference is for two. And, looking at the cost of the engine programs the Cirrus isn't much, if anything, cheaper for one than others are for two.

9. Management time. I don't have time, or desire, to screw around with an airplane that needs to be fixed all the time. New is appealing. But so is Cessna's mobile service. Newer is better as there is less to break due to wear.

10. Avionics familiarity. I have talked to some pretty experienced pilots who have convinced me that, once you have acclimated you can fly anything. But, I don't want to go back to scattered, disorganized, non integrated avionics. The Cirrus has a lot of appeal for that. But the Pro Line seems relatively straightforward, older CJ's can have a G1000 installed like Alex's, P100 has G1000 and I'm impressed with the Eclipse system despite its only child status.

11. Availability. Everything is available now except the Cirrus. A low serial number Cirrus might be available in 2017. And that might work out for me but I have planned for 2016 to be the year I move up if I can.

12. My wife loves the parachute. Especially when thinking about me being the sole pilot. I know what every pilot hear knows about the likelihood of a pilot incapacitation issue. But that doesn't matter to her and a lot of other people.

I could happily buy any of these planes I think. For cheapest, with a roll of the dice and held breath, a $1.2 million Eclipse looks terrific. That's $900k to $1 million less than Cirrus which pays for a lot of things that break. For $1.5 to $1.7 you can have a nice CJ or CJ1 with great avionics, P&I, engine program and world class service. For $2 or so, P100's have the best cabin, and maybe a bit more speed with great owner service, good depreciation performance and great ramp presence. The Cirrus is the only one with a chute.

We haven't talked about the Premier! I love that plane!

I haven't decided. Its fun to look. I'm not in a hurry. I know the day I pull the trigger I have to face SimCom or FlightSafety and that prospect isn't fun to think about. But I do. These are the things I think about and Cirrus doesn't really make it to the top of the heap. It will for a lot of people, and something could change my analysis, but that's why I am where I am today.

Well it could be no doubt about that.

Dave,

Tony covered most of it. Here is what I think I stated:
1. Cirrus trains to ATP standards. Not that this is an ATP sign off or the same as a jet type rating or a difficult as a SimCOM. I was answering Mike C. comment that Cirrus pilots and the future pilots of the SF50 have no clue about flying to the tighter standards.
2. Cirrus CSIP trainers will send you off to get/pass your legal exams without singing you off the factory course if you fail to meet the ATP standards. (As Tony covered).
3. I did the course all locally with a CSIP, and it largely matches what Tony and Nate covered.
4. I am the one that said the SF50 will be easier for transition then a Citation or many other jets. The reason is the speed delta. The SF50 is slower in the most task saturated environments, climb, descent, terminal area (I recall a Vso of 67 so pattern/approach speed will be 90 KIAS).

Tim

Mike C.

In this article they cover the details on how the prop control works better then me trying to explain it.

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircrafts/pist ... true-turbo

But anyway, the prop provides minimal drag on a Cirrus, I have used the props on an Aerostar, a Cessna 172/182 and a Mooney to slow the plane down dramatically. On the Cirrus, it just did not have nearly the effect. In all the other planes, we manually adjust the prop level to increase the drag, in the Cirrus you do not have the option....

Tim

Eclipse approach Vref is often under 90 knots. Eclipse Vso is 68 knots.

Citations are often under 100 knots. For example S550 at 12,000 lbs is 96 KIAS Vref. S550 at 12,000 lbs stall speed in landing configuration is 75 KIAS.

Limiting the altitude to FL280 or being a single did nothing to change the terminal area speeds versus making it a twin. If Cirrus had made a twin, it would be more like an Eclipse in speeds and handling than a Lear.

Mike C.

Great thoughts. I love the Premier as well. You might want to talk to Greg Mink. While somewhat range limited, it is really a phenomenal plane at a good price and the range issues aren't as much of an issue if you live in the middle of the country.

Prop drag is real and unavoidable. You are taking energy out of the airspeed to backdrive the engine. Even at zero negative torque, as if the prop was on disconnecting from the engine spinning freely, the prop takes energy producing drag against the airframe.

The fact other aircraft showed it more dramatically doesn't mean it isn't present on the SR. If you could somehow feather it, you will be surprised at the drag reduction. The SR glide ratio would improve about 20%, maybe more.

The point is, idle of an SR22 has drag from the prop, flight idle of the SF50 has residual jet thrust. When an SR22 pilot first gets into the jet, they will be amazed at how it doesn't slow down compared to what they are used to.

Mike C.

Demo the Phenom 300.

On my TN, and on the T, the props are incredibly fat, and they will slow down the plane very effectively. Much more than the 182's and my Bo did. Not as effectively as the gear on the Bo, by any means, but noticeable.

It is one reason the SR has great coefficient drag, but sucks at glide ratio.