BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 13:38

Username Protected wrote:

and ?

And? I'm transitioning to the Cirrus. Love the plane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 14:20

Username Protected wrote:

And why are you telling us? Your avatar says you fly a piper and your going to a cirrus, why not tell one of those groups?

Who is "us"?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 14:55

Username Protected wrote:

And why are you telling us? Your avatar says you fly a piper and your going to a cirrus, why not tell one of those groups?

"Us" is also "Me," and I enjoy hearing about different airplanes, which is one of the reasons I come "Here."

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 15:24

Username Protected wrote:

The 20 would be only 25 minutes slower at the max distance and since most trips are <300 for a lot of people the time difference shrinks to 15 minutes or less for less gas and cost but the same size cabin.

25 minutes is a long time

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 15:33

Are you aware that every ten years the chute on a Cirrus has to be repacked, and rocket motors replaced, plus cutters in a shorter intervals. Each time will cost over 10,000 to accomplish that repack job. Little secret no one wants to talk about. Talk about a gorilla in the room. Are you willing to open your wallet for that cost? That is why there are so many Cirrus' out there for sale right now. I got one in my hangar right now, the owner is pissed, as he was not made aware of the incredible costs when he bought it.
A BO would be many times cheaper, and cheaper to maintain, as Cirrus parts all WAYYY expensive.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 16:14

Username Protected wrote:

Are you aware that every ten years the chute on a Cirrus has to be repacked, and rocket motors replaced, plus cutters in a shorter intervals. Each time will cost over 10,000 to accomplish that repack job. Little secret no one wants to talk about. Talk about a gorilla in the room. Are you willing to open your wallet for that cost? That is why there are so many Cirrus' out there for sale right now. I got one in my hangar right now, the owner is pissed, as he was not made aware of the incredible costs when he bought it.
A BO would be many times cheaper, and cheaper to maintain, as Cirrus parts all WAYYY expensive.

Just wait until the Cirrus fleet ages... I've an A&P IA friend with an airworthy straight 35. Another set of 3 friends are in partnership in a C35 (circa 1953) that gets the heck flown out of it thanks to the newest partner finding himself in a cherry E-225 engined Bonanza with a virtually new engine and prop. Between the Garmin glass panels (when will Garmin refuse to repair them?), the Cirrus glass wings and fuselage and the certification life limitations (are there any?), I don't know if a single Cirrus will ever make it to age 70.

In the end, our airframes are there to have an engine and prop assembly bolted on. The SR22 and Bonanza both have about the same engine... if someone else is maintaining the beast and holding the bag, I'd also be happy to fly a Cirrus, great airplanes by most accounts, just different sharp edges to avoid. Bonanzas are state of the art for aluminum aircraft, an art that has been pretty static for the last half century; time will tell if the current state of the art for glass piston singles is as successful.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 16:21

Username Protected wrote:

You might as well ask why anyone would fly an F35 when there are G36's to be had. The F35 flies the mission it is suited to as well as it ever did, that's why, and it's a whole lot cheaper to acquire.

What's the price difference between an SR20 vs. SR22?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 16:28

Username Protected wrote:

Just wait until the Cirrus fleet ages... .

This is the only negative of Cirrus I'll agree with. They are awesome planes otherwise.

If you agree the only reason one sells an airplane is to upgrade then you must also agree with "buy your last airplane first".

Therefore, if I'm buying my last airplane first, it has to be a Turbonormalized A36 unless you can afford to spend millions. The TN36 will do everything the SR22 turbo will do and it will last 100 years or more.

I see no reason to buy a Cirrus knowing it's not going to last as long as I wish to own it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 16:41

Username Protected wrote:

Are you aware that every ten years the chute on a Cirrus has to be repacked, and rocket motors replaced, plus cutters in a shorter intervals. Each time will cost over 10,000 to accomplish that repack job. Little secret no one wants to talk about. Talk about a gorilla in the room. Are you willing to open your wallet for that cost? That is why there are so many Cirrus' out there for sale right now. I got one in my hangar right now, the owner is pissed, as he was not made aware of the incredible costs when he bought it.
A BO would be many times cheaper, and cheaper to maintain, as Cirrus parts all WAYYY expensive.

Rick,

Anybody who doesn't investigate and understanding the cost of owning a given airplane before buying one is stupid and to complain, after the fact, that he wasn't spoon fed information he should have researched himself is a fool.

The repack doesn't cost $10,000. It is more like $14,000. It's no secret. It's a cost of operating the airplane. Private operators of King Airs have to do gear inspections, needed or not, on a time schedule. This type of thing isn't new. Airplanes are expensive and the Cirrus costs aren't "incredible" they just are what they are. As far as a Bo being many times cheaper to maintain, well, that's nonsense. A Bo may be cheaper to maintain but not "many times". But to maintain a Bonanza to the proper degree isn't cheap either. If it seems that way then perhaps the aircraft needs work.

As for parts costs - have you ever bought anything from Beech? I have and their parts are not inexpensive.

Why is it that a guy posts that he really likes flying an airplane and you just feel compelled to piss on his leg? What does your post have to do with his thread except to spread incorrect information about a subject you clearly know nothing about?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 16:43

my bo has been around 48 years & still purrs like a kitten. Think that 20 or 22 will last that long??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 16:54

Username Protected wrote:

Just wait until the Cirrus fleet ages... .

This is the only negative of Cirrus I'll agree with. They are awesome planes otherwise.

If you agree the only reason one sells an airplane is to upgrade then you must also agree with "buy your last airplane first".

Therefore, if I'm buying my last airplane first, it has to be a Turbonormalized A36 unless you can afford to spend millions. The TN36 will do everything the SR22 turbo will do and it will last 100 years or more.

I see no reason to buy a Cirrus knowing it's not going to last as long as I wish to own it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 16:56

Username Protected wrote:

I don't think you can call this a negative as much as an unknown. For some folks, it's one in the same. The current airframe life limit for the 20 and 22 is 12,000 hrs. The 22 was 4,350 hours, but was raised to match the 20 as data came in. I'm not sure what happens when that magic number is hit? Is it like TBO for Part 91? An interesting number that effects resale value but does't ground the airplane? It's also entirely plausible that the limit will be increased over time. Cirrus claims airframe life is 25,000 hours. If field data backs them up over time, it'll be a non issue. So only time will tell, and what will be revealed is just how well, or not, they were made.

I'm not talking about "airframe life limits".

"Use" isn't the problem. Years of sun, rain, heat and cold exposure on the ramp is the problem.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 17:04

Username Protected wrote:

I don't think you can call this a negative as much as an unknown. For some folks, it's one in the same. The current airframe life limit for the 20 and 22 is 12,000 hrs. The 22 was 4,350 hours, but was raised to match the 20 as data came in. I'm not sure what happens when that magic number is hit? Is it like TBO for Part 91? An interesting number that effects resale value but does't ground the airplane? It's also entirely plausible that the limit will be increased over time. Cirrus claims airframe life is 25,000 hours. If field data backs them up over time, it'll be a non issue. So only time will tell, and what will be revealed is just how well, or not, they were made.

I'm not talking about "airframe life limits".

"Use" isn't the problem. Years of sun, rain, heat and cold exposure on the ramp is the problem.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2014, 17:25

Username Protected wrote:

You know that they are not age limited right? Wouldn't they be if age was the driving factor behind safety of flight? Either way, you are assuming a problem that doesn't yet exist and for which there is no data to support in, what, 15 years of airframe life. I'm not arguing they will last 70 or 100 years. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But if you are concerned the airframe will last as long as you want to own it, the only number you have to worry about, right now, is 12,000 hours. Anything else is presumption/assumption/unfounded fear.

Ever seen an old fiberglass ski boat?