About the same amount retract owners spend on gear-box overhauls and sundry bushings, torque links and rod end replacements .

No doubt. But that was my original point. The ones flew had "accelerated aging" on them and they were not holding up well. I'd call the guy running the program after every flight to complain about the condition of the aircraft.

Would a Beech be in bad shape too? I'm sure but not nearly as bad. I've seen several 20,000 hour Bo's for sale on Controller that were used by flight schools and they're still going.

There's no way a composite airplane is going to hold up like a Beech. That's my ONLY complaint about the Cirrus.

Totally agree. Before every flight in the SR22, I'd tap every wheel pant with my foot to ensure it was on the correctly. They'd fall off and the guy who flew the plane before would set them back in place to avoid being charged for them. A little tap with the foot and the pant would fall of the airplane. Then I'd have to make a call to the office so they could send a mechanic over etc.

Except that a 1984 model is 20 years older and likely has a multiple of the hours on the airframe. Nah, not the same for valuation purposes.

Compare apples:apples. SR22 and 182T, SR 20 and DA40, SR 22 and Columbia 300/350. All of them have depreciated in that timeframe, the times of aircraft appreciating are over and won't come back.

Not likely. I'd wager you're off by a factor of 2 or more on that estimate.

Except that a 1984 model is 20 years older and likely has a multiple of the hours on the airframe. Nah, not the same for valuation purposes.

But are the composite airliners made with the same type of "composite stuff"?

I liken the Cirrus composite to that of a 1980's fiberglass speed boat. That's really all it is. Now, go look at a 20 year old fiberglass speedboat and tell me what you think of it.

Watching the marketplace, what I find interesting is that a four year old Cirrus:

http://www.globalair.com/aircraft_for_s ... adid=59123

will be priced about the same as a 30 year old Bonanza.

One dealer once described Cirrus depreciation to me as a "hockey stick".

Part of the reason for that rapid depreciation is Cirrus' rapid and frequent airframe improvement process - lots of trade-ins. HBC, on the other hand, conspires to keep the 36 trade-ins down by never making any improvements until they have to.

OUCH! !!!

That is 65% + depreciation in four years.

We have several Cirrus brand planes based on my home airport. We have twice that many Bonanzas. The Cirrus pilots treat their planes like a tool. They fly, park the plane, leaving it for the lineman to put away, then drive off. The Bonanza pilots treat their planes like a mistress. They fly, then they put their plane away themselves. Then they pet the plane as they wash the bugs off and work on other maintenance items.

Not one Cirrus owner is a member of the Airport Bums' Club (I, by default, am the president...sigh.).

Bonanza owners are different in most cases. On average we are older and approach flying as a fun endeavor and not as a business endeavor. We spend time together and talk about our planes.

I love Bonanzas.

About the same amount retract owners spend on gear-box overhauls and sundry bushings, torque links and rod end replacements .

Hey don't forget about us Baron guys. We're cut from the same cloth you are.

Hey don't forget about us Baron guys. We're cut from the same cloth you are.

Im only six years late to this thread but what the hell. I fly a cessna t210 and a 421 more than 500 hours a year and i just recently flew in a 2016 sr 22 during a windy day. The airplane felt like it was going to loose its roof ! Would never buy a composite. I agree with Jason !