In an ongoing thread regarding pilot's conversion to the Cirrus, there has been an active volley from both sides regarding Cirri's long suits and short comings, if any.

I think the reluctance to "buy in" is based on a very pronounced demographic shift in this web site, the buying pattern of the newer proponents of Cirrus and their creative use of the tax code to make purchase price and depreciation almost irrelevant.

Many members joined 5 - 8 years ago and had purchased their "once in lifetime" dream machine, a Beech Bonanza in the halcyon days when Beech was king and the buy in fairly significant. It took about $150 K (+/- 10 - 20%) to get a nice example and then "personalize" it from there. The Cirrus initially was not particularly well received by experienced pilots, had a perception of plastic flimsiness and a chute that was reputed to avoid rigorous certification standards. That didn't make it a bad machine, just not the equal of Beech. Now obviously much of that has been refuted or corrected, but to some the perception remains.

At about the same time as the financial meltdown, Cirrus' product improved, the pilot demographic morphed into the younger tech savvy individualist (this group is very well represented within BT and perhaps dominant) and some of the older Bonanza owners were looking to move on with their life as their flying days wound down.

If there is any doubt about this generational division look at the group of 33/35 owners who were former military/airline/old line corporate/GA who have said they'll never own a Cirrus . . . and why would they? In their mind they own the best 4 place GA aircraft and have survived 30 - 40 - 50 years without a chute. Then compare with the newer BT member who is a younger successful entrepreneur that really buys into technology as a method to improve the life experience.

As can be expected, the supply of really good used airplanes suddenly became very competitive and 'most' of that competition came from that danged plastic airplane.

So what we end up with is a few "old dinosaurs" flying their mil-spec high quality Bonanzas
being replaced with an airplane who's best quality is "it has a chute".

It does make for some interesting reading.

Cheers from London

I submit for best of BT. Now can you clarify the single vs twin debate in the same way? I'm tired of having seasoned veterans, one of whom is a very close friend bash my desire to move up to a "plastic" plane. I'm the somewhat younger entrepreneur you refer to. If I ever need 6 seats then it will be an A36, otherwise I like new technology...Cirrus, Diamond, Cessna/Columbia

Peace,
Don

Is this the start of another 15-page thread on BeechTalk about the Cirrus?

I ended up buying neither. Instead, I have a plane that is 40 knots faster than the Cirrus on the same gas (non-turbo), costs less than a G2 Cirrus, and has the same or better avionics as the G5 Cirrus. I don't have a chute and if the engine quits it glides like a flying man hole cover.

I can understand Burns thoughts. The Bonanza is one heck of a plane. Beech products are pure timeless quality. Cirrus builds pure technology. Both have a market for now.

No I leave those 15 page diatribes to you guys . . .

Since no one has postulated as to why there is such a disconnect between the two groups, I thought I'd try a little intellect as opposed to emotion . . . and we all know intellect doesn't sell nearly as well as emotion.

Except in politics.

Burns,

I've also wondered why so much anti-Cirrus passion exists around here. For that matter, there is pretty much some anti-just-about-every-kind-of-plane passion on plane type forums .....including this one.

I'm an airplane polygamist -- I've loved a Cirrus (4 years) and a Bonanza (5 years) and a Mooney (8 months) and a Lance (6 years) and 2 Commanders (6 years) and even a C-182. Right now, I love my RV -- in fact, this may be "the one" I've been searching for all these years...

One wife - many airplanes.

With that "generational shift" comes a change in what pilots appreciate in their airplanes. The Bonanza is a "pilot's airplane" that rewards good technique, delivers great performance and is physically fun to fly. The last especially. The Cirrus delivers on only one of those three qualities- performance- but excels in technology, and perceived safety. Playing with the buttons, having cosmic situational awareness from the screens, enjoying the car-like feel of the interior, are all strong points. But I never found a Cirrus "fun" to fly.
Kinda like the difference between an old high-end Nikon and a point and shoot digital. And we know how that ended.
Robin

It's comments like this that I think fall on deaf ears. I've owned a few airplanes. They all fly. I'm not sure I can say my Bonanza was "so smooth" or whatever compared to the SR22 or the Pilatus. I turn the yoke left and right and move the power lever forward and back. In my mind, there's not much more to it. During flights, I'm focused on efficiency and speed. I don't care how the yoke feels. It's all about "going somewhere" and "beating the system".

I agree with Burns post.

Have you flown one, Robin?

In several aspects, I find it MORE fun to fly.

Landing is not one of them. Nothing lands like a Bonanza.

The Commander 114, with its trailing link landing gear, is the nicest to land of all that I've flown.

It's a big airplane world out there. We each only get to sample a few of them...

Robin,

I found Cirrus fun to fly. The Bonanza was too forgiving to me of sloppy technique. I prefer the higher demands of Mooney and Cirrus to fly precisely and on speed. Can you do it in Bo? Sure. I just find the Bo is more forgiving. As a side note, the Lancair/Columbia is much more of a pilots plane then either the Bonanza or the Cirrus (IMHO).

Burns,

Something to consider. Many of the recent Cirrus owners on BT are former Beech owners and on average are in their late 50 fifties and early 60s. An acquaintance is trying to convince me to partner on a new Cirrus so I have actually been talking to Cirrus sales reps recently. One interesting item, I would be one of the younger buyers for the rep this year; and I am in my early 40s. Most buyers are actually in their 50s or later.

Another point to consider. Airplanes are like muscle cars. Some people have a special affinity to a specific model. e.g. Corvette or Mustang. Others have an affinity to an era; e.g. the 60s. Others want the newest most powerful muscle car available. All are great fun when you go to the track with blue skies. But when it starts to snow or storm on the way home, what car do you want? A new car with traction control, ABS, and on-star to call for help when you crash? Or an old one that has classic looks and feel? Or do you wait for clear skies and get WTF you want?

When you can answer these questions, and see how it affects what car you buy you will better understand what plane you will buy.

Tim

The Commander 114, with its trailing link landing gear, is the nicest to land of all that I've flown.

It's a big airplane world out there. We each only get to sample a few of them...

if we could ask the airplane's opinion, it might be something like this: " There are pilots and there are aviators".

Yes. A local partnership in a 22 was breaking up and I took a look at buying in. Turbo, deiced, beautiful interior. Flew it for an afternoon, approaches, landings. On the miss, the owner was proudly showing me traffic on the display. I'd been looking out the window, of course, and had him long since. "You mean that one?" The guy barely felt the need to look outside.
Hated the coolie hat and know what you mean about landings. I felt the sight picture was very Mooney like, and flat. Not for me, but I can sure see how they would appeal. They really deliver a lot of transportation.
Robin