Matt

It's a 2004 year Archer III. Avidyne PFD, MFD, twin 430W, STEC55X.

I've owned both SR22 and G36. I never felt one was harder to fly or land than the other. Just different and that's mostly due to sight picture.

Only in my wildest dreams! Sundowner was right at the limits of my budget. Granted, with a newer plane, I would hope the maintenance would be more of a routine nature than what I went through with my Sundowner (engine overhaul, upgrade avionics, refresh interior, replaced aged engine parts, corrosion issues and the like).

The problem for me getting a new plane of any type would be affording insurance, hangaring the plane (no way I would have it tied down outside). i don't know the cost of a normal annual on a Cirrus but I do suspect it would be higher then my "routine" $2K annual my sundowner had set me back every year.

If my wallet would be fatter, I'd get back in airplane ownership in a heartbeat. After having sole ownership of a plane, partnership just not an option. That freedom of flying without scheduling, coordinating with others was priceless.

Neither airplane is hard to land. The bonanza is less picky on airspeed. The Cirrus is a sleek airplane. The typical prop strike starts with too fast of airspeed, the flair is usually then too high. The offending pilot then levels out in a flat or slighly nose low attitude. The airplane stays in this attitude until the airspeed decreases and the the airplane hits with the nose flat or even nose first. This starts some skipping or a bounce if you hit too hard.

They are now teaching full stall landings at the Cirrus factory. Wow that is a brand new idea. The idea that you can land an airplane "flat" is fine as long as you arrest the vertical speed first. Neither airplane is hard to land.

An A36 bonanza can be flown fast down to the runway. Pull the power back and ease back on the yoke. Eckalbars book talks about how the wing rapidly gives up lift at low airspeeds. Combine the loss of lift with the amount of drag and you get an airplane which quickly works it's way through ground effect and touches down.

Someone else said the 22 burns too much gas. This is BS. IMO 12.5-13 gal/hr LOP amounts to 160 knots. That is efficient in my book.

My 2004 SR22 G2 easily did 168 KTAS on 12.5 gallons in the 7000-10000 foot range.

Jason,

Which one did you prefer and why?

Mark

Wow, just read the thread. Many items have been well covered.

Chute repack on a G2 or later Cirrus is well under $10K.

Crosswinds are fine in a Cirrus.

The only nose heavy Cirrus is a G2, TN with A/C that hasn't had the tail weight SB done.

Because of the fat prop on the turbo, a turbo Cirrus lands differently than a NA one. The composite prop on the TN acts as a speed brake. In fact the glide ratio is lower on planes with the composite prop.

No way can I scream in and slow down in my SR22 the way my friend can in his BE35.

The small wheels with tight pants on the Cirrus are no where near as grass friendly as the retractable gear on the Bo.

I would take an older SR22 over a newer SR20. The extra power is transformational. The difference in cruise is minor compared to climb rate. In the mountains or during the summer in the south (high to avoid clouds) the ability to climb is great.

I kinda already said in previous posts in this thread. I prefer the 36TN. It's bigger and tougher and holds it's value much more.

"Glass wing"?? I'm not sure if you were being non specific but there is nothing glass about it.

I'm no fan of the Cirrus, but I have little doubt that the Carbon structure planes will far outlast the aluminum counterparts. As long as you don't do something silly like flying into harsh weather and breaking the structure, they will last darn near infinitely. Aluminum fatigues over time. The carbon fiber structures do not.

Ever seen an old fiberglass ski boat?

Gerry,

You have lots of assumptions and generalizations in there. However, you can use an epoxy resin with fiberglass that is UV resistant or UV proof (this is actually starting to be more common in boating per a friend of mine). You can also use an epoxy resin with carbon fiber that is susceptible to UV.

It really comes down to price and goals. Carbon Fiber is more expensive then Fiber glass, as a general rule people will use the more expensive resin with Carbon Fiber as a result. The more expensive the resin the greater the chance it will resist UV, cure better....

Assuming I recall it correctly, the G1 model was all fiber glass. The G2 model introduced the carbon fiber wing spar which reduced the BEW by 100 lbs.

Tim

Gerry,

You have lots of assumptions and generalizations in there. However, you can use an epoxy resin with fiberglass that is UV resistant or UV proof (this is actually starting to be more common in boating per a friend of mine). You can also use an epoxy resin with carbon fiber that is susceptible to UV.

It really comes down to price and goals. Carbon Fiber is more expensive then Fiber glass, as a general rule people will use the more expensive resin with Carbon Fiber as a result. The more expensive the resin the greater the chance it will resist UV, cure better....

Assuming I recall it correctly, the G1 model was all fiber glass. The G2 model introduced the carbon fiber wing spar which reduced the BEW by 100 lbs.

Tim

Ok, I agree they are different products. But if you are gonna go there you really should include the multiple variations, a few examples:

• Fiber Glass
• Carbon Fiber
• Kevlar Strands
• Basalt Fiber
• Aramid Fibers

And all the possible combinations of the items above.

Tim (could not resist)

Nate that really is beautiful machine, and if/when I get back to TX I hope you'll give me a demo. And for your flying it probably is the best all around machine, especially when evaluated dollar for dollar against twins or Turbo Props that would equal it's mission capabilities.

Best wishes,

Burns

What's made of "carbon fiber"? Cirrus? I don't think so.

A 30 year old Bonanza is a nice machine. My 2004 Cirrus was showing serious wear and rattle when I got out of it.

I disagree that fiberglass will hold up better to the elements and time than aluminum.