BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 21:38

Username Protected wrote:

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

Wait a minute. Not to damper the enthusiasm for plastic planes with parachutes, but is there actually a quantifiable exodus of Baron-Bonanza pilots selling out to buy a cirrus?

I must have missed that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 22:26

Username Protected wrote:

So far the only guys I know that would never consider a Cirrus have also never flown a Cirrus. It's hard for me to give their opinion much weight....

I've flown a Cirrus. I've owned a Cirrus. I don't believe I would ever consider a Cirrus again.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 22:31

Username Protected wrote:

So far the only guys I know that would never consider a Cirrus have also never flown a Cirrus. It's hard for me to give their opinion much weight....

I've flown a Cirrus. I've owned a Cirrus. I don't believe I would ever consider a Cirrus again.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 22:32

Username Protected wrote:

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

^^^ from page one.

Seven pages and counting... :coffee:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 22:34

Username Protected wrote:

Wait a minute. Not to damper the enthusiasm for plastic planes with parachutes, but is there actually a quantifiable exodus of Baron-Bonanza pilots selling out to buy a cirrus?

I must have missed that.

There are a noticeable number of BT members which previously owned Beech planes and now have Cirrus. So yah, is it statistically significant? I doubt it, but they are high profile enough to draw comments on it.

Otherwise, I have no data.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 22:46

I have had 13 BTers contact me with questions about moving to a Cirrus since Feb.

Two, it seems, have moved on. Three, it looks like are extremely serious. Don't know about the others.

You would be shocked at a couple of them. Neither of them are included in the above opinions. I wish one, in particular, would. He's a very impressive pilot. Neither have ever commented on these threads, that I can think of.

The ones that are interested typically fly like I do - quite a bit and either on a schedule, or regular long trips.

Most of the guys who get indignant about the plastic planes fly for a hobby, and can choose where and when to fly. Not that I can't, but it causes more inconvenience.

Just my observations. Always exceptions to the rule.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Jun 2014, 23:05

If I could justify owning a known icing Cirrus I would buy one tomorrow. I can't think of a more economical airplane with great avionics and superior safety in the hands of a proficient pilot. For now I am happy with my fast clown plane and V35.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2014, 01:21

Tony . . . Tony . . . Tony. I suspect you've had a couple too many of your favorite libation:

Quote:

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. This is obviously your perception which doesn't square up with reality very well from what I've seen of a lot of people who have flown Cirrus for years. Interestingly, when I was getting back into flying it was suggested to me to buy a Bonanza as a Cirrus was "too much airplane" for the inexperienced pilot. 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.

I was loosely quoting, several aviation magazines,and actually quite generously, about their historical perspective. Are you saying that it didn't a less have than a MB reputation on it's interior and the 'chute wasn't to cover spin issues?

Come on Tony I wouldn't expect you to agree with me, buy you have to respect the historical perspective . . . And I said reputed.

Quote:

As Jason said in another post . . . Most of my rich friends that own Cirri don't know a damn thing about airplanes. They just want out of the rat race at Atlanta airport. You've gotta get that through your head. They don't want a 30 year old beater that needs work and paint and compromises.

I think Jason has hit this issue right square on the head . . . many, and note carefully, I said many not ALL of Cirrus' marketing effort is aimed at, and hitting, the new, tech savvy, entrepreneur businessman.

I explained why there is an "cirri-aversion". But most of the emotion demonstrated here is coming from of the cirri guys. You appear to be in Jason's group (which is a pretty neat place to be) and not in the group I defined as the original purchasers of Beech from 1947 till 2000 or so.

I could as Dr. Phil or Dr. Ablow why, but I'll let someone else do that.

Leaving London tomorrow, so my "idle" time on BT/CT is winding down, maybe you could guess I had too much time.

:cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2014, 01:56

I test flew a Cirrus, and I have to say it really is a fantastic plane. I can easily understand the appeal.

However, I also happen to think my A36 is one sexy beast, worthy of one last glance over my shoulder as I'm leaving the airport, and I don't think I could ever say that about a Cirrus.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2014, 08:21

Username Protected wrote:

The Bonanza is a "pilot's airplane" that rewards good technique, delivers great performance and is physically fun to fly.

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2014, 09:16

Burns,

I think a lot of most Cirrus pilots are newbies to aviation is a myth. Look at the total time of most Cirrus accidents, much higher then newbs. Plus the total time in type is kinda low.
It would be interesting to see some actual stats. Maybe COPA or Cirrus could be convinced to do a survey.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2014, 10:02

Username Protected wrote:

Lancair doesn't depreciate?

You can't loose $300k on something you paid $100k for :-)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jun 2014, 10:07

Username Protected wrote:

and I don't need a parachute, I'm a pilot- if something happens I'll do my best to fly the plane to the ground.

Hmmm.

I'm a pilot too. I wish I had a parachute. Something about those disguised rocks, ruts, ditches, tree stumps, buildings, and power lines that keeps us guessing as we glide down...