Someone PM'd me and asked my opinion. While I'm trying to not post as much, and/or wade into Cirrus debates, I'll give a couple thoughts and leave it at that.

My first thought was... why does this matter? Does anyone buy an other-than-classic plane with the an impact-thought of whether it will last 50 years? I'm trying to learn to keep a plane more than 4-5 years. But even those that keep one 20 years, does this matter?

I really like and respect you, Arlen, but this has already been debated a number of times. The boat comparison is always brought up.

I don't buy the G1000 limitation. You can upgrade many airframes to the NXi. Even Beech has said you'll be able to on the G36/58. There will be options.

Parachutes have gone up slightly, but not much. There is a one time increase to upgrade the older chutes to electronic ignition. Yes, that is an extra cost that other singles don't have, and it may or may not be similar to a twin - you can get one cheaper than some singles, but mx is higher. But is a $10-12k cost every 10 years going to mothball a plane? Sometimes, probably. But not too often.

For me - and because I'm normal in that I think everyone else probably thinks, or should think like I do - I only care about what fits my mission right now. Even if I thought what could get me a good return 5 years from now, the Cirrus seems to do a much better job holding it's value than many. Before you jump on the "It's almost $1m dollars bandwagon!," actually look at some purchase prices of the different models, and the used prices. I paid $420k for my '10 model - I think the owner paid about $560k for it new in '10. I bought an '08 in '13, and sold it in '16 for a small profit, and that included a very pricey TN overhaul.

But again, I find myself making an argument that doesn't sway my buying decision. I bought what fit my mission. When I retire, I could see buying on older SR20, or another V-Tail, or maybe just a C140. I'll have to see what my mission is.

I love airplanes. I love composite airplanes - not just Cirri, but many of them. I love seeing the rivetless wing shimmering below a cloud deck. I love aluminum airplanes and the nostalgia of a V Tail. I love bush planes. I love rag wing planes.

For me, nothing beats an SR22 for my mission for this pilot. In my opinion, nothing is safer for my mission for this pilot. Nothing is more comfortable or more enjoyable to fly - yes, I LOVE the side yoke. For the longest time, I maintained the 35 was my favorite to fly, but now, I yearn for the rotation moment with the side yoke in the SR more than I ever did anything else.

So there are my thoughts. Are they valid for anyone else? Are they even relevant to the goal of this thread? Probably not. But I've grown so weary of Cirrus vs the world that I spend about 10 minutes a day, if that, on BT. And that's probably a healthy thing.

If I hadn't been asked, I probably wouldn't have even clicked on this. ...OK, I probably would have because I don't have that much control. But I wouldn't have commented. Probably.

Here is a 2003 model G1 - early serial number 0458. He just dropped a boatload on new avionics and paint. (I wish I could attach the originals, but BT won't allow files that big.)

If they were in Arizona...

Plastic would be degraded, metal would be fine.

Mike C.

Why do you think a rules change will keep ancient semiconductor and display panel fab lines operational?

The fundamental economics and scale of the technology don't allow the infrastructure to exist to support a few light airplanes.


Planes that started with steam gauges meet that requirement.

Others, not so much.

Mike C.

Will it even matter? Look what GA has done in the past 10 years as far as decline, give it 50 and you'll probably have 60% less airports and 95% of flying will be Jet-A.


I have to believe at least 80% of the GA pilots are 5-10 years from hanging them up permanently anyways.

Same thing was said 30 years ago.

Go to Oshkosh to get an optimism transplant. The future is better than you think it will be.

Mike C.

Why do you think a rules change will keep ancient semiconductor and display panel fab lines operational?

No it doesn't.

Anybody can get an STC to change out the avionics, no OEM involvement at all.

It is just that such a job for a highly integrated setup like a G1000 is too costly and expensive to undertake, not that it requires OEM approval.


That exists, it just isn't economically feasible since so much of the G1000 touches so many systems.

Mike C.

Yeah, the last 10 years are a great indicator. After a continual decline we’ve seen an increase in hours and the pilot population. I think we’re going to see another couple of years of increase (assuming the economy doesn’t tank) and then it will flatten out for a while.

The oldest Cirrus planes are 20 years old now. My 310 will be 55 years old next month.

I hope you're right. Ask Columbia 400 owners about this. Cessna isn't even putting out any more software updates for the G1000 in the Columbia, much less an NXi upgrade. This is already affecting us - for an ADS-B install, we couldn't use the already-existing WAAS receiver just because it doesn't have the latest software. We had to install a 2nd WAAS receiver and antenna.

The Columbia airframe is also composite, and I think it's certified up to like 25,000 hours or something that I don't even worry about (and when they reach 25,000 hours, I think they might be able to extend them further).

I hope you're right. Ask Columbia 400 owners about this. Cessna isn't even putting out any more software updates for the G1000 in the Columbia, much less an NXi upgrade. This is already affecting us - for an ADS-B install, we couldn't use the already-existing WAAS receiver just because it doesn't have the latest software. We had to install a 2nd WAAS receiver and antenna.

The Columbia airframe is also composite, and I think it's certified up to like 25,000 hours or something that I don't even worry about (and when they reach 25,000 hours, I think they might be able to extend them further).

What is the outer coating of the Cirrus? Is it just primer and paint on top of the carbon fiber? Is it gel coat like they use on sailplanes?

The longevity of the Cirrus will be determined by the availability of spare parts. Our Barons and Bonanzas have a huge supply at salvage yards and aftermarket suppliers. I doubt if many Cirri airframes are parted out. They are too costly to disassemble.

Chute repack is going to be the killer for old Cirri.

About time for somebody to develop a de-chute STC.

Blasphemy!

The issue for the SR series is the chute is required due to entanglement with certification requirements for spins. You'd have to do the spin testing (which, BTW, we know the plane passes since EASA didn't accept that argument), then STC the chute removal.

The SF50 is the opposite. Cirrus certified it specifically NOT to be a required element, even asked for an ELOS finding. So you could, in theory STC that right off without much hassle.

Mike C.