2017 Cirrus SR-22T G6 $993,000 !

drotto said:
I was not saying a brand new Malibu. You can however get a very nice one for 300k to 400k, and then spend whatever is needed to upgrade the avionics. Even if that is 100k more to make it like new, there is a lot of money left there to by AV gas.
Click to expand...

If you are willing to buy used, you can get a G3 SR22T with most of the capability of a new one (main difference the lower UL) somewhere in the mid 400s. The 'million dollar cirrus' is tool for people to justify their own biases, not really a fact. The person who is willing to mark of every option on a new SR22T is obviously not price sensitive, if he was he wouldn't spend 65k on appearance mods alone.
 
Tantalum said:
Maybe I'm just bitter than a single engine four place piston plane approaches $1 mil :(... but the demand is clearly there to justify the pricing
Click to expand...

It doesn't. The plane itself is 639k. Fiki and AC puts you at 717k. That's nothing to sneeze at but still some way to go until you hit a million.
 
True. I was referring though to the fully loaded price of $993K from the thread title as "approaching $1 mil." Fundamentally it is still incredible that a 4 place piston single can cost that (new), but as you pointed out with some depreciation it becomes more available to a wider group of people on the used market. And the value of something is in the eye of the beholder. It's clearly worth that much to a large number of people

A while back there was a thread comparing prices between SR20 and 22s, it noted that their manufacturing costs are likely similar so one was either making a loss or very little profit or the other was bringing in tons of crash. I would be curious what the actual per unit manufacturing cost is for these planes.. I imagine the margins they see are pretty healthy and have allowed investment in perfecting the plane and putting into their jet
 
Tantalum said:
True. I was referring though to the fully loaded price of $993K from the thread title as "approaching $1 mil." Fundamentally it is still incredible that a 4 place piston single can cost that (new), but as you pointed out with some depreciation it becomes more available to a wider group of people on the used market. And the value of something is in the eye of the beholder. It's clearly worth that much to a large number of people

A while back there was a thread comparing prices between SR20 and 22s, it noted that their manufacturing costs are likely similar so one was either making a loss or very little profit or the other was bringing in tons of crash. I would be curious what the actual per unit manufacturing cost is for these planes.. I imagine the margins they see are pretty healthy and have allowed investment in perfecting the plane and putting into their jet
Click to expand...
Interesting point. How much does a 390 cost vs. a 540? If the hull is almost identical from the firewall back, what justifies the large price difference. I imagine the mounting system, engine, some of the wiring, cowling, and even the landing gear may be slightly more robust ( for the increased weight), but are there really any other changes? Is the wing spar any different? Anything else structural? Better interior materials? I find it hard to believe that the 22 costs Cirrus much more than 25k to 35k to produce over the 20, and 80% of that is the 540. Provided the avionics are the same, even if they are not that could account for maybe another 20k?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
The engines make the major difference between Cirrus models. The performance differences of 155kts max cruise for the SR20 v 213kts for the SR22T. The ceiling for the SR20 is 17,500 (cannot fly in the flight levels) v FL250 for the SR22T. The SR20 lacks FIKI, the SR22T has it.
 
Tantalum said:
I imagine the margins they see are pretty healthy and have allowed investment in perfecting the plane and putting into their jet
Click to expand...

Supposedly they are losing money on every plane but make it up on volume.

The jetling was paid for by chinese investment money. As a freestanding company they would have gone broke somewhere along the way.

But yes,the difference in price between a SR20 and SR22 and SR22 and SR22T respectively are not explained by the engines. Those prices are simply based on what they expect someone to be able to pay.
 
citizen5000 said:
The engines make the major difference between Cirrus models. The performance differences of 155kts max cruise for the SR20 v 213kts for the SR22T. The ceiling for the SR20 is 17,500 (cannot fly in the flight levels) v FL250 for the SR22T. The SR20 lacks FIKI, the SR22T has it.
Click to expand...

I looked up prices for the SR22 and SR22T engines. The difference for the end consumer is less than 30k. Standard oxygen ($5000 in parts) is the only other difference between the two. The difference in list price is 100k. They are selling 22 and 22T to about equal parts right now, lets say the profitability between the two models is probably quite different.
 
weilke said:
I looked up prices for the SR22 and SR22T engines. The difference for the end consumer is less than 30k. Standard oxygen ($5000 in parts) is the only other difference between the two. The difference in list price is 100k. They are selling 22 and 22T to about equal parts right now, lets say the profitability between the two models is probably quite different.
Click to expand...
That means 65k is profit more based on the price difference. Again I realize that there may be a few structural changes between the two planes, as well as some minor wiring, etc, but that is not 75k more. Plus that is end consumer price more. I bet Cirrus get a different price from Lycoming than we do and the 22 to the 22t may cost them 25k to produce.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
That means 65k is profit more based on the price difference.
Click to expand...

It's only profit if they make money on each plane. It could mean 65k lower loss one one vs the other.
 
So home much does the SR-22T G6 depreciate the first 5 years?
 
drotto said:
That means 65k is profit more based on the price difference. Again I realize that there may be a few structural changes between the two planes, as well as some minor wiring, etc, but that is not 75k more. Plus that is end consumer price more. I bet Cirrus get a different price from Lycoming than we do and the 22 to the 22t may cost them 25k to produce.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There are other differences that account for some of the difference (12" vs 10" screens, better interior materials and fit and finish, a different AC system, as well as options that only exist on the 22 such as FIKI and regularly get checked) but yeah, at the end of the day, the pricing is dictated more by what the market will bear than by the cost of manufacture. It is no different than comparing a BMW 528i vs an M5 that costs twice as much to buy but probably less than 20% more to build.
 
bnt83 said:
So home much does the SR-22T G6 depreciate the first 5 years?
Click to expand...

No one knows yet but lately the G5 values have held up pretty well. Especially for the NA 22's - 2013-14 G5 NAs are going for ~$100K or less off new prices. Part of what is propping up used values is that Cirrus keeps increasing new prices. If they didn't, the used market would be really rough.
 
drotto said:
Interesting point. How much does a 390 cost vs. a 540? If the hull is almost identical from the firewall back, what justifies the large price difference. I imagine the mounting system, engine, some of the wiring, cowling, and even the landing gear may be slightly more robust ( for the increased weight), but are there really any other changes? Is the wing spar any different? Anything else structural? Better interior materials? I find it hard to believe that the 22 costs Cirrus much more than 25k to 35k to produce over the 20, and 80% of that is the 540. Provided the avionics are the same, even if they are not that could account for maybe another 20k?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

At the volumes they produce, it's cheaper to have one model of spars, gear, etc. than they'd ever save on the differences in cost. They have to stock and manage more different parts for both manufacture, repair and part sales. Really not worth it. Now, engine mounts, engines, screens, interiors (things you can see) sure. That's marketing.

John
 
Get a slightly used King Air for that -

Get a FIKI P210 for a third of that.

the list goes on.

I honestly cannot believe anyone buys one new. . . .
 
Cirrus composite airframe is 13x stronger than aluminum. You can't put a price on that.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Cirrus composite airframe is 13x stronger than aluminum. You can't put a price on that.
Click to expand...

We have a thread going where an aluminum aircraft came from together in mid-air. It took flying into a Level 5 thunderstorm willingly to affect that outcome. And that's a common theme of in-flight breakups.

I'm not sure 13x stronger matters as much as one might think, unless one is purposefully flying into thunderstorms. CAPS probably applies more to that than the strength of composites.
 
Yes but it would take a 13X denser bird.. to... um....
I don't know where I was going with that.

I am just saying that is why they cost 13X more.
Its all in the math. or the science.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Yes but it would take a 13X denser bird.. to... um....
I don't know where I was going with that.

I am just saying that is why they cost 13X more.
Its all in the math. or the science.
Click to expand...

Could you cite your source?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My former partner in my 2006 SR22 just bought a 2017 SR22T. It's a gorgeous plane.
 
My CSIP gave me the ~13 times number. That was my source.

This is from some guy that intimidates me on the internet.

carbon fibre has a specific tensile strength of 2457 kN.M/kg, 11.481 times that of aluminium (214 kN.M/kg). This simply states that the materials can withstand 'X' Newtons of force per metre area, divided by unit measurement of density.
Carbon fibre has a ultimate tensile strength of about 3.5GPa, where as aluminium has an ultimate tensile strength of about 0.448GPa; tensile strength is the force, in Newtons, that a material can withstand, per metre^2, before being pulled apart. 1 Nm^2 is roughly equivalent to 1 Pascal (Pa). So in summary, carbon fibre is roughly 7 times stronger than aluminium per unit measurement of area.

Carbon fibre has a density of about 1800 kg/m^3, where as aluminium is roughly 2700 kg/m^3; so carbon fibre is also around 1.5 times lighter - per unit volume.

The following are rough estimates of data:
Carbon fibre = 3,500,000,000/1800
=1,944,444.444
Aluminium = 448,000,000/ 2700
= 165,925.925

Carbon fibre has a specific tensile strength of 11.719 times that of aluminium - roughly the same as the value we already knew.

So, finally, carbon fibre is roughly 40% lighter than aluminium(per unit volume), and at the same time, roughly 10 times stronger(per unit volume). The reason for this being, as shown above, that carbon is far less dense than aluminium - making it lighter per unit of volume - but due to the carbon atoms bonding together to form microscopic crystals along the length of each individual carbon fibre, they can be made into a composite material, which is much stronger than aluminium. These 'straws' of long carbon fibres are held together with an epoxy, and because all of these fibres are held together in the same direction, the composite material they form is incredibly resilient to tensile forces
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
My CSIP gave me the ~13 times number. That was my source.

This is from some guy that intimidates me on the internet.

carbon fibre has a specific tensile strength of 2457 kN.M/kg, 11.481 times that of aluminium (214 kN.M/kg). This simply states that the materials can withstand 'X' Newtons of force per metre area, divided by unit measurement of density.
Carbon fibre has a ultimate tensile strength of about 3.5GPa, where as aluminium has an ultimate tensile strength of about 0.448GPa; tensile strength is the force, in Newtons, that a material can withstand, per metre^2, before being pulled apart. 1 Nm^2 is roughly equivalent to 1 Pascal (Pa). So in summary, carbon fibre is roughly 7 times stronger than aluminium per unit measurement of area.

Carbon fibre has a density of about 1800 kg/m^3, where as aluminium is roughly 2700 kg/m^3; so carbon fibre is also around 1.5 times lighter - per unit volume.

The following are rough estimates of data:
Carbon fibre = 3,500,000,000/1800
=1,944,444.444
Aluminium = 448,000,000/ 2700
= 165,925.925

Carbon fibre has a specific tensile strength of 11.719 times that of aluminium - roughly the same as the value we already knew.

So, finally, carbon fibre is roughly 40% lighter than aluminium(per unit volume), and at the same time, roughly 10 times stronger(per unit volume). The reason for this being, as shown above, that carbon is far less dense than aluminium - making it lighter per unit of volume - but due to the carbon atoms bonding together to form microscopic crystals along the length of each individual carbon fibre, they can be made into a composite material, which is much stronger than aluminium. These 'straws' of long carbon fibres are held together with an epoxy, and because all of these fibres are held together in the same direction, the composite material they form is incredibly resilient to tensile forces
Click to expand...

The strength isn't just a materials issue, it's also how it's shaped and assembled. There is no way to make a 13x blanket statement.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with carbon fiber, but respectfully saying something is 13x stronger isn't particularly meaningful, and that someone told me isn't really a source.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
The strength isn't just a materials issue, it's also how it's shaped and assembled. There is no way to make a 13x blanket statement.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with carbon fiber, but respectfully saying something is 13x stronger isn't particularly meaningful, and that someone told me isn't really a source.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Really my premis was making a joke that you can't put a price on it.
I need to use more of these :)
 
gsengle said:
The strength isn't just a materials issue, it's also how it's shaped and assembled. There is no way to make a 13x blanket statement.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with carbon fiber, but respectfully saying something is 13x stronger isn't particularly meaningful, and that someone told me isn't really a source.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. I totally believe everything I read on the Internet

Edit: besides, there were a lot of numbers in 6PC's post. You can't just make that up.
 
gsengle said:
and that someone told me isn't really a source.
Click to expand...

Oh cmon.... He was a CSIP what more source is needed?
His name is William. If you can't trust William then who can you trust.

Now if it was Carl, don't get me started.

I say you can type whatever you want and if you tag it with "William the CSIP" you are sourced my friend.
-William the CSIP
 
More than one way to make a strong wing ;)

d8cb257f2f11f403b78e1492792a10ce.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RudyP said:
No one knows yet but lately the G5 values have held up pretty well. Especially for the NA 22's - 2013-14 G5 NAs are going for ~$100K or less off new prices. Part of what is propping up used values is that Cirrus keeps increasing new prices. If they didn't, the used market would be really rough.
Click to expand...

This. It's pretty amazing when you think about it. Makes buying one an even stronger decision, not including all the other advantages.
 
weilke said:
I looked up prices for the SR22 and SR22T engines. The difference for the end consumer is less than 30k. Standard oxygen ($5000 in parts) is the only other difference between the two. The difference in list price is 100k. They are selling 22 and 22T to about equal parts right now, lets say the profitability between the two models is probably quite different.
Click to expand...

So is the profitability margin between a stripper 6-banger Chevy sedan and a loaded Buick. What's your point, beyond stating the obvious?
 
RudyP said:
No one knows yet but lately the G5 values have held up pretty well. Especially for the NA 22's - 2013-14 G5 NAs are going for ~$100K or less off new prices. Part of what is propping up used values is that Cirrus keeps increasing new prices. If they didn't, the used market would be really rough.
Click to expand...

The inflation in new airplanes through the 80s and 90s is what kept propping the prices of used models. But the global financial crisis collapsed the entire GA market and only a few top end airplanes (Cirrus, TBM, Malibu) seem to have had any sort of recovery. Both new volumes and used prices remain pretty depressed.
 
I used to think the Cirrus was kinda cool a long time ago. Now I think of a Cirrus pilot is in about the same league as a guy that drives a Mazda Miata convertible. Lol
 
Except the Miata guy is smarter.
 
It ultimately just comes down to individual preference and likes / desires. The marina where I worked for a few years in college had a similar "anti-Hinckley-picnic-boat" vibe going on. Seems like the comparison is fair: http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/category/type/Hinckley/Picnic+Boat+MKIII these boats go for just under or right around $1 mil (new), but I've heard they can be custom ordered and spec'd out to be above that. The newer ones are jet driven and joystick driven and they're all fast and have some cool features, but ultimately, as you can see, they're "just a small boat." At the marina the debates also always went something like "well if I had a million dollars I would buy X because of Y"

This one is listed as "sale pending" with a $785K price tag. For that much money there is a lot of other larger and more capable machines out there, but people like them and Hinckley sells plenty... every marina in the New England area has the token handful of them
upload_2017-3-30_11-3-6.png
 
Last edited:
At the risk of too much thread drift I always though an S3 Viking would make a cool personal jet (completely unnecessary and unreasonable) but still cool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top