SR22 vs Twin Comanche

[denverpilot]

Spend a few minutes perusing the ads in Controller or Trade-a-Plane Nate. There's not a comparable high performance single of equivalent vintage, equipment, condition and time that doesn't sell for a significant premium over a comparable twin. Its not even a close contest.

Comparable Bonanza A36s, an airplane less capable than my Aztec, typically command a 50% or greater premium over what I paid (I originally set out to look for an A36).

Light twin prices collapsed during the high oil price period of the financial crisis (remember $150 per bbl oil in mid-2008?) and have never really recovered. The safety reputation (which you, among others here, seem to take particular delight in reminding us), the maintenance burden, the extra fuel costs, the insurance premiums all conspire to keep the prices of these planes depressed. And if you are willing to turn a wrench you can buy a lot of fuel for the difference.

I haven’t seen 50% when the maintenance is kept up as well on both. I’ve seen a good chunk but again, it wasn’t avionics or features. Most singles will never have FIKI for example, so that’s not an apples to apples comparison.

And for the record I don’t take any “delight” in reminding anyone anything about twins. I just have to teach it. People get themselves into trouble in twins due to some misconceptions about them.

Many also keep themselves OUT of trouble by owning twins too, and those folks know the limitations and fly them accordingly.

But the actuaries know the real numbers and light twin Insurance is insane. So insane it’s even forced changes to the FARs that FAA didn’t want, but really couldn’t argue with (the “acting PIC” garbage for “solo” flights) because nobody would be able to meet the minimum flight requirements for the certificate.

I’d happily go fly twins all day if I had one.

No light training twins around here are sitting parked long enough for any grass to grow under them with the myth of the “pilot shortage” in the media and being repeated by those who need cheap pilots, and lots of hopefuls training right now. They were all parked and doing nearly nothing during the fuel pricing jump you mentioned.

If I had coastal travel needs out of here, I’d be shopping for an Aerostar. But when I say “needs” I mean that there would have to be business income from that travel which would more than pay for it. I wouldn’t wipe out a nest egg for retirement for it, and that’s the real problem with higher performance light twins today — the airlines, as crappy as they are, are about ten times cheaper.

Add in that most employers either inadvertently or actively ban personal aircraft for travel, and it’s just a bad situation for anyone other than the business owner to utilize a nice twin. Or even some singles for that matter.

Multiple people here who work for companies that make the damned airplanes say their employers ban their use for company travel. An industry that won’t eat its own dog food.

 

[GRG55]

...Multiple people here who work for companies that make the damned airplanes say their employers ban their use for company travel. An industry that won’t eat its own dog food.

Shows how much our world has changed. The lawyers and the group life insurance companies are running the show...

 

[Skyrys62]

Shows how much our world has changed. The lawyers and the group life insurance companies are running the show...

...or not changed.
My Dad has said that exact thing to me since I was a kid.

 

[denverpilot]

Shows how much our world has changed. The lawyers and the group life insurance companies are running the show...

Definitely. AIG should be dead and gone for the risks they took and lost on.

 

[weilke]

It's funny, I'm in a Cirrus Facebook group and a Twin Comanche Facebook group. The Cirrus group is full of pics of people flying places, pics of their beautiful panels, and exterior pics of their planes with both doors open. (They love those shots, like it's a Lamborghini or something. ) Meanwhile, the Twin Comanche group is full of pics of people working on their Twinks and others asking questions about their problems. I know, that's not exactly a scientific comparison, but still, kinda humorous.

Every time I open POA this week, somewhere in the top threads are one where someone had to overhaul an engine within 6 months of buying a 414 and another thread where someone else is looking at chewed up valves on a different 414. Sure, you are not immune from either of those things happening in a SR22, but we just don't seem to see those tales of woe posted on the web.

 

[MIFlyer]

Every time I open POA this week, somewhere in the top threads are one where someone had to overhaul an engine within 6 months of buying a 414 and another thread where someone else is looking at chewed up valves on a different 414. Sure, you are not immune from either of those things happening in a SR22, but we just don't seem to see those tales of woe posted on the web.

6 months ago i saw a lot of threads about Cirrus continentals devouring cyclinders

 

[UngaWunga]

someone posted a pic a short while back of two cirrus owners smiling in a raft with their cirrus sinking in the background...

 

[Radar Contact]

Every time I open POA this week, somewhere in the top threads are one where someone had to overhaul an engine within 6 months of buying a 414 and another thread where someone else is looking at chewed up valves on a different 414. Sure, you are not immune from either of those things happening in a SR22, but we just don't seem to see those tales of woe posted on the web.

Do a quick search...lots of SR22's that have had engine problems and are posted on the web. These are just some listed on the COPA site. SR22's have engines too... until they get the magic fairy dust powered ones on line, this will keep happening. The good news about the ones I listed is these were some of the survivable ones.

2007, Sydney, Australia -- loss of engine power due to in-flight loss of blanking cap from the fuel pressure test port, hence maintenance induced failure (SR22 IO-550N)

2009, Elkin, NC -- total loss of engine power due to the failure of the No. 2 piston as a result of a fatigue crack of undetermined origin (SR22 IO-550N)

2009, Hamilton Island, Australia -- suspected fuel pump issue, but I don't have a copy of the ATSB report on this one (SR22 IO-550N)

2011, Cross City, FL -- loss of engine power due to a fractured camshaft due to a fatigue crack (SR22 IO-550N)

2011, New Orleans, LA -- loss of engine power due to detonation of the No.2 cylinder from a clogged fuel injector nozzle. (SR20 IO-360ES)

2012, Andros Island, Bahamas -- loss of engine power due to loss of oil pressure, as yet not reported, but suspected engine maintenance (SR22 IO-550N)

2012, Itu, Brazil -- loss of engine power due to failed fuel pump (SR20 IO-360ES)

2012, Pickens, SC -- loss of engine power due to fractured crankshaft, consistent with the application of insufficient torque on the cylinder through bolts by maintenance personnel. (SR22 IO-550N)

2012, Show Low, AZ -- loss of engine oil, likely due to loss of oil feeder line due to removal of the supercharger by maintenance personnel (SR22 IO-550N)

2012, Gilgandria, Australia -- loss of engine oil due to high oil consumption of about 0.5 quarts per hour (1 quart per 2 hours) (SR22 IO-550N)

2013, Tappahannock, VA -- loss of engine power due to failure of engine crankshaft top rear trailing forward counterweight retaining plate, consistent with service advisory about high-power low RPM operation below 2300 RPM (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Buckhannon, WV -- partial loss of engine power due to improper in-flight fuel mixture management (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Fort Hall, ID -- loss of engine power due to dual magneto failure due to stripped gear teeth (SR22 IO-550N TN)

2014, Nogales, Mexico -- loss of engine power, cause TBD (SR20 IO-360ES)

2014, Louyang, China -- loss of engine power, cause TBD (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Burlington, MA -- loss of engine power, cause maintenance improper tightening of engine through bolt (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Lexington, NC -- loss of engine power, cause maintenance improper tightening of engine through bolt (SR22 IO-550N)

2014, Hampton, SC -- loss of engine power, cause faulty oil pressure transducer led to pilot reducing engine power (SR22 IO-550N)

2015, Lake Wales, FL -- loss of engine power, cause oil starvation likely due to stuck oil control rings(SR20 IO-360ES)

2015, Fayetteville, AR -- loss of engine power, cause fatigue failure of cross fitting from oil cooler (SR22 IO-550K)

2015, Jefferson, NC -- loss of engine power, cause undetermined after successful test run of engine (SR22 IO-550N)

Crankshaft failure for Cirrus: https://generalaviationnews.com/2014/07/28/crankshaft-failure-for-cirrus/

*I'm absolutely not bashing Cirrus's. I think they are great airplanes for their intended missions. Simply addressing the "we just don't seem to see those tales of woe posted on the web" comment.

 

[GRG55]

Every time I open POA this week, somewhere in the top threads are one where someone had to overhaul an engine within 6 months of buying a 414 and another thread where someone else is looking at chewed up valves on a different 414. Sure, you are not immune from either of those things happening in a SR22, but we just don't seem to see those tales of woe posted on the web.

If I had a $400,000, $600,000 or $800,000 airplane I would expect its dispatch reliability to be better than my ancient twin. It damn well better be because I would have to spend a lot less time in the hangar and lot more time earning after tax income doing something else to pay for it.

 

[weilke]

There are five times as many SR22 than 414s. Not a big surprise that you'll be able to find stories of engine failures. The point was that owners of old twins maintain, owners of new singles fly.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Are we seriously f’ng comparing cabin class twins to a 4 seat Cirrus???

This must be POA

 

[weilke]

Are we seriously f’ng comparing cabin class twins to a 4 seat Cirrus???

Don't know why folks wandered off on the 'might as well buy a 340' tangent earlier in the thread.

 

[Radar Contact]

Don't know why folks wandered off on the 'might as well buy a 340' tangent earlier in the thread.

Pretty simple. In post #172 a member was asking about comparing a 340 to an SR22 as he's contemplating what to buy. Seemed like a logical time to wander down the 340 "tangent".

 

[weilke]

Pretty simple. In post #172 a member was asking about comparing a 340 to an SR22 as he's contemplating what to buy. Seemed like a logical time to wander down the 340 "tangent".

Doesn't make it any less of an absurd comparison.

 

[denverpilot]

someone posted a pic a short while back of two cirrus owners smiling in a raft with their cirrus sinking in the background...

I like the guy who sank something else, I forget what, better, and is now going to jail for massive insurance fraud. It was the Internet celebrity of the airplane sinking that really got the regulators mad, but they were already on to his pattern of buying expensive things cheap, over insuring them, wrecking them, and cashing the checks.

If I had a $400,000, $600,000 or $800,000 airplane I would expect its dispatch reliability to be better than my ancient twin. It damn well better be because I would have to spend a lot less time in the hangar and lot more time earning after tax income doing something else to pay for it.

That’s one of my biggest dilemmas about ever upgrading beyond the venerable ol’ 182. It’s not the perfect airplane, but with a co-owner it allows me to sit on my butt and not work all day on Saturdays... if I don’t want to.

 

[Brad Smith]

That’s one of my biggest dilemmas about ever upgrading beyond the venerable ol’ 182. It’s not the perfect airplane, but with a co-owner it allows me to sit on my butt and not work all day on Saturdays... if I don’t want to.

That's my line of thinking. More time flying, less time working. Sure, planes like the SR22 will get you there quicker, but if you enjoy flying you'll be in the airplane perhaps a 1/2 hour longer which is no burden in the 182. The 182 clips along at a pretty good rate anyway. The only thing you don't get is a crowd gathering around your machine every time you land like you do in the Cirrus.

 

[brian]]

Definitely an interesting thread. BUT - I wouldn't add the cirrus engine into the "positive" list. As one person has in their tag line on another forum:

In Continental we trust - god help us all...

 

[denverpilot]

That's my line of thinking. More time flying, less time working. Sure, planes like the SR22 will get you there quicker, but if you enjoy flying you'll be in the airplane perhaps a 1/2 hour longer which is no burden in the 182. The 182 clips along at a pretty good rate anyway. The only thing you don't get is a crowd gathering around your machine every time you land like you do in the Cirrus.

So that crowd that always gathers and marvels at how I survived the landing, is a bad thing?

 

[Brad Smith]

Only if you don't like attention!

 

[charheep]

For the curious (is it bi-curious if you like twins?)-
What is the cost difference between insurance on a SR22 and a twinkie? Rough ballpark is fine..

 

[Tx_Flyboy]

For the curious (is it bi-curious if you like twins?)-
What is the cost difference between insurance on a SR22 and a twinkie? Rough ballpark is fine..

I know its not an answer to your question but...my C-310 insurance is about $1800/yr. I am CFI/II/MEI, and had about 1500TT & 250hrs multi with no time in type at the time...

i suspect a newbie (no or minimal twin time) will be about 2-2.5x that...about $3600-$4500...or so my agent told me.

 

[denverpilot]

I know its not an answer to your question but...my C-310 insurance is about $1800/yr. I am CFI/II/MEI, and had about 1500TT & 250hrs multi with no time in type at the time...

i suspect a newbie (no or minimal twin time) will be about 2-2.5x that...about $3600-$4500...or so my agent told me.

Is that one million smooth, or significantly lower?

 

[Tx_Flyboy]

1 million with sublimits...i forget limit on passengers but wanna say $100k per? i can look it up later.

 

[PaulS]

Vee must stay on topickkkkk!

 

[MIFlyer]

I know its not an answer to your question but...my C-310 insurance is about $1800/yr. I am CFI/II/MEI, and had about 1500TT & 250hrs multi with no time in type at the time...

i suspect a newbie (no or minimal twin time) will be about 2-2.5x that...about $3600-$4500...or so my agent told me.

PP, no IR, 150 hours total time (no complex, no twin time). 50k Aztec was quoted at $3,400/yr, with expectation to drop about a grand after getting IR and some time in type over a year

 

[denverpilot]

1 million with sublimits...i forget limit on passengers but wanna say $100k per? i can look it up later.

No worries. I figured. Some are 100,000, some 300,000 and there’s usually very low medical limits on all of them at those prices.

It bumps about a thousand or more annually to get to a smooth million and the medical still won’t cover a typical ER trip.

Similar but lower prices on the liability on singles. About half. Medical still pops the rates the same in either singles or multis.

 

[denverpilot]

Vee must stay on topickkkkk!

Ok. Buy the twin. Get a new rating. Live a little.

Absolutely no thought whatsoever given to the OPs mission in this response.

Hell, I’m starting to sound like Ted. The answer is not “Bo”. The answer is always “Twin”. LOL!

 

[RudyP]

.

Just as an aside, although many of us have probably thought about it, I notice of those on this forum who own and fly light twins none of us seem to be clamouring to substitute a Cirrus.
Just sayin'

Im sure that is true but the converse is also true. Cirrus owners aren’t clamoring to substitute a piston twin either. In fact, since anyone who can afford a Cirrus could afford some sort of piston twin instead, it’s pretty evident we wouldn’t prefer the twin.

Personally, I have nothing against twins but the only ones I’m interested in owning have turbines.

 

[PaulS]

I've been waffling around on this, but I'm thinking the retractable gear is the additional aggravation I wouldn't want to have in a twin vs Cirrus argument.

 

[GRG55]

1 million with sublimits...i forget limit on passengers but wanna say $100k per? i can look it up later.

Are you asking about liability only, or hull loss coverage too?

 

[GRG55]

There are five times as many SR22 than 414s. Not a big surprise that you'll be able to find stories of engine failures. The point was that owners of old twins maintain, owners of new singles fly.

Not quite. The owners of ancient twins fly AND fix. The owners of new anythings fly and brag (with justification, I admit ).
But it hasn't escaped my attention that for the median price of an SR-22 I can own at least two ancient twins - one for flyin' and one for fixin'

 

[GRG55]

Im sure that is true but the converse is also true. Cirrus owners aren’t clamoring to substitute a piston twin either. In fact, since anyone who can afford a Cirrus could afford some sort of piston twin instead, it’s pretty evident we wouldn’t prefer the twin.

Personally, I have nothing against twins but the only ones I’m interested in owning have turbines.

Ah yes. But the difference is I just need a check out to fly a Cirrus...

 

[Tx_Flyboy]

Im sure that is true but the converse is also true. Cirrus owners aren’t clamoring to substitute a piston twin either. In fact, since anyone who can afford a Cirrus could afford some sort of piston twin instead, it’s pretty evident we wouldn’t prefer the twin.

Personally, I have nothing against twins but the only ones I’m interested in owning have turbines.

My observation is that many Cirrus owners (and single engine land airplane owners too) don't have a Multi rating like most non-commercial pilots. It makes these folks more susceptible to believe the asinine argument about how a single is "safer" or "more advantageous" than a twin.

Visit Beechtalk or twin Cessna forums. A lot of threads are about Cirrus owners moving up to piston twins. I notice a good number of them don't have a multi engine rating either.

Many cirrus owners move up to single engine turboprops...precisely because
* they don't have a multi rating &
* because they can afford to make the leap

 

[Ryan F.]

Many cirrus owners move up to single engine turboprops...precisely because
* they don't have a multi rating &
* because they can afford to make the leap

I used to provide initial and recurrent training in the Citation Mustang to owner-operator pilots. Usually it was their first jet. Some of them were moving up from a TBM or Pilatus. (And to your point, some of those guys owned Cirri before that.)

One in particular did not have a multi-engine rating (and he ended up getting it in the Mustang!) This was a few years back -- he had a deposit on a PiperJet before it was canceled, the weird cobbled-together single-engine light jet concept which Piper kept alive for a few years with that single prototype they flew around to various airshows. I asked him why he was so keyed on the PiperJet.

"Because I wouldn't have to take a multi-engine checkride," he said.

Not kidding.

 

[RudyP]

My observation is that many Cirrus owners (and single engine land airplane owners too) don't have a Multi rating like most non-commercial pilots. It makes these folks more susceptible to believe the asinine argument about how a single is "safer" or "more advantageous" than a twin.

Visit Beechtalk or twin Cessna forums. A lot of threads are about Cirrus owners moving up to piston twins. I notice a good number of them don't have a multi engine rating either.

Many cirrus owners move up to single engine turboprops...precisely because
* they don't have a multi rating &
* because they can afford to make the leap

Possible for some I’m sure, but the multi rating isn’t a huge challenge or time commitment and I doubt it is much of a barrier for many Cirrus pilots. It certainly isn’t for me. I do believe the type rating is a barrier for most Cirrus (and other) owners to get into jets and that props up the pricing of near jets like the TBM single turboprop (a used TBM850 is much more expensive than a used Mustang).

But not for all Cirrus pilots either. I know at least a dozen former Cirrus guys who are now flying jets and my next step is almost certainly going to be a Mustang. I just (personally) have no interest in owning a piston twin. But please don’t take this as a dig at piston twins or twin owners, I love flying them and love the airplanes in general. I just don’t want to own one but I'd rather fly yours if I get an invite!

 

[Tx_Flyboy]

Rudy,

no offense/slam intended on my part.

i'm saying that the lack of multi rating is a deterrent to considering piston twins since most people will naturally minimize non value added activities.

Therefore, getting a multi (for the sake of considering a piston twin) would be seen as a non-value added activity since singles are "safer" than twins.

 

[paflyer]

The only thing you don't get is a crowd gathering around your machine every time you land like you do in the Cirrus.

Cirrus?? It’s the Honda Accord of aviation, not a Ferrari.

 

[paflyer]

PP, no IR, 150 hours total time (no complex, no twin time). 50k Aztec was quoted at $3,400/yr, with expectation to drop about a grand after getting IR and some time in type over a year

Really? What insurance company is that? I was quoted $6500 for a $65K aztruck last year with 5x your time and an IR. AOPA but don’t recall the carrier.

 

[wayne]

I used to provide initial and recurrent training in the Citation Mustang to owner-operator pilots. Usually it was their first jet. Some of them were moving up from a TBM or Pilatus. (And to your point, some of those guys owned Cirri before that.)

One in particular did not have a multi-engine rating (and he ended up getting it in the Mustang!) This was a few years back -- he had a deposit on a PiperJet before it was canceled, the weird cobbled-together single-engine light jet concept which Piper kept alive for a few years with that single prototype they flew around to various airshows. I asked him why he was so keyed on the PiperJet.

"Because I wouldn't have to take a multi-engine checkride," he said.

Not kidding.

WTF? Getting the multi takes fewer hours than the Cirrus transition. The Cirrus transition program is 10 hours, or was when I took it several years go. I finished the multi checkride with 8 hours ME time.

 

[wayne]

My observation is that many Cirrus owners (and single engine land airplane owners too) don't have a Multi rating like most non-commercial pilots. It makes these folks more susceptible to believe the asinine argument about how a single is "safer" or "more advantageous" than a twin.

Visit Beechtalk or twin Cessna forums. A lot of threads are about Cirrus owners moving up to piston twins. I notice a good number of them don't have a multi engine rating either.

Many cirrus owners move up to single engine turboprops...precisely because
* they don't have a multi rating &
* because they can afford to make the leap

If I had the coin I'd buy and fly a PC-12. I'd find the fuel burn alone expensive. No way I could pay the full cost; well, short of winning the lottery that is.