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

mtuomi said:
I bet Cirri fly way more than 100 hours per year on average.
If anyone drops $1mil on a plane, surely they expect $1mil worth of utility from it.
At 100 hours per year, $1mil buys years and years worth of jet charter travel...
Click to expand...

It depends, just like any other plane. I've put over a hundred hours on mine in 3 months. I know some guys who don't do that in a year plus.

The ones on controller with 150 hours are likely business purchases for tax benefits. Or maybe people just treat them like hangar queens as well.

So yeah. Just depends
 
I just finished a trip in a 2003 SR22 that flies 90 hours a month since new owners (Aug 2016, or so). Id have to look at the total airframe time but I dont think its over 3k.

Great airplane and have no issues taking it through weather or turbulence.

Is say I'm impressed with composites up to this point.
 
Tantalum said:
On plastic planes.. I agree. It is entirely common today to find airplanes being flown that are 20, 30, 40, 50 years or even older. But somehow I doubt that in the year 2050 the same will be true for plastic planes.

Aren't there also hard fatigue life limits on plastic planes? I have read that the SR22 has something like a 4K hour lifespan, and the SR20 a 12K hour lifespan. That's a lot of hours, but nothing compared to what some Pipers and Skyhawks have seen out there... And 4K seems pretty low to be honest
Click to expand...

Aluminum has fatigue limits...properly engineered composites do not. I seriously doubt we will see spar cracking on composites unlike the numerous aluminum airframe examples requiring various straps or other repairs.

However, composites fail in ways that are more similar to wood (and fabric) composite airframes...they don't deform permanently as aluminum does, instead they tend to shatter when the ultimate load is exceeded.
 
teejayevans said:
Auto deploy the gear.
Click to expand...

Retractable on a Cirrus seems a waste of time....there's unlikely to be a significant increase in cruise speeds to offset the added complexity, weight and cost. This is especially so for the SR22T - it's already a soectacular performer in the thin air at altitude.
 
Art VanDelay said:
If it makes you feel any better that is the fully loaded price.........

Click to expand...

So what's the partially loaded price? Say half fuel and only one passenger ;)
 
GRG55 said:
Retractable on a Cirrus seems a waste of time....there's unlikely to be a significant increase in cruise speeds to offset the added complexity, weight and cost. This is especially so for the SR22T - it's already a soectacular performer in the thin air at altitude.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And adds another possible point of failure.
 
GRG55 said:
Retractable on a Cirrus seems a waste of time....there's unlikely to be a significant increase in cruise speeds to offset the added complexity, weight and cost. This is especially so for the SR22T - it's already a soectacular performer in the thin air at altitude.
Click to expand...

Like anything else, retractable gear is a tradeoff. You get the gear legs and tires out of the slipstream, but you have to make room for all that stuff somewhere in the fuselage and the wings, so now they're bigger and draggier than they otherwise would have been. Plus with fixed gear, it's a lot easier to make the gear legs a little longer, which helps keep the prop tips in better shape,
 
Real planes retract the wheels. Drag goes up exponentially. The fasted certified piston single is a retract....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GRG55 said:
they don't deform permanently as aluminum does, instead they tend to shatter when the ultimate load is exceeded.
Click to expand...
..and that is something to think about. Not that we expect our GA planes to hopefully ever hit those kinds of loads in flights, but I have wondered how a composite frame would handle a serious inflight upset. The Challenger that recently was "written off" after hitting the A380 wake comes to mind, and there have been others in history too, such as China Airlines 006, the Aeromexico DC10, and I'm sure there are more. Where metal typically bends and deforms composites just shred

Someone mentioned boats earlier, that's a great point... but older boats are historically extremely overbuilt, it is not uncommon for a 1970s 40 foot sailboat to weigh in around 30,000lbs. Newer boats though are built far lighter, and they've experienced some catastrophic failures, in critical structures like keels, rudder posts, mast footings... a recent and relatively famous example is Cheekie Rafiki where the keel came off with tragic consequences http://www.pbo.co.uk/news/official-report-into-the-cheeki-rafiki-tragedy-21259

But I do know the Cirrus are safe, etc., my main point was more that for $1 mil I would not be buying a single engine fixed gear 4 seat plane...and while 12,000 hours takes a looooong time to hit it is a unique thought to know that eventually the plane is just no good to fly, whereas on a metal plane you could theoretically replace each part individually and keep it flying forever
 
gsengle said:
Real planes retract the wheels. Drag goes up exponentially. The fasted certified piston single is a retract....


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

Which is what plane? I thought the fastest piston single was the Cessna TTx which is fixed gear?
 
That got me curious, what about normally aspirated non-experimental? Ovation2?
 
3 in the green said:
Okay, so 7 kts faster than a TTx in max cruise, over a 'mild' ~500nm leg is what, six minute difference? Now I'd still take a new Acclaim over the TTx, but the SR22/TTx fixed gear is pretty damn efficient. The added complexity/failure point/maintenance/insurance will steer a lot of folks to fixed gear.
Click to expand...

Yeah except the insurance isn't higher once you have a year flying retract, and I've seen fixed price annual shop rates and the Mooney and Cirrus cost the same. Finally these are just top speeds. There is probably a higher fuel efficiency penalty than there is a top speed penalty. The Mooney range is exceptional as a result. And finally the Mooney is cheaper :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Yeah except the insurance isn't higher once you have a year flying retract, and I've seen fixed price annual shop rates and the Mooney and Cirrus cost the same. Finally these are just top speeds. There is probably a higher fuel efficiency penalty than there is a top speed penalty. The Mooney range is exceptional as a result. And finally the Mooney is cheaper :)


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

Don't get me wrong, I'd still take the Mooney in a second. :D My only point was that some of the fixed gear applications are pretty aerodynamic for being what they are. In either plane I can't imagine what the fuel burn is for that top speed...
 
Yeah it's amazing how well they do. Imagine how fast a retract TTx would be.

Maybe it's just knowing the training wheels are still out bothers me. I mean for a million dollars, I can't suck up the gear?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I looked at the TTx when purchasing my SR22T. Other than the larger screens / G3000 and few knots in speed, there isn't much difference to me. Not when I consider the chute. Plus I like the interior appointments and layout more.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
For a million, I think a used Meridian or Evolution would be my choice.



I bet you're wrong. Scrolling through the ads on Controller shows most have flown 150-200 hours per year on average.
Click to expand...

haha funny.
Read again, mkay?
 
gsengle said:
Real planes retract the wheels. Drag goes up exponentially. The fasted certified piston single is a retract....


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

And I thought blinkers became obsolete about the same time as buggy whips...:rolleyes:
 
GRG55 said:
And I thought blinkers became obsolete about the same time as buggy whips...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I left an exception for bush planes, I suppose I should add trainers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mtuomi said:
At 100 hours per year, $1mil buys years and years worth of jet charter travel...
Click to expand...

No...

A 100 hour NetJets card for a Hawker 400XP is $400'000. So at 100hrs/year, $1m will last you about 2.5 years.
 
deonb said:
A 100 hour NetJets card for a Hawker 400XP is $400'000. So at 100hrs/year, $1m will last you about 2.5 years.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the hourly cost of owning a new Cirrus jet would come close to the NetJets card.
 
NoHeat said:
I wonder if the hourly cost of owning a new Cirrus jet would come close to the NetJets card.
Click to expand...

I don't know about your initial question but it does prompt me to point out that the Cirrus Jet will VERY quickly be outgrown by its owners.

It's performance is not that stellar - for a jet anyway. And it's FL270 non-RSVM ceiling is not all that impressive either. I predict that it will end up being more of a "Trainer" jet then anything else. Probably guys will keep them for about two or three years and then move up to a CJ2 or something like that.

We'll see if I'm right about that.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I don't know about your initial question but it does prompt me to point out that the Cirrus Jet will VERY quickly be outgrown by its owners.

It's performance is not that stellar - for a jet anyway. And it's FL270 non-RSVM ceiling is not all that impressive either. I predict that it will end up being more of a "Trainer" jet then anything else. Probably guys will keep them for about two or three years and then move up to a CJ2 or something like that.

We'll see if I'm right about that.
Click to expand...

that's a good point.

I have to assume though that the Cirrus Jet is a lot more economical to fly than a CJ2?
 
midcap said:
that's a good point.

I have to assume though that the Cirrus Jet is a lot more economical to fly than a CJ2?
Click to expand...

Oh yes - it is BUT with less performance and no potty ! You can talk range and luxury all day but without a sh**ter it doesn't mean as much.
 
deonb said:
No...

A 100 hour NetJets card for a Hawker 400XP is $400'000. So at 100hrs/year, $1m will last you about 2.5 years.
Click to expand...

Is that 'occupied hours' or do they charge you for positioning flights ?
 
The SF50 is designed to be an upgrade path for Cirrus SR22T and other existing owners primarily. The price as about a 90% increase over a fully loaded SR22T but adds pressurization, a 3k higher ceiling, a 90% increase in speed, 3 more seats, a substantially more sophisticated touch-interface avionics panel, 2000 foot takeoff (about the same as the turbo), 67kt stall (lowest for any jet and was FAA required given the single engine), 45gph econ cruise Jet-A (compared to 16gph 75% cruise 100LL), getting CAPS into the design, still fits in a standard 40ft hangar.

The production run rate and 600 backorders mean a five year wait to get one.

The single-engine jet offers half the cost of any VLJ twin-jet maint. costs.
 
citizen5000 said:
The SF50 is designed to be an upgrade path for Cirrus SR22T and other existing owners primarily. The price as about a 90% increase over a fully loaded SR22T but adds pressurization, a 3k higher ceiling, a 90% increase in speed, 3 more seats, a substantially more sophisticated touch-interface avionics panel, 2000 foot takeoff (about the same as the turbo), 67kt stall (lowest for any jet and was FAA required given the single engine), 45gph econ cruise Jet-A (compared to 16gph 75% cruise 100LL), getting CAPS into the design, still fits in a standard 40ft hangar.

The single-engine jet offers half the cost of any VLJ twin-jet maint. costs.
Click to expand...

This.

Also, people here have a hard time wrapping their heads around the price/performance ratio because for $2m you can buy a used <INSERT 10+ YEAR OLD "REAL" JET> that runs circles around the SF50. But those people are the same folks who think that buying a $900K SR22T with all the options is also crazy when you could get a <INSERT 10+ YEAR OLD PRESSURIZED PISTON TWIN> for the same money. And yet Cirrus is selling more SR22s than anyone else is selling pistons. Believe it or not there is a market of affluent pilots for whom $1-3 M isn't crazy money and who want something nice, new, easy to fly, comfortable and don't spend 6 hours every day on the internet debating the paper performance differences of airplanes built when we were all in diapers.
 
citizen5000 said:
The SF50 is designed to be an upgrade path for Cirrus SR22T and other existing owners primarily. The price as about a 90% increase over a fully loaded SR22T but adds pressurization, a 3k higher ceiling, a 90% increase in speed, 3 more seats, a substantially more sophisticated touch-interface avionics panel, 2000 foot takeoff (about the same as the turbo), 67kt stall (lowest for any jet and was FAA required given the single engine), 45gph econ cruise Jet-A (compared to 16gph 75% cruise 100LL), getting CAPS into the design, still fits in a standard 40ft hangar.

The production run rate and 600 backorders mean a five year wait to get one.

The single-engine jet offers half the cost of any VLJ twin-jet maint. costs.
Click to expand...

As CSIP I can state that all the above is absolutely correct. I can also tell you to expect to see about 575 of that 600 order backlog coming on the used market about three years after they are delivered. ;)
 
RudyP said:
This.

Also, people here have a hard time wrapping their heads around the price/performance ratio because for $2m you can buy a used <INSERT 10+ YEAR OLD "REAL" JET> that runs circles around the SF50. But those people are the same folks who think that buying a $900K SR22T with all the options is also crazy when you could get a <INSERT 10+ YEAR OLD PRESSURIZED PISTON TWIN> for the same money. And yet Cirrus is selling more SR22s than anyone else is selling pistons. Believe it or not there is a market of affluent pilots for whom $1-3 M isn't crazy money and who want something nice, new, easy to fly, comfortable and don't spend 6 hours every day on the internet debating the paper performance differences of airplanes built when we were all in diapers.
Click to expand...

Probably one of the most level-headed, accurate, and objective comments I've read on here in a while.
 
weilke said:
Is that 'occupied hours' or do they charge you for positioning flights ?
Click to expand...

You only pay occupied.

AFAIK they will (attempt to) charter out the jet in order to do their positioning flights.
 
RudyP said:
And yet Cirrus is selling more SR22s than anyone else is selling pistons.
Click to expand...
Cirrus has tapped into the market of people who can afford these planes and want something "nice" to travel in. They may not be hard core aviation enthusiasts who obsess over spec sheets, but I think it's similar to the fact that people who are buying and spending good money on Teslas probably aren't hard core petrol-heads who are going to say that you can buy a used manual BMW/Audi, etc. for less money with similar performance, etc

I do wish more manufacturers would do something similar and "catch up" with 2017. There is a perception that small GA planes are stuck in the 1970s and the Cirrus is a very nice departure from that. I hope Panthera has success and we see more modern GA craft showing up on the scene. Piper has done some rebranding work, but frankly without Garmin's G1000 the Legacy Cessna / Piper fleet is starting to feel old-school.

Having said that my money would still go to a 414 or 421, but I'd also rather own a well maintained Land Rover Defender or restored Land Cruiser than a new Tesla... I am in the minority.
 
Wealthy pilots that want to fly and their family wants them to do it as safely as possible. Ergo: Cirrus. New and has a chute!
 
Other manufacturers need to figure out how to add BRS to light aircraft. It sells (even inferior) airplanes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top