Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Salty, Jul 15, 2019.
Cirrus or bust!
No, see how popular the Bonanza still is?
Let alone a high wing Cessna with struts and everything hanging out...
The "cheap" Cirrus I've seen are seriously beat up and pretty sad looking. The gel coating on the fuselage and wings is all sun abused, the panel has clearly been used hard, and the plane is just missing that "Cirrus" feel you get. For $250K I have to agree with @Salty that you are better off with a *very* well equipped Mooney or something else. You need to spend about $400K to get into a "real" Cirrus
I know, right?! I got a ride (finally!) in a Bonanza a few weeks ago.. my impressions
-ramp appeal: very handsome, those wings are absolutely epic
-inside: I felt crazy cramped.. and who ever thought using that giant bar for the yokes was a complete idiot, getting to the gear, flaps, transponder, most of the toggle switches, requires finger gymnastics
-flight qualities: it flew very true and had a solid, determined feel, but didn't have the "it goes exactly where I point it" feel that the Cirrus has
as far as Cessna's, I will never understand why these planes are as prolific as they are, they encourage sloppy flying from students and pilots who haven't flown anything else and outside of a few roles (like flying heavy loads on unimproved strips) I really don't know what kind of appeal these planes have
But I digress
@Salty should either stick to Mooney, or if he's willing to go the Lancair route then there are some really nice offerings in the $200K to $300K range.. or just wait a few more years, plant a few more money trees, and bite the bullet on buying a Cirrus
You know my affinity for the Cirrus - but, there's just something about a Bo.
With item #2 (2 doors), that kicks most of them out, if it's a hard requirement.
Some are a little faster, or cheaper, have more useful load (although of questionable use on the Bo's with the aft CG issue) and comfort being very subjective. The RV-10 is probably the closest match on all items. Mooney, Bo, TTx, and others are certainly in mix with pros and cons.
I'm in the hunt for a SR22. For me it's just the best mix. Occasionally I look at other brands, as it's close, but keep coming back to a SR22. It does cost a little more annually, but to me it's worth it. Other people prefer other planes as they more closely meet their desires. It's great that we have options.
Hmmm. Doesn't seem to be much of an endorsement for the longevity of these expensive baubles.
LOL. Paging @Mtns2Skies, @motoadve or @Katamarino
Flying is as much romance as practicality. I can confidently say I'll never buy a big Cessna twin.. or probably any twin for that matter with the exception of the DA62 or the A*
I nearly decided to go into financial ruin after seeing this for sale:
The wife is already having a lot of trouble getting in and out of the Mooney, and with 1 door, I'm limited in how much I can help. It's not that important now, but it will continue to be more and more important.
Nope. Certainly not, especially the G1 and G2. I've been told that those improved with G3 and subsequent and the G3 and later birds I've seen I have no idea how old are how hard their lives have been as they've all seemed really nice, but all fetch some proper coin. You'll see the same thing with boats, the first few Beneteau FIRST (their racing line) really did not age well at all, the gel coats got obliterated in the sun
I've seen @motoadve videos, that's a great roll for a Cessna. If I had Musk money I'd have a seriously proper 182 with all the mods on there. But as a general plane to own and fly the high wings just don't do it for me. And "rigging" etc., they just don't seem to fly the same.. maybe it's the wing being on top and the overall geometry and physics of the airflow but they feel less sporty. To each their own though, as the other poster said, it is awesome that even in a small niche hobby like ours we have as many options as we do!
Perhaps Tantalums measures are different than mine, but we managed to pick up a pretty clean G1 for much less than $250k (even if you include engine OH, WAAS upgrade, ADSB, and an interior refresh, which could be done but are in no way needed now). If you're looking for the features of the newer birds, then $250k is going to have less ramp appeal, but even some decent G2's can be found in that range.
We did park next to a very early SR20 last weekend (i think it's a flight school rental) and it look thrashed compared to ours.
One of these years, maybe soon, I will be faced with owning an airplane with struts, other than those connected to my landing gear on the PA30. But it will NOT look like a Clorox bottle turned on its side and WILL have rivets. The PA30 is hard to get into and out of, I do it by crawling in. The 195 (go ahead and try to "sloppily" land a 195) takes some practice to enter and egress, with the compass and forehead collision a distinct possibility, because you have to climb up between the seats to get to the office.
The BO....beautiful. Owned three and mucho time in Barons. The Baron I flew most had the big dual yoke....you get used to it much like the screwed up quadrant in that plane.
It is clear that aesthetics are not important to many. Maybe if I were a hipster millennial I would be thinking Cirri or Diamond without having to wear a grocery bag over my head when walking thru the FBO.
Same here. My wife hasn't been in a Mooney, but I have. I would expect some wailing and whining and gnashing of teeth over the entry/exit for her. Too bad as they are nice planes.
If my wife likes it, I get to fly more. I want to fly more. My wife likes the SR22. That's pretty easy math. Of course, I like the SR22 also.
I flew a 2002 SR22 for several years. It was kept in a hangar. It looks worlds better than the 2003 and 2004 rental planes parked out on the ramp. They look several years older instead of a year or two younger.
I'd love a G3 with Perspective. The improvements brought the weight down, so the useful load is back up. One of the planes I'm flying is a SR22 G5 (out of the range I want to spend, even with a couple of partners) and that Perspective system with synthetic vision is sweet! It feels like cheating when doing approaches.
If your wife doesn't like your airplane, get a new one.
There exception of #6? I thought the RV10 was one of the roomiest most comfortable planes I ever sat in. I never had the chance to try a Cirrus but if a 10 ain't big enough for you, the Cirrus must be gigantic.
Who said size is the only metric for comfort?
The side stick is nice for passengers. The Rvs I’ve seen have been a little more crude.
But I did say “maybe” because i agree the RV could be close.
I've yet to meet a Cirrus owner under 40.. which puts him and her squarely outside the millennial bracket, but it is fun to exploit disproved stereotypes. You know they come in more colors than clorox white... right? If rivets are important to you then can probably custom paint some on for you, actually it's a win:win.. you'll get the cool rivet look without the associated risk of metal fatigue and corrosion
here is a much fabled non clorox white Cirrus:
But they are expensive, and the offerings from Lancair give you basically identical (or in some cases better) performance in a similar package for a fraction of the cost
The bold portion is critical. It explains why people continue to buy older Beech planes. The Bonanza is really the only low wing plane I can think of where the plane actually looks like it is sitting still.
This is caused by the combination of the fat wing, and the overall small cabin, which gets a lot smaller as you move backwards.
I know this is heresy... But if I had that kind of cash to spend I’d be getting a professionally built RV-10. There is a guy in Cape Town (cossaviation.com) who factory builds RV-10’s to the extent that they look and feel like a $1mil SR22T on the inside. All the bells and whistles, incredible interior detailing...
But obv not proposition for OP...
That's a big thing, hangaring it! The rental ones really did not age well baking out in the sun.. there is a G2 (or maybe even G1) SR22 at MYF that is kept in a hangar and looks great
haha, why is that heresy? Is there some unspoken rule that you're supposed to build your own homebuilt?
And contrary to @Captain Larry I think aesthetics are very important, but everyone's "beauty" is going to be different.. it's not just older Beech planes, but many of the older designs you can tell they were hand drawn.. not CAD. I happen to find the Comanche a very beautiful airplane, a Mooney-esq wing, sleek fuselage, and a tail that's on correctly. But with CAD also came optimizations in comfort and speed. The Cirrus is a little "bubbly" but no other cabin will give you that kind of width *and* height in the cabin, with a back seat that is genuinely comfortable to sit in
No, but in the US you can't legally have one "professionally" built for you either.
Hmm? Do all other airplanes look like they're running away?
For 250k and OPEX in Cirrus range I'd be picking up an A36. It's got the doors requirement met! (Although no pilot side door).
I agree with previous posters, if OPEX isn't a consideration I'd get the Aerostar.
If opex wasn't a factor, he'd get a Citation. Surely an airstair is equivalent to two doors.
I'll keep my viking
Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk
There's no point in trying to justify anything that isn't an Aerostar or a Cirrus to Tantalum. I'm not even going to try. Just a waste of breath/typing.
ha!.. it's not easy being me. I am hard to please, this I admit!
But we get to be picky with flying, or at least the planes we choose to fly. It's sort of like falling in love with a beautiful women.. she'll be the right girl for you, and you won't in a million years understand why your friend is with the woman that he's with.. but it is what it is and she may be the right girl for him
Truth be told, I like anything that flies, and although I rag on them without mercy I do still, on occasion, rent a club 172 because it's a different kind of flying
All I gotta say is Coasties. And I ain't talking USCG.
West coast is the best coast.
That's like saying the best kind of vomit is...
If I thought an ocean coastline was like vomit, I'd probably go hide in flyover country too.
It ain't the scenery that's the issue.
Way harsh, dude.
That's a PoA thing, absolutely loathing, despising, and abhorring California.. you just have to accept it
Oh no the same goes for Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, St Louis, Phoenix, Las Vegas...
Too many idiots and not enough chlorine for the gene pool. I actually interviewed in and considered moving to Pleasanton years back. Loved the area, then I saw housing prices and ended up on 880 on a Friday afternoon. EFF that.
This thread needs an enema...
(someone pass the rainbows/skittles)
I totally get it. I moved here from Boston and you couldn't get me to move back there. Working (mostly) from home I don't have to deal much with the traffic and have created my own little social eco system here.. pricing, politics, etc., are similar here (San Diego) vs Boston but at least the scenery and weather are nicer
my dream would be a house somewhere on Flathead Lake in Montana with enough land for my own airstrip and a few planes, maybe a flying boat or too
The problem is that by the time we can afford that, we also need to be near a major medical center for the monthly medical visits.
Well, if ya didn't have to pay 1.2 million for a 2 bedroom bungalow, that money could have been invested.
You can’t post stuff like this without a pic, c’mon man...