Older FIKI Twin vs FIKI Cirrus

I'll take a stab at your question.

Looking at just asking prices on controller.com, I'm seeing several 2010 FIKI Cirrus that are running around $450,000. These are all Gen 3 planes. Now look at the bottom of the G2 planes with TKS (remember that they didn't have FIKI back then), I'm seeing prices around $200,000 for a 2004. So you're looking at loosing 41,000 per year in value. We can argue that this off, but it's a cocktail napkin wag.

The operational cost of a twin are higher than a Cirrus. We can argue how much, but no one will tell you different.

So, we can look at this a couple of ways. If you fly 200 hrs per year (this is on the high side), depreciation will run you $205 per hour. Is it worth it to you to spend $200 per hour to fly a newer plane or not.

So many things depend on condition, but I'd argue that the average Cirrus will have better over all dispatch reliability over the average twin.

What's the operational cost per hour of either? I'll leave that to others that have first hand knowledge.

Therefore the true cost delta is:

Cirrus hourly cost + $205 vs. the twin hourly cost

I won't get into the single vs. twin debate because you didn't ask.







koehn said:
I'm trying to compare the safety, costs, and dispatch rate of two different aircraft types that could meet my mission objectives. I live in Minnesota (FCM) and would like to use a personal aircraft to transport me around the US (primarily East of the Rockies) year round, figure 200 hours per for ten years, mostly just me and maybe one other person (I'm not very worried about useful load).

The types I'm considering are an older FIKI twin e.g., Baron or Seneca II versus what I'm assuming would need to be a newer FIKI single e.g., SR-22.

My first question is about capability and dispatch rate: how would the planes compare? I realize neither plane can handle all the weather I'll encounter up here between icing and convective; I assume the extra engine degrades dispatch rate, but by how much?

My second question goes to total cost: I know FIKI Cirrii have a lot of depreciation left on them; so including depreciation (assuming I sell after ten years), insurance (I'm a 200-hour ASEL & instrument-rated), initial and recurrent training, and operating costs, how do the types compare, and what am I missing (NextGen upgrades come to mind)? I'm wondering how what I'm assuming is the higher operating cost of a twin compares against what I'm sure is the higher depreciation of a FIKI SR-22.
Click to expand...
 
The last point is that the depreciation curve starts to flatten out. Between 2004 and 2001 models, values dropped roughly $80,000 over 3 years. That's $27,000 a year or $135 per hour for 200 hrs per year flown.

It's really hard to compare because we start getting into big changes in planes. Glass vs. 6 pack.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
So many things depend on condition, but I'd argue that the average Cirrus will have better over all dispatch reliability over the average twin.
Click to expand...
my limited experience says not. the cirrus airframe is fine but they spend a fair amount of time in the avionics shop.
 
Trying to associate price depreciation curves based on years defies reality. The airplane markets move with the economy, like other high-end consumer prices. And like most big-ticket purchases, timing is everything relative to potential gain/loss. The problem is that the buyer can't predict any of this stuff when he writes the check.

For example, the used airplane resale market dropped 40% in less than three months during Q408 and actually increased during the 1987-1999 and 2003-2007 periods.

The OP was not specific about his intended use, but if the plane is used for business the associated tax depreciation can significantly soften the costs of ownership.

jonnyjetprop said:
The last point is that the depreciation curve starts to flatten out. Between 2004 and 2001 models, values dropped roughly $80,000 over 3 years. That's $27,000 a year or $135 per hour for 200 hrs per year flown.

It's really hard to compare because we start getting into big changes in planes. Glass vs. 6 pack.
Click to expand...
 
The other fallacy is to predict depreciation for model B of an asset from the historic depreciation behavior of model A. In the case at hand, the G1 and G2 Cirri were superceded by the much improved G3 model. The G3 models will take some hit when the higher mtow G5 models start to hit the used market, but I doubt that the effect will be as pronounced (as the remainder of the capabilities has pretty much remained the same).
 
On the other hand, a $100k FIKI twin can only depreciate a max of $100k. A $450k Cirrus can depreciate a max of $450k, and what's the opportunity cost of that $350k you have tied up? But that gets into other questions, and part of why I've tended to prefer low acquisition cost for my vehicles.

I think we may have scared off our OP.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
On the other hand, a $100k FIKI twin can only depreciate a max of $100k. A $450k Cirrus can depreciate a max of $450k, and what's the opportunity cost of that $350k you have tied up? But that gets into other questions, and part of why I've tended to prefer low acquisition cost for my vehicles.

I think we may have scared off our OP.
Click to expand...

If I buy a $1000 car and have to put a $3000 transmission in it, what is it worth now?
 
Alexb2000 said:
If I buy a $1000 car and have to put a $3000 transmission in it, what is it worth now?
Click to expand...

I had a customer once who thought the answer was $5,000. ;)

You make a good point, but that comes down to picking your plane wisely. You can easily buy a Cirrus with a timed out engine, just like you can buy a twin with two.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
On the other hand, a $100k FIKI twin can only depreciate a max of $100k. A $450k Cirrus can depreciate a max of $450k, and what's the opportunity cost of that $350k you have tied up?
Click to expand...

The only category that a 2010 G3 SR22T a 100k FIKI twin have in common is that they are both 'propeller aircraft'. Once you weed out the ones with runout engines, the numbers start to get bigger in a hurry.
 
weilke said:
The only category that a 2010 G3 SR22T a 100k FIKI twin have in common is that they are both 'propeller aircraft'. Once you weed out the ones with runout engines, the numbers start to get bigger in a hurry.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but for the point of argument let's say $200k. Ok, that's still a $250k price delta.
 
I think the proper way is to break it down, can you afford the Cirrus?
Do you want/need a twin?
Can you afford the upkeep on a twin? (If you answered yes to affording the Cirrus then you should be able to stash the cash to cover most major issues for a while)

Where are you going to keep it, the costs of storing the smaller plane can be lower, or they can be equal or even less as you might be more inclined to leave a 40year old plane out compared to a 4 year old.

Also don't forget the repack on the chute and the referb of the airbags in the cirrus, these are required certification things unlike the TBO on the second engine of the twin.

Both are good options and both have a good case to be made for them.
 
Last edited:
OP here. Thanks for all of the thoughtful comments.

The purpose of my post was to see if I was thinking about this in the right way; it seems like that's true. I was curious to see if what I thought was true (that a relative oversupply of older FIKI Twins made for a better choice for my mission than a newer FIKI high-performance piston single) stood up to the opinions of people with some actual experience.

There's no simple answer, and assumptions have to be made (fuel cost being the main variable), but it seems like a FIKI twin, despite its higher operating cost, is a better bet.

As many of you pointed out, there are other FIKI singles out there besides the Cirrus; they seem to fall at different points on the risk perspective, depending on how well they carry ice. The major risk of FIKI singles other than the Cirrus is that one cannot pull the chute if you lose the fan over hazardous terrain (including low IMC). There doesn't seem to be an answer to that, and the chute wouldn't save me from engine failure over the Great Lakes (although enough altitude would).

I agree with the poster who said turbochargers and FIKI should go together; it's not uncommon to get ten thousand feet of potential icing here in Minnesota (especially this year). The ability to quickly climb through it and remain above a layer is a real boon to safety.

Pressurization is something I haven't thought much about; I don't have any problem wearing a cannula and/or flying lower when carrying passengers, and the added expense doesn't seem like it's worth it. I do wonder how well the heater in a twin works with cruise OAT hovering around -40F.

Thanks again to everyone; I'm still in the planning stages of this career change but it's good to get some feedback to make sure I'm not going off on some fool's errand. I imagine the first year or so I'll use primarily airline flying and then switch to my own plane when I'm convinced that the business will work and I can no longer tolerate airline flying. Maybe I'll do a few air charters in various types to dip my toe a bit.
 
Last edited:
Heater in a twin at -40?

I feel you may be asking yourself "what heater?"
 
koehn said:
I agree with the poster who said turbochargers and FIKI should go together; it's not uncommon to get ten thousand feet of potential icing here in Minnesota (especially this year). The ability to quickly climb through it and remain above a layer is a real boon to safety.

Pressurization is something I haven't thought much about; I don't have any problem wearing a cannula and/or flying lower when carrying passengers, and the added expense doesn't seem like it's worth it. I do wonder how well the heater in a twin works with cruise OAT hovering around -40F.
Click to expand...

Other parts snipped.

On the question of turbos and FIKI together, I'd ask how much time you've spent with them to notice the differences. Yes they're nice together, but I can't think of any no-gos I've made where turbos would have changed the decision. If it was that bad, I probably needed pressurization and/or turbines in most cases. With few exceptions, a piston twin will not have capabilities that compare to turbines. The one exception I can think of is my friend's RAM T310R, which basically has King Air C90 performance. Meanwhile, the 310 I fly with upgraded naturally aspirated engines was doing about a 1,500 FPM climb through 6,000 ft with full fuel, 3 people, and baggage to top an icing layer, and has done 1,000 FPM through 11,000 ft with the same loading, both while doing better than Vy. My point is, don't limit yourself to turbo aircraft unless you want turbos for other reasons.

One advantage pressurization has is that it reduces your need for a heater since the bleed air from the turbos is warmer. Different planes have different results with this. That said, I don't think that alone is good reason for going for it with the extra cost up.

I've run the heater in the 310 at -40F OAT and been comfortable, but I've heard of issues with them at those temps. In any event, you should always have warm clothes when flying in a plane in winter.
 
Having a turbo IMO definitely makes a lot of go vs. no go decisions. Being able to fly on top even if I have to go to the low 20's makes a lot of difference. I can't even count the number of times I have flown comfortably on top while looking down at all kinds of ugly. I use a turbo's capabilities almost every flight, I would only use FIKI a couple of times a year. However, if I lived near the great lakes I would have both, no question.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Having a turbo IMO definitely makes a lot of go vs. no go decisions. Being able to fly on top even if I have to go to the low 20's makes a lot of difference. I can't even count the number of times I have flown comfortably on top while looking down at all kinds of ugly. I use a turbo's capabilities almost every flight, I would only use FIKI a couple of times a year. However, if I lived near the great lakes I would have both, no question.
Click to expand...

Much of your flying patterns also involve going towards those big rocks, in which case I'd absolutely agree. Meanwhile, my flying has been almost always in the flatter part of the country.
 
Skylane81E said:
I'd be more inclined to want a turbo in a single as well
Click to expand...

Curious - is that because you'd want extra performance (or more specifically performance not dropping off with altitude as quickly) or because you'd want to fly higher in a single for better glide path?

The irony is that since a turbo places more strain on the engine, you're increasing your chances of an engine problem... and you only have one.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I disagree, but for the point of argument let's say $200k. Ok, that's still a $250k price delta.
Click to expand...


That's 15k per year in interest if you have to borrow the money at 6%.

The OP indicated that this was a business use. As a 6 year asset with straight line depreciation, he is going to take 75k off his taxable income with the 450k aircraft. With a 200k old twin, he is going to take 33k off his income every year. He lives in MN and if he is thinking about using a plane for business he must be rich ;) . Between Obamas 'fair share' (39.6%) and Daytons 'soak the rich tax' at 9.85%, his marginal rate is just shy of 50%. Every dollar he can take out of that bracket, lowers his tax bill by 49.45cent. The difference in depreciation is going to pay for the interest and then some. After those things are put into the model, it comes down to the difference in fixed annual and proportional variable cost.
 
weilke said:
That's 15k per year in interest if you have to borrow the money at 6%.

The OP indicated that this was a business use. As a 6 year asset with straight line depreciation, he is going to take 75k off his taxable income with the 450k aircraft. With a 200k old twin, he is going to take 33k off his income every year. He lives in MN and if he is thinking about using a plane for business he must be rich ;) . Between Obamas 'fair share' (39.6%) and Daytons 'soak the rich tax' at 9.85%, his marginal rate is just shy of 50%. Every dollar he can take out of that bracket, lowers his tax bill by 49.45cent. The difference in depreciation is going to pay for the interest and then some. After those things are put into the model, it comes down to the difference in fixed annual and proportional variable cost.
Click to expand...

Good post. Of course the other side is with the older twin he can put in a G600, call it an instrument repair, and expense it. Fuzzy logic applied to GAAP:D
 
Alexb2000 said:
Good post. Of course the other side is with the older twin he can put in a G600, call it an instrument repair, and expense it. Fuzzy logic applied to GAAP:D
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are ways to work the math either way. And then there's the question of whether you'd choose to bother financing it or just pay cash (assuming that's an option). Depends on how complex of an accounting scheme you want to get into.
 
Skylane81E said:
Heater in a twin at -40?

I feel you may be asking yourself "what heater?"
Click to expand...
Why would you say that? Mine will cook you. In the mid teens a few weeks ago with OAT -28F and my wife was turning it down. OTOH in any single engine cessna we've flown, she's froze.
 

Attachments

  • nose after.jpg
    nose after.jpg
    101.8 KB · Views: 35
Ted DuPuis said:
Curious - is that because you'd want extra performance (or more specifically performance not dropping off with altitude as quickly) or because you'd want to fly higher in a single for better glide path?

The irony is that since a turbo places more strain on the engine, you're increasing your chances of an engine problem... and you only have one.
Click to expand...

Keep the power up while climbing
 
JHW said:
Why would you say that? Mine will cook you. In the mid teens a few weeks ago with OAT -28F and my wife was turning it down. OTOH in any single engine cessna we've flown, she's froze.
Click to expand...

Granted I have only played with P products but the janitrol just hasn't been up to task. Seneca would get the back seat area warm but little made it to the front and a Chieftain just seems too big for the little heater.

Current Navajo has an exhaust heater, THAT gets hot
 
Skylane81E said:
Granted I have only played with P products but the janitrol just hasn't been up to task. Seneca would get the back seat area warm but little made it to the front and a Chieftain just seems too big for the little heater.

Current Navajo has an exhaust heater, THAT gets hot
Click to expand...
get a new heater, the guy who used to make janotrols designed a better mousetrap and started a new company to build them.
 
Our heater is a C&D. Like Jeff's, it'll roast you.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Other parts snipped.

On the question of turbos and FIKI together, I'd ask how much time you've spent with them to notice the differences. Yes they're nice together, but I can't think of any no-gos I've made where turbos would have changed the decision
Click to expand...

In an SR22 there is a huge difference in climb rate once in the teens between a turbo and NA and you are better able to handle any ice that is picked up. Additionally the turbo goes up to FL250 which makes a difference flying over the Rockies.
 
peppy said:
In an SR22 there is a huge difference in climb rate once in the teens between a turbo and NA and you are better able to handle any ice that is picked up. Additionally the turbo goes up to FL250 which makes a difference flying over the Rockies.
Click to expand...

People are great at spending the money of others.

De-ice is, without a doubt, important for the stated mission. But who said anything about crossing the Rockies? If that was the intent then turbos would definitely be on my list. The OP lives in the flatlands and didn't state he wanted to head over the Rockies.

I've flown turbo and non-turbo planes in icing all over this country east of the Rockies. Like I said, I can't think of any times I've made a no-go where turbos would have changed it to a go. I am very aware of the climb rate differences as you get higher up. The reality is that for most of the weather you'll deal with most of the time east of the Rockies, you don't need turbos. And if the weather is that bad, you probably won't be going in a piston plane at all.

But turbos will have a constant expense draw regardless of whether you need them or not. If you like flying at altitudes where turbos work great, then it makes sense. Then there are the O2 issues with flying in the altitudes where turbos work best. That works for some, but others don't like wearing cannulas or masks.
 
An-72.jpg


Wing root GUARANTEED NOT TO ICE!
 
What on earth is that? Has to be Russian...
 
I was in the same dilema needing to travel for business and family matters 20 years ago. At the same time a friend of mine was in the same situation. My friend opted for an Aerostar 601P and I for a Mooney 201. His Aerostar let him down 5 times at destination airports and 3 at his home base. My Mooney never let me down in the same period. Four times I had to rescue my friend on my Mooney. On the average I was doing 18nm/gallon while his 601P was doing 6nm/gallon. At maintenance time I only had to worry about 4 cylinders while he had to worry about 12 cylinders. But the big kikker was at overhaul time. Mine was $25,000 while his was $120,000. After this my friend swapped his 601P for a Mooney Ovation.

Dispatchability decreases with the more engines you have. You cannot take off with a bad engine on a twin. The chances of an engine failure on a twin is twice that of a single. Most engine failures occur during high power setting during takeoff and climb and max weight. An engine failure on a twin on takeoff will come down like on a single. The difference is that the chance of an engine failure on takeoff on a twin is twice that of a single.

José
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What on earth is that? Has to be Russian...
Click to expand...

Ellohell. Yeah, I think it's labled an AN 72xx (Antonov 72xx), which looks ironically like an ATR 72 with two irresponsibly large and awkwardly placed turbofan engines in place of the props. May be great... then again... who knows. It's times like these when I'm glad to not be certified to fly such a beast, as I would be drawn to try it for some odd reason.
 
Piloto said:
I was in the same dilema needing to travel for business and family matters 20 years ago. At the same time a friend of mine was in the same situation. My friend opted for an Aerostar 601P and I for a Mooney 201. His Aerostar let him down 5 times at destination airports and 3 at his home base. My Mooney never let me down in the same period. Four times I had to rescue my friend on my Mooney. On the average I was doing 18nm/gallon while his 601P was doing 6nm/gallon. At maintenance time I only had to worry about 4 cylinders while he had to worry about 12 cylinders. But the big kikker was at overhaul time. Mine was $25,000 while his was $120,000. After this my friend swapped his 601P for a Mooney Ovation.

Dispatchability decreases with the more engines you have. You cannot take off with a bad engine on a twin. The chances of an engine failure on a twin is twice that of a single. Most engine failures occur during high power setting during takeoff and climb and max weight. An engine failure on a twin on takeoff will come down like on a single. The difference is that the chance of an engine failure on takeoff on a twin is twice that of a single.

José
Click to expand...

That's also something of an apples and oranges comparison, though.

You can fit a lot more in an Aerostar 601P than in a Mooney, you can go a good sum faster, you do have two engines (with the various pros and cons of that), and you have pressurization and I'm assuming de-ice. So you've got a significantly more capable airplane in the Aerostar. If he didn't need that extra capability, then there's no point.

As for dispatchability, more than anything that has to do with how you maintain the plane.
 
Skylane81E said:
I'd be more inclined to want a turbo in a single as well
Click to expand...
From the "failure department", I think if you have a single engine, it needs be a honking, unstressed IO-550. If you have two, they should be fire breathing.
 
bbchien said:
Mine roasts us too, nice at toasty at FL22 above a Nor-easter Dec 30! I got my idea....from Jeff!
Click to expand...

I got my idea from the previous owner, who had the idea to put it in when he still owned it. Thus, my own effort was minimal. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's also something of an apples and oranges comparison, though.

You can fit a lot more in an Aerostar 601P than in a Mooney, you can go a good sum faster, you do have two engines (with the various pros and cons of that), and you have pressurization and I'm assuming de-ice. So you've got a significantly more capable airplane in the Aerostar. If he didn't need that extra capability, then there's no point.

As for dispatchability, more than anything that has to do with how you maintain the plane.
Click to expand...

You are right but what good is a 601P in the shop vs a 201 in the air. In one year his 601P spent 6 weeks in the shop while my 201 no more than two weeks for the annual and oil changes. In fact he borrowed my 201 while his 601P was at the shop. I never had to borrow his 601P.

José
 
I've owned both a Mooney and Aerostar 602P. Even though I lost a few Mooney trips to MX issues over a couple of years, some of which were avionics issues, the A/S ate me out of house and home and required more MX while away from home on road trips than the Mooney required during the entire time I owned it.

Piloto said:
You are right but what good is a 601P in the shop vs a 201 in the air. In one year his 601P spent 6 weeks in the shop while my 201 no more than two weeks for the annual and oil changes. In fact he borrowed my 201 while his 601P was at the shop. I never had to borrow his 601P.

José
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top