SR22 vs Twin Comanche

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Skepilot, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. Skepilot

    Skepilot Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skepilot
    Hi all,

    I'm an airline pilot with a GA background, considering an airplane purchase for family trips. Wife is somewhat nervous when flying on "little airplanes," wants either 2 engines or a parachute. (I'm quite familiar with the engine-out characteristics of light twins, having been an instructor with over a thousand hours of multi-engine instruction given. So, no need to rehash this topic here.)

    From what I’ve read, the normally aspirated Twinks cruise around 170 KTAS (depending on what speed mods it might have) burning around 16 - 17gph. That's pretty similar to the normally aspirated SR22, which might do a bit faster and burn a bit less LOP. The Twink should have a slight edge in useful load and range, but either will suffice for our needs.

    Though I have ample flying experience, I've never owned an airplane. (We've been renting an SR22.) From what I’ve been reading in some forums, Twink owners say that, as long as it’s been well-maintained, the ongoing maintenance costs aren’t much different from a complex single. Yes, it has two engines, but overhaul cost on that engine (IO-320) is less than half of that of the Cirrus’ IO-550, and the 320’s are known for going well past TBO. Also, on the Cirrus, you have to repack the chute every 10 years at a cost of $15k.

    Some downsides about the Twin Comanche are, like most Pipers and Beeches, it only has one door and its cabin is actually narrower than the SR22’s. And despite what their owners say, I’ve gotta think a 45-year old airplane with 2 engines and retractable gear will eventually cost you more in maintenance than a 12 to 15-year old SR22. But maybe not?

    While there are tons of cheap Twinks out there, it seems like one can buy a very well-equipped, late model / relatively low-time one for $120k. Meanwhile, even the oldest SR22s are pushing $200k. (Let's assume similar-time engines.) So, the $80 savings would pay for a lot of fuel/maintenance. But you may just be back to the “pay now or pay later” dilemma.

    I know these types of comparisons are difficult at best, but I'd be interested in hearing opinions.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Fearless Tower

    Fearless Tower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    14,721
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fearless Tower
    I can’t believe I’m about to say this......but if you’ve never owned and maintained your own plane before and you can afford the SR22, go for the Cirrus.

    Twinkies are great airplanes. I loved flying them, but the people I know who are current/recent owners have been finding it increasingly difficult to maintain. Not impossible, but certainly more problematic than an SR22.
     
    wayneda40, Skepilot and hindsight2020 like this.
  3. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    11,912
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    If you can afford the SR22, buy it.


    Don't look at the 100k price difference as money you could spend with a twin. Look at how much it would cost you to carry that money. Interest on a loan or whatever it would do if you put it into your retirement account.
     
  4. Skepilot

    Skepilot Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skepilot
    Either would be a stretch on my own, to be honest. I'm considering a partnership with a colleague or two with similar needs.
     
  5. hindsight2020

    hindsight2020 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,092
    Location:
    KBAZ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    hindsight2020
    @Fearless Tower beat me to the comment. My exact sentiments. I got a co-worker who owns a twinkie. Fine airplane, but they're old af, and it can be a PITA. I'd take the SR22 if I could afford it. And that to me is the single inflection point of this discussion. The acquisition delta is not inconsequential to me. I'd still prefer the SR in this case, unless the mission calls for frequent overwater or island home basing.
     
  6. NoHeat

    NoHeat En-Route

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,498
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    17
    Can a twin Comanche maintain level flight with one engine and your family aboard?
     
  7. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    11,912
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    If you can find some like minded financially solid individuals, that is certainly the way to go. The biggest benefit is with 2 or 3 in the partnership, after that you have a diminishing returns. I am in a 5-way partnership right now. Not so great if you want to do a spontaneous weekend trip. Great when it came time to pay for overhaul, R&R and a new prop a couple of years ago.

    My next plane is going to be in sole ownership because I need the ability to leave the plane 1/2 way across the country at times. I may make it available as a dry lease to one or more pilots, but I need full control.
     
    Msanders likes this.
  8. Let'sgoflying!

    Let'sgoflying! Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    15,759
    Location:
    west Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave Taylor
    I bet you will get better dispatch rates from the -22.
     
    Fearless Tower likes this.
  9. hindsight2020

    hindsight2020 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,092
    Location:
    KBAZ
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    hindsight2020
    Word...
     
  10. FloridaPilot

    FloridaPilot Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,410
    Location:
    Florida
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FloridaStudentPilot
    Who would pay more insurance?
     
  11. SethV

    SethV Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    88
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SethV
    I had the same decision - ended up with the SR22 and love it. The 120k twins probably won't have anti-ice or glass panel either.
     
  12. Twin_Flyer

    Twin_Flyer Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,273
    Location:
    Hampton, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Twin_Flyer
    You haven't really stated your mission or the size of your family, but 200 AMUs will buy a very nice 310 or baron with anti-ice, glass panel and $$$s left over.
     
  13. jordane93

    jordane93 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    8,528
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jordan
  14. GRG55

    GRG55 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    5,146
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Aztec Flyer
  15. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    11,912
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    SR22.

    Mostly due to higher hull value. Doesn't sound like he is lacking for twin hours so his TwinCo insurance would be pretty reasonable

    That said, I dont know who is writing insurance for the PA30 right now. There have been times that the mainstream insurers have shunned the type.
     
  16. JC150

    JC150 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    422
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JC150
    Another vote for the SR22...

    If you really wanted a twin, maybe the DA42 with diesel (jet A is cheaper). Gets you a real weather radar in the nose too and fiki. And it has the FADEC and auto feather thing.

    But if you're hauling a family around and can afford the cirrus, maybe a PA46? Get above most of the weather in pressurized comfort, plus a real weather radar, and FIKI.
     
    WillFly4Food and wayneda40 like this.
  17. Skepilot

    Skepilot Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skepilot
    Actually, I've seen a number that do have nice glass panels at that price. As for anti-ice, some twins in that range do have boots, but maybe not full FIKI. Keep in mind, to get an SR22 at $200k or below, it will have be a G1 or G2. So it might have TKS, but it won't be FIKI. Would have to get a G3 and jump up considerably in price to get FIKI.

    Family of 3, all pretty light. We can all get in the SR22 with bags and top off the tanks and still be under MTOW. Don't need much more range than 600NM or so + IFR reserves. I had picked the Twink for comparison because I figure it's the only twin that might come close on operating costs. I figure a Baron or 310 will burn a good 10gph more than the SR22, plus the extra maintenance.

    Would be nice, but those things are over $500k. Too expensive.

    Would also be nice, but also a bit too expensive. Also doesn't meet the wife's requirement of two engines or a parachute.
     
  18. wayne

    wayne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    933
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    wayne
    Another SR22 vote. I'm primarily flying a Baron right now, but working on putting together a partnership in a SR22.

    Two doors, wide cabin and yoke in front of your front seat passenger. They will love that. Very nice avionics. They are great traveling planes. We flew one for 4.5 years, and can't wait to get back in one.



    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
     
    Skepilot likes this.
  19. steingar

    steingar Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    25,304
    Location:
    Land of Savages
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    steingar
    My vote would be to stop listening to the woman and make PIC decisions. The money the OP is taking about could buy a number of really nice airframes.
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  20. Skepilot

    Skepilot Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skepilot
    Ha, I should have expected a response like this. The "wife requirement" is a bit TIC. The 2-engine or parachute requirement is my "PIC decision" for my family. I'm happy to have a discussion about it, in a different thread. (A discussion which I'm sure has already been argued to death elsewhere.)
     
    denverpilot, Brad Z and Radar Contact like this.
  21. unsafervguy

    unsafervguy Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Sw florida
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    bob
    Can a cirrus maintain altitude on zero engines. I bet a Twinkie on one engine will come down slower than sr22. With no engine.
     
    denverpilot, Skybrd, KA550 and 4 others like this.
  22. Radar Contact

    Radar Contact Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,300
    Location:
    Illinois
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kevin
    My NA 310 is about 5 gph more. I get about 175 ktas on roughly 22-23 gph (can get it to around 18 operating deep LOP with a little speed loss). I'm not sure of your location but the 310 single engine ceiling and climb rate is better than the Twin Comanche. (i.e. my plane loaded with 3 light people and gas for a 600 nm trip would give ~450 fpm single engine climb and over 9000 msl single engine ceiling.) May be something to look into but I'm guessing given your background you may have already. I have not owned or even flown in a Twin Comanche but my guess would be that the maintenance cost would be similar to my 310.

    To each their own but ultimately your requirement was similar to mine. I was leaning heavy towards an ovation but flying the family over open water, night, IMC pushed me to the twin. Additionally I have the need for a 6 place at times and wanted my range to be 900 nm + reserves and wanted full de-ice. If I spent more time in the western mountains I would have added turbocharged to the list. I'm also a fan of the bigger/stable airplane feel that a twin provides but SR22's are awesome machines and I'm sure would serve you well also.

    I'm obviously a twin fan so take it all for what it's worth. Good luck in your search.
     
    Zeldman and Skepilot like this.
  23. Skepilot

    Skepilot Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skepilot
    Yeah, I've got some 310 time, and I did love that airplane. I just assumed the maintenance would be considerably higher. Also the parachute has the advantage of a passenger being able to use it in the unlikely event of my incapacitation. And, if my wife does learn to fly, it would likely be sooner that she could handle the Cirrus vs a twin. Lots to consider.
     
    Radar Contact likes this.
  24. DesertNomad

    DesertNomad Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,535
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DesertNomad
    My hangar number has a Twin Comanche that I've flown with him a few times. I'd take the SR22. Those twins are 50 years old.
     
    wayneda40 likes this.
  25. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    11,912
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    And many of them will still be flying after most of todays SR22s have gone to the landfill ;-)
     
    Skybrd and KLRDMD like this.
  26. labbadabba

    labbadabba Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,094
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    labbadabba
    I'd much prefer a DA42-VI if you're comparing twinks against SR22s. It matches up very competitively against a SR22 in terms of speed and payload. It's also FIKI approved and will burn less of the cheaper Jet-A. Approved Single Engine ceiling is also 18,000 ft which in my mind beats a parachute (almost) every time...
     
    mwagg737 and wayneda40 like this.
  27. Skepilot

    Skepilot Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Skepilot
    Asked and answered. Way too expensive for me.
     
  28. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,111
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    You know, a BBJ would be even better...
     
    Skepilot likes this.
  29. labbadabba

    labbadabba Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,094
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    labbadabba
    Twin Comanches also are pretty unforgiving on a single engine...
     
  30. labbadabba

    labbadabba Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,094
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    labbadabba
    Yeah, saw that farther up the thread. Was thinking you were in that range since you were looking at SR22s... FWIW, the older DA42s don't have nearly the performance of the DA42-VIs so probably wouldn't be your best bet.

    All things being equal, looks like you're in the market for a G3 SR22...
     
  31. tspear

    tspear Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Timothy
    Price point mentioned is closer to a G2 SR22.
    However with the stated mission, the OP should consider a G3 SR20. Over 400nm, the difference in flight time will be minimal but the operating costs will be a lot less.
    I had a G2 SR20, over 300 hours in two years I averaged about one dollar a mile for all fixed and variable costs in the Washington DC area (expensive market), excluded depreciation and reserves. The G2 SR22 a friend had at the same time was running just under two dollars a mile. This was when gas was about 6.50 a gallon...

    Tim

    Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
     
  32. Fearless Tower

    Fearless Tower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    14,721
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fearless Tower
    Not necessarily. All it takes is a crack or excessive putting in a PA30 landing gear strut (a not uncommon problem) and boom....your airplane is down for potentially months while you scour the salvage lots for a part that can be reclaimed.

    A PA30 today will not beat the dispatch rate of an SR22
     
  33. Fearless Tower

    Fearless Tower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    14,721
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fearless Tower
    Not really. If you pay attention in training, there is nothing inherently dangerous about losing an engine in a PA30.

    You probably won’t maintain altitude, but it’s hardly a death trap.
     
    flyingcheesehead and Zeldman like this.
  34. Bonchie

    Bonchie Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,273
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bonchie
    I fly a '75 C182, so I've got no bias against older planes.

    But if you can afford an SR22, get an SR22.
     
  35. labbadabba

    labbadabba Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,094
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    labbadabba
    Problem is, with that wing it likes to lift before reaching VMC. And again with that wing, VMC and stall speed are very close. There's less room for error especially on the PA30 compared to a Seneca or Apache if you've lost the critical engine. It's not a death trap, nor did I say it was. But it's not exactly known to be a benign flyer on a single engine.
     
  36. Fearless Tower

    Fearless Tower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    14,721
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fearless Tower
    I must disagree. I did my training and got my ME in a PA30. Had absolutely no problem delaying rotation until redline.

    PA30s got a bad rep from the early days of ME training. Using today’s accepted training practices and standards, a PA30 is no more hazardous than a Seneca or even a Duchess.
     
  37. labbadabba

    labbadabba Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,094
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    labbadabba
    I was doing my multi in a PA30 as well. Until it VMC rolled on approach and killed a student and my instructor. At that point, I started digging into the history of the plane a bit more.
     
  38. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    11,912
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    Yeah, if the mechanic calls you and tells you that your reciprocating dinglearm control bearing is out of spec, this will go two ways:

    SR22: I ordered it, it's only $956 from Cirrus, it'll be here before 10.

    PA30: Let me check with (The Smithsonian/a dismantler in Delaware/some guy on the run from the feds.....) and I'll see whether I can get the part before flying season is over.
     
  39. bobmrg

    bobmrg En-Route

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,755
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bob Gardner
    I absolutely love Twinkies. Got my MEL in one and flew them Part 135 for several years...for awhile I was a DE in the PA-30/39. But today I would buy the Cirrus, for the same reason that I would buy a current model car instead of a classic: Up-to-date technology.

    Bob Gardner
     
  40. olasek

    olasek Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,589
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    olasek
    You would be surprised!
    According to NTSB and their accident statistics you are more likely to walk away alive from a single-engine piston aircraft (with or without parachute) when its engine failed than from any piston-powered twin when one of its engines failed. This is true regardless how incredible or improbable it may sound. This is because of combination of higher landing speeds in a twin and amateur pilots unfit to handle asymmetric thrust.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017