BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 11:58

Username Protected wrote:

Yesterday I gave two checkrides. The first to our own Martin Pauly who brought a flying club mid 90's SR-20 for his CFi-I checkride instead of his A-36 in the Morning, followed by a private student in a Cessna late 70's 172.

I don't fly Cirri very often, and the contrast was just mind-blowing.

Make no mistake, I like the stick and rudder characteristics of the -172 better. But that is where it ends. And the stick and rudder handling of the Cirrus is not horrible, it's just not as good as a Cessna.

But after that, the Cirrus wins on every metric. The heater works like a car, your feet are not cooking while your hands are freezing. The door closes with a feeling of security. Not since the -195 has Cessna built a piston single with a door that felt secure.

The seats in the Cirrus were even better than my Baron, and no comparison to the -172.

The visibility in the Cirrus for traffic and pattern work is excellent.

I could ramble on, and I will acknowledge that the Cirrus is not going to age as well as a 1959 C-172. But flying a similar mission in both airplanes in rapid successoin was eye-opening. It confirmed for me that when I can't afford to feed a Baron, or lack the proficiency to fly a hot rod twin, my B-55 P2 will most likely become an SR-22. It is a really nice traveling machine.

I like that they are both fast and a fixed gear, fixed gear is just one less thing insurance company can complain about when I get old.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 11:59

For 2 people, it is a great traveling machine.
But my biggest issue is that it is not as versatile as the A36.
The weight is an issue.
More than 2 people, and you need to start compromising

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 12:03

Username Protected wrote:

For 2 people, it is a great traveling machine.
But my biggest issue is that it is not as versatile as the A36.
The weight is an issue.
More than 2 people, and you need to start compromising

Are you referring to an SR20? I can put 5 (including me) in the SR22 with weekend bags for a 600nm trip. And it seems I can never get out of the CG range, which was a constant challenge in the V35B.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 12:34

Username Protected wrote:

you could buy 20 1959 172s for the price of a new Cirrus. Apples and oranges.

Ok, I'll bite. You can't compare a 1959 172 to a new 172 either.

So what's the point?

Instead compare a new 172 to an SR-20.

Someone buying an SR-20 or an SR-22 is not seriously evaluating instead buying a 1959 172.

Respectfully, you are the one making an apples/oranges comparison.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 12:53

The biggest issue is GA's thirst for "fake news" when it comes to the Cirrus. It's like the misinformation sustains them. I have almost 1000 hours in various SRs. I have never flown the SR20. The last one I flew was the G6 Turbo and it was amazing. So ill hit the high points for the 900th time.

3600lbs SR22s can hold four adults and hours of fuel. The G6 I flew had every option and still had a higher useful load than the F33A or the S35 I use to fly and didn't have CG issues.

The SR airframe will be around for a long time. There are long EZs and Lancairs that are pushing 40 now.

The parachute works. No one dies if used within its designed parameters. Like no one, they come down under canopy in forests, swamps, oceans, urban areas, and moutains. You don't have it all figured out, most of you are only as good as your training and it's not enough. Even then, you'll need a little luck to walk away. The parachute takes away so many decisions that kill people in emergencies.

It can recover from a spin.

They have outsold every GA piston airplane for almost 2 decades now.

Attachment:

4rf9gp.jpg

Yes, I made this meme specifically for this post...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 13:12

Username Protected wrote:

For 2 people, it is a great traveling machine.
But my biggest issue is that it is not as versatile as the A36.
The weight is an issue.
More than 2 people, and you need to start compromising

Gen 1s came with about 1100-1150 lbs useful loads
Gen 2s with AC and TKS run about 1000lbs useful loads
Gen3s were about 1000lbs and the turbo ones about 950lbs. useful load
Gen 5/6s are the 3600lbs airframes and went to 1150-1350lbs.

Now, the only way your A36s works is if you put a ton of lipstick on it. It had to be STCd to 4000lbs. You needed tips and a turbo. The G6 I flew had AC, FIKI, Turbo, and still had an 1150lbs useful load.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 13:24

I'm sure the Cirrus is a nice travelling airplane if you have a half million dollars to spend and don't mind paying for the chute re-packs etc.

I'm not in that income bracket.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 13:27

Are avionics upgrades as easy on a Cirrus as they are on a Beech/Cessna/Piper or are there more restrictions?
It seems like there are more manufacturer imposed restrictions or is that just from the naysayers??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 13:30

No they are not based on the avionics shops Ive discussed this with Rick. Upgrades and changes particularly when antennae's are involved are problematic. It is possible in some cases but I think without Cirrus’s approval.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 13:31

Username Protected wrote:

Are avionics upgrades as easy on a Cirrus as they are on a Beech/Cessna/Piper or are there more restrictions?
It seems like there are more manufacturer imposed restrictions or is that just from the naysayers??

Very easy, you can drop the full Garmin TXI panel in the old Avidyne birds.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 13:38

G6's for me is out of reach... Too expensive. Not in the cards, and if I had that kind of money I would go to something different anyway

G3 is the only thing that I can compare to a A36.
I fly a G3 once in a while, and the useful load is at 1080. Wonderful plane btw.
You say you can put 5 people and bags in 1080? wow... :scratch:

I am 240, 6-4 and wife is 6-0, 150lbs plus 150lbs bags for travel and 92g full fuel will get you over gross.

Not bashing Cirrus. Just stating the facts. I did the math, and that is why I went to Bonanza.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 13:45

I looked at late model, 2017-2020 172 and SR-20s and the prices are comparable. I did not delve deep, but in the mid 400s would buy you a 200 hr of either. And I give checkrides in late model 172, and the heater still cooks my feet if my hands are warm.

The 1959 -172 example was about a classic aircraft. I do not think I want to maintain a 60-year-old SR- anything. And neither does Cirrus.

I have a low mileage 1999 BMW M-3 and it scares me to death. Will we be able to operate today's cars as classics? I know farmers and contractors that work every day with equipment built in the '60s. Will a modern tractor or dozer with computers and displays be functional for 60 years? I don't think so.

The older 182/180/185 airframes are still the best you can buy for a bush or floatplane mission. They can easily be refurbished to like-new status, and they are lighter than the later models. (but you will still have hot feet and the backseaters will freeze...)

Fully integrated panels and computer-managed warning systems are going to be difficult to maintain long term. These systems are part of the original certification of the airframe and upgrades pathways are difficult to certify.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 13:50

If I were in the market for a SE aircraft, I would not remotely consider buying another Bonanza. A turbo SR-22 would be my only choice!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 14:01

Username Protected wrote:

Gen 1s came with about 1100-1150 lbs useful loads
Gen 2s with AC and TKS run about 1000lbs useful loads
Gen3s were about 1000lbs and the turbo ones about 950lbs. useful load
Gen 5s were about the same as G3s but known Ice took them to 900lbs.
Gen 6s went 1150-1350lbs because of the gross weight increase.

Mostly accurate except that the G5's are when the gross weight increase took effect, starting with 2013 model years. My 2013 G5 SR22T has Turbo, Known Ice TKS, A/C, O2 and still has 1100 lbs UL. My previous ship, a 2012 SR22T G3 had the same equipment but only 900 lbs UL.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Dec 2020, 14:04

Username Protected wrote:

Mostly accurate except that the G5's are when the gross weight increase took effect, starting with 2013 model years. My 2013 G5 SR22T has Turbo, Known Ice TKS, A/C, O2 and still has 1100 lbs UL. My previous ship, a 2012 SR22T G3 had the same equipment but only 900 lbs UL.

You are right, I corrected it for accuracy, I forgot the G5s got the higher weight too.

Cirrus bashers beware...