As I try to decide whether or not to buy a Cirrus…
I have been told that the Cirrus Airframe has a TTAF limitation of 4350 hrs. Is this true? And who would buy a used Cirrus 10-12 yrs from now with 3200 TTAF on it with a lifetime limit of 4350? Not me. Concerned about resale many yrs down the road. Any thoughts on this is appreciated.
Matt
You should join COPA and dig arround in the Members section.
I am sure you will find discussion on this. Basically you should not be worried, its likely that the life limit on both the SR20 and SR22 will be 12000 or more, and current published figures less than this for the SR22 are likely increased once more paperwork is done.
Even flying at a rate of 400 hours a year, you are talking 30 years…
Ian
3-78206-CBA3Questionnaire.doc (26.5 KB)
Don’t know the exact FAR, but I think an airplane after it’s (initial sometimes) useful life may not be used for commercial operations. But it still airworthy for private use.
I am very interested in the airframe time also. Sure 12000 hours is a lot. Even at current 4000 something hours… that’s still longer than a trainer (1972 C172) in our flying club. However, you can sell a very old C172, will people purchase SR-22 twenty, or thirty years from now?
In reply to:
However, you can sell a very old C172, will people purchase SR-22 twenty, or thirty years from now?
I don’t know if anyone can answer that question, but theoretically composites are not prone to corrosion or metal fatigue as aluminum planes are.
However, I can answer your question with a question: In 1960, has you asked a new Cessna owner if he though someone would buy his plane in 30 years or how much his new plane would be worth after 30 years, what do you think his answers would have been? (Would you have believed it?)
In reply to:
you can sell a very old C172, will people purchase SR-22 twenty, or thirty years from now?
I think the Cirrus will more than hold its own. The airframe life issue will go away over time as testing is completed, and more service history is accumulated (look at the Piper Malibu, for example).
The 172 holds its value, in part, because a 1958 model is functionally almost identical to a 2003 model. This is a time of fairly rapid change in GA, sort of like the late 1940s/early 1950s. The conversion to nosewheels and flat engines occurred quickly, and tanked the used value of round engined and tailwheel aircraft (at least until the became “classics;-D”).
Of the top of my head, I can’t think of any newly certified designs that aren’t, at least in part, composite. In a few years it will be more “normal” than rivets.
My $.02
My two cents: My recollection is that a lot of planes have or had airframe time limitations on them, which doesn’t have much of anything to do with the actual condition of the airframe and, further, does not cause any legal limitations on how long the plane can be flown.
The Lycoming engine on my Warrior has a rebuild limit of 10 years, or 2000 hours, whichever occurs FIRST. Well, it has 1850 hours now, and is 19 years old. It has great compression, has been checked inside and out with a borescope to look for corrosion, etc, etc…it’s still a fine engine, nine years after it’s supposed useful life.
In reply to:
Don’t know the exact FAR, but I think an airplane after it’s (initial sometimes) useful life may not be used for commercial operations. But it still airworthy for private use.
Jaap,
Actually that is not true. The aircraft becomes unairworthy when it reaches this number independent of the kind of operation it is used for.