My T182T coughed up an engine bolt. Happily it was caught by the oil filter and discovered during an oil change. Unhappily, Cessna told my AP, “Yep — we knew we had some brittle bolts out there. We were curious where they’d show up.” This has me thinking about a next airplane . . . one with a Continental engine. If I fly no more than I fly now (sporadic) I probably will opt for a 260se, with its 35-knot stall speeds. But if I can manage to fly more than that, and really improve my proficiency, I might choose between these: new SR22 and a 1990-ish A36 with timed-out engine . . . refurbished with a new 550, Millennium cylinders, GAMIs, JPI, turbonormalized, tip tanks, new panel, new interior, paint and glass. This Bo would cost about the same as a new SR22. Thoughts? Comparisons?
In reply to:
This has me thinking about a next airplane . . . one with a Continental engine.
I’m not sure I’d put engine manufacturer very high on my list of reasons to select an airplane. Unless the engine manufacturer was Honda or something else. [:)] Seems that both Lycoming and Continental have sure had their fair share of quality problems the last few years… ask any of us who have had to replace their Continental engines!
You’re pulling our collective legs, right? You might as well survey the Vatican on “what’s the best religion” [:)].
I also considered an A36, but bought an SR22. I think a particular issue considering your comments is the vastly superior integration of the Cirrus, compared to the “big 'ol assorted collection 'o gauges 'n switches” in a Bonanza, no matter how you upgrade the avionics.
The Cirrus motto ought to be “this is not your father’s Bonanza”.
Good luck on your choice, glad your 182 mechanical was discovered on the ground!
Buy the 260SE.
Rent an SR22 from West Valley Flying Club when you need it.
If you don’t fly enough to remain proficient in both, you’ll have your answer, and you will still own a plane that best suits your variable use profile.
Let me ask, were the aviation magazine editors all from FLYING? [;)]
In reply to:
a 1990-ish A36 with timed-out engine . . . refurbished with a new 550, Millennium cylinders, GAMIs, JPI, turbonormalized, tip tanks, new panel, new interior, paint and glass. This Bo would cost about the same as a new SR22.
My heart says the Bo would be an incredible performer in that configuration. But then my head says I would be very frustrated now with an airplane with that kind of long-range capability but with no answer for what to do in Night+OverMountain or Night+IFR or IFR+OverMountain scenarios. To me any of those cases require either a) a second engine, b) a turbine, or c) a chute.
Now if you are willing to double your budget, early-90’s vintage TBM-700’s seem like a real buy right now.
I also at one time pondered the question of buying an old T210 (in this case) and upgrade it vs an SR22. I have about 850 hours on a T210 and loved the utility and performance of this turbocharged airplane. Finally I decided to go for the SR22 and have been very happy (110 hours) with the performance since my purchase in March 2003. On the West coast, climb performance is a VERY important factor. Altitude and heat can ruin your day especially in an airplane with a normally aspirated engine. The SR22 even though it is not turbonormalised(yet), exeeded my expectations as far as take off performance, climb performance and LOAD capacity! Furthermore, when I added it all up there is just no way you will end up with such a nicely integrated avionics suite as the SR22 has. The combination of utility, technology and a company that aims to please it’s customers can only be found at CD! At last but not least my wife enjoys flying with me in the Cirrus way more than she ever did in the old T210. The comfort, visibility and the idea that she has some control over her (and the childrens) survival should something happen to me or the plane has given me the opportunity to fly more.
One of our COPA members traded his A-36 for the '22…was it Roger?
FWIW, I had asked a similiar question, I believe on this forum, and after that and some personal research, was convinced that the SR22 was a superior machine: better payload, avionics, ergonomics, the 'chute, etc.
By this time next year, perhaps you’ll have to include the Diamond Twinstar in this category. An attractive package (I sure hope they improve the cabin ergonomics over the DA40 though) but I’d guess insurance premiums will be somewhere in geosynchronous orbit.
You just found out that you could have had your engine fail without any warning with your current airplane. You have a choice to buy a brand new airplane that is the market share leader and has a parachute as well as a number of other leading edge safety features. How do you explain to your passengers that you will never need a parchute so that is not a pivitol factor?
The issue is trust. That daft comment about brittle bolts and where they’d show up makes me think Lyc. is not over its QC problems for turbocharged 540s. I hope I’m wrong.
Well with your Cirrus you would have two years warranty…
A kit of parts Bonanza may or may not cause you long-term
Not pulling anybody’s leg. Love to hear the strongest possible pro-SR22 arguments. I asked some aviation magazine editors this question, and their answer was: Bonanza.
An unverified story:
A pilot was shopping for a new airplane. After looking at an SR22, he talked to a Bonanza salesman. He asked the salesman, “Why should I buy an A36, when an SR22 is faster, has fixed gear, better avionics, and a parachute?”
The Bo salesman said, “Uh, for the Bonanza name?”
I think you pay a lot for that name, whether you’re buying new or used. And if you think the name on the airplane is expensive, wait until you price the name on the little cardboard boxes that the parts come in!
In reply to:
I asked some aviation magazine editors this question, and their answer was: Bonanza.
I’m curious – did they explain their rationale? I can see some advantages (bigger cabin, more seats), but overall… with higher maintenance costs, more complex systems… ?
In reply to:
…with your Cirrus you would have two years warranty…
…or, with the new extended warranty option, you can get a third year of coverage for about $5K - to my mind, that’s a pretty good deal.
I flew an nicely equipped (Garmin 530, boots, stormscope, tip tanks) A36 before we switched to the Cirrus. We switched to the SR22 to get into grass strips and go faster.
Things I love with the SR22.
MFD (situation awareness is awesome)
no gear to worry over
Things I miss
room (with 2 young kids the back space in the Bo was nice)
Prop control (Bo was quieter)
stability (the Bo is one solid feeling plane)
(my wife misses AC on the ground)
All in all I think it comes down to space and mission. Do you need a six seater or four seater? I think either plane is an excellent choice.
In reply to:
One of our COPA members traded his A-36 for the '22
Actually, more than one. Both Scott Prinz and I traded Bonanzas for SR22’s. Neither of us has looked back. There are several people who traded twins for the SR22 and are very happy with their decisions.
I just flew from Santa Barbara to Portland, Oregon in 4:00 in comfort and with 23 gallons in the tanks when I landed. No way my 36 could have done this.
In reply to:
How do you explain to your passengers that you will never need a parchute so that is not a pivitol factor?
Tom: I love the Cirrus and like the CAPS, but I think your argument is a bit unfair. It would seem to indicate that logically, you should have to explain the lack of use of any and every safety device to your passengers. For instance, in cars, if you extend your argument then you would use helmets, ensure that you have airbags and side airbags for every seat, fire extinguisher, window breaking devices, etc. I doubt you or many other folks who might read this go to that extreme.
Everyday, we make choices about our personal safety. Do you have a GBIRB or GPLB in your plane? (They are on my “To Get” list along with the Garmin 330 TIS Transponder.) Do you explain to your passengers that your decision not to carry one may cost them their lives in the event of a crash? Do you have a CO dectector? Have you checked it recently? Do you have an alternate air supply in event the detector goes off or you have an in flight fire? How many back up radios and GPSs do you have? What about back up power supplies?
Also, every safety device comes with a cost. When comparing the Cirrus to the Bonanza, one major cost is the size of the airplane. If I need 6 seats or more room, the Cirrus is not an option.
In real life these decisions are not easy.
Good question on engine failure. If it happens right after takeoff, stall speed, stall behavior and crash worthiness are key. Does anybody know when (i.e., phase of flight) most engine failures occur?
Don’t forget lifevests and flame retarding clothes (including covering the face, standard practise for racing)