Just read the AOPA Mag cover story on the new Commander. $450K base price for normal and $500K for TC version. Article only listed specs for the TC, which are roughly the same or worse that the SR22 (except for service ceiling). The base price does not appear to include AP and several other goodies standard on the Cirrus (not to mention the parachute, of course).
The author describes Commander buyers as very discriminating with cost being no object. They are willing to pay top dollar to get the very best. IMHO, looking at the flat metal dashboard of the Commander in the photos, and having squeezed into the demo unit at the AOPA convention last summer, I would rather buy the Cirrus, even if the prices were the same.
I was an SR20 holder and upgraded to SR22 for 4/02 delivery. I have to admit the market meltdown has me nervous about the financial viability of a $265,000 airplane parked in the garage. Reading about the Commander gives me renewed confidence. The Cirrus (either version) seems such an incredible value compared to anything out there that it will have to be a reasonably good investment.
With a 2X+ price difference for a Bonanza/Commander, etc., it appears that the Cirrus will hold its value very well over time.
“The Cirrus (either version) seems such an incredible value compared to anything out there that it will have to be a reasonably good investment.”
Tom: I read the same article and my reaction was the same. I did not sit in the Commander demonstrator at AOPA (I spent too much time drooling over the SR22 prototype out on the field), so I’m glad to hear your reaction.
IMHO, looking at the flat metal dashboard of the Commander in the photos, and having squeezed into the demo unit at the AOPA convention last summer, I would rather buy the Cirrus, even if the prices were the same.
I too upgraded from the SR20 to SR22 and am waiting for delivery of s/n 0017 on May 8th. I am very happy and comfortable with this decision, however, I do not think you did the Commander justice.
I have never spoken with anyone who did not believe that the 114/115’s comfort was anything but top notch. IMHO it is at least as wide as the SR’s. The Commander’s overall fit and finish and plushness is first rate.
The plane is very robust and the factory will install virtually any option the purchaser would care to pay for (TCAS, TKS, O2, A/P Garmins or UPSAT, JPI or radar altimiter). It is a great airplane, but has stiff competition in the bonanzas and mooneys, depending upon what your major requirements are - comfprt, speed or versitility.
Clearly you give up a little speed when you compare the Commander 115 to the SR22. I also think that once the market is more comfortable with the SR’s, the insurance cost for the SR’s will be quite a bit lower than for the Commanders (and Mooneys and Bo’s as well). Additionally the maintenance, due to no retractable landing gear, should be less in the SR’s. Overall, the SR’s have an extroadinary price advantage over the Commanders, but they also do when compared to just about any other competing airplane.
As long as the SR prices don’t increase, the value of the used aircraft will always be compared to the price of a new one.
Marty
I agree with you that the SR22 appears to be a much better buy for the money.
But I wouldn’t be too fast to criticize the “flat metal dashboard” in the Commander. Based on the discussions regarding the difficulty of installing add-on avionics in the Cirrus, I’ll bet some owners would willingly swap some fancy bolstering for more panel real estate!
Joe Mazza
IMHO, looking at the flat metal dashboard of the Commander in the photos, and having squeezed into the demo unit at the AOPA convention last summer, I would rather buy the Cirrus, even if the prices were the same.
Commander is a terrific plane. Owners love them. Big problem, though, is finding those owners. Commander sells about two planes a month.
Contrast that to the Cirrus “volume pricing” strategy. It creates more owners . . . in fact, a critical mass of them . . . which thus makes it economically feasible for valuable owner/enthusiast groups such as this one to exist.
Buy a Cirrus and you get the bonus of a lively owner/enthusiast group.
Thanks again, Clyde.
Just read the AOPA Mag cover story on the new Commander. $450K base price for normal and $500K for TC version. Article only listed specs for the TC, which are roughly the same or worse that the SR22 (except for service ceiling). The base price does not appear to include AP and several other goodies standard on the Cirrus (not to mention the parachute, of course).
The author describes Commander buyers as very discriminating with cost being no object. They are willing to pay top dollar to get the very best. IMHO, looking at the flat metal dashboard of the Commander in the photos, and having squeezed into the demo unit at the AOPA convention last summer, I would rather buy the Cirrus, even if the prices were the same.
I was an SR20 holder and upgraded to SR22 for 4/02 delivery. I have to admit the market meltdown has me nervous about the financial viability of a $265,000 airplane parked in the garage. Reading about the Commander gives me renewed confidence. The Cirrus (either version) seems such an incredible value compared to anything out there that it will have to be a reasonably good investment.
With a 2X+ price difference for a Bonanza/Commander, etc., it appears that the Cirrus will hold its value very well over time.
If I could go a little further on the value point. In general, the value of an airplane has historically made a ‘U’ shape. Say you buy a brand new Commander for X dollars. Odds are for a while it will decrease in value, bottom off, and then start to climb as airplane prices climb. That’s why you’ge got guys like my buddy who bought one of the last p210’s a few years used in '83. He got it on the cheap, now it’s worth a heap of $$.
Well, my gut is that the Commander, while a really nice machine, will follow this usual curve MUCH more than Cirrus, because as so many of you have put, you just get more bang for the buck with a Cirrus. I mean, you can basically have an SR20 and an SR22 for one tricked out Commander. Hmmm…
Thus - For the medium term owner - the Cirrus is a better investment say then… oh… my Nasdaq stocks. And likely a smoother ride as well
Dean 
Just read the AOPA Mag cover story on the new Commander. $450K base price for normal and $500K for TC version. Article only listed specs for the TC, which are roughly the same or worse that the SR22 (except for service ceiling). The base price does not appear to include AP and several other goodies standard on the Cirrus (not to mention the parachute, of course).
The author describes Commander buyers as very discriminating with cost being no object. They are willing to pay top dollar to get the very best. IMHO, looking at the flat metal dashboard of the Commander in the photos, and having squeezed into the demo unit at the AOPA convention last summer, I would rather buy the Cirrus, even if the prices were the same.
I was an SR20 holder and upgraded to SR22 for 4/02 delivery. I have to admit the market meltdown has me nervous about the financial viability of a $265,000 airplane parked in the garage. Reading about the Commander gives me renewed confidence. The Cirrus (either version) seems such an incredible value compared to anything out there that it will have to be a reasonably good investment.
With a 2X+ price difference for a Bonanza/Commander, etc., it appears that the Cirrus will hold its value very well over time.
I, too, am an SR22 position holder. But I looked long and hard at the Commander because it offers a degree of mission capability not offered by Cirrus. To wit: turbo charging, known-ice, air conditioning, dual vacuum and dual alternators, back-up electric AI and a whole host of avionics options available from the factory.
If your primary need is maximum probability of being able to launch when you need to launch, Commander is a better choice than Cirrus. I personally decided that I valued speed, modern design, economical operations, a parachute and some money left in the bank more than I valued all that mission reliability.