So I was talking to a guy about buying his 2000 SR-20, and he proceeded to tell me it had had a ‘few’ $5,000 annuals and 4 alternators had gone bad. In fairness, 1 was rebuilt. Is this common?
I found it hard to believe so much has failed in such a relatively short amount of time. The plane is a bit above mid time.
Bryan:
Yeah, things do break, and EVERYTHING in aviation is expensive. A better question might be “do things break more often than they do in other aircraft?” I believe the answer to that question is NO.
However – and it is a big “however” – you should consider that a Cirrus has avionics that are far more advanced and far more expensive than an older Cessna or Piper. If the cutting-edge stuff breaks, it costs much more to fix or replace than older, less advanced equipment. That is not really a dependability issue, it is an issue that you have more advanced and more expensive equipment.
There is no free lunch in aviation.
Jim Knollenberg SR20 1281 N814
In reply to:
So I was talking to a guy about buying his 2000 SR-20, and he proceeded to tell me it had had a ‘few’ $5,000 annuals and 4 alternators had gone bad. In fairness, 1 was rebuilt. Is this common?
I found it hard to believe so much has failed in such a relatively short amount of time. The plane is a bit above mid time.
Bryan;
Many people have differing expreriences. While some have had bad experiences with the alternator, it should be noted that Cirrus does not make an alternator. These are made by a commerical aircraft alternator manufacturer. Thus, to the extent the person you spoke with has had a problem, had they owned any aircraft with that alternator, the problem might still exist. Personally, I owned a 2000 SR-20, #36 off the line. I flew it for almost 500 hrs and never had an alternator problem.
In short, it’s not the “Cirrus” that breaks, it’s the alternator and it could be in any airplane.
In reply to:
Is this common?
I don’t own, so I can’t say. Having read posts on the members board for a long time, I’d say it happens. I can think of one post about fixing “Skywatch” out of warranty at annual for an added $2000 hit, and another that was pleasantly surprised to pay just $1800 for his first annual. I’d say if the difference between a $1800 annual and a $5000 annual would break the bank, then airplane ownership may be a bad idea. I’d want to see the trend. After 4 or 5 annuals are the costs going down or up? Were the expensive annuals in early years or more recent?
In reply to:
So I was talking to a guy about buying his 2000 SR-20, and he proceeded to tell me it had had a ‘few’ $5,000 annuals and 4 alternators had gone bad. In fairness, 1 was rebuilt. Is this common?
I found it hard to believe so much has failed in such a relatively short amount of time. The plane is a bit above mid time.
Any airplane can have this happen, in fact every airplane is going to have some amount of it. But that said, a lot of factors can be in play here. For the record, my 2001 SR22 has had one MCU fail and one alt 2 fail in 600 hours of operation. All in the the last 12 months out of warranty and they all together cost a bit over 4,000 to have them fixed. Otherwise no problems and never a scrubbed flight. That means I am spending about a grand a year on average on fixing stuff that breaks - not counting tires and other wear items. Unfortunately it was all in year 4 of operation [:(]
But I do a fair amount of my own maintenance (legally - I am a good mechanic but not an A&P so I have A&P friends supervise - for example I replaced the alt 2) and don’t take it to a Cirrus SC for little things (including annual). I do take it to a SC for some more specific to Cirrus things (like the MCU replacement). My first 2 annuals under warranty (aka - I bought no parts) at a SC and they were still 3000 bucks. My last two were 1000 and 1500 respectively and the higher priced one included rebuilding the mags. Difference, I have a trusted mechanic that I prefer and his hourly rate is half the SC and he is way more experienced. Any certified mechanic can work on a Cirrus.
My point is, planes are expensive and they break like any other mechanical contraption. But how involved you are and decisions you make can make a huge difference in costs and you can still be safe and legal. Of course the inverse is that bad decisions can be costly down the road if you put off maintenance or don’t do it correctly - and of course you need to stay safe so having some knowledge of what your doing is vital. Its not for the inexperienced or the weak… choose wisely grasshopper [;)] Good luck with your decision.
Bryan,
A couple observations:
On a Cirrus, there’s just more to break. TKS, SkyWatch, Stormscope, Emax, autopilot, two Avidynes, two Garmins, etc. Now add wx, terrain and CMAX. Sometimes I pine for the simplicity of my Citabrias which had, well, a NavCom and transponder.
I’m frustrated by some things that break because it appears Cirrus “cheaped out” on parts. Recent threads on the member’s side have discussed the Emax connectors, and simple little things like bargain-basement ring terminals on the alternator field wire continue to cause aborted missions.
In some cases (flap hinge fairings, alt air brackets, wheel fairing design, dip-stick) Cirrus is stepping up and improving designs. In other cases they don’t seem to be.
BTW, I was the fellow with the SkyWatch that needed a flat-rate repair of about $2,200. But that didn’t include remove/install and shipping. When all was said and done it was over $2,500 to fix a single radio one time. Ouch. Done at the same time as my annual and lifter inspection, the bill was over $6,000.
The Cirrus is the future and is a good plane. With a little more attention to detail it could be great, however.
I am just now getting my 4th annual on my SR22. Total time is 535 hours. Other than getting my original tires and tubes replaced and the mandatory 500 hour rebuild on the magnetos, I don’t have a single sqwak.
I know some guys are having the #1 alternator rebuilt at 500 hours just in case. Any thoughts on this?
I still have the original #1 and #2 alternators with no trouble on either one.
Bryan,
Before making a decision on the plane, verify if the life limited parts were replaced at the 5 year annual. Those parts, plus the “CAPS reefer line cutter” with a 6 year life are not inexpensive to replace. Fortunately the lines can mostly be replaced with a higher quality part that does not have a life limit.
Thanks Jim. My initial reaction was that was an awful lot of alternators. Having had 1 go out in a 210 that very same day, I was a bit discouraged to hear the cirrus didnt fare much better.
.
.
Thanks Dennis. My apprehension was that the Cirrus is inherently more dependent on an alternator, given its so electrically driven. That said, the 210 I was in that very day had retractable gear that was no fun to manually pump down 
The gist of what Im asking is if this many alternators in sucha relatively short time is standard from what u all see, or an anomaly?
I was so excited to see not 1 single admonishment for not being a member yet
In short, it’s not the “Cirrus” that breaks, it’s the alternator and it could be in any airplane.
Nonsense. Cirrus puts the alternators into their half million dollar planes, so they are responsible for the design and function of the alts- which break down alot!
They don’t construct the engines either- would you forgive them an engine failure? Are we only to judge Cirrus by the airframe and parachute, and give them a pass on every avionics malfunction?
If so why did Chertoff have to explain Michael Brown?
In reply to:
Thanks Dennis. My apprehension was that the Cirrus is inherently more dependent on an alternator, given its so electrically driven.
I was so excited to see not 1 single admonishment for not being a member yet
You are correct that Cirrus is more “power dependant”, but that is why it has a second alternator, and in the case of the older SR20’s perhaps 2 vac systems.
So, in part, your question as to dependancy is an issue of the configuration of that particular aircraft.
The older 20 had only the ARNAV differing from traditional aircraft. The ARNAV is “informational only”.
As to admonishions; no need if your question is well stated and focused as yours is.
Although I will admit that there is a ton more discussion on the member side as relates to alternators.
You got really lucky. [:)]
Ok this is where I got confused. My understanding was this early SR-20 only had a single alternator? 1 of the big selling points for me was so much redundancy, especially the dual alternators.
SO is this an option, or specific years/models, or what?
The second alternator was an option on SR20’s before the switch to all-electric.
My SR20 is dual-alt, dual-vac.
– Marc
In reply to:
The second alternator was an option on SR20’s before the switch to all-electric.
My SR20 is dual-alt, dual-vac.
– Marc
Thank u - do u know when this switch occured? Looks like this is a deal breaker 4 me on this particular plane. bummer.
Bryan:
You may be a bit confused. The early SR20 planes with only one alternator had a vacuum system for the DG and AI and were NOT PFD planes. In other words, they were just like any conventional plane with BOTH a vacuum system and an electrical system.
As a result, there was NOT the “power dependency” in these planes that there are now. If you lost the alternator, the vacuum system and battery would get you out of any IFR situation.
Once the plane, in 2003, went to all electric and PFD, the whole dynamic changed. Now, in these planes, no vacuum system at all and total electrical dependency.
Many folks prefer the early SR20 because it had BOTH vacuum and electric components. So those original planes are not bad to own. But if you are looking for full PFD and all the additional newer features without vacuum, you have to switch to the later models.
In reply to:
Thank u - do u know when this switch occured? Looks like this is a deal breaker 4 me on this particular plane. bummer.
There was an “A” a “B” and a “C” model. I had the “C” with the dual vac and dual alt.
Just ask the seller if they have a dual alt, but dual alt really wasn’t necessary because it was a very conventional plane except that it had an MFD display in the center
