Looking for a 2007-2008 SR22 Turbo

I am looking for a 2007-2008 turbo SR22 (w/o A/C) with relatively low hours, and am ready to move immediately. Any suggestions?

Jaime Steel


And in particular:


One of my clients is thinking about selling his 400 hour 2006 Columbia 400. Great plane with NDH. I picked it up from the factory myself and did all the training with the current owner. All compressions good. G1000 with GFC 700 autopilot. It also has tanis engine preheat and comes with aircraft covers. contact me if you would like pictures.

Low hours is not necessarily a good thing. An engine that sits for longer than 2 weeks or so is subject to corrosion. The best thing for the engine is to fly it frequently. I would not consider an airplane that had been subject to disuse for periods longer than 5 or 6 weeks at a time (unless the engine was properly “pickled”). I would be wary of any airplane that flew less than 100 hours a year.

Q: Is the same true of turbine engines? (I presume so, but am not familiar with the materials used in different engines, or their tendency to corrode.)

Sorry if I’m off topic.

I don’t know. I have not heard it mentioned with respect to a turbine.

Yes, it is the same for turbines. Pratt & Whitney has a schedule that says if you don’t fly it at least every 30 days (I think), that you are suppose to pickle the engine. Why buy it if you aren’t going to fly it?! [;)]

Hell, drive yr car once every 30 days and see how long it lasts.


I certainly agree usage is important for an aircraft engine. And I do agree a low time plane that has sat a lot often is not the best buy out there considering the risks involved. But I am hardly as absolute as you are on this. I say “it depends”. 3 weeks of disuse on a ramp in Miami in the summer is worse than 6 months of disuse in a hangar in winter somewhere in the high, dry desert. Where the periods of disuse were and the time of year matter a lot. I am sure you would agree how it was operated also matters, ROP or LOP. 50 hours a year flown one hour a week is far better than 120 hours a year flown during one intense cross country per month. Was camguard used? How often was the oil changed? What CHT’s are typically seen? If the disuse was 200 hours ago and oil analysis is clean any risk of corrosion damage to the engine is long past.

So hard and fast rules are pretty restrictive and I try to operate under guidelines. My point is there is a lot to consider, it has to be a balanced look. If it has the right profile I would consider a plane with low time, but I would not consider every plane with low time. It’s all in the logs, the oil analysis and other things that need to studied. Just my .02, FWIW. In general your warning is valid and unless you can take the time to piece all that together it is a risk.


I agree with your assessment. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that total time on the engine matters is resale value with the more hours the lower value. Yet some claim that low hours are bad. Same with “damage”. Any damage history lowers resale value yet when damage leads to new parts should not the newer parts make the plane more valuable?

Absolute? What I said was…

Wary <> absolute.

Like you, I would carefully examine the logs to see the particulars. Sure, an airplane could be fine if it was flown less than 100 hours/year, if it was cared for correctly. I’m just saying that one should be particularly vigilant when checking out a “low hours” airplane. So we agree.

I am looking for a similar plane, except non turbo if anyone has one.

(welcome back!)

Brian –