I decided yesterday to buy a 1985 TB20 and I’m now considering selling contract #373.
Here are the details:
Original contract date: 6/11/99
Scheduled delivery date: 5/31/01 (When I bought this contract a few weeks ago Cirrus was still sticking to that date, but who knows?)
Total purchase price: $171,300
Deposit already paid: $15,000
No avionics upgrade cost. (Very early contract holders (the $144K ones) have to pay an upgrade cost for the new transponder and autopilot. You won’t have to with this contract.)
A serious bidder should be prepared to offer $32,000 (the $15,000 deposit plus the difference in the contract and current purchase prices) plus whatever moving up (and having the option of converting to an early SR22 spot) is worth to you.
Current position holders should know that Cirrus has been willing to refund deposits for those wishing to move up on the list.
Phone or email offers if interested.
Joe Mazza
Weekdays: 410 396-4964
Weeknights: 410 467-4548
Weekends: 724 443-4508
Cellular: 410 493-0148
jm0045@yahoo.com
Contratulations 
from a fellow TB20 owner …
Check out www.cat3.com for a VFR/IFR TB20 simulator - that has just been FAA approved!
Best regards
Kasper
I decided yesterday to buy a 1985 TB20 and I’m now considering selling contract #373.
Here are the details:
Original contract date: 6/11/99
Scheduled delivery date: 5/31/01 (When I bought this contract a few weeks ago Cirrus was still sticking to that date, but who knows?)
Total purchase price: $171,300
Deposit already paid: $15,000
No avionics upgrade cost. (Very early contract holders (the $144K ones) have to pay an upgrade cost for the new transponder and autopilot. You won’t have to with this contract.)
A serious bidder should be prepared to offer $32,000 (the $15,000 deposit plus the difference in the contract and current purchase prices) plus whatever moving up (and having the option of converting to an early SR22 spot) is worth to you.
Current position holders should know that Cirrus has been willing to refund deposits for those wishing to move up on the list.
Phone or email offers if interested.
Joe Mazza
Weekdays: 410 396-4964
Weeknights: 410 467-4548
Weekends: 724 443-4508
Cellular: 410 493-0148
jm0045@yahoo.com
No avionics upgrade cost. (Very early contract holders (the $144K ones) have to pay an upgrade cost for the new transponder and autopilot. You won’t have to with this contract.)
Despite the specific assurances of a member of the Cirrus contracts department (who shall remain nameless for now) that a $171K contract is equivalent to a $188K contract, this contract includes the STec-20 autopilot and the GTX 320 transponder as base equipment instead of the Stec-40X and the GTX 327.
Thanks. It’s no Cirrus, but it has about the same performance, is available now, and costs a lot less (at least for an '85!).
I’d be interested in your thoughts as to how the TB20’s performance stacks up against the Cirrus’.
I suppose you’re aware of TB owners site (www.socata.org) and Andrew Knott’s excellent site (www.tb20.com). See ya there!
Joe
Contratulations from a fellow TB20 owner …
Check out www.cat3.com for a VFR/IFR TB20 simulator - that has just been FAA approved!
Best regards
Kasper
I decided yesterday to buy a 1985 TB20 and I’m now considering selling contract #373.
Here are the details:
Original contract date: 6/11/99
Scheduled delivery date: 5/31/01 (When I bought this contract a few weeks ago Cirrus was still sticking to that date, but who knows?)
Total purchase price: $171,300
Deposit already paid: $15,000
No avionics upgrade cost. (Very early contract holders (the $144K ones) have to pay an upgrade cost for the new transponder and autopilot. You won’t have to with this contract.)
A serious bidder should be prepared to offer $32,000 (the $15,000 deposit plus the difference in the contract and current purchase prices) plus whatever moving up (and having the option of converting to an early SR22 spot) is worth to you.
Current position holders should know that Cirrus has been willing to refund deposits for those wishing to move up on the list.
Phone or email offers if interested.
Joe Mazza
Weekdays: 410 396-4964
Weeknights: 410 467-4548
Weekends: 724 443-4508
Cellular: 410 493-0148
jm0045@yahoo.com
(un)fortunatly my TB-20 is in the avionics shop to get the King/Bendix GPS replaced with a Garmin 430 - so I had to fly an “old” (s/n 5xx) TB-20 yestoday. No big difference - fuel tank selector is oddly placed behind Yoke - and to switch L/R - you have to cross “off” on the way. Rudder trim is a bit loose on the old aircraft so it “automaticly” change back to cruise position Apart from that Takeoff/landing mass is not the same on them. The old TB-20 was 13 hours from Engine replacement - but there was no signs of engine wearout - But getting used to the “old” TB-20 took less than 15 min. But now after having tried the “old” one - I’m even firmer on my decision - the plane is great.
But - I really like both new and old TB-20 and as I have not flown a SR-20 yet - I can’t really comment on performance - but they are quite similar. I can get a bit pissed about TB-20 needs 250 HP to delivery same performance as the SR-20 does with 200 HP…
The TB-20 has longer range and better load capacity - but if the SR-20 could be delivered now - then I would proberbly have bought the SR-20. But with a 2 year wait - it’s a no-go for an impatient person like myself… (like a child for candy… G)
I think the TB-20 will be in my hangar for a long time - even if I buy a faster/bigger aircraft - there a so many grass and small landing fields to visit where the TB-20 actually fits in quite nicely.
Hope this sums it up
Thanks. It’s no Cirrus, but it has about the same performance, is available now, and costs a lot less (at least for an '85!).
I’d be interested in your thoughts as to how the TB20’s performance stacks up against the Cirrus’.
I suppose you’re aware of TB owners site (www.socata.org) and Andrew Knott’s excellent site (www.tb20.com). See ya there!
Would you feel better if the Sr20 needed 210 hp to compete with the TB-20?
The IO-360-ES is a 210 hp engine at 2800 rpm.
Cirrus derates to 200hp at 2700 hp.
For takeoff the engine is 200 hp but for cruise the 75% setting is 75% of 210 hp.
(un)fortunatly my TB-20 is in the avionics shop to get the King/Bendix GPS replaced with a Garmin 430 - so I had to fly an “old” (s/n 5xx) TB-20 yestoday. No big difference - fuel tank selector is oddly placed behind Yoke - and to switch L/R - you have to cross “off” on the way. Rudder trim is a bit loose on the old aircraft so it “automaticly” change back to cruise position Apart from that Takeoff/landing mass is not the same on them. The old TB-20 was 13 hours from Engine replacement - but there was no signs of engine wearout - But getting used to the “old” TB-20 took less than 15 min. But now after having tried the “old” one - I’m even firmer on my decision - the plane is great.
But - I really like both new and old TB-20 and as I have not flown a SR-20 yet - I can’t really comment on performance - but they are quite similar. I can get a bit pissed about TB-20 needs 250 HP to delivery same performance as the SR-20 does with 200 HP…
The TB-20 has longer range and better load capacity - but if the SR-20 could be delivered now - then I would proberbly have bought the SR-20. But with a 2 year wait - it’s a no-go for an impatient person like myself… (like a child for candy… G)
I think the TB-20 will be in my hangar for a long time - even if I buy a faster/bigger aircraft - there a so many grass and small landing fields to visit where the TB-20 actually fits in quite nicely.
Hope this sums it up
Thanks. It’s no Cirrus, but it has about the same performance, is available now, and costs a lot less (at least for an '85!).
I’d be interested in your thoughts as to how the TB20’s performance stacks up against the Cirrus’.
I suppose you’re aware of TB owners site (www.socata.org) and Andrew Knott’s excellent site (www.tb20.com). See ya there!
Thanks for the comparison.
BTW, what do you mean by an “old” TB20? The “14-volt-panel-mounted-fuel-selector” old, or the “non-GT” old?
Joe
(un)fortunatly my TB-20 is in the avionics shop to get the King/Bendix GPS replaced with a Garmin 430 - so I had to fly an “old” (s/n 5xx) TB-20 yestoday. No big difference - fuel tank selector is oddly placed behind Yoke - and to switch L/R - you have to cross “off” on the way. Rudder trim is a bit loose on the old aircraft so it “automaticly” change back to cruise position Apart from that Takeoff/landing mass is not the same on them. The old TB-20 was 13 hours from Engine replacement - but there was no signs of engine wearout - But getting used to the “old” TB-20 took less than 15 min. But now after having tried the “old” one - I’m even firmer on my decision - the plane is great.
But - I really like both new and old TB-20 and as I have not flown a SR-20 yet - I can’t really comment on performance - but they are quite similar. I can get a bit pissed about TB-20 needs 250 HP to delivery same performance as the SR-20 does with 200 HP…
The TB-20 has longer range and better load capacity - but if the SR-20 could be delivered now - then I would proberbly have bought the SR-20. But with a 2 year wait - it’s a no-go for an impatient person like myself… (like a child for candy… G)
I think the TB-20 will be in my hangar for a long time - even if I buy a faster/bigger aircraft - there a so many grass and small landing fields to visit where the TB-20 actually fits in quite nicely.
Hope this sums it up
Thanks. It’s no Cirrus, but it has about the same performance, is available now, and costs a lot less (at least for an '85!).
I’d be interested in your thoughts as to how the TB20’s performance stacks up against the Cirrus’.
I suppose you’re aware of TB owners site (www.socata.org) and Andrew Knott’s excellent site (www.tb20.com). See ya there!
Despite the specific assurances of a member of the Cirrus contracts department (who shall remain nameless for now) that a $171K contract is equivalent to a $188K contract, this contract includes the STec-20 autopilot and the GTX 320 transponder as base equipment instead of the Stec-40X and the GTX 327.<
Not doubting that someone told you this, but what the company consistently said in public was that the “old” and “new” contracts were not the same. In announcing the $17k increase in price, they also announced an upgrade in standard equipment, mainly avionics. The issue then discussed at some length on this forum was how great a share of the increase was accounted for by the transponder and autopilot – and whether, for some upgrade cost, holders of “old,” 320-equipped contracts could receive their planes with a 327 instead. I don’t recall anyone asserting that with an old contract you’d automatically get the new equipment. Again, not doubting that someone told you this, but they gave me at least clearly the opposite impression.
Yes, I remember those discussions, too, but didn’t pay a lot of attention to them at the time.
When it came to buy #373, however, and vaguely remembering the discussions on the forum, I called Cirrus and asked specifically if there was an avionics upgrade cost to get the new transponder and autopilot (which I assumed all new aircraft would get). The person I spoke to wasn’t quite sure and said she’d check. She did, and told me that the only people who had to pay an avionics upgrade charge were the $144K contract holders. Since she had seemed a bit confused by my initial question, I then asked specifically, in about these very words: “Let me get this straight: The $171K contract gets me the exact same aircraft that the $188K contract would?” Answer: “Yes.”
As it turns out, she was confusing the Trimble-to-Garmin upgrade charge (which I don’t have to pay) with the 20-to-40X & 320-to-327 upgrade that I was actually asking about. (Despite me being absolutely clear about it, I thought.)
I figured that the forum discussion must have had to do with some other contracts (like the $144K ones), so I relied instead on info “straight from the horse’s mouth.”
I don’t think unauthenticated forum speculation should be given more weight than Cirrus’ word, but I suppose if I’d been smarter I would have checked the forum again and see if the two synced up.
Joe
Despite the specific assurances of a member of the Cirrus contracts department (who shall remain nameless for now) that a $171K contract is equivalent to a $188K contract, this contract includes the STec-20 autopilot and the GTX 320 transponder as base equipment instead of the Stec-40X and the GTX 327.<
Not doubting that someone told you this, but what the company consistently said in public was that the “old” and “new” contracts were not the same. In announcing the $17k increase in price, they also announced an upgrade in standard equipment, mainly avionics. The issue then discussed at some length on this forum was how great a share of the increase was accounted for by the transponder and autopilot – and whether, for some upgrade cost, holders of “old,” 320-equipped contracts could receive their planes with a 327 instead. I don’t recall anyone asserting that with an old contract you’d automatically get the new equipment. Again, not doubting that someone told you this, but they gave me at least clearly the opposite impression.