Comparing a used to a new plane? C’mon! Heck, for the price of a new 182, you can find an used Learjet.
So there are two SR20’s for sale in Boulder? Help, Help everyone…the market’s flooded!!! Talk about bad statistics.
Andy
Dunno about the ones you’re referring to, but most of the SR20’s that have been sold second-hand have been sold by people trading up to an SR22. Heck, there are SR22 owners out there who are buying their second SR22 because they want all the new gadgets. I know of several others who lost their medical or had similar reasons.
With over 500 planes in the fleet, I would be astonished if there were no second-hand Cirri on the market.
As far as teething troubles, yep, Cirrus has them. Any aircraft manufacturer that ramps up from building one plane a week to three a day in two years is going to. The fact of the matter is that in terms of piston aircraft delivered, Cirrus were number 3, are probably now number two and could well be number one next year. This at a time when the established manufacturers are all having financial trouble and/or laying off staff. Cirrus is limited not by how many orders they can get, but solely by how many planes they can build. Meanwhile Aerospatiale, Piper and Cessna have floor stock that you can buy tomorrow. The market has spoken.
And yes, for those who can’t afford to buy new, there are some great second-hand planes out there. Dick Collins will attest to that.
I love flying my SR20. Eat your heart out, Birge!
" Well, how about a used T210? It will beat the SR-22 in everything and is less than half the price. Plus, the bugs are worked out (and you don’t need to clean them off to get book speed). As much as I’d like to see Cirrus be a resounding success, I think this is one of its problems. Before I get blasted, let me point out that all my complaints have been echoed by others, and the number of SR-20s on the used market is truly astounding given you few of them are out there. There are 2 for sale near me, alone. That has to be about half the Cirrus fleet in Denver. "
Hi Jonathan.
I can’t say you are wrong from your point of wiev. You choice.
Personally, I prefer to drive a 2002 BMW 5 series instead of a 1980 BMW 5 series. Especially when if a 20 or plus year old car cost half the price of a brand new model.
Of course, this is my personal opinion, with all the respect for any other thinking.
I just noted as human abits is changing year per year, decades per decades…
Clothing is changing, watch is changing, car is changing, the world is changing. all improving a lot of things, help our dayly life … I doing in one year, every year, more miles than my father did in is life…
I like tradition, I like historical car, airplane, watch… But this don’t mean I like to travel for personal or business trip with an old car…
Again, personally, why I should use a 20/30/40 years old airplane for my trip?
Kind regards.
Also, you can’t really trust those TAS “slide rules” that they put on the airspeed indicators. They don’t take into account pressure altitude or humidity.
While they don’t take into account humidity they do take into account pressure altitude. I suspect humidity is not much of a factor otherwise the FAA would require us to make the adjustment calculation at least for takeoff and landing when humidity is more likely to be available.
Sorry, I meant pressure altitude as opposed to indicated altitude (which they do consider). Most people don’t set their altimeter to 29.92 to set their TAS, so they’re really using indicated altitude. Also, I think humidity might actually have an effect on speed by at least a few knots, though I’m honestly not sure. It will affect both the air density and the power output of the engine. Just because it’s not considered in the POH isn’t really indicative of it being a tiny effect. POH tables reflect the FAA, not physics!
Comparing a used to a new plane? C’mon! Heck, for the price of a new 182, you can find an used Learjet.
Of course I am. An airplane doesn’t fly slower because it’s old, does it? If you are building something new, you have to compare your product to what else is out there in the market. I wasn’t arguing against the technical superiority of the Cirrus (which I probably could) but simply questioning the market superiority of it. I would buy an SR over a new Cessna, but I might not buy it over a used one. The market is made up of a lot of people like me, which is why used plane’s still sell and why Lancair is out of business.
So there are two SR20’s for sale in Boulder? Help, Help everyone…the market’s flooded!!! Talk about bad statistics.
Both people have a reason to sell, and just because they are not part of what you would consider a statistically significant sample doesn’t mean that they are selling their Cirri because they absolutely love them. Come on. How long are you guys are going to be excusing the Cirrus for lack of statistical significance? When 10 fatal accidents happen before number 10,000 rolls out? When there are 100 used Cirri on the market for every 1000 out there? Instead of freaking out at me, direct your defensive energy at Cirrus. The honeymoon is over for the “parachute plane.” Data is coming in and its not good. I’ve said a lot of things here that I was lambasted for, which later appears in the mainstream aviation press. Av Consumer brought up the same issues I did about the nacent accident rate and the potential for the chute to backfire. As I’ve looked for a used 172RG for myself, I’ve noticed that there are way more Cirri on the market than one would expect given the small number of them flying. I didn’t do a rigorous analysis, just tried to point something out. As an owner, you might want to actually think it instead of flaming me. After all, it’s your ass, not mine.
Nonetheless, I honestly hope Cirrus is just having a few hiccups along the way to becoming a better Cessna than Cessna currently is. I just tend to think harsh consideration is more productive than the intellectualy vacuous cheerleading which compromises most of this discussion board.
I meant pressure altitude as opposed to indicated altitude (which they do consider). Most people don’t set their altimeter to 29.92 to set their TAS, so they’re really using indicated altitude.
The POH specifically says that pressure altitude is to be used when setting the TAS scale on the ASI. If you have a Cirrus the pressure altitude is displayed on the Garmin 327 transponder.
Jonathan,
You are correct that humidity and air density (affected by humidity) have an effect on any engines performance…in the air or on the ground. Just don’t know to what degree…
I have just returned from my second cross country trip in my SR20. I am not an experienced mountain flier. My experience is mostly high altitude and flatlands of the east. Yes it is tough taking off in Billings Montana and only being able to climb at 500 foot per minute but you plan for it. Taking off to the west in Missoula you must climb straight ahead for a few miles before turning eastbound. Turn radius is increased in thin air. Coming home this last time I decided to fly I90 was doing fine till I got to Butte when the highway disappeared into a cloud bank. Luckily there was a large VMC hole over the Butte airport and listen to this, the little airplane that could just climbed on up to 11,000 feet where I picked up an IFR clearance down the airway. OK, it took a while to get up there about three large 360’s but it made it. My 20 trues out at about 145 at altitude but oh how I enjoy those downhill runs into the traffic pattern. There are two of us, we are going to live at sea level, we probably will fuel to the tabs most of the time. I am happy with my airplane. I know its limitations and plan for them. If I was going to live in Colorado and had a family I would save longer and get a 22. There are places in Colorado a jet can’t climb out of on a hot day. I once sat at Colorado Springs with a T38 trainer and had to wait for evening before taking off to make the numbers. Even the 22 can bite you if you think it will do everything but slice bread. To make a long story short all airplanes and all pilots have limitations. Know them and plan for them. The next time you try to taxi with the parking brake on remember your only human.
Post deleted by dobsonwe
In reply to:
2763 lbs. take-off weight, 6000 ft. msl (indicated), 5900 ft. msl (pressure, as shown on the transponder), 20 degrees C OAT, 2500 rpm, 25.0 map, 12 gph, 100 degrees ROP, 135 KIAS, 152 KCAS, 167 KTAS.
How do you get 152 KCAS? According to the POH it would be 135KCAS?
Bill, if your indicated airspeed is 135, your calibrated airspeed is also about 135. So your true airspeed in those conditions (pressure alt 5900 at 20C = density altitude 7800) would be about 154 knots.
Bill,
Unless I’m missing something, your “corrected” airspeed IS (approximately) your True Airspeed; you appear to be redundantly converting True Airspeed into True Airspeed!
Bob:
As you will recall, ther was an extensive debate on this site about the true utility of the SR22 VS the SR20 when Cirrus first introduced the SR22. Was it worth the extra price? Where would you use the extra performance, etc? The consensus basically resulted in what you have just said. The SR22 would be a “must have” for folks at high altitude or those in need of the extra weight. The SR20, like a Cessna 172, was not designed for high altitude operations.
Look at any airplane with a 3000 lb. MGW and only a 200 HP engine and you will find very few that do well in the Rocky Mountain states.
The consensus, as before, is to get the airplane that fits the mission you are most often flying. Do not expect more from the plane than what is was designed for.The first SR20 off the line in 1999 was priced similar to a Cessna 172 brand new and had enourmous performance advantages over that plane. It was never designed to compete with a 182. In fact , the 182 also cost a fair degree more as well. The two planes were designed for different missions. Therefore, a side by side comparision is not really appropriate.
A 182 VS SR22 is a more comparable discussion.
Hi Bob,
Glad you had a good trip. It was fun sharing the frequency with you (I think it was FWA and then SBN approach). I also shared a Chicago Approach frequency with another Cirrus as I descended into DPA, and on the ground taxied past yet another one that was getting ready to depart.
We’re taking over the airspace!!
Yep - just checked my #s again and realized the E6B program was running the calc. twice, and swapping the TAS for Corrected AS on the 2nd pass. (And of course, I just wrote them down, said “Holy S__t, batman!”, and made the post, not bothering to exercise the 'puter between my ears first; I simply didn’t make the mental connection that IAS and Corrected AS should have stayed pretty much the same throughout (small correction for being under gross weight and thus having a small angle-of-attack error). At least that explains why the Garmin and the E6B were not agreeing! OOPS! Interestingly, the Garmin wasn’t getting the correct # either though…must have punched something in wrong there.