which fast single prop to buy

[darien]

I'm looking for fast single something that does over 170kts between 6-9 thousand feet. My trips are usually less than 2hrs in florida. I like the idea of some mooneys that get up high and fly far and fast, but that would be the occasional trip for me. I've heard other guys say buy a little more than your looking for because you will grow into the plane. I'm looking at maybe a used mooney or 2004 cirrus sr22. What do you guys think about different types of mooneys the sr22 and their maintance insurance rates and performance.
Thks, D

 

[Princedietrich]

The Cirrus is a good plane, very comfortable ride and the thing will damn near fly itself. I've only flown the SR20 but even with the smaller engine it'll give you 140 at 7k easy. The only drawback is that the avionics package will take some getting used to, but if you can figure out how to work a Garmin 430 you can figure this thing out. Also, having so many computers in there, it's not uncommon for a glitch or a bug to come out of nowhere and annoy the crap out of you.

 

[Tgaug6300]

Having recently flown the Cessna 400, that is the one I would buy without a doubt. VERY comfortable (for all occupants), great range and speed. I haven't flown the 350, but look forward to it.

 

[ALIMBO]

How many people you going to bring along? Im assuming 4 since your lookin at 4 seaters right? Weight of people and baggage will make a difference.

 

[darien]

I've narrowed it down to the mooney or cirrus. Most I usually fly with are 4 people, but usually by myself. There are just so many types of mooneys under 200k that it makes it a tough decision.

 

[ALIMBO]

Just grab the ovation.

 

[siucavflight]

Having recently flown the Cessna 400, that is the one I would buy without a doubt. VERY comfortable (for all occupants), great range and speed. I haven't flown the 350, but look forward to it.

That is a fantastic airplane. I flew one when they were still called the Lancair. However they are very pricey, and the OP has stated that he does not really go above 9K, in this case the Lancair becomes very inefficient. Whats the point of having twin turbos and staying at 9K or less? All they are doing is burning a lot more fuel.
SR-22 would be much more practical.

 

[ALIMBO]

The idea of having a parachute is definitely nice and comforting, but I think it gives the pilot an excuse almost. Gone are the days of really learning to fly now you have GPS this an that and a parachute so when you screw up you can just pop that an be ok. My check airman the other day told me a story about how he saw a guy walking out so proud to his Cirrus he took off 10 minutes later he came back and landed because the Autopilot was working. Apparantly thats how these Cirrus centers like to teach though. IMO nobody should be using the AP until they have at least 500 hours stick time and really hone those skills. But in the purpose of this subject either plane are pretty nice.

 

[andpcl]

I'm looking for fast single something that does over 170kts between 6-9 thousand feet. My trips are usually less than 2hrs in florida. I like the idea of some mooneys that get up high and fly far and fast, but that would be the occasional trip for me. I've heard other guys say buy a little more than your looking for because you will grow into the plane. I'm looking at maybe a used mooney or 2004 cirrus sr22. What do you guys think about different types of mooneys the sr22 and their maintance insurance rates and performance.
Thks, D

I fly both aircraft (SR2x and the Columbia/Cessna 300, 350 & 400) for a maintenace organization here in KSGJ.
Very familiar with all the number$. Sounds like a pre-owned SR22 or Columbia/Cessna 350 might just be the ticket.

Give a call (904-347-5445) or e-mail to discuss.

Regards

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

The idea of having a parachute is definitely nice and comforting, but I think it gives the pilot an excuse almost. Gone are the days of really learning to fly now you have GPS this an that and a parachute so when you screw up you can just pop that an be ok. My check airman the other day told me a story about how he saw a guy walking out so proud to his Cirrus he took off 10 minutes later he came back and landed because the Autopilot was working. Apparantly thats how these Cirrus centers like to teach though. IMO nobody should be using the AP until they have at least 500 hours stick time and really hone those skills. But in the purpose of this subject either plane are pretty nice.

Of course he came back. Its an inoperative component. It needs to be placarded and deactivated. It would be foolhardy and possibly illegal for him to continue.

 

[ALIMBO]

Its not on an MEL it failed in flight he could continue on to his destination and have it done there.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Never flown a Cirrus, so my vote goes to a Mooney. Sweet plane, as you must well know.

 

[kingairyahoo]

...caravan baby!!!

~170knots, carry as many fruitcakes as you can squash in there, and 5 hours of fuel...sweet

:beer:

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

Its not on an MEL it failed in flight he could continue on to his destination and have it done there.

He could, but if he was only 10 minutes out why not get it on the ground safely rather than hoping it's just the autopilot that is the problem, not something bigger. I'll have to check my POH to see if its on the required equipment list, but I believe it is, as most of the equipment on the essential bus is.

 

[deadstick]

Cirrus does sell technology over ADM and experience. ("It can fly itself!"). As for the chute, doesn't the aircraft have to be slowed to ~130 kts before you can pull the handle? Doesn't it need 1500 ft to deploy? How does it help when cruising at 170 kts or in the base/final stall spin scenario?

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

Cirrus does sell technology over ADM and experience. ("It can fly itself!"). As for the chute, doesn't the aircraft have to be slowed to ~130 kts before you can pull the handle? Doesn't it need 1500 ft to deploy? How does it help when cruising at 170 kts or in the base/final stall spin scenario?

Demonstrated parachute performance is 135 kts. That's just the speed at which the CAPS has been shown to work. If you are above and can't bleed off airspeed, pull the chute anyways. Personally I'm not sure if its ever been pulled above that speed or what the outcome was. As far altitude needed it needs 400 feet in normal flight 800 in a one turn spin.

 

[deadstick]

Demonstrated parachute performance is 135 kts. That's just the speed at which the CAPS has been shown to work. If you are above and can't bleed off airspeed, pull the chute anyways. Personally I'm not sure if its ever been pulled above that speed or what the outcome was. As far altitude needed it needs 400 feet in normal flight 800 in a one turn spin.

After my last post I went back to the book b/c 1500 just didn't seem right. It has 920 ft for a 1-turn. There have been a few crashes that have had either the chute wrapped around the tail or it's been shredded. I think one was in MN or ND. The NTSB site seems to be down right now, or I'd check on that.

I still dislike that they sold aircraft to unlicensed or inexperienced people on the point that because of the level of automation, the aircraft could fly itself. That is irresponsible. It gives them an "out" or a crutch. Now I know that people do stupid things in Cessnas and Pipers, too, but would those people in the Cirruses (Cirri?) made the same (bad) decisions if they didn't have the CAPS? Who knows.

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

I agree flying into a situation that you normally wouldn't because you have CAPS is foolish, and a properly trained pilot should know that. As an attempt to dissuade pilots from doing this there is a personal minimums screen that comes up when you turn on the MFD. It's easily skipped, though, and is no substitute for good judgment.
I can't speak to Cirrus' marketing as I'm unfamiliar with it, but telling people that it will fly itself is irresponsible, just ask the students I've soloed in an SR-20.
I think we've let this thread get off topic. Although the Cirrus isn't perfect for every pilot, that doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. And it sounds like it fits the role the original poster needs. Good speed, good payload, and able to fly in many weather conditions.

 

[deadstick]

Back on point:

I'd go with the 350. I believe part of the Cessna deal was $$ for honoring the warranties. The one problem with Columbia was getting warranty work paid. THe performance numbers are great. I agree that the turbo isn't necessary for hopping around FL. I vote for the Columbia/Cessna over the Cirrus because I wouldn't like to depend on a chute -- it is an airworthiness requirement for the 20/22.

I have heard the airplane is a total loss if you pop the chute, but then again I saw one being rebuilt. I don't know if they bought the hulk for salvage and were hoping to get a 337 signed off, but I don't know what happened with that. Can't x-ray plastic, right?

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

Back on point:

I'd go with the 350. I believe part of the Cessna deal was $$ for honoring the warranties. The one problem with Columbia was getting warranty work paid. THe performance numbers are great. I agree that the turbo isn't necessary for hopping around FL. I vote for the Columbia/Cessna over the Cirrus because I wouldn't like to depend on a chute -- it is an airworthiness requirement for the 20/22.

I have heard the airplane is a total loss if you pop the chute, but then again I saw one being rebuilt. I don't know if they bought the hulk for salvage and were hoping to get a 337 signed off, but I don't know what happened with that. Can't x-ray plastic, right?

Why would you need to depend on the chute?
I've also heard that the aircraft is a write off if the chute is pulled. Then again I've also heard that Cirrus bought back the first plane to have the chute pulled, rebuilt it, and is now using it as a demo.