which fast single prop to buy

[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.

 

[deadstick]

Why would you need to depend on the chute?

Sorry, didn't complete the thought: ...to recover from a spin.

Back to the planes...

Mooney: wouldn't go near them right now. I don't know how THIS will affect parts supplies.

FWIW:
Conklin & deDecker DOC:
350: $106/hr
SR22: $109/hr
T182T: $103/hr

This is based on a 300nm trip:
Time:
350: 1.6 hrs
SR22: 1.7 hrs
T182T: 1.9 hrs

STD Useful Load:
350: 1100 lbs
SR22: 1150 lbs
T182T: 1037 lbs

 

[ALIMBO]

We should get some numbers for insurance for each of those planes plus fuel burn. I take it you took an average for the speeds but the difference in those times is minimal. I think people would be more concerned over the fuel burn than a 20 min difference. None the less awesome post I wish I had time to look it up myself.

 

[deadstick]

We should get some numbers for insurance for each of those planes plus fuel burn. I take it you took an average for the speeds but the difference in those times is minimal. I think people would be more concerned over the fuel burn than a 20 min difference. None the less awesome post I wish I had time to look it up myself.

The fuel burn is factored into the DOC (Direct Operating Cost).

The insurance will the best on the 182. I have seen one pilot's quotes for the SR22 and the T182T. The Cirrus was almost 4x that of the Cessna. Resale value tends to favor Cessnas. Also, if you break somewhere, everybody can fix a 182.

 

[ALIMBO]

I think if it was me I would grab the T182. Then again I would need something with more seats and a useful load.

 

[belchfire]

I think that there are some Alison powered 210's out there, but even the piston, non-turbo, unpressurized C-210 is a good and honest machine. And you don't need an autopilot. If you trim it up it will stay put.

If you only need two seats, Glasair III!

 

[Publishers]

Take the Cirrus G3 everytime. New Technology, great speed, visability, passenger comfort, and enough there is product support.
While the Cessna 400 is good, not as comfortable, and a bit more truckish than the Cirrus.Flown them both and Cirrus is it.

 

[eagle06]

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.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050222X00211&key=1

I believe there is at least one more but I am too lazy to search for it. High speed CAPS deployment can be very bad in these airplanes.

 

[eagle06]

To the OP
The cirrus is a fantastic airplane for trips within 400-500 miles. It is by far the best single pilot IFR plane I have ever flown (provided you have reasonable instrument skills, can handle somthing a bit faster then a cessna, and can manage the automation properly). The cirrus is not an honest 4 seater in my opinion but most arnt. The only experience I have with Mooneys is with older C and J ? models. I would highly recommend the Cirrus compared to both of those. Newer models may change my mind but i dont know.

 

[Knob]

There are some great deals on used 231 mooney's right now. 13 GPH and 170 kts down low is hard to beat. Ceiling of FL240 will get you over alot of wx also. Also ckeck out the 252 rockets-www.aso.com