![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Among new airplanes you would have a choice of the Cessna 172S or a Diamond.
These planes will fit your mission profile quite well. The Diamond has a wider cockpit than the Cessna. Airplanes depreciate quite a lot the first three to five years then gradually start to increase in value. Exceptions would be airplanes like the Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these planes are already approaching mandatory retirement. Probably the best deals out there are used late model Cessna 182s. Trade-a-Plane shows several of these as low as $170,000. The 1998 and 1999 model years were very good airplanes. There are also some used Cirrus SR20s that are less than $200K and they still have a lot of life in them. You could take an old airplane and re-paint it, put new interior and avionics in it, a new engine, and guess what? It is still an old airplane! It will never have all the safety features and capability of the newer ones. The new Cessnas may have the same model designations as the older ones, for example, but they might as well be different types. They are faster, more fuel efficient, and far more comfortable. Everything from fuel systems to avionics to engines has changed. Even the supposedly draggy airframe got a thorough going-over. Still, for the down payment that you put on one of these shiny suckers you could buy an ancient 172 that will still fit your mission profile and you won't have any monthly payments at all. You might even be able to afford to fly the thing now and then. You could lose your job, but you won't have to give up your airplane in order to be able to eat. Personally, I find far more comfort and safety in staying out of debt than in having the latest new thing. I would not buy an airplane that I could not pay cash for. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"C J Campbell" wrote in
: snippage Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these planes are already approaching mandatory retirement. more snippage So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr restriction that will be in place by the end of the year??? -- ET ![]() "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ET" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in : snippage Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these planes are already approaching mandatory retirement. more snippage So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr restriction that will be in place by the end of the year??? I have not. Good heavens. No, a couple of flight schools have said they are getting close. They must fly the things constantly. Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I wish them well. Then they can start figuring out why these things are falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I suspect training is the issue. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"C J Campbell" wrote in
: "ET" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in : snippage Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these planes are already approaching mandatory retirement. more snippage So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr restriction that will be in place by the end of the year??? I have not. Good heavens. No, a couple of flight schools have said they are getting close. They must fly the things constantly. Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I wish them well. Then they can start figuring out why these things are falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I suspect training is the issue. After being in one myself (Not an experienced pilot talking here...) I CAN see how the complex systems can be confusing until one gets used to them. Then as you think,, hrm what screen is that on... what button makes that happen.... how do I turn on the autopilot and program it properly... your in imc and don't know which way is up and think the guages are lying to you.... Interesting... one of the older cirrus accident reports mentioned that the "please remove before flight" pin that keeps the CAPS handle secured on the ground had never been removed. I wonder if that pilot was more paranoid about the chute being pulled accidentaly than needing it in a hurry. Your right about the 5K hour issue. I saw some pretty ****ed off posts on the cirrus owners assn forum talking about how cirrus didn';t exactly bring that to there attention before they plunked down there 300+ large. -- ET ![]() "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C J Campbell wrote:
"ET" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in : snippage Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these planes are already approaching mandatory retirement. more snippage So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr restriction that will be in place by the end of the year??? I have not. Good heavens. No, a couple of flight schools have said they are getting close. They must fly the things constantly. Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I wish them well. I searched the online POH for the SR20 and could not find this limitiation documented. Can you provide a link to documentation of this limit? Then they can start figuring out why these things are falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I suspect training is the issue. according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out of the sky. Maybe the training has improved. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message ... Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these planes are already approaching mandatory retirement. more snippage So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr restriction that will be in place by the end of the year??? I have not. Good heavens. No, a couple of flight schools have said they are getting close. They must fly the things constantly. Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I wish them well. I searched the online POH for the SR20 and could not find this limitiation documented. Can you provide a link to documentation of this limit? Ah, if it is not on the Internet, it must not be true, eh? :-) The airframe life limit for the SR20 is 12,000 hours. The airframe life limit for the SR22 is 4030 hours. The only place you will find that is by reading the type certification. There may be some place you can find that on the Internet. It is not in the POH for either aircraft, nor does Cirrus mention it in any of their advertising or in the purchase agreement. Then they can start figuring out why these things are falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I suspect training is the issue. according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out of the sky. Maybe the training has improved. Well, there were two of them quite recently, but maybe "Flying" went to press before those incidents occurred. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C J Campbell wrote:
Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I wish them well. I searched the online POH for the SR20 and could not find this limitiation documented. Can you provide a link to documentation of this limit? Ah, if it is not on the Internet, it must not be true, eh? :-) Not at all, I just wanted a quick-n-easy link to point someone to. The only place you will find that is by reading the type certification. There may be some place you can find that on the Internet. That info sure makes the googling easier. Found a reference to it he http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf Getting the correct number (4350) off that website makes Cirrus's own website be result #2 when googling on: sr22 4350 hours http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/faq/index.html It's definitely easy to find when you know the right info to google for. The comparision site also says that TBO on the SR22 engine is only 1700 hours, that surprised me. Then they can start figuring out why these things are falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I suspect training is the issue. according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out of the sky. Maybe the training has improved. Well, there were two of them quite recently, but maybe "Flying" went to press before those incidents occurred. True. But those were not fatal accidents. An alarmingly high rate of fatal accidents was the knock on Cirrus, as I recall. The latest FLYING has a column by one of their regulars claiming the cirrus accident rate is now roughly equivalent to that for 182's. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
anyone know how Diamond Aircraft compares to the Cirrus? Same airframe
life? how about safty record?? TTA Cherokee Driver wrote: C J Campbell wrote: Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I wish them well. I searched the online POH for the SR20 and could not find this limitiation documented. Can you provide a link to documentation of this limit? Ah, if it is not on the Internet, it must not be true, eh? :-) Not at all, I just wanted a quick-n-easy link to point someone to. The only place you will find that is by reading the type certification. There may be some place you can find that on the Internet. That info sure makes the googling easier. Found a reference to it he http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf Getting the correct number (4350) off that website makes Cirrus's own website be result #2 when googling on: sr22 4350 hours http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/faq/index.html It's definitely easy to find when you know the right info to google for. The comparision site also says that TBO on the SR22 engine is only 1700 hours, that surprised me. Then they can start figuring out why these things are falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I suspect training is the issue. according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out of the sky. Maybe the training has improved. Well, there were two of them quite recently, but maybe "Flying" went to press before those incidents occurred. True. But those were not fatal accidents. An alarmingly high rate of fatal accidents was the knock on Cirrus, as I recall. The latest FLYING has a column by one of their regulars claiming the cirrus accident rate is now roughly equivalent to that for 182's. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() TTA Cherokee Driver wrote: according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out of the sky. That would have been the opinion of the staff at Flying about three months ago. George Patterson This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 02:54 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Enlisted pilots | John Randolph | Naval Aviation | 41 | July 21st 03 02:11 PM |