A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nubie Question: New or Used for New Pilot?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 18th 04, 03:17 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 10:06 PM
ET
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 19th 04, 11:37 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 20th 04, 07:38 AM
ET
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 20th 04, 05:38 PM
TTA Cherokee Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 20th 04, 06:02 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 20th 04, 07:24 PM
TTA Cherokee Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 23rd 04, 07:57 PM
John Kazickas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 21st 04, 02:49 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.