Nubie Question: New or Used for New Pilot?

"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

"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.

"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

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.

"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.

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".

Your mission profile calls for 700 nm trips. The new 4-place airplanes you
could get for $200,000, for example a Cessna 172,would not come close to
having the range to make this flight nonstop. And with a stop thrown in a
700 nm trip in a 120 kt airplane would probably take around 7 hours. If you
make this trip frequently, you should probably be looking for a somewhat
faster, longer range airplane. With your budget you could really choose
anything from later model Piper Arrows (140 kts and more than enough range)
or high performance fixed gear singles (Cessna 182, Piper Dakota, around 140
kts but may be marginal in range) to high performance heavy singles
(Bonanza, Cessna 210). The latter could make your 700 nm trips nonstop in a
comfortable 4.5 hours

Unless you live and fly in the Southwest, you either have or will want to
get an instrument rating. Choose an airplane that is already well equipped
with modern avionics, or budget maybe $20K-$30K for an upgrade.

--
-Elliott Drucker

I agree, 182 is probably the best overall fit, with maybe the Arrow
(70+gals) and 177B (60 gal LR tanks) or 177RG second. I have only
flown one Arrow and it was *not* a 140 knot airplane, but that was a
beater, maybe it would do it on a good day... I love my Cardinal
dearly, but the 182 is the better airplane if you need to carry just a
bit more weight bit more often, no doubt about it. Costs maybe 25%
more to own at the most, I would guess.

Unless you live and fly in the Southwest, you either have or will want to
get an instrument rating. Choose an airplane that is already well equipped
with modern avionics, or budget maybe $20K-$30K for an upgrade.

Also agreed, plus you will want something that can comfortably top
10K+ MEAs (at you typical loads) if you live in the West. If you can
afford 100K+ airplanes, I would definitely look at the turbo variants
(T-Arrow, T182, etc). As you become a proficient instrument pilot,
high altitude capability (or lack of it) will become one of the
primary go/no-go factors. In the East, where ice is not as
omnipresent, thunderstorm avoidance is probably the name of the game
and the turbo will not offer as significant edge there. I don't fly
all that much to make qualified comments, but over the years I have
noticed the line where I change between wishing for boots and radar
runs roughly along the continetal divide ;-)

As others have mentioned, you take a big depreciation hit plus
interest charges on a new aircraft.

As you gain experience, your requirements, likes, dislikes, etc will
likely change.

I'd suggest starting with an older model until you refine what you
really want. Maintenance costs are higher, but all aircraft are
expensive to maintain whether old or new.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:51:32 -0700, PaulH wrote:

As others have mentioned, you take a big depreciation hit plus
interest charges on a new aircraft.

As you gain experience, your requirements, likes, dislikes, etc will
likely change.

I'd suggest starting with an older model until you refine what you
really want. Maintenance costs are higher, but all aircraft are
expensive to maintain whether old or new.

Are there any rules-of-thumb to go by when taking higher maintenance
costs into account on older planes? What constitutes an older plane? 10
years? 30 years? Or is it all relative?