Cirrus SR20 „opportunity“

Snoopy wrote:

Ok now I understand. Yes the SR20 has limits that the SR22 does not have. Fuel cost is roughly the same per distance traveled. Maintenance similar as well. The difference is the purchase price (100-150k more for a SR22).

Exactly. Spot on. An SR20 does not make sense (over an SR22) for an owner pilot who really wants to use it as a travel machine. It only makes (some) sense for flying schools and clubs which want to offer the “thrill” of flying “a Cirrus”, but are sensible to every single Euro in operating cost per hour.

I have owned and flown an SR20 for 4.5 years before fully understanding this and switching to the SR22.

Also, there really is no “I want to fly IFR, but in VMC only”. IFR brings along route restrictions, altitude restrictions, minimum altitudes, procedures, etc. Hence, one will end up in IMC very soon, even if one did not intend to. And in central Europe, during most of the year, getting into cloud at IFR altitudes means a good chance of getting ice. There is no chance of avoiding that by being “prudent” (unless you really only fly on very clear days in summer, and stay local, but that doesn’t make any sense). Heck, some people would say that even if intending to fly only VFR, in the long run, one will eventually get into IMC…

On that particular plane: I would say it would likely be advertised at roughly 160k, and possibly go for something like 150k.

Some on here seem to regard FIKI and TKS as the solution to all IFR flying. There is no such thing as ‘real’ IFR or ‘hard ’ IFR or IFR in VMC, there is just IFR and VFR.
FIKI is a relatively new ’regulation’. The Aztec was built before FIKI ever came about but many Aztecs have been retrofitted with de-icing boots and ‘newer’ versions had them fitted as an option. Most Aztec pilots, I know , feel safer with the boots than with TKS, even if the TKS aircraft is certified FIKI.
Having flown both an Aztec with no boots and a DA42 with FIKI /TKS IFR I find little difference in planning or execution of an IFR flight. I tend to avoid areas of icing, in either I have only picked it up so unexpectedly on rare occasions and left it as quickly as possible. On such occasions I found the Aztec didn’t pick up much ice and shed it easily one out of icing conditions. On the DA42 I have used it a couple of times but mainly as a precaution, I don’t know how much ice I would have picked up without it.
Having said that I would prefer to fly IFR in a plane equipped for icing if at all possible, I am very risk averse when it comes to flying.
As to cost the Aztec is quite expensive on fuel. In this area around 230 euros an hour. In IFR there are also of course eurocontrol charges. Average annual charges tended to be between 20, 000 -22000 euros, that included engine overhauls and keeping up with the regulators eg Mode S and 8.33 radios (2) hangarage, insurance etc. The DA 42 at the moment seems to be working out at around 402 euros per hour all included..
One of the nicest Aztecs I have seen came out of Shoreham. The guy said he bought it for £2000 from the insurance company and renovated it. I can’t remember the figures he gave me but I definitely wanted one afterwards.
I started writing this because of the icing comments of the SR20 and I am afraid I have drifted off topic. I seem to be doing that a lot as I get older. Perhaps @ Peter could help me out here and if necessary move this post to a more on topic thread.

I seem to be doing that a lot as I get older

This is just fine… I have the same problem. It gets a bit tricky when one starts to answer one’s own posts

Re icing, FIKI is a concept based on US weather services, anyway.

I am with Bosco on this… Eurocontrol IFR (as distinct from ad hoc low level IFR in Class G, such as one can do in some countries, like the UK) forces one into icing conditions a lot of the time unless one can climb high enough. An SR20 would be a good choice for flying on nice days.

Snoopy,

given where you are based I had this discussion with other pilots there about an IFR airplane operating out of where you are. Sometimes I did get a bit jealous as you happen to live south of the main mountain ranges so all the sunny spots are available without crossing the Alps all the time. So going South of the Alps, I would say a SR 20 should be capable of most trips without too much trouble. Going North of the Alps, well. A well known aviator operates a pretty old Bonanza from there to central Germany and appears to be pretty happy with it.

From what you say you want to do, travel around with your wife and kids and a bit of baggage, the SR20 has that all important shute and it is likely to be a lot less money invested than a comparable SR22. If Cirri are all you look at. To upgrade your GNS430 to WAAS is about 3000 $ per piece I understand, what AP does it have, the 55x? Whether it is necessary to upgrade directly to the DCF90, well, if you can, sure.

The SR20 has a bog standard Continental IO360-ES, which is basically the same engine power than several others such as the Mooney 201 or the Arrows.

So in order to know what you will get, you will have to extensively play with the POH, which is freely available on the net. I found one which will do for this purpose, apparently a G1.

Take Off performance at MTOW:
The SR20 at PA of 2000 ft and 20°C will take 1805 ft (550m) to get airborne and use 2555 ft (780m) over 50 ft. in Summer heat of 40°C this will be 2079/2920 ft 633/890m respectively
The SR20 at Samedan with 20°C will take 2648 ft (807m)to get airborne and use 3698 ft (1125m) over 50 ft.

At 2500 lb at 2000 ft and 20°C the SR20 will take 1141 ft (350m) to get airborne and use 510m over 50 ft. in Summer heat of 40% C this will be 1314/1912 ft 400/590 m respectively.

Dry grass requires 20% more.

Personally, I find this is not really a lot more than comparable airplanes.

Time, fuel and distance to climb,
the SR20 will reach 14’000 ft from Sea Level in 24 minutes, use 6.8 USG of fuel to do it and travel 60 NM
in comparison
A M20J-201 will reach 14’000 ft from Sea Level in 22 minutes, use 9 USG of fuel and travel 51 NM

Cruise:
The SR20 reaches its maximum cruise speed of 157 kts @ 8000 ft with 11.6 GPH fuel flow (ISA) which results in a range of 627 NM
The SR20 reaches its maximum range of 785 NM at 14000 ft with 144 kts and 8.4 GPH fuel flow.
in comparison
A M20J will reach the maximum cruise speed of 165 kt @ 6000 ft with 12.2 GPH fuel flow which results in a range of 700 NM
A M20J will reach its maximum range of 950 NM at 14000 ft with 150kt and 8.4 GPH fuel flow

Both airplanes can reach 17000 ft under ISA. Having flown the C model up to 22000 ft DA I’d say I can vouch for the M20 but would simply not know for the Cirrus. 17000 ft should be enough for most IFR applications, even 14000 ft should be ample, as long as there are no direct alpine crossings involved. From your position, you should most of the time be able to do that.

I’ve been told before that the SR20 is basically a modern M20J and apart from the range that works out pretty well. Range wise it’s more like an Arrow III.

So, these are some very basic figures from the POH taken with the usual grain of salt. But what I would take from that is that
The SR20 is a 150 kt airplane which usually can travel around 650 NM VFR and maybe 600 IFR.
In the same class you can find the M20J which can travel around 850-900 NM @ 150 kts, so a bit further but otherwise pretty identical in performance, but a lot less comfort and without the shute.
Similar airplanes to the SR20 would also be the Arrow III or possibly some early Bonazas. As I said, both of these are based where you are, you know one owner, you might want to read up on the other.

@boscomantico will know whether the above figures are realistic or not, as I said they are flat out of the POH.

Now the question you have to answer for yourself is, whether that is ok for you.

My take on it is, you can’t do much wrong with an airplane like that. It will deliver the same performance as most airplanes of it’s class, which is the 200-220 hp singles. But it has the distinct advantage of a more comfortable cabin and that shute.

If you need FIKI it obviously is not an option. The way to go if you need FIKI in the same purchas price range would be a Piper Seneca II, which of course has other advantages (spacy, 2nd engine, 1000 NM range) and disadvantages (much higer operating price). Clearly an SR22 is a better airframe in terms of speed and altitude (particularly the Turbo version) but also more expensive to buy and operate. Other FIKI options next to the SR22 would be a Mooney 252 or later with FIKI if you can find one, TB20 or similar.

Therefore the question is always the same: Mission. And as i said I consider where you are based you are in an advantage to most of us in terms of that the way south usually will be quite open to you in an airplane like that. And that is where most of holiday trips go :) But seeing some Graz-Frankfurt commuters and other experiences, I’d say most of what you want can be done with this plane, but not quite as much as with a white eagle which you may wait for all your career and never buy.

So my advice is consider it, work the manual, work the finances through and see what else you can get for the same money and cost and think out of the box on that bit. If you stil think it is worth it, then go for it.

Could be a nice Graz-Croatia commuter :)

On YouTube, I heard « an owner should always be ready to pay for a new engine ». Wise piece of advice
Do you know where it was maintained ?
Do you know where you will maintain it ? Do you know who to ask for the pre buy inspection ?

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Both airplanes can reach 17000 ft under ISA

This may be true but I would caveat this as I can’t even imagine how long it would take you to get there if you have anything other than feathers on-board. My guess would be ~45-50min

an owner should always be ready to pay for a new engine

Absolutely; you have to be able to afford any reasonable unscheduled maintenance

Except for what is covered by insurance (e.g. crashing or ditching ).

So, say 20-30k for an engine OH. At the turboprop level it is 10x that. Obviously most of the time this isn’t needed, but if say you join a syndicate and it doesn’t have an engine fund, you should walk away, so why regard the single owner situation differently?

Both airplanes can reach 17000 ft under ISA

I can’t even imagine how long it would take you to get there if you have anything other than feathers on-board. My guess would be ~45-50min

I agree

However, the SR20, with its 2 doors, etc, won’t compare with the single door types for family travelling.

Maybe you already are, maybe you have already been given the advice….but join COPA. A bit harsh attitudes sometimes, but in general very helpful and extremely large of knowledge. Very US focus, but a few European Cirrus drivers hang around there. Maybe better luck with a price guestimate there. Remember, asking price is one thing, what eventually will be the transaction price can differ significantly, especially in a low volume market, like the Cirrus market outside US.

TimR wrote:

This may be true but I would caveat this as I can’t even imagine how long it would take you to get there if you have anything other than feathers on-board. My guess would be ~45-50min

Well, the manual tells us how long it takes to get to 14000 ft: 24 minutes. 17000 ft is another 3000 ft. The POH gives around 300 fpm at 14000 ft after a MTOW departure and per regs the service ceiling needs at least 200 ftm, so lets say 250 fpm. so 12 minutes to climb to 17000 ft. 36 minutes.

In my case (M20C) we climbed on schedule to 10’000 and then cruise climbed further as the need arose. at 17000 ft (OAT 0 degrees) it would not budge anymore so ROC was zero. All in all, we climbed about 35 minutes. And the plane was at MTOW on departure and had burnt about 6-7 USG (25 kg) by then.