Even if it is only 15kt, that makes the 400 25-30kt faster than the SR22T. While not all, SOME people in the $800k aircraft segment will want the fastest, period.
Yes, but 5500 of the people who have the money bought the Cirrus :-) In ten years.
(I checked: difference in fuel G2 vs G3 is 11 gallons. Nice to have but not substantial)
but DOC has got me?!
Direct Operating Cost
Everyone I have met who bought a new SR22 was in the "factory new, all options, sell after 3-5 years when the warranty runs out" camp.
What is that supposed to mean?
Yes, but 5500 of the people who have the money bought the Cirrus :-) In ten years.
Exactly. No CAPS, doesn't even get looked at. Fails at the first hurdle. And it is more expensive to boot.
Even I would not buy it - retractable and 25kt faster it might tempt me, but given I fly in bad weather and at night SE, I would resist that temptation and go for the Cirrus.
And - closer to the topic - Mooney faces the same problem. And while it is true that the aircraft market is not all about $0.5-1m toys - that's where their product range competes.
The Cirrus, while not perfect, is simply the best available PACKAGE
While I like almost all of the competition (F33, TB20/21, B36, Commander 114/115, Mooney M20,) ... I got most for my money with the Cirrus ... + CAPS
And I admit that CAPS is a very strong reason, ... for the FACTS!
Everyone I have met who bought a new SR22 was in the "factory new, all options, sell after 3-5 years when the warranty runs out" camp.
What is that supposed to mean?
Same as with cars. Some people buy new cars and only drive them for x years. They would not dream of buying a used one - I am sure you have met quite a few of them in your life.
Some people buy used cars, set some money aside for maintenance and fixes, and get the same car much cheaper, but pre-owned.
The ones that have the disposable income to spend $800k on an aircraft tend to be in the former camp. Their Ferrari/Bentley/Porsche etc. most certainly was not bought used, and they won't buy a used aircraft, either.
And if they buy an SE22T, it will be the GTS. With sugar on top.
For them, buying a 10-year old used aircraft with a PT6 bolted on via STC, with the hassle of pre-buys, reluctant sellers, maintenance surprises and downtime, etc., etc. just does not appeal.
And I like it - because it means there is a constant flow of high-spec used aircraft for us poor used-aircraft buyers to choose from.
You know what I do:
I buy a C350CDI (ist price € 60 K) for 39 K with 2000 km on it, 2 months old and a 6 year old Cirrus (€ 560.000 then) for € 215.000
The rest I spend with my kids
Buying BRAND NEW cars is about the best way to burn money. It's gone even faster than if you actually burn it in a stove :-)
Exactly. You and I both. But we both rely on SOMEONE buying the new kit for it to depreciate... so keep it quiet, ok?
Deal :-)
This is what AOPA once wrote about RG (Cessna 172/182)
Servicing the landing gear typically accounts for about 20 percent of total maintenance costs, and retractable landing gear adds a whopping 50 percent to insurance bills.
That may be true for the Cessna RG (of which I know nothing) but absolutely not true for a straightforward hydraulic RG system like the TB20 which gives no trouble provided it is not allowed to get shagged
And here in the UK, the biggest insurer is no cheaper for an SR22 than one of the retracts like the TB20. I have not managed to get any data on US premiums - nobody I know wants to talk about it.
I also don't know anything about the Mooney RG system. But a straight statement that RG costs a lot extra is not correct. And the evidence is there for all to see, that a good system can be built, and how to build it.
Anyway this is digressing 
