Obviously, yes, but my example illustrates the massive disincentive which the pilot has to
going a reasonable distance, and
staying current on the type
Well yes but it is about paying now vs later. If you were doing 20-30 hours a year in that Cirrus it is cheaper to rent.
Having tried every permutation the true cost of anything involves three elements, depreciation, loss of income on capital investment and operating costs (direct and indirect). When we own we like to “forget” the first two but they are still just as real. The depreciation on a new Cirrius is fearsome (as on pretty much any new or newish aircraft) and while the loss of income on the capital employed aint half so bad these days it still is a factor. There are more than a few “groups” that have gone bust because despite the apparently high rates they were actually not enough, and that is in respect of groups that were transparent and werent creaming off money from the operation.
Where “groups” often go wrong is they dont keep control of expenditure and undoubtedly the owner operator can control these costs better without cutting any corners but then he must factor in his own time.
To be fair I doubt there is almost anyone who makes any real money out of renting, hiring, “grouping” aircraft but there is no doubt you can buy a Cirrus that is four or five years own burnt through the worst of the depreciation and with care operate the aircraft at more attractive rates than these but then that is true of any aircraft as it runs off the worst of its depreciation, and assuming you dont intend to replace it with like for like in another five years.
No contradiction, if you had copied my statement in its entirety
I didn’t mean to take your statement out of context, apologies. I do get your point, but I still don’t see how, if the flying is straight-forward and the avionics are straight-forward with previous experience (Avidyne) learning to fly the Cirrus especially warrants an official (lengthy, pricey, …) transition course while other type conversations can be done more readily with an FI of your liking proficient on the type.
Fuji Abound gave some insight into what the handling characteristics are and I can see that (coming from slower airplanes) getting used to flying by the numbers much more can take some time and effort.
It costs of the order of €100-€150/hr to fly an extra hour if you own the plane.
It costs (in this case) €470/hr if you rent the plane.
This directly impacts how much you are going to enjoy flying.
Ok but you’ll have this discussion with any type. Renting or owning? I don’t want to start that discussion here – for me personally the case is clear. I’m renting – it IS the more economical solution even if the hourly rates seem high. If I had A LOT of money to spare, I’d want the freedom of owning an airplane. The biggest non-emotional argument pro owning IMO is availability and that has not been a problem for me yet for my missions. It surely wouldn’t be with the Cirrus – see below. 
I would accordingly expect the utilisation to be very poor; very few people are going to rent at that rate.
True. I can see the utilization in the online booking system and it is by far the least rented airplane they offer. The twins at the same rate are almost always busy but that’s ATPL students training.
Btw. I believe the Cirrus is actually owned by a private individual and co-owned/rented out by the school. Not sure about this.
There’s one other aspect of owning. When you rent, you pay for all the maintenance at once, after every hour, upfront. As an owner you can defer stuff to a time when you have time or the finances to deal with it. Most things that need servicing are not so acute they need it done right this second.
I don’t know how you guys earn your money, but as a freelancer, mine fluctuates every month, so this suits me very well. This makes owning more of an ebb and flow economic prospect which at times can make things at least “feel” cheaper or easier to cope with. Although it obviously isn’t. But cash flow is important.
As the topic was “Checkout on Cirrus” I can add some personal experience.
After 17 years of not flying at all I reactivated my PPL. The training aircraft was an Aquila A210 with Aspen PFD. After a couple of hours I was ready for the practical exam and then continued with the 10 hrs Cirrus introduction. The SR20 was faster than the Aquila and I needed to practice short field and crosswind landings. Avionics was never an issue. But during the early hours in the Aquila I wasn’t able to use the Aspen PFD and instead looked at the traditional round instruments. That was weird and I would have sworn that I would never do that myself…
Earlier this year for my instrument training I switched between all three different types of glass cockpits available for Cirrus. The old Avidyne is not a big issue because it is just a nicer display for the GNS430. But G1000 and Avidyne R9 are more challenging. I did my IFR checkride on an SR20 with G1000 but prefer to fly Avidyne R9, as the user interface is more intuitive to me.
The Cirrus is not a C172 and wants to be flown by the numbers. If you do that, then it seems to be great plane to travel with. It wants to go places and be treated a little bit like a “personal airliner”. If you just want to fly, there are probably better alternatives. But for getting I really like it and don’t find it difficult to handle.
210 knots instead of 150
Ahem, I don’t think so…. a non turbo SR22 (comparing like for like) will do 210kt TAS only (a) downhill (b) at close to Vne (c) from a high altitude (d) on oxygen
If somebody can build a nonpressurised SEP which does 210kt TAS in anything but highly contrived circumstances (FL250, oxygen via a mask, burning fuel like they were going to stop making it tomorrow) they will sell stacks of them.
Well yes but it is about paying now vs later. If you were doing 20-30 hours a year in that Cirrus it is cheaper to rent.
I agree. I think I said “disincentive”. That’s an emotional state of mind, and very very relevant to flying.
Ownership never made financial sense at that level (non-financially, it makes great sense at any level which is high enough to stop engine corrosion). If somebody rents out an SR22 (assuming not a completely brand new one, whose depreciation would be massive) at €470/hr and manages to put say 150+ hrs/year on it, they are making very good money. My guess is that the €470 is based on something like 50hrs/year and anything above that is a nice bonus.
When you rent, you pay for all the maintenance at once, after every hour, upfront. As an owner you can defer stuff to a time when you have time or the finances to deal with it. Most things that need servicing are not so acute they need it done right this second.
Indeed, and under some jurisdictions you pay a lot more for maintenance if you rent a plane out. The way to run a plane like an SR22 is to go N-reg/Part91 and do what I do, but you won’t get many renters because they will all need FAA papers, and when I was doing this (2002-2006) I found that most people with FAA papers (who have any currency) already own a plane.
In fact I found that most people with any currency already own a plane… which brings me back to the disincentive in renting.
I would recommend anyone who wants to do serious flying to get into a syndicate.
the Cirrus is actually owned by a private individual and co-owned/rented out by the school
That would be fairly common. The private owner benefits from a lower insurance done under the school’s policy, and gets a bit of income towards his costs which would be high due to his low usage. The price he pays is that the plane gets trashed by students… Been there, done that…
I think there is sometimes a little too much focus on transition courses and training. A cirrus cannot be that hard to fly. Once you know the avionics it is just getting used to engine management, and circuits at a higher speed. I am sure the people renting will want to train you which makes sense but with some practice and by staying current you will be fine.
Any transition is going to easier if you:
1. Make an effort to learn the avionics on the ground
2. Get a POH and know the V speeds and read the whole thing so you know more about the systems
And remember, if in doot, pull the chute.
Interesting, Stephan. If that is of any interest, here’s how i started to fly the Cirrus.
I learned to fly mostly in my father’s Warrior, in 1994. Working for an aviation magazine I flew most single engine piston planes, including most of the better known kitplanes, and all twins in production for an hour or two in the next years.
In 1995 i flew the first prototype N200SR, four years later I flew the first SR22 that came to Europe. Both planes still had analogue instruments.
In 2013 i had the (financial) possibility to buy a 2006 SR22, fully equipped with Avidyne Entegra. Since I had never flown a glass cockpit before (I had quit the magazine as an editor before they came up) i needed somebody to train me. Philipp (Bosco) flew to England with me to pick up the plane and before we few home we practiced in the pattern of Gloucestershire Airport (EGBJ) for two hours or so. Later that day we flew home, and those were my first 4 hours in the SR22.
Just like Stephan i caught myself checking the backup instruments below the PFD in the first hours. Took me about 7 to 10 hours to fully overcome that. The plane was very easy to fly and to land, and I think it’s easier to land in crosswinds than most other types of the class. The only thing I had to practice a bit was speed management and descents. On my first flight (after i brought Philipp home) to my home base I arrived 2000 feet too high and with 160 knots and had to fly three circles to land :-)
Contrary to the planes i had flown before the SR22 does not really want to slow down and you have to reduce power well before the approach to get below the flap speed of 119 KIAS (raised to 150 KIAS with the G5!).
The most important thing is to study the systems, especially if you fly in IMC. That big cinema is nice, but when it fails and all the nice screens are black and you’re stuck in IMC with the backup instruments and your ipad … I tried it and I don’t feel “great” I admit. More practice is necessary. And it is really critical to learn how to manage the engine correctly, includig the right LOP procedures.
The airplane “itself” ist very easy to fly, just as easy as a 172.
On the other hand the SR22 can be landed on most grass strips and after some practicing i have no problem with 500-600 Meters of runway. Precise speed management is a must though. If you fly 85-90 KIAS approaches like many US pilots you will have a problem at a short field. I only use the 77 KIAS (POH for short field) minus 1 KIAS for each 100 lbs below MTOM.
Ahem, I don’t think so…. a non turbo SR22 (comparing like for like) will do 210kt TAS only (a) downhill (b) at close to Vne (c) from a high altitude (d) on oxygen
A normal SR22 NA will easily do 220 KTAS in the descent from 10.000 ft. The Vne is 201 KIAS.
But of course we were talking about a TN model, that’s the turbo normalized version.
Rhino
It depends what you mean by a medium skilled pilot – from experience if your background is a 172 then the systems aside you will do very well to master a Cirrus in one hour – between three and six hours would be far more realistic.
