Certain SN Cardinals have landing gear that is just a nightmare from start to finish, and part numbers that read “unobtainium” on a search. They seem to end up on their belly a lot more so than 210’s or 182RG’s from what I’ve known. It’s probably because the Cardinal finished in 78 and they went on to improve the RG system in later years. I think SN 0488 was the point where the 182RG’s got the better system with heavier pivots etc and they were all 28v A/C.
Our Cherokee 260 with the two back seats out would make a serious 4 seater! Thinking mans Dakota in my mind.
+1 for the Cardinal! I have a couple of hundred hours in these birds and they are really great low(ish) budget touring machines. Flown them all over Spain and Morocco.
I also enjoys every hour of flying the Cardinal that I used to fly. It is a very stable and nice aircraft. A low hour Cardinal would be a very suitable platform for an all glass IFR upgrade in my mind.
Ibra wrote:
M20C, M20F & Cardinal have good climb rate to punch up through the layer and take on grass, M20J is slick and go stable and faster than anything with 200hp in certfied or 4-seat RVs !
Last weekend a friend and I launched in his RV-8 just behind a friend in her Cardinal RG. We were surprised that while the RV climbed faster and caught up, it was a longer process than we expected. Maybe she was using max power, we were in cruise climb but anyway it was a good comparison and the Cardinal did OK.
Silvaire wrote:
If I were to buy a 200 HP retractable, I would prefer a Lycoming four cylinder engine over the 6-cylinder Continental used on the SR20. I like simple and robust. Candidates that come to mind are the aforementioned Mooney M20E, F and J and the Cessna Cardinal RG, which other than the landing gear complexity has a lot going for it in terms of comfort, payload and GG range, as well as appearance.
I would advise the same to anyone who is not sensitive to SR20 chute or fixed gears, I have flown C, F, J Mooneys on steam & glass and last year a full glass Cardinal all are stable IFR platforms: M20C, M20F & Cardinal have good climb rate to punch up through the layer and take on grass, M20J is slick and go stable and faster than anything with 200hp in certfied or 4-seat RVs !
Maintenance costs are much more related to
than by what type of plane it is.
Point #1 can make a difference of 5×. Point #2 makes a difference of 2×. So, take an old wreck to a company and you are paying 10x more 
And I am not kidding. I see these cases regularly. Most of the owners don’t go public with it…
A Cirrus doesn’t cost especially more to maintain. Some past threads can be found with a search. A Cirrus is more likely to be maintained by a Cirrus dealer and they simply charge more. They seem to have some bits which cost money, but most planes have these, and the owners normally deny it. This subject always gets controversial
I know a Mooney owner who got well shafted with corrosion, but what he got was, in the view of my A&P who has seen much, not unusual for an aircraft of that age (1980 or so). And a 1982 TB20 could be anything from “OK” to a badly corroded wreck.
One has to find a plane one actually likes the look of, likes to sit in, likes the way the controls feel, the other half (wife, usually ) likes, and can find an affordable specimen of. If I was buying again, below say 200k, I would buy another TB20, because they fly very well, are modern and spacious inside, are simple and easy to work on, can do long flights when necessary, etc, etc. It is surprising how fast you will narrow down your list once you actually look at some and sit in them! Especially if you have an engineering background. I bought the TB20 (brand new back then) without a test flight… I wrote the reasons above. A useless Diamond dealer and an ultra arrogant Cirrus dealer merely accelerated the final decision My TB20 writeups sold countless TB20s, would have sold way more if Socata had not stopped making them, and I know for a fact I “sold” a number of TBMs by this.
As I wrote before, for a novice owner it is better to buy something “lesser” in a good condition than some “Spitfire” (not that there are any of those in normal piston GA; most planes of say 250HP are really very similar in speed) which is dripping oil and airframe parts
Silvaire wrote:
If I were to buy a 200 HP retractable, I would prefer a Lycoming four cylinder engine over the 6-cylinder Continental used on the SR20. I like simple and robust. Candidates that come to mind are the aforementioned Mooney M20E, F and J and the Cessna Cardinal RG, which other than the landing gear complexity has a lot going for it in terms of comfort, payload and GG range, as well as appearance.
For two people I’d add the M20C and keep the E, for 4 I’d definitly try to get an F or J.
The C is “only” 180 hp vs the 200 hp of the E model, but performance loss is not that bad. Unless of course you can get an E with 201 cowling and windscreen and Monroy tanks.
If I were to buy a 200 HP retractable, I would prefer a Lycoming four cylinder engine over the 6-cylinder Continental used on the SR20. I like simple and robust. Candidates that come to mind are the aforementioned Mooney M20E, F and J and the Cessna Cardinal RG, which other than the landing gear complexity has a lot going for it in terms of comfort, payload and GG range, as well as appearance.
Domenico wrote:
Is there any SR20 owner in this forum?
His experience can be very helpful to understand the real maintenance cost.
There is @boscomantico and there used to be another guy who flew a SR20.
I just reread the thread @Capitaine referred to. It appears that almost everyone who has flown the SR20 complains that it is very much underpowered and a problem in summer. It was also said that mpg and maintenance cost are quite similar between the SR20 and 22.
I also had a look at the POH of the SR20 at the time and came up with the following figures:
Looking at range, the POH gives some examples at various power settings. The range figures given include 10.1 USG as final reserve, which translates into 45 minutes IFR reserve at 75% and fuel for descent, includes a descent into final destination at 160 KIAS and -500fpm.
At 75% the POH gives an optimum range of 627 NM @ 155 kts @ 8000 ft and 11.6 GPH, translating into 12.8 NM/USG. (best power)
At 65% the POH gives an optimum range of 666 NM @ 150 kts @ 12000 ft and 10.5 GPH, tranlsating into 13.4 NM/USG (best power)
At 55% the POH gives an optimum range of 786 NM @ 144 kts @ 14000 ft and 8.4 GPH, tranlslating into 16.0 NM/USG (eco power)
In comparison, the SR22 returns 11 NM/USG at 75%, 11..7 NM/USG at 65% and 12.3 NM/USG at 55% with 180/175/170 kts respectively
So the SR20 is actually a quite efficient airplane vs the SR22. However, the range of the SR22 is larger due to the much larger fuel capacity
In comparison with some other 200 hp airplanes those values are not really too shabby but nothing special either.
I would personally compare the SR20 to the M20J (or Mooney 201) as it has the same basic engine, it is however heavier than the Mooney but of course quite a bit bigger in the cabin. The 201 has a better range of around 900 NM as the SR20 (64 vs 56 USG fuel), is considerably faster (165/155/142 kts at 75/65/55%) and more efficient.
The SR20 would performance wise best compare to the M20C, which has similar speed and range and payload, but is massively cheaper to operate.
What I would think about the SR20:
Positive:
- Cheapest entry into the Cirrus market
- Full EFIS versions available in your budget
- Modern large cabin
- The shute
- Well known and proven engine
Negative:
- Performance rather mediocre for a modern plane like this
- Range is not very impressive and worse with 4 people on
- PIREPS indicate low service ceilings and bad runway performance.
So maybe it would be worth looking for a SR22 if you want to stay with Cirrus and even consider an Aspen or similar equipped half analogue one. G2’s are available but are much more pricey starting at about 185 k asking without WAAS.
Some info on FAA composites repair approval practice is furnished by AC-214A
Composite sailplanes in the US are BTW very often in Experimental category despite being built in Europe as a certified product. There is an allowance made for sailplanes in this regard, and its useful on several levels. One advantage is that sailplanes made in countries that had or have no reciprocal certification agreements with the US (e.g. Poland 1985) can be imported and sold commercially. Another is that airframe repairs can be done with less hassle.
That leaves FAA certified composite light aircraft structural repair to those working on Cirrus, Diamond and a few others. In some cases (by my observation e.g. Extra) the maintenance manual is extremely restrictive in allowing for repairs versus replacement and FAA approval outside of the MM procedures can be time consuming to say the least. One can imagine that the insurance companies have plenty of experience with this.
FAA Experimental Amateur Built are outside of all this, and are routinely repaired without FAA involvement.
