SR-22 in northern NJ?

[Guy Elden Jr.]

Hi all... I'm nearing the completion of my IR training at CDW, and I'm
really eager to try out a Cirrus SR-22 once I'm done. Does anybody know of a
FBO, school, club, or partnership of pilots who have an SR-22 available to
rent or even buy a share of? I'm not quite interested in the Airshares Elite
program... doesn't sound like a good deal moneywise at all, but I'd
appreciate any and all suggestions.

Thanks!

--
Guy Elden Jr.
PP-ASEL

[Bob Chilcoat]

There's an SR-22 at SMQ, but it's privately owned. OTOH, if you talk to the
owner, he would probably give you a ride. It usually doesn't take much to
get an owner to show of their new toy. FBO is 908-722-2444

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)



"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> Hi all... I'm nearing the completion of my IR training at CDW, and I'm
> really eager to try out a Cirrus SR-22 once I'm done. Does anybody know of
a
> FBO, school, club, or partnership of pilots who have an SR-22 available to
> rent or even buy a share of? I'm not quite interested in the Airshares
Elite
> program... doesn't sound like a good deal moneywise at all, but I'd
> appreciate any and all suggestions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
>

[Justin Case]

If you're not just out for a joy ride, call the company and have them
contact the nearest dealer. They'll fly down to Caldwell and woo you
for sure.

hOn Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:06:56 -0400, "Bob Chilcoat"
> wrote:

>There's an SR-22 at SMQ, but it's privately owned. OTOH, if you talk to the
>owner, he would probably give you a ride. It usually doesn't take much to
>get an owner to show of their new toy. FBO is 908-722-2444

[Guy Elden Jr.]

Oh I probably don't need to be wooed... I'm pretty much sold on it based
purely on speed. I'd like to be able to fly down to Atlanta and back for
weekend visits with the family from time to time, and it seems that this
plane would be ideal for that. I'm not looking to buy one outright, but
would consider a partial ownership arrangement, or ideally for the
short-term, an FBO that has one available to rent.

Searching google groups, I found a post about a flying club in Charlotte
that had one that rented out for $150 / hr back in 2000 or 2001. That
sounded like an incredibly good deal, but I'm much more realistic in my
expectations for the local market. :)

--
Guy Elden Jr.
PP-ASEL

"Justin Case" > wrote in message
...
> If you're not just out for a joy ride, call the company and have them
> contact the nearest dealer. They'll fly down to Caldwell and woo you
> for sure.
>
> hOn Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:06:56 -0400, "Bob Chilcoat"
> > wrote:
>
> >There's an SR-22 at SMQ, but it's privately owned. OTOH, if you talk to
the
> >owner, he would probably give you a ride. It usually doesn't take much
to
> >get an owner to show of their new toy. FBO is 908-722-2444
>

[David Megginson]

"Guy Elden Jr." > writes:

> Oh I probably don't need to be wooed... I'm pretty much sold on it
> based purely on speed. I'd like to be able to fly down to Atlanta
> and back for weekend visits with the family from time to time, and
> it seems that this plane would be ideal for that.

If what you're interested in is just speed, rather than a flashy
panel, why not consider a 25-year-old Mooney 201? It's only 10 kt
slower than a new SR22 (170 ktas vs. 180 ktas), but will cost 1/3 the
price or less, so you can own the whole plane instead of just a share.
It also burns only 10 gph at 75%, vs. 16-17 gph for the SR22, and has
a smaller engine (i.e. cheaper maintenance and overhauls), so you'll
be able to afford to fly more.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Rod Madsen]

My flying club (in Charlotte) has an SR-22. It gets a lot of use. That
doesn't do you much good in NJ though. I'm sure Cirrus knows where the club
planes are.

Rod
"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> Oh I probably don't need to be wooed... I'm pretty much sold on it based
> purely on speed. I'd like to be able to fly down to Atlanta and back for
> weekend visits with the family from time to time, and it seems that this
> plane would be ideal for that. I'm not looking to buy one outright, but
> would consider a partial ownership arrangement, or ideally for the
> short-term, an FBO that has one available to rent.
>
> Searching google groups, I found a post about a flying club in Charlotte
> that had one that rented out for $150 / hr back in 2000 or 2001. That
> sounded like an incredibly good deal, but I'm much more realistic in my
> expectations for the local market. :)
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "Justin Case" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you're not just out for a joy ride, call the company and have them
> > contact the nearest dealer. They'll fly down to Caldwell and woo you
> > for sure.
> >
> > hOn Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:06:56 -0400, "Bob Chilcoat"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >There's an SR-22 at SMQ, but it's privately owned. OTOH, if you talk
to
> the
> > >owner, he would probably give you a ride. It usually doesn't take much
> to
> > >get an owner to show of their new toy. FBO is 908-722-2444
> >
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message ...

> I love my Warrior, but I'm always happy to drool over Mooneys. When I
> see a Bonanza, at least I can take comfort in the fact that the owner
> is paying an awful lot more than I am to keep the plane flying. With
> a Mooney, I have no such comfort: it bugs the hell out of me that they
> can fly so fast while paying barely any more than they would to keep a
> Skyhawk or Warrior flying (less, in fact, in fuel costs per mile
> flown).

Lopresti is a whiz! The post Lopresti Mooneys and Grummans are pretty
slick puppies. The Tiger can give a lot a lot of retracts a run for their
money as well.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Lopresti is a whiz!

Was.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[[email protected]]

On 10-Jul-2003, "Guy Elden Jr." > wrote:

> Oh I probably don't need to be wooed... I'm pretty much sold on it based
> purely on speed. I'd like to be able to fly down to Atlanta and back for
> weekend visits with the family from time to time, and it seems that this
> plane would be ideal for that.


The distance from CDW to ATL isv about 650 nm. Many relatively high
performance singles will not be able to make that trip nonstop with typical
IFR reserves. The SR-22 is one that can, as long as headwinds are not too
severe. Another is a later, normally aspirated Arrow (with 72 gal. fuel).

As a rule of thumb to figure calm wind IFR range, I subtract from the
plane's fuel load the quantity required for 1.5 hrs at normal cruise (to
cover getting to the alternate plus the required 45 min. reserve), then
divide the remainder by the cruise fuel burn and then multiply by the cruise
speed.

Example for the SR-22 with 82 gal usable fuel, 15 gph cruise burn rate and
180 kt cruise speed:

82 - (1.5 X 15) = 59.5 gal.

59.5/15 = 3.97 hrs

3.97 X 180 = 714 nm IFR range.

No problem covering the 650 nm trip from CDW to ATL, but against an average
15 kt headwind it would be right on the edge (while maintaining the same
conservative reserve margins).

[David Megginson]

(Ron Rapp) writes:

> Not that this tips things one way or the other, but the Mooney 201
> I've flow (a '77 model) wouldn't do 170 knots. It was a 160 knot
> airplane.
>
> To get 180 knots, the SR22 burns 18 gph. I think the actual number
> was 18.8 gallons per hour, but I'm going from memory here.

I was quoting book numbers for both; I'd assume that each would take a
similar real-world hit if not spiffy clean and perfectly rigged, with
a skilled test pilot at the controls.

That said, for the plane you flew, did you check the tach? A small
calibration error could easily account for a speed loss.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Justin Case]

I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:49:59 GMT,
(Ron Rapp) wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:42:55 GMT, David Megginson
> wrote:
>
(Ron Rapp) writes:
>>
>>> Not that this tips things one way or the other, but the Mooney 201
>>> I've flow (a '77 model) wouldn't do 170 knots. It was a 160 knot
>>> airplane.
>>>
>>> To get 180 knots, the SR22 burns 18 gph. I think the actual number
>>> was 18.8 gallons per hour, but I'm going from memory here.
>>
>>I was quoting book numbers for both; I'd assume that each would take a
>>similar real-world hit if not spiffy clean and perfectly rigged, with
>>a skilled test pilot at the controls.
>
>Actually, from what I gather (I haven't flown an SR22), the SR22 will
>make book speed. The only thing I noticed is that to get that magic
>180 knots, it burns an awful lot of fuel. The SR20 gets 160 knots out
>of 10 or so gallons, whereas the SR22 gets 180 knots out of 18 gph.
>
>>That said, for the plane you flew, did you check the tach? A small
>>calibration error could easily account for a speed loss.
>
>No, it wasn't my airplane. I observed 160 knots or so when I flew it,
>and that's what the owner told me 201s tend to get in the real world.
>
>
>I think Cirrus is probably more "on the money" with their numbers,
>especially since a new glass plane will probably be truer than an old
>metal one that's developed some bad rigging, a little extra drag, and
>a bit of extra weight over the years.
>
>--Ron

[Jim Pennino]

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
> I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
> After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
> they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
> plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
> similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.


--
Jim Pennino

[Justin Case]

And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
> wrote:

>In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
>> I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
>> After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
>> they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
>> plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
>> similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.
>
>The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.

[Jim Pennino]

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
> And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
> > wrote:

>>In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
>>> I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
>>> After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
>>> they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
>>> plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
>>> similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.
>>
>>The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.


What about it?

The Columbia was destroyed because hot gas got through the hole in the
ablative tile, not because of a problem with the underlying structure.

When you hit the atmosphere at 15,000 mph with a hole in you heat shield,
it doesn't matter what the structure is.

Is there a SR-22 that does 15,000 mph?

--
Jim Pennino

[Big John]

Jim

I quote from an Internet search.

1." In ablative technology, the surface of the heat shield melts and
vaporizes, and in the process, it carries away heat".

2. "The orbiter tiles do not ablate during the heat of reentry".

Someone started using the wrong word (ablative) and spelled it wrong
and it has carried from post to post.

Just setting the technical record straight.

Big John


On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
> wrote:

>In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
>> I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
>> After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
>> they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
>> plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
>> similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.
>
>The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.

[Justin Case]

I really see no need to discuss this with you, but my take is that if
the carbon fiber didn't matter, they wouldn't be disassembling the
wing from a current ship and shooting things at it. Since you seem to
be a smart-ass without humorous intentions, I just guess you're
someone that knows what brought down the shuttle, and one of those
folks that is always correct. WOW! I am honored to have been
recognized as an inferior by you. Now, you know what you can go do.


On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
> wrote:

>In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
>> And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
>> > wrote:
>
>>>In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
>>>> I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
>>>> After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
>>>> they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
>>>> plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
>>>> similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.
>>>
>>>The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.
>
>
>What about it?
>
>The Columbia was destroyed because hot gas got through the hole in the
>ablative tile, not because of a problem with the underlying structure.
>
>When you hit the atmosphere at 15,000 mph with a hole in you heat shield,
>it doesn't matter what the structure is.
>
>Is there a SR-22 that does 15,000 mph?

[Jim Pennino]

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
> I really see no need to discuss this with you, but my take is that if
> the carbon fiber didn't matter, they wouldn't be disassembling the
> wing from a current ship and shooting things at it. Since you seem to
> be a smart-ass without humorous intentions, I just guess you're
> someone that knows what brought down the shuttle, and one of those
> folks that is always correct. WOW! I am honored to have been
> recognized as an inferior by you. Now, you know what you can go do.
>

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
> > wrote:

>>In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
>>> And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
>>>>> I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
>>>>> After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
>>>>> they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
>>>>> plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
>>>>> similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.
>>>>
>>>>The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.
>>
>>
>>What about it?
>>
>>The Columbia was destroyed because hot gas got through the hole in the
>>ablative tile, not because of a problem with the underlying structure.
>>
>>When you hit the atmosphere at 15,000 mph with a hole in you heat shield,
>>it doesn't matter what the structure is.
>>
>>Is there a SR-22 that does 15,000 mph?

My, my, touchy to being contradicted, aren't we?


--
Jim Pennino

[Justin Case]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:39:15 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
> wrote:

>My, my, touchy to being contradicted, aren't we?

No, but I find that I should have used these exact words when replying
to you the first time. Your statements regarding the construction of
the shuttle was not relevant to the conversation about the durability
of carbon fiber, as is the smart assed remark about a 15K mph SR-22.
And although plastic can be repaired, we still have no way of knowing
the effects of long term UV.

Now go and beat your wife if she hasn't left you yet.

[Jim Pennino]

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case > wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:39:15 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
> > wrote:

>>My, my, touchy to being contradicted, aren't we?

> No, but I find that I should have used these exact words when replying
> to you the first time. Your statements regarding the construction of
> the shuttle was not relevant to the conversation about the durability
> of carbon fiber, as is the smart assed remark about a 15K mph SR-22.
> And although plastic can be repaired, we still have no way of knowing
> the effects of long term UV.

> Now go and beat your wife if she hasn't left you yet.

Your original statement that started this sub-thread regarding the shuttle,
"After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when they
shot the foam at it?" has no relevance to the SR-22 since the materials
used are entirely different and one is only a heat shield (the shuttle)
and other structural (the SR-22).

I don't know who "we" is that doesn't know the long term effects of UV
on composition structures, but they are known in the industry and in the
military. The C-130 for example has had composite skin pieces for about
40 years now.

Further, the whole composits versus aluminium debate was beat to death
right here a couple of months ago.

You might try taking an anger management class to find out why you feel
personal attacks are necessary when someone disagrees with you.

--
Jim Pennino

[Justin Case]

Pete;
How does one lose when stating an opinion?

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 02:44:54 GMT, Pete Zaitcev >
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:12:26 -0500, Justin Case wrote:
>
>> You know what you can do now, paisano. You're plonked.
>
>Come on, Justin, learn to lose gracefully.
>
>You were beaten on all the issues:
> - relevance of a hole in the RCC panel #8 to the SR-22 construction
> - durability of composite aircraft structures, and industry
> experience with such.
>
>-- Pete

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Rod Madsen wrote:

> My flying club (in Charlotte) has an SR-22. It gets a lot of use. That
> doesn't do you much good in NJ though. I'm sure Cirrus knows where the club
> planes are.

Does your flying club have a website or anyplace else to get more
information? I've heard rumblings from people at my flying club who
want get Cirrus planes, it worries me because they are so expensive. It
might be good to know of other flying clubs in the area that have them
in case the discussions get serious.

--
PP-ASEL
PA28-161
http://www.wingsofcarolina.org
Note: email invalid. Respond on newsgroup

[Andrew Gideon]

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:

> Oh I probably don't need to be wooed... I'm pretty much sold on it based
> purely on speed. I'd like to be able to fly down to Atlanta and back for
> weekend visits with the family from time to time, and it seems that this
> plane would be ideal for that. I'm not looking to buy one outright, but
> would consider a partial ownership arrangement, or ideally for the
> short-term, an FBO that has one available to rent.
>
> Searching google groups, I found a post about a flying club in Charlotte
> that had one that rented out for $150 / hr back in 2000 or 2001. That
> sounded like an incredibly good deal, but I'm much more realistic in my
> expectations for the local market. :)

Let me know when you purchase one and put it on leaseback. At a semi-decent
(or even not too indecent) price, I'll rent. And I already fly out of
CDW...

- Andrew