Hand flying Cirrus

[rookiepilot]

Considering an upgrade to a Cirrus SR22. G3 or later. I am 100% Cessna time.

What gives me pause -- I have a few right seat hours -- is hand flying with the stiff self centering method they use, especially in the pattern at lower speeds, feeling what the aircraft is doing. Runway length required without overheating the brakes is a concern too (from what I have read)

Anyone with significant time who can comment?

[oldncold]

Why not get a clean cessna 210. The cirrus is a good plane but can be a maintenance pig with the turbo. You said you are 100 %cessna and a good 210 non turbo n then spend the money use save on the purchase price to put in a g3x 750 650 and g600 autopilot yes about 120k. But. You will have modern plane hauls a good load and excellent resale. Or if you need the turbo. A Late model t210n is an excellent choice just make sure of the history and that the ad on the spar with eddy current is completed. There are a few out there that were delivere from the factory with fiki they command a premium but still less than a cirrus

[Big Pistons Forever]

Second oldncold. I have about 400 hrs on a IO 550 powered C 210 and really liked it. A lovely stable IFR airplane. Gear and flap speeds are near the top of the green and with the big flaps it handles short strips with ease. FYI only the turbo C210’s are FIKI, however I don’t believe the SR22 had a certified FIKI TKS system until the G4 model

Ideally you want a 1982 or later as it had the double fuel return reservoirs and so can select both for fuel. It also has the latest gear actuator configuration which is very reliable, unlike some of the earlier iterations.

As was noted above for the price of an average SR22 you will be shopping at the very top of the 210 market with airplanes that have 550’s and the latest touchscreen avionics.

With respect to flying the SR22, well it’s an airplane. The BS sort of side stick works OK and you will get used to it pretty quickly. Personally I am not a fan of the airplane. The controls feel soggy and are not as responsive as I would like. However there is nothing especially difficult about the take off or landing other than it doesn’t particularly like short fields.

I think the fact that the aircraft is over represented in landing accidents is more of a reflection of pilots who have all or most of their total experience in this aircraft and spend 99% of the flight on autopilot to the detriment of their basic flight skills

I have had 4 full or partial engine failures in GA piston powered airplanes and my enthusiasm for flying hard IFR in a single engine airplane is pretty low. Light piston twins like the 310 or Barons are great value right now. Yes a lot more money to run per hour but you get de ice, real system redundancy and good speed.

Finally G3 SR22’s will have early generation glass panels and upgrades can be very expensive. Also the early Cirrus airplanes had issues with the fuel gauges. They were even more useless than the ones on a Cessna 150. There is an aftermarket upgrade but again it is very expensive.

[rookiepilot]

Second oldncold. I have about 400 hrs on a IO 550 powered C 210 and really liked it. A lovely stable IFR airplane. Gear and flap speeds are near the top of the green and with the big flaps it handles short strips with ease. FYI only the turbo C210’s are FIKI, however I don’t believe the SR22 had a certified FIKI TKS system until the G4 model

Ideally you want a 1982 or later as it had the double fuel return reservoirs and so can select both for fuel. It also has the latest gear actuator configuration which is very reliable, unlike some of the earlier iterations.

As was noted above for the price of an average SR22 you will be shopping at the very top of the 210 market with airplanes that have 550’s and the latest touchscreen avionics.

With respect to flying the SR22, well it’s an airplane. The BS sort of side stick works OK and you will get used to it pretty quickly. Personally I am not a fan of the airplane. The controls feel soggy and are not as responsive as I would like. However there is nothing especially difficult about the take off or landing other than it doesn’t particularly like short fields.

I think the fact that the aircraft is over represented in landing accidents is more of a reflection of pilots who have all or most of their total experience in this aircraft and spend 99% of the flight on autopilot to the detriment of their basic flight skills

I have had 4 full or partial engine failures in GA piston powered airplanes and my enthusiasm for flying hard IFR in a single engine airplane is pretty low. Light piston twins like the 310 or Barons are great value right now. Yes a lot more money to run per hour but you get de ice, real system redundancy and good speed.

Finally G3 SR22’s will have early generation glass panels and upgrades can be very expensive. Also the early Cirrus airplanes had issues with the fuel gauges. They were even more useless than the ones on a Cessna 150. There is an aftermarket upgrade but again it is very expensive.

great comments BPF. Any more? Parts availability? Gear issues?

[cdnavater]

Second oldncold. I have about 400 hrs on a IO 550 powered C 210 and really liked it. A lovely stable IFR airplane. Gear and flap speeds are near the top of the green and with the big flaps it handles short strips with ease. FYI only the turbo C210’s are FIKI, however I don’t believe the SR22 had a certified FIKI TKS system until the G4 model

Ideally you want a 1982 or later as it had the double fuel return reservoirs and so can select both for fuel. It also has the latest gear actuator configuration which is very reliable, unlike some of the earlier iterations.

As was noted above for the price of an average SR22 you will be shopping at the very top of the 210 market with airplanes that have 550’s and the latest touchscreen avionics.

With respect to flying the SR22, well it’s an airplane. The BS sort of side stick works OK and you will get used to it pretty quickly. Personally I am not a fan of the airplane. The controls feel soggy and are not as responsive as I would like. However there is nothing especially difficult about the take off or landing other than it doesn’t particularly like short fields.

I think the fact that the aircraft is over represented in landing accidents is more of a reflection of pilots who have all or most of their total experience in this aircraft and spend 99% of the flight on autopilot to the detriment of their basic flight skills

I have had 4 full or partial engine failures in GA piston powered airplanes and my enthusiasm for flying hard IFR in a single engine airplane is pretty low. Light piston twins like the 310 or Barons are great value right now. Yes a lot more money to run per hour but you get de ice, real system redundancy and good speed.

Finally G3 SR22’s will have early generation glass panels and upgrades can be very expensive. Also the early Cirrus airplanes had issues with the fuel gauges. They were even more useless than the ones on a Cessna 150. There is an aftermarket upgrade but again it is very expensive.

great comments BPF. Any more? Parts availability? Gear issues?

Rookie, I’m curious only because I’m so far removed from general aviation. Are you interested in the cirrus because of the ballistic chute? Or is it something else?

[Big Pistons Forever]

From what I hear factory support from Cirrus is quite good. That been said not all AMO's have composite aircraft experience so you don't want to pay for their learning curve. Maintenance costs seems to be reasonable although since the aircraft has no nose wheel steering brake wear has been an issue. The Berrington brake mod is supposed to be very good.

The big issue is airframe damage. I know of a guy who inadvertently flew through some slushy hail. The damage did not look bad at all but the repair bill was 132 K. You also have the 10 year mandatory parachute replacement which I believe is about 15 K.

[rookiepilot]

From what I hear factory support from Cirrus is quite good. That been said not all AMO's have composite aircraft experience so you don't want to pay for their learning curve. Maintenance costs seems to be reasonable although since the aircraft has no nose wheel steering brake wear has been an issue. The Berrington brake mod is supposed to be very good.

The big issue is airframe damage. I know of a guy who inadvertently flew through some slushy hail. The damage did not look bad at all but the repair bill was 132 K. You also have the 10 year mandatory parachute replacement which I believe is about 15 K.

Whats your recent service experience look like on the 210?

[Lurch]

I have a couple thousand hours flying Cirrus, every model except for the Jet. At first I really didn't like the airplane, but after some time it really grew on me.

The airplane was not designed to be hand flown, but engaging the AP at 600 feet and leaving it on until back to 500 feet on final. That said it can be a fun hand flying airplane, but you need to learn how to trim it properly. without trim it gets fatiguing very quickly. Had an AP failure once and ended up having to hand fly about 50 hours, it wasn't as nice as a Cessna but it wasn't horrible.

I am not sure where you live, but if you have no need to fly over the mountains IMC then I would avoid the Turbo versions. If you do want the turbo avoid the first versions.

The fuel burn rates are "high" 19-20gph at 75% power which doesn't help sell airplanes so they run LOP, if done properly it isn't bad on the engine, but 90% of owners do not run LOP properly and burn out the valves and crack the cylinders, you will only get half TBO before you need a top end. I have seen an owner burn out his engine in 400 hours. I highly recommend running 75-100 degrees ROP and accept the higher fuel burn. at 65% and 75 degrees ROP your burn will be down to 16gph. I always seemed to get 175TAS at 75% 19gph.

The issue maintenance wise is the parachute, you need to replace the line cutters every 5 or 7 years, I can't remember, this will cost a couple thousand. The parachute is every 10 years and costs around $20,000.

I find the TKS is fairly useless in active icing, great for climbing and descending through light icing, just don't think you can sit in it for any length of time, and you need it running prior, once ice has built the system is horrible at getting it off, it's an anti-ice system, not a de-ice.

The older version were equipped with Avidyne glass panels and G430s. I have seen a lot of owners recently starting to remove them and upgrade. I prefer the Avidyne and 650/750 over the Garmin. I personally believe a 2006 or 07 SR22GTS Normally Asperated with the Garmin upgrade would be what I would look for. Avoid the SR20, it is like flying a C150, very under powered.

[Lurch]

From what I hear factory support from Cirrus is quite good. That been said not all AMO's have composite aircraft experience so you don't want to pay for their learning curve. Maintenance costs seems to be reasonable although since the aircraft has no nose wheel steering brake wear has been an issue. The Berrington brake mod is supposed to be very good.

The big issue is airframe damage. I know of a guy who inadvertently flew through some slushy hail. The damage did not look bad at all but the repair bill was 132 K. You also have the 10 year mandatory parachute replacement which I believe is about 15 K.

Factory support is great, just make sure you get a AMO that knows the airplane. Too many think it is just like any other airplane, so many issues arise when they don't know how to set it up properly.

I have never had brake issues, but I know why the problem occurs. it has a castoring nose gear so owners ride the brakes and over heat the brakes, this melts the o-ring and they start to leak. The Cirrus taxis great with just a little bit of power and extra taxi speed, you get enough airflow that the rudder becomes slightly affective and you can keep it straight with just rudder, and when you need to turn you have to just tap the brake, not ride it.

[rookiepilot]

From what I hear factory support from Cirrus is quite good. That been said not all AMO's have composite aircraft experience so you don't want to pay for their learning curve. Maintenance costs seems to be reasonable although since the aircraft has no nose wheel steering brake wear has been an issue. The Berrington brake mod is supposed to be very good.

The big issue is airframe damage. I know of a guy who inadvertently flew through some slushy hail. The damage did not look bad at all but the repair bill was 132 K. You also have the 10 year mandatory parachute replacement which I believe is about 15 K.

Factory support is great, just make sure you get a AMO that knows the airplane. Too many think it is just like any other airplane, so many issues arise when they don't know how to set it up properly.

I have never had brake issues, but I know why the problem occurs. it has a castoring nose gear so owners ride the brakes and over heat the brakes, this melts the o-ring and they start to leak. The Cirrus taxis great with just a little bit of power and extra taxi speed, you get enough airflow that the rudder becomes slightly affective and you can keep it straight with just rudder, and when you need to turn you have to just tap the brake, not ride it.

Thanks for the detailed comments. Really helpful. I am in the east.

I agree with your target airplane, too.

The other choice I have considered would be (an older) Bonzana, nice to hand fly but no deicing options at all. (Maybe there are some out there with TKS, I don’t know)

The age of some of the legacy transportation class airplanes like the 210 had steered me to taking a long look at Cirrus for parts reasons. Maybe its less of an issue than I think.

However re Cirrus I know of an airplane at my local field, the pilot mentioned to me he is uncomfortable with any contamination on the runway, due to the brakes overheating. 3800 main strip. Much shorter crosswind runway. He relocates the plane in winter. Our runway and taxiways are not the best, either.

[Lurch]

Thanks for the detailed comments. Really helpful. I am in the east.

I agree with your target airplane, too.

The other choice I have considered would be a Bonzana, nice to hand fly but no deicing options at all. (Maybe there are some out there with TKS, I don’t know)

The age of some of the legacy transportation class airplanes had steered me to taking a long look at Cirrus for parts reasons.

However I know of an airplane at my local field, the pilot mentioned to me he is uncomfortable with any contamination on the runway, due to the brakes overheating. 3800’. He relocates the plane in winter. Our runway and taxiways are not the best, either.

3800' is not an issue at all. only concern I would have is deeper snow with the wheel pants, but like Cessna you can remove them.

[DanWEC]

Diamond DA40? More of a pilot's plane than the Sr22, but very gentle. Loved flying it, Everything is more reasonable than the Cirrus. Molded seat shape can be an issue for some but can be customized.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The age of some of the legacy transportation class airplanes like the 210 had steered me to taking a long look at Cirrus for parts reasons. Maybe its less of an issue than I think.

It is all about how it was maintained. There are some beautiful airplanes out there but also many absolute shit shows. The 210 I flew was a 1982 C210N. The N or rare R models are the one you want as Cessna had by then fully fixed the landing gear. Earlier models have a problematical gear system and the earlier they are the more problematical it gets. The airplane I flew was well looked after since new and I don't think maintenance was significantly more onerous than a 182.

The scary issue is the spar carry through AD. If it is bad it is a 25 to 40 K repair, but a good pre buy will look at this

Like any airplane when it comes to maintenance it is pay now or pay (more) later. A 210 that has been let go will easily eat up huge money getting it right. The good news is the 210 is a Cessna and any AMO can fix Cessna's, not that many have significant experience fixing a Cirrus

[pelmet]

I have experience on both the -20 and -22 but not too much. All Avidyne avionics. Nice flying aircraft. Not difficult to fly assuming one is a decent pilot. The avionics is the tougher part, especially when the pressure is on while IFR.

Brake heat was an issue. The last one I flew had overheat indicators on the brake units but that is for after the fact.

Bottom line, come in on speed instead of the fast approaches or long landings that many have. Taxiing in a strong crosswind can require excessive differential brake as happened to me one time but it was winter in Duluth for the delivery flight, so not an issue. If it is hot out, try to use some imagination on how to use less brakes. Land more into wind, don't ride them while taxiing as I see some people do. If they got used a lot while taxiing, you may be able to let them cool for a while before taking off, minimize takeoffs and landings on hot days, etc. I have landed on a runway a bit less than 3800'....no issues.

Slows down quite a bit in ice and I have heard even somewhat in rain.

Been a few years so info is dated.

By the way.....the rocket replacement is not cheap.


"Flaps and CAPS"

The good news is the 210 is a Cessna and any AMO can fix Cessna's, not that many have significant experience fixing a Cirrus

True, you may end up flying it to a distant location for maintenance.

[jakeandelwood]

I have had an early C210 (1962) for going on 10 years now. It's been a great airplane, i think a lot of the talk about the gear is just talk. I have never had any problems with my gear except for once when the doors wouldn't close which was just a micro switch adjustment, also never had a problem with the hydraulic flaps either. I'm fanatical about checking and keeping the hydraulic fluid topped up, i check it before every flight. as for maintenance it has never needed anything that a same vintage C182 wouldn't need. The earlier strutted ones are a lot cheaper than the later cantilever ones.

[fish4life]

I’ve seen you mention de-ice/ anti ice a few times. What is your plan with it? Any piston single should do everything it can to avoid icing even with a “de-ice” system and it’s more a just in case to help you get through the odd thin layer.

[rookiepilot]

I’ve seen you mention de-ice/ anti ice a few times. What is your plan with it? Any piston single should do everything it can to avoid icing even with a “de-ice” system and it’s more a just in case to help you get through the odd thin layer.

Where did I mention this “a few times” exactly? I see once.

Thanks for the unsolicited interrogation and unsolicited advice which i am well aware of.

My plan, is to stay as far away from icing as I can.

Unlike other posters with this comment, but in context of talking about their experiences with my target aircraft you contributed zip.

Let’s stay on the topic.

Why does every retired commercial pilot posting think every active PPL is their totally green FO and can be lectured accordingly?

. #notyourFO

[fish4life]

I’ve seen you mention de-ice/ anti ice a few times. What is your plan with it? Any piston single should do everything it can to avoid icing even with a “de-ice” system and it’s more a just in case to help you get through the odd thin layer.

Where did I mention this “a few times” exactly? I see once.

Thanks for the unsolicited interrogation and unsolicited advice which i am well aware of.

My plan, is to stay as far away from icing as I can.

Unlike other posters with this comment, but in context of talking about their experiences with my target aircraft you contributed zip.

Let’s stay on the topic.

Why does every retired commercial pilot posting think every active PPL is their totally green FO and can be lectured accordingly?

. #notyourFO

Yikes, wasn’t trying to belittle more just trying to see if that’s a requirement and if there is other aircraft that might actually fit the mission better since it’s not something that should be considered anyway.

[rookiepilot]

I’ve seen you mention de-ice/ anti ice a few times. What is your plan with it? Any piston single should do everything it can to avoid icing even with a “de-ice” system and it’s more a just in case to help you get through the odd thin layer.

Where did I mention this “a few times” exactly? I see once.

Thanks for the unsolicited interrogation and unsolicited advice which i am well aware of.

My plan, is to stay as far away from icing as I can.

Unlike other posters with this comment, but in context of talking about their experiences with my target aircraft you contributed zip.

Let’s stay on the topic.

Why does every retired commercial pilot posting think every active PPL is their totally green FO and can be lectured accordingly?

. #notyourFO

Yikes, wasn’t trying to belittle more

Difficult to tell.

This is Avcanada.

[Squaretail]

My advice would be if you have a nice 182, stick with that. While the 210 and Cirrus are nice planes, for the price of the Cirrus or the extra costs of the 210 you can put a lot of gas through a 182. 210s right now aren't holding their value, so expect to take a dive on resale if that's a concern. Not mentioned so far are spar issues with the 210, so technically the safest ones are the early strutted ones, which are just overgrown 182s (see Cessna design lineage). Cirrus is a nice plane, but not not $750K nice. It still has 4 seats, so if all you want is a bit of speed (but same range) its not that much of an upgrade. Personally if I had the money and wanted a fiberglass plane, I'd get a Corvalis, that thing can go. If I didn't have the money and wanted a fast plane I'd go with a Mooney. If you want something that can pack a meaningful load, get a 206. But a 182 can be stuffed full so unless you got lost of kids or want to take a lot of fish out of somewhere, stick with the 182. Forget about the DA-40. Its an ok plane but hauls less than the 182. It was designed as a premium trainer. Also the most uncomfortable of the bunch.

Flying wise, the Cirrus handles fine and is easy to fly. Even by hand. Converting to the side stick is a non issue but for the most particular pilot. Every student I had that flew one commented on how easy it was to fly when their only experience was a 172. "That plane makes me feel like a good pilot" was one's comment. If you can fly the 182, the 210 is more of the same. Beware of "cheap" 210s. I know a guy who bought one for $40K last year. I think so far he's spent $150K on it and it still ain't airworthy. His story isn't unique. The engine mounted on the nose gear box structure of the 210s and the early 206s (and 205s and 207s) is a maintenance nightmare. Also avoid the P210s. Pressurizing a box is a bad idea. Though its sealed enough that if the A/C goes too, you're in a spot of trouble. Too many things stuffed under the cowl in those, so plan on always repairing that or enjoying the rat-rod look.

Long time ago, I used to get lots of demo rides in the Cirrus, since the theory of one of the sales reps was that if he could convince me that its was awesome that I would convince the students it was awesome. I don't think his plan worked. Part of me wants to really recommend the 210 because in general Cessnas are decent, but I would never buy one.

Main reason to buy a Cirrus is if your significant other won't let you fly without a parachute. But then, maybe just buy a parachute and take a few lessons.

[pelmet]

Where did I mention this “a few times” exactly? I see once.

Thanks for the unsolicited interrogation and unsolicited advice which i am well aware of.

My plan, is to stay as far away from icing as I can.

Unlike other posters with this comment, but in context of talking about their experiences with my target aircraft you contributed zip.

Let’s stay on the topic.

Why does every retired commercial pilot posting think every active PPL is their totally green FO and can be lectured accordingly?

. #notyourFO

Yikes, wasn’t trying to belittle more

Difficult to tell.

This is Avcanada.

So many people(well, in certain areas) take everything as a slight based on race, gender, pilot's license, etc. even when none is intended.

I remember getting checked out on a larger aircraft that had CPDLC on it. I had never seen it before and thought it was cool. When I asked a Jazz F/O if there was CPDLC on the Dash-8 she was flying, she got all defensive and after I provided further explanation of why I was asking, she told me that she had thought I was belittling the aircraft size she was flying.

I suppose size matters to her.

[rookiepilot]

My advice would be if you have a nice 182, stick with that. While the 210 and Cirrus are nice planes, for the price of the Cirrus or the extra costs of the 210 you can put a lot of gas through a 182. 210s right now aren't holding their value, so expect to take a dive on resale if that's a concern. Not mentioned so far are spar issues with the 210, so technically the safest ones are the early strutted ones, which are just overgrown 182s (see Cessna design lineage). Cirrus is a nice plane, but not not $750K nice. It still has 4 seats, so if all you want is a bit of speed (but same range) its not that much of an upgrade. Personally if I had the money and wanted a fiberglass plane, I'd get a Corvalis, that thing can go. If I didn't have the money and wanted a fast plane I'd go with a Mooney. If you want something that can pack a meaningful load, get a 206. But a 182 can be stuffed full so unless you got lost of kids or want to take a lot of fish out of somewhere, stick with the 182. Forget about the DA-40. Its an ok plane but hauls less than the 182. It was designed as a premium trainer. Also the most uncomfortable of the bunch.

Flying wise, the Cirrus handles fine and is easy to fly. Even by hand. Converting to the side stick is a non issue but for the most particular pilot. Every student I had that flew one commented on how easy it was to fly when their only experience was a 172. "That plane makes me feel like a good pilot" was one's comment. If you can fly the 182, the 210 is more of the same. Beware of "cheap" 210s. I know a guy who bought one for $40K last year. I think so far he's spent $150K on it and it still ain't airworthy. His story isn't unique. The engine mounted on the nose gear box structure of the 210s and the early 206s (and 205s and 207s) is a maintenance nightmare. Also avoid the P210s. Pressurizing a box is a bad idea. Though its sealed enough that if the A/C goes too, you're in a spot of trouble. Too many things stuffed under the cowl in those, so plan on always repairing that or enjoying the rat-rod look.

Long time ago, I used to get lots of demo rides in the Cirrus, since the theory of one of the sales reps was that if he could convince me that its was awesome that I would convince the students it was awesome. I don't think his plan worked. Part of me wants to really recommend the 210 because in general Cessnas are decent, but I would never buy one.

Main reason to buy a Cirrus is if your significant other won't let you fly without a parachute. But then, maybe just buy a parachute and take a few lessons.

Thanks. Considering my options.

[fish4life]

Where did I mention this “a few times” exactly? I see once.

Thanks for the unsolicited interrogation and unsolicited advice which i am well aware of.

My plan, is to stay as far away from icing as I can.

Unlike other posters with this comment, but in context of talking about their experiences with my target aircraft you contributed zip.

Let’s stay on the topic.

Why does every retired commercial pilot posting think every active PPL is their totally green FO and can be lectured accordingly?

. #notyourFO

Yikes, wasn’t trying to belittle more

Difficult to tell.

This is Avcanada.

Anyway I was going to ask if you have considered RV-10’s? They won’t have that de-ice ability at all but they would have all of the cirrus performance with a much nicer hand flying experience and the ability to change out avionics at 25% the cost of a certified aircraft.
I wouldn’t suggest building unless you really want to do that but a nicely built 10 can be a beautiful airplane.

[rookiepilot]

Yikes, wasn’t trying to belittle more

Difficult to tell.

This is Avcanada.

Anyway I was going to ask if you have considered RV-10’s? They won’t have that de-ice ability at all but they would have all of the cirrus performance with a much nicer hand flying experience and the ability to change out avionics at 25% the cost of a certified aircraft.
I wouldn’t suggest building unless you really want to do that but a nicely built 10 can be a beautiful airplane.

That is a very interesting option. Thanks. I do enjoy hand flying, and I particularly like to feel what the plane is doing at pattern speeds. I have some ongoing wrist pain as it is, so a sidestick…..Its a safety issue to me at more confined, crowded, uncontrolled airports. My tiny experience with Cirrus….far from sure on that.

I was curious about an RV 4 seater or a Lancair — anyone familiar with flying characteristics of either? I am not a builder, thats for sure.

My understanding is stall speeds can be a little higher, may not meet a certified standard.

Deice is not a requirement. I do live in the great lakes so might open some options to have it to pass through a layer, but a plane capable of a higher altitude also might fit the bill. Have to think more on that. Great lakes icing isn’t to be trifled with, for sure.

I am very early in this process. In my R182 time I always found myself way ahead of the airplane, and I tend towards longer legs.

Appreciate the thought. I am wary of TKS for much, anyway, around here. We get severe icing.

[laminar]

Are you waiting for prices to come down on things? I'm curious on your buying timeline. I haven't been looking at cirrus price levels but I'm leaning towards waiting longer for my 2 seater upgrade to a family hauler. Lots of pretty ads out there for planes that have been sitting for a few months now and even longer for the ones that are being handled by brokers who "know the current demands" lmao