New G-1000 182 & Cirrus SR-22 GTS

[Dan Luke]

Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
alas.

Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at
how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

* Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
600+ hours of retract time.

* Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.

* ROC: Cirrus wins big; 1,400 fpm vs. 923 fpm.

* Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
obstacle.

* Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument
panel puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles
and labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the
old plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility
and durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view
over the glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.

* Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are
delivered wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new
Garmin ap built into the G-1000.

So if I were of a mind to plunk down a few hundred large for a new
piston single, I might have trouble choosing between these two very nice
rides. The SR-22 is more airplane, but it's a lot more money, too.
Cessna has done a fine job modernizing the 182, IMO, and I'd be very
happy to own one.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Andrew Gideon]

Dan Luke wrote:

> A 206.Â*Â*ReallyÂ*aÂ*differentÂ*missionÂ*aircraft;Â* it'sÂ*aÂ*6-seatÂ*heavyÂ*hauler.

But if you frame the question this way, it's clear that Cessna offers "more
airplane" for the same dollars. But it also begs the question of a
comparison between the SR-22 and the 206 (ie. speed, load, etc.).

- Andrew

[Charles Oppermann]

> Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at how
> closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

> * Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
> for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
> supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can do.
The Cirrus has a composite body that is lighter and much more aerodynamic
with less drag.

Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in with fuel
burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour trip, a 2 hour trip and a 4 hour trip.
Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn goes up 50% - I'm not
saying that the Cirrus does that, just that you should take the true
airspeed value as a factor in other performance figures.

I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo). The C182T
(non-turbo) should do 2-3 knots better under same conditions.

> * Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
> premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
> much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
> 600+ hours of retract time.

Also check on the availability of maintenence. When I was comparing the
SR-20 vs. a C182S a few years ago, Cirrus was new and would have been more
expensive to maintain.

> * Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.

I'm often bumping up into the max useful load on my C182S. Those 63 pounds
might come in handy!

> * Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
> close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
> obstacle.

Put you can fly a Skylane with those huge flaps and high wing into the
shortest and roughest of strips.

> * Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
> accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
> good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument panel
> puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles and
> labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the old
> plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility and
> durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view over the
> glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.

It's better view from the Cirrus for everyone, but that generally means it's
hotter in the summer - might be an important factor depending on where you
live. The Skylane is easier to get in and out of for everyone.

From a comfort standpoint, I wonder which one is noiser - does the composite
airframe of the Cirrus help with that at all? Might be a consideration.

> * Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
> 182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
> will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are delivered
> wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new Garmin ap built
> into the G-1000.

Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported than the
system in the Cirrus. The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

> So if I were of a mind to plunk down a few hundred large for a new piston
> single, I might have trouble choosing between these two very nice rides.
> The SR-22 is more airplane, but it's a lot more money, too. Cessna has
> done a fine job modernizing the 182, IMO, and I'd be very happy to own
> one.

I'm sure you know this already, but it's not the initial cost, but the
operating and owning costs over time. Insurance will be lower and
maintenence might be cheaper with the Skylane.

[Blueskies]

"Charles Oppermann" > wrote in message ...
>> Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:
>
>> * Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135 for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for
>> an airframe that has supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.
>
> But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can do. The Cirrus has a composite body that is
> lighter and much more aerodynamic with less drag.
>
> Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in with fuel burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour
> trip, a 2 hour trip and a 4 hour trip. Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn goes up 50% - I'm not saying
> that the Cirrus does that, just that you should take the true airspeed value as a factor in other performance figures.
>
> I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo). The C182T (non-turbo) should do 2-3 knots better
> under same conditions.
>


So what are the fuel economy numbers for the 182 vs. Cirrus? Anticipate $5.00 gallon gas cost in the next 10 years...

[databus]

> > * Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
> > 182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
> > will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are
delivered
> > wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new Garmin ap
built
> > into the G-1000.
>
> Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported than
the
> system in the Cirrus.

And just what makes you think that ? I think you are confused, or maybe you
work for Garmin's marketing department.

> The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

Sure it is, if you don't like GPS roll steering, and you enjoy retesting
your static system every time you pull it out for repair or adjustment. The
KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot and the variant that comes in the 182 is two
axis with altitude preselect, not 3 axis. At least on the Cirrus the
autopilot's altitude preselect is on the PFD.

[karl gruber]

>>>The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot<<<

The KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot.

[Jimmy B.]

Last I heard, Cirrus still have the ~5000 hour airframe limitation. Has
this been lifted? Did you ask the Cirrus rep about it?



Dan Luke wrote:
> Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
> yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
> alas.
>
> Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at
> how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:
>
> * Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
> for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
> supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.
>
> * Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
> premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
> much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
> 600+ hours of retract time.
>
> * Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.
>
> * ROC: Cirrus wins big; 1,400 fpm vs. 923 fpm.
>
> * Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
> close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
> obstacle.
>
> * Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
> accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
> good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument
> panel puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles
> and labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the
> old plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility
> and durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view
> over the glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.
>
> * Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
> 182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
> will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are
> delivered wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new
> Garmin ap built into the G-1000.
>
> So if I were of a mind to plunk down a few hundred large for a new
> piston single, I might have trouble choosing between these two very nice
> rides. The SR-22 is more airplane, but it's a lot more money, too.
> Cessna has done a fine job modernizing the 182, IMO, and I'd be very
> happy to own one.
>

[Dan Luke]

"Charles Oppermann" wrote:
>> * Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed
>> 135 for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
>> supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.
>
> But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can
> do.

Yeah, but if 135 is all it'll do, they haven't done *anything*. My
buddy's old Skylane will do 133.

> The Cirrus has a composite body that is lighter and much more
> aerodynamic with less drag.

Less drag, yes. Lighter? No; the Cirrus is more than 300 lbs. heavier.
Composite construction is not lighter than aluminum.

> Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in
> with fuel burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour trip, a 2 hour trip
> and a 4 hour trip. Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn
> goes up 50% - I'm not saying that the Cirrus does that, just that you
> should take the true airspeed value as a factor in other performance
> figures.

The Cirrus wins. 180kt @ 16gph = ~11nm/gal vs.135kt @ 13 gph =
~10nm/gal. The Cirrus' advantage is even greater if you consider that
the engine/airframe cost/mile will be higher for the Skylane, because it
takes longer to get anywhere.

> I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo).

That's really what kills the 182 for me. I don't think I could stand to
buy a new airplane that's slower than my 172RG, even if it's only by a
little.


>
> Also check on the availability of maintenence.

Yep. I'd have to fly to Destin, FL for warranty service on the Cirrus.
The local shop could work on a new Skylane for me.

[snip]


> Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported
> than the system in the Cirrus.

Why?

> The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

Roll, pitch, what's the 3rd axis?

[snip]
>
> I'm sure you know this already, but it's not the initial cost, but the
> operating and owning costs over time.

$100,00 invested over time is a lot of money.

> Insurance will be lower and maintenence might be cheaper with the
> Skylane.

Maybe.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Charles Oppermann]

>> Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported than
>> the system in the Cirrus.
>
> And just what makes you think that ? I think you are confused, or maybe
> you
> work for Garmin's marketing department.

I don't work for Garmin. My opinion is based on the adoption rate of the
G1000 and my own experiences flying the SR-22 and aircraft with the G1000.

>> The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.
>
> Sure it is, if you don't like GPS roll steering, and you enjoy retesting
> your static system every time you pull it out for repair or adjustment.
> The
> KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot and the variant that comes in the 182 is
> two
> axis with altitude preselect, not 3 axis. At least on the Cirrus the
> autopilot's altitude preselect is on the PFD.

I mis-spoke, you are of course correct that the KAP-140 is a 2-axis system.

Personally, I haven't had any issues with regard to the static system in my
plane. Can you go into futher detail?

[Meat Eater]

> I don't work for Garmin. My opinion is based on the adoption rate of the
> G1000 and my own experiences flying the SR-22 and aircraft with the G1000.

Surely you mean the C182 with the G1000.

My point was that your statement is one - sided since Cirrus makes a lot
more SR-22s than Cessna makes C182s. Granted, Cirrus doesn't give you an
option, but based on how many are sold, saying the Garmin will support the
G1000 more or better than Avidyne will support their Entegra is baseless.

>
> >> The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.
> >
> > Sure it is, if you don't like GPS roll steering, and you enjoy retesting
> > your static system every time you pull it out for repair or adjustment.
> > The
> > KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot and the variant that comes in the 182 is
> > two
> > axis with altitude preselect, not 3 axis. At least on the Cirrus the
> > autopilot's altitude preselect is on the PFD.
>
> I mis-spoke, you are of course correct that the KAP-140 is a 2-axis
system.
>
> Personally, I haven't had any issues with regard to the static system in
my
> plane. Can you go into futher detail?

The KAP-140's static pressure sensor is inside the instrument panel mounted
computer unit. The static plumbing goes to the back of the autopilot tray.
That means any time you pull the KAP-140 out, like if it needs replacement
or adjustment, you're also breaking open the static system, which means you
have to do a static leak test. It's not a big deal as long as you never
need to pull the KAP140 out, but in my experience, you will. I haven't
found the STEC autopilots to have any better reliability, but at least
you're not forced to static leak check every time since they use a separate
sensor.

[Charles Oppermann]

>> I don't work for Garmin. My opinion is based on the adoption rate of the
>> G1000 and my own experiences flying the SR-22 and aircraft with the
>> G1000.
>
> Surely you mean the C182 with the G1000.

Actually I meant flying the SR-22 with their system (which I did in a
pre-certified model at the Cirrus factory in August 2002) and flying the new
G1000 in a C182T.

> My point was that your statement is one - sided since Cirrus makes a lot
> more SR-22s than Cessna makes C182s. Granted, Cirrus doesn't give you an
> option, but based on how many are sold, saying the Garmin will support the
> G1000 more or better than Avidyne will support their Entegra is baseless.

I don't think it's baseless - Garmin is a much bigger company and has been
very aggressive in adding functionality to their existing models, which have
been standard and optional equipment on many different models for quite
awhile now.

I'm not knocking Avidyne in the slightest - although my experience with the
software on the pre-certified model was mixed. It's just that I feel
Garmin's dealer and service structure is more established. It's a gut feel,
I haven't done research in this area.

>> plane. Can you go into futher detail?
>
> The KAP-140's static pressure sensor is inside the instrument panel
> mounted
> computer unit. The static plumbing goes to the back of the autopilot
> tray.
> That means any time you pull the KAP-140 out, like if it needs replacement
> or adjustment, you're also breaking open the static system, which means
> you
> have to do a static leak test. It's not a big deal as long as you never
> need to pull the KAP140 out, but in my experience, you will. I haven't
> found the STEC autopilots to have any better reliability, but at least
> you're not forced to static leak check every time since they use a
> separate
> sensor.

Interesting, thanks.

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:57:13 GMT, "Meat Eater" > wrote:


>> I mis-spoke, you are of course correct ument panel mounted
>computer unit. The static plumbing goes to the back of the autopilot tray.
>That means any time you pull the KAP-140 out, like if it needs replacement
>or adjustment, you're also breaking open the static system, which means you
>have to do a static leak test. It's not a big deal as long as you never
>need to pull the KAP140 out, but in my experience, you will. I haven't
>found the STEC autopilots to have any better reliability, but at least
>you're not forced to static leak check every time since they use a separate
>sensor.

IIUC, the 172/182 KAP140 install (at least ones done at the factory)
have a second static port dedicated to the autopilot, it's not plumbed
into the port that feeds the standard (or ADC/backup instruments in
the case of the G1000) instruments.

[Tim B]

When (if ever) will Cirrus offer the Turbo with the electronic engine
control? It seems right up their alley (technology plus cruise performance)
to offer it except for maybe the insurance issues.

I hope they will decide to compete with the Columbia 400.


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
> yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
> alas.
>
> Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at how
> closely I rated them as a potential buyer:
>
> * Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
> for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
> supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.
>
> * Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
> premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
> much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
> 600+ hours of retract time.
>
> * Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.
>
> * ROC: Cirrus wins big; 1,400 fpm vs. 923 fpm.
>
> * Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
> close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
> obstacle.
>
> * Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
> accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
> good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument panel
> puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles and
> labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the old
> plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility and
> durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view over the
> glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.
>
> * Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
> 182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
> will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are delivered
> wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new Garmin ap built
> into the G-1000.
>
> So if I were of a mind to plunk down a few hundred large for a new piston
> single, I might have trouble choosing between these two very nice rides.
> The SR-22 is more airplane, but it's a lot more money, too. Cessna has
> done a fine job modernizing the 182, IMO, and I'd be very happy to own
> one.
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
> yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
> alas.
>

For about the same money I'd rather have a Lancair Columbia 350.

http://www.flycolumbia.com/Aircraft/Columbia350/SpecificationsC350/

(And no parachute required).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Charles Oppermann" > wrote in message
...
> > Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at
how
> > closely I rated them as a potential buyer:
>
> > * Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
> > for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
> > supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.
>
> But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can do.
> The Cirrus has a composite body that is lighter and much more aerodynamic
> with less drag.

And it's 300 HP vs 235.

[Matt Barrow]

"Tim B" > wrote in message
news:TCIve.3021$4o.1201@fed1read06...
> When (if ever) will Cirrus offer the Turbo with the electronic engine
> control? It seems right up their alley (technology plus cruise
performance)
> to offer it except for maybe the insurance issues.
>
> I hope they will decide to compete with the Columbia 400.
>
>

Compare the Lancair 350 to the Cirrus SR-22 and what do you get?

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
> yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
> alas.
>
> Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at
> how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:
>
> * Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
> for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
> supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

The Stearman flies slowly enough that one has time to enjoy the view as
the world slips by at 100 mph - The Stearman wins!

> * Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
> premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
> much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
> 600+ hours of retract time.

One could buy a Stearman for the $100G's. The Stearman wins again!

>
> * Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.
>

The Stearman is a load unto herself. I've cracked a rib trying to move
her around on the ground (really, and it was stupid and it *hurt*!).
In a previous life, she was fitted with a huge hopper to spray crops.
I'm not sure what a few hundred gallons of insecticide weighs, but...
The Stearman wins AGAIN!


> * ROC: Cirrus wins big; 1,400 fpm vs. 923 fpm.

Swinging that beautiful wooden prop and with 220 roaring HP... uh, go
back up and reread about enjoying the view again. You'll be very close
to it for a long time.


> * Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
> close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
> obstacle.


The Stearman has a wing that kinda gets in the way when you land.
Since one can't even see the 50' obstacle, why worry about how close
you can land to it?


> * Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
> accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
> good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument
> panel puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles
> and labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the
> old plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility
> and durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view
> over the glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.


What's an "interior"???


> * Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
> 182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
> will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are
> delivered wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new
> Garmin ap built into the G-1000.


The "display" is viewed over the nose and is framed by airplane wings
and flying wires. My "autopilot" is really cute and sits in the front
cockpit. No contest on either point, boys.

A few other important things you forgot to talk about:

Landings - In the Stearman, everyone and their grandmother will flock
to watch when you enter the pattern, and the Stearman has a
not-undeserved reputation for being... interesting.... when she comes
back to Earth. You will absolutely, positively, concentrate during
every landing to polish-and-shine your landing technique. Or else.

Engine Starts - What's it take to start a Cirrus? Punch a few buttons,
wiggle a knob, and it rolls over and runs. Bah! The Stearman requires
priming the engine (it's at the front of the plane, about 12 feet
forward of the cockpit, btw), then running around to the cockpit to hit
the starter before that gas all boils away. One good chug, then BAWHAM
and CHUGG and POOOFF! and a humongous cloud of smoke announces that
real aviation is about to take place. Unless you miss something a
little bit and she doesn't start. In that case, you get to unstrap and
climb back out and walk back around the wing and prime her again....

Then there are the bugs. OK, you might win on that one. :-|

-Dave Russell
N2S-3

[Jay Honeck]

> Then there are the bugs. OK, you might win on that one. :-|
>
> -Dave Russell
> N2S-3

Boy, you got that right, Dave. I'd take a Stearman over both the 182 and
the SR-22.

A Lancair 400? Well, I sat in one today, and Mary had a hard time pulling
me out -- so *that* would be a tough call...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Tim,

> the Turbo with the electronic engine
> control
>

Which?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jimmy B." wrote:
>> Last I heard, Cirrus still have the ~5000 hour airframe limitation. Has
>> this been lifted? Did you ask the Cirrus rep about it?
>
> That's gone, I believe.

I haven't been monitoring the news closely, but it seems to me that they
have extended the 5000 hour limit (to 10000 hours? I forget the exact
number).

Basically, the expectation of the manufacturer is that as the airplane
develops testing history, they will extend the airframe lifetime
appropriately based on the number of hours their testing shows the airframe
to be good for.

So, in other words...the airframe lifetime limit isn't gone, but has been
extended, and may well be extended again.

Keep in mind that aluminum airframes have a lifetime limit too. I don't
know if it's part of the certification (sorry, too lazy to look it up right
now), but they do have their own practical limit.

Pete

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Boy, you got that right, Dave. I'd take a Stearman over both the 182 and
> the SR-22.

Not me. A stearman looks cool until you actually own one. A friend had
one for awhile and another one still does. All that noise and fuel flow
and the damn thing can hardly get out of its own way.

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> I'd take a Stearman over both the 182 and the SR-22.

Sometimes I think I'd like to have a 20-yr old mistress. Then the fever
passes.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> I'd take a Stearman over both the 182 and the SR-22.
>
> Sometimes I think I'd like to have a 20-yr old mistress. Then the fever
> passes.

Well put!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"