Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

[C J Campbell]

OK, I know I said I would not get to fly this plane until tomorrow, but it
arrived early and so I took a flight. This is a new turbocharged Cessna
T182T.

For those that have not seen the 182T (either turbo or normal, introduced
last year), you might be a little startled the first time you take a look.
It does not look like a 182. All the fairings and cowling have been
redesigned and even the windscreen got a speed treatment, so it looks more
like a racy little Cardinal on steroids instead of a 182. Useful load has
increased by about 50 pounds with the lightweight Nav III package and the
additional streamlining increased the cruise speed another four knots to 158
KTAS at 88% power at 12,500 feet. Max cruise is 178 knots. Range at 88%
power is about 600 nm, but you could stretch it out to 886 nm at 45% power.

Inside is equally different. The seats, panel, and general interior are
radically re-arranged. The seats have gone on a diet from the earlier "new"
182s; they are much trimmer and lighter. All interior lighting is now LED.
But the big change is the G-1000 panel, which Cessna modeled after its jets.

All the knobs, switches, etc., are big and utilitarian and color coded. The
G-1000 in this bird has a 30 minute lithium battery backup; you lose power
and you still have your full panel for 30 minutes. The master switches have
been moved high and to the left with all the other switches grouped under
them. Interior light dimmer switches are big gray plastic knobby things
mounted to the left of the panel; Cessna no longer makes each pot do double
duty. All the circuit breakers for lighting and such are the standard
non-pullable white circuit breakers and they are grouped to the left. All
the other circuit breakers are now pullable and grouped under the main
panel.

Below the panels and in the center are backup airspeed, vacuum attitude, and
altitude indicators. The KLN 140 autopilot is located awkwardly off somewhat
to the right and above these. Overall cabin visibility really bites after
riding in the Diamond. The entire panel is metal painted black and gray.

The avionics now run off no less than five busses, but the avionics master
still only turns on bus 1 and 2. Anyway, in order to lose your panels
completely you would probably have to be on fire with an engine failure,
alternator failure, and failure of both your primary and backup batteries --
and you still would have your backup pitot/static instruments and vacuum
attitude indicator (at least until the dual vacuum pumps spun down because
of the engine failure). In such circumstances the panels would probably be
the least of your worries.

You start the engine with the backup battery on so you can see your engine
instruments. Otherwise, the start is normal. Once everything is going you
turn the backup battery off, flip on the avionics master and go. The
controls on this particular airplane were extremely heavy for a 182; I kept
looking to see if the control lock is in. If it was my plane it would go
into the shop immediately to see if the controls can be loosened up some.
The G-1000s work pretty much the same as the Diamond, so this time I wanted
to fly a GPS autopilot coupled approach.

Garmin has not yet developed an FMS for the G-1000, but one is supposedly
coming. Nevertheless, the autopilot tracked and followed the entire
approach, though it turned a little late. There was no need to set new
courses or heading bugs; the G-1000 handles all that automatically. Setting
up the approach took only a few seconds. The KLN-140 autopilot, of course,
still does not know when to descend, so you have to tell it. Still, it
didn't do a bad job for what is really a basic autopilot.

One thing I did not mention about the G-1000 in my previous report is the
fuel circle; the map shows the limits of your remaining fuel with a red
circle.

I checked on the transponder issue: the G-1000 while on the ground responds
to Mode S interrogations for traffic movement, but you can also switch it to
mode A or C by pushing a button.

The Cessna 182 gives you more speed and payload than the Diamond, but not
more range, for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but
gas mileage is about the same -- so much for supposedly more streamlined
design of the Diamond) and has greatly reduced visibility and it just does
not look as cool. I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus
hands down.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Michael 182]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

<good review snipped>

> I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.
>


I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
reasons for your statement?

Michael

[Dude]

Wow, it beats the Cirrus? You mean the 20 or 22?

Would the 182S have better mileage than the Diamond? But the range is the
same? But the tanks are much bigger? Is there an advatage to the Turbo for
mileage?

I am confused, did I read you right? This doesn't seem possible unless they
have done something really fantastic. It is heavier, and has a bigger
engine. Even if they both had the same drag, this should not be the same
mileage.

When I checked this out, I looked at the S model, and the mileage was a lot
better in the Diamond. The only advantage the S seemed to have over the
Diamond was the size of the front seat, and the capacity. However, in many
sample missions, the useful load after necessary fuel was very similar.

My take, pre glass, was that the 182 was more for a serious traveler, who
needed the load and the range. Also, off field/soft field use as well as
high density climb ability went to the Cessna. The diamond seemed to be
more for the Accord buyer - better economy, safety, simplicity at the
expense of some size and tow ability compared to the mini-SUV like 182.




"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I know I said I would not get to fly this plane until tomorrow, but it
> arrived early and so I took a flight. This is a new turbocharged Cessna
> T182T.
>
> For those that have not seen the 182T (either turbo or normal, introduced
> last year), you might be a little startled the first time you take a look.
> It does not look like a 182. All the fairings and cowling have been
> redesigned and even the windscreen got a speed treatment, so it looks more
> like a racy little Cardinal on steroids instead of a 182. Useful load has
> increased by about 50 pounds with the lightweight Nav III package and the
> additional streamlining increased the cruise speed another four knots to
158
> KTAS at 88% power at 12,500 feet. Max cruise is 178 knots. Range at 88%
> power is about 600 nm, but you could stretch it out to 886 nm at 45%
power.
>
> Inside is equally different. The seats, panel, and general interior are
> radically re-arranged. The seats have gone on a diet from the earlier
"new"
> 182s; they are much trimmer and lighter. All interior lighting is now LED.
> But the big change is the G-1000 panel, which Cessna modeled after its
jets.
>
> All the knobs, switches, etc., are big and utilitarian and color coded.
The
> G-1000 in this bird has a 30 minute lithium battery backup; you lose power
> and you still have your full panel for 30 minutes. The master switches
have
> been moved high and to the left with all the other switches grouped under
> them. Interior light dimmer switches are big gray plastic knobby things
> mounted to the left of the panel; Cessna no longer makes each pot do
double
> duty. All the circuit breakers for lighting and such are the standard
> non-pullable white circuit breakers and they are grouped to the left. All
> the other circuit breakers are now pullable and grouped under the main
> panel.
>
> Below the panels and in the center are backup airspeed, vacuum attitude,
and
> altitude indicators. The KLN 140 autopilot is located awkwardly off
somewhat
> to the right and above these. Overall cabin visibility really bites after
> riding in the Diamond. The entire panel is metal painted black and gray.
>
> The avionics now run off no less than five busses, but the avionics master
> still only turns on bus 1 and 2. Anyway, in order to lose your panels
> completely you would probably have to be on fire with an engine failure,
> alternator failure, and failure of both your primary and backup
batteries --
> and you still would have your backup pitot/static instruments and vacuum
> attitude indicator (at least until the dual vacuum pumps spun down because
> of the engine failure). In such circumstances the panels would probably be
> the least of your worries.
>
> You start the engine with the backup battery on so you can see your engine
> instruments. Otherwise, the start is normal. Once everything is going you
> turn the backup battery off, flip on the avionics master and go. The
> controls on this particular airplane were extremely heavy for a 182; I
kept
> looking to see if the control lock is in. If it was my plane it would go
> into the shop immediately to see if the controls can be loosened up some.
> The G-1000s work pretty much the same as the Diamond, so this time I
wanted
> to fly a GPS autopilot coupled approach.
>
> Garmin has not yet developed an FMS for the G-1000, but one is supposedly
> coming. Nevertheless, the autopilot tracked and followed the entire
> approach, though it turned a little late. There was no need to set new
> courses or heading bugs; the G-1000 handles all that automatically.
Setting
> up the approach took only a few seconds. The KLN-140 autopilot, of course,
> still does not know when to descend, so you have to tell it. Still, it
> didn't do a bad job for what is really a basic autopilot.
>
> One thing I did not mention about the G-1000 in my previous report is the
> fuel circle; the map shows the limits of your remaining fuel with a red
> circle.
>
> I checked on the transponder issue: the G-1000 while on the ground
responds
> to Mode S interrogations for traffic movement, but you can also switch it
to
> mode A or C by pushing a button.
>
> The Cessna 182 gives you more speed and payload than the Diamond, but not
> more range, for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but
> gas mileage is about the same -- so much for supposedly more streamlined
> design of the Diamond) and has greatly reduced visibility and it just does
> not look as cool. I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus
> hands down.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but
> gas mileage is about the same -- so much for supposedly more streamlined
> design of the Diamond)

How do you arrive at these figures? First, you can get a G1000-equipped 182
for 280,000? Second, you're saying the turbo 182 (which, of course, is WAY
more expensive than the DA40, not just 30,000) will burn only 13 gph? At
what speed? Could you pls elaborate? Thanks!

> I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus
> hands down.
>

Why that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but
> > gas mileage is about the same -- so much for supposedly more streamlined
> > design of the Diamond)
>
> How do you arrive at these figures? First, you can get a G1000-equipped
182
> for 280,000? Second, you're saying the turbo 182 (which, of course, is WAY
> more expensive than the DA40, not just 30,000) will burn only 13 gph? At
> what speed? Could you pls elaborate? Thanks!

A G-1000 equipped 182 costs $290,000, while the DA-40 costs $260,000. The
182 is pretty consistent at 13 gph, but the T182 burns more like 15 gph. A
T182 costs about $25,000 more than a 182.

The Cirrus is beautiful, comfortable, and way over-rated. The airframe life
limit is a show-stopper all by itself. Putting that aside, it has about the
same payload as a T182, but it is quite a bit faster with a cruise speed of
180 knots. The Avidyne in the Cirrus is nowhere near the panel that the
G-1000 is, though. If the Avidyne fails in flight it cannot re-acquire
itself until on the ground, which is why examiners and instructors save
partial panel stuff for the end of the flight. The side stick is really only
half a yoke. Some controls (such as trim) are awkwardly located, especially
considering the manufacturer likes to brag about the plane's ergonomics. The
poor safety record is alarming. Maybe they have fixed it; maybe they
haven't. My take on the Cirrus is to give it a little more time. Let the
company work out the compromises they made with the FAA on airframe limits,
fix the controls, fix the panel, and see if the safety record improves.
Until then, it is like a super-model with a bad attitude: everyone who sees
one thinks they want one, but it remains distant and likely to bite.

[C J Campbell]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:uh%Kc.123635$IQ4.113575@attbi_s02...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>
> <good review snipped>
>
> > I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.
> >
>
>
> I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
> reasons for your statement?

The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus
will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time now,
but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes.

Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite make
TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the money
on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

[C J Campbell]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:uh%Kc.123635$IQ4.113575@attbi_s02...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >
> > <good review snipped>
> >
> > > I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
> > reasons for your statement?
>
> The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus
> will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time
now,
> but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes.
>
> Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite
make
> TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the
money
> on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

Actually, I misspoke. The TBO on the Cirrus is only 1700 hours, not 2000
hours as on the T182. Even if the engine makes TBO both times, at 3400 hours
you are left with the choice of overhauling an engine for an airframe that
has only 950 hours left on it, or just throwing the whole airplane away. So
it is even worse than I thought.

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> A G-1000 equipped 182 costs $290,000, while the DA-40 costs $260,000. The
> 182 is pretty consistent at 13 gph, but the T182 burns more like 15 gph.

Hmm. Sounds amazingly low to me, but you've flown it. More power than the old 182
with the O-470, more cubic inches and less fuel consumption? What power level are
we talking? What speed?

>
> The Cirrus is beautiful, comfortable, and way over-rated. The airframe life
> limit is a show-stopper all by itself.

I disagree.

> same payload as a T182, but it is quite a bit faster with a cruise speed of
> 180 knots. The Avidyne in the Cirrus is nowhere near the panel that the
> G-1000 is, though. If the Avidyne fails in flight it cannot re-acquire
> itself until on the ground, which is why examiners and instructors save
> partial panel stuff for the end of the flight.

That's about to change with a software update, I have read.

> The side stick is really only
> half a yoke. Some controls (such as trim) are awkwardly located, especially
> considering the manufacturer likes to brag about the plane's ergonomics. The
> poor safety record is alarming. Maybe they have fixed it; maybe they
> haven't. My take on the Cirrus is to give it a little more time. Let the
> company work out the compromises they made with the FAA on airframe limits,
> fix the controls, fix the panel, and see if the safety record improves.
> Until then, it is like a super-model with a bad attitude: everyone who sees
> one thinks they want one, but it remains distant and likely to bite.
>

Except the sales numbers don't really agree with that view.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

> Why that?
>

Turbocharging is worth its weight in gold in much of the Western U.S. I'd
rather have that, and the fat Cessna wing, over sleek-and-neat.

[[email protected]]

C J Campbell wrote:

Thanks for the great report.

When the autopilot was a bit late in turning the corners in NAV mode, did you
notice if the displayed XTRK error increased? If so, the Garmin was computing
the turn correctly but the autopilot couldn't (or wouldn't) keep up.

I've found that the Garmin units tend to compute the fly-by maneuver quite well.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Thanks for the great report.
>
> When the autopilot was a bit late in turning the corners in NAV mode, did
you
> notice if the displayed XTRK error increased? If so, the Garmin was
computing
> the turn correctly but the autopilot couldn't (or wouldn't) keep up.
>
> I've found that the Garmin units tend to compute the fly-by maneuver quite
well.
>

Right. I think it is the autopilot.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
> commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
> around that particular block before.

Well, there are plenty of aviation experts that agree with me. It is a big
deal. Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
100,000 hours 10 times that of average, the 1700 hour TBO on a normally
aspirated engine, higher direct operating costs, lower ceilings, the fact
that the plane cannot recover from a spin without deploying the parachute,
less stability on approach, longer wings which increase the chance of hangar
rash, insurance rates as much as 52% higher, repetitive and costly
inspections of the Caps system, and seven times more noise than a T182. The
Cirrus may well supplant the Bonanza as the next doctor killer.

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > news:uh%Kc.123635$IQ4.113575@attbi_s02...
> > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > <good review snipped>
> > >
> > > > I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
> > > reasons for your statement?
> >
> > The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus
> > will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time
> now,
> > but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes.
> >
> > Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite
> make
> > TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the
> money
> > on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?
>
> Actually, I misspoke. The TBO on the Cirrus is only 1700 hours, not 2000
> hours as on the T182. Even if the engine makes TBO both times, at 3400 hours
> you are left with the choice of overhauling an engine for an airframe that
> has only 950 hours left on it, or just throwing the whole airplane away. So
> it is even worse than I thought.

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.

So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?

-jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C,
> >
> > > for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but
> > > gas mileage is about the same -- so much for supposedly more
streamlined
> > > design of the Diamond)
> >
> > How do you arrive at these figures? First, you can get a G1000-equipped
> 182
> > for 280,000? Second, you're saying the turbo 182 (which, of course, is
WAY
> > more expensive than the DA40, not just 30,000) will burn only 13 gph? At
> > what speed? Could you pls elaborate? Thanks!
>
> A G-1000 equipped 182 costs $290,000, while the DA-40 costs $260,000. The
> 182 is pretty consistent at 13 gph, but the T182 burns more like 15 gph. A
> T182 costs about $25,000 more than a 182.
>
> The Cirrus is beautiful, comfortable, and way over-rated. The airframe
life
> limit is a show-stopper all by itself. Putting that aside, it has about
the
> same payload as a T182, but it is quite a bit faster with a cruise speed
of
> 180 knots.

http:\\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf

Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>
> a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated).
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
>
> > Why that?
> >
>
> Turbocharging is worth its weight in gold in much of the Western U.S. I'd
> rather have that, and the fat Cessna wing, over sleek-and-neat.

Yup!!!

Tom
------
00V@6875 or COS@6100 == DA > 10,000 in June/July/August

[Javier Henderson]

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.
>
> Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated).

No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO.

http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF

The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom.

Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating
inaccurate data to make a point is not right.

-jav

[Javier Henderson]

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> http:\\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
>
> Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.

Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
engine TBO).

-jav

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>
> > "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.
> >
> > Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated).
>
> No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO.
>
> http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF
>
> The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom.
>
> Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating
> inaccurate data to make a point is not right.
>
Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one model
of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700?

[C J Campbell]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > writes:
>
> a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.
>
> b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.
>

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

> So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?
>

Right where I started. I didn't like the plane when I thought the TBO was
2000 hours.

> -jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>
> > http:\\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
> >
> > Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.
>
> Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
> engine TBO).
>
Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not
"flawed " data.

You really should work for the DNC :~)

[C J Campbell]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>
> > http:\\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
> >
> > Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.
>
> Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
> engine TBO).

Actually, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
proves it wrong.

[gwengler]

Just a few corrections:
Max. cruise is 165 at 20000 ft. and 88% power.
Range WITH 45 miuntes reserve is 635 nm (88% power) to 970 nm (45% power).

Gerd
ATP, T182T

[Javier Henderson]

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
> >
> > > "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.
> > >
> > > Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated).
> >
> > No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO.
> >
> > http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF
> >
> > The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom.
> >
> > Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating
> > inaccurate data to make a point is not right.
> >
> Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one model
> of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700?

Oh, good grief.

I'm saying that the engine in the SR22, which is the IO-550N, has
a TBO of 2000 hours.

-jav

[Javier Henderson]

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
> >
> > > http:\\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
> > >
> > > Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.
> >
> > Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
> > engine TBO).
> >
> Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not
> "flawed " data.
>
> You really should work for the DNC :~)

Whatever. "Inaccurate information for the purposes of comparing current
revisions of the products under consideration".

Happy now?

You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting
evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because
the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes
along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces.

-jav

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
> >
> > > http:\\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
> > >
> > > Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.
> >
> > Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
> > engine TBO).
>
> Actually, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
> proves it wrong.

I did post the link to TCM's datasheet on the engine, stating a
TBO of 2000 hours.

The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours.

Now what?

-jav

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

You are ignoring facts, however.

You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss
this topic with you.

-jav

[Peter]

Javier Henderson wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > writes:
>
>
>>"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http:\\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.
>>>
>>>Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
>>>engine TBO).
>>
>>Actually, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
>>proves it wrong.
>
>
> I did post the link to TCM's datasheet on the engine, stating a
> TBO of 2000 hours.
>
> The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours.
>
I'd think this would be something Cirrus would be happy to announce. So
I'm surprised their Aircraft/FAQ page still says "The SR22 airframe was
initially certified for 4,350 using data derived from the SR20 test.
Cirrus is nearing completion of the same structural tests used to extend
limits of the SR20 and anticipates that the SR22 will soon be rated for
the 12,000-hour life."

[Stefan]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
> 100,000 hours 10 times that of average,

Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will
be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane?

Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted.

Stefan

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
> certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
> extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.

http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-96915-SR2212klifelimit.pdf

I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the
spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the
composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your
anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in,
but until then I think you're spouting hot air.

And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently
stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.

-Ryan
ATP, CFI, CSI (Cirrus Standardized Instructor)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>
> > "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
> > >
> > > > "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.
> > > >
> > > > Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally
aspirated).
> > >
> > > No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO.
> > >
> > > http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF
> > >
> > > The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom.
> > >
> > > Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating
> > > inaccurate data to make a point is not right.
> > >
> > Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one
model
> > of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700?
>
> Oh, good grief.
>
> I'm saying that the engine in the SR22, which is the IO-550N, has
> a TBO of 2000 hours.
>
"Good grief" is right. You stated "stating inaccurate data to make a point
_is not right._" (emphasis mine) -- just what implication are we to make
from that statement?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>
> > "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
> > >
> > > > http:\\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.
> > >
> > > Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
> > > engine TBO).
> > >
> > Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not
> > "flawed " data.
> >
> > You really should work for the DNC :~)
>
> Whatever. "Inaccurate information for the purposes of comparing current
> revisions of the products under consideration".
>
> Happy now?

No. Your implication is one of misrepresentation.

> You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting
> evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because
> the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes
> along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces.

When the "new design" ("New and Improved") is seriously flawed, we damn well
better bash it to pieces. When the "new design" is more marketing than
engineering, it's even more appropriate.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > writes:
>
> > A balanced view does not ignore the facts.
>
> You are ignoring facts, however.

Which "facts" are those?

> You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss
> this topic with you.

Seems your pouting while failing to answer the question posed indicated
YOU'RE the one who can't _rationaly_ discuss the topic.

[C J Campbell]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
. ..
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
> > certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
> > extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.
>
> Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.
>
> http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-96915-SR2212klifelimit.pdf
>
> I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the
> spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the
> composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your
> anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in,
> but until then I think you're spouting hot air.
>
> And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently
> stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.
>

First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just
because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22
has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run
some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
then that removes one of my major objections. I think the safety record is
still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the
kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any
criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me.

[C J Campbell]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
> > 100,000 hours 10 times that of average,
>
> Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will
> be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane?
>
> Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted.

The Boeing 737 is not being sold as easy and safe for low time private
pilots to fly. The Cirrus is.

[C J Campbell]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Happy now?
>
> You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting
> evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because
> the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes
> along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces.

First of all, I thought my report of the Diamond was very favorable, and it
is even newer than the Cirrus. In fact, it has many more innovations than
the Cirrus, which hardly innovates at all. What is new about fiberglass, for
example, or even the rather outdated Avidyne flight display (superVGA,
non-integrated, slow) compared with the G-1000 (XVGA, fully integrated,
fast)?

The Cirrus is old news. You know, I am not making up these criticisms. You
have not addressed them at all; you are just complaining that those who
point out these weaknesses are anti-Cirrus, as if Cirrus were running for
class president instead of an airplane that peoples' lives depend on.

[C J Campbell]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did post the link to TCM's datasheet on the engine, stating a
> TBO of 2000 hours.
>
> The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours.

I hope it has been, but you still have not given me any evidence of that.
Given that you have made a religious issue of it, I am hardly likely to take
you at your word.

[C J Campbell]

"gwengler" > wrote in message
om...
> Just a few corrections:
> Max. cruise is 165 at 20000 ft. and 88% power.
> Range WITH 45 miuntes reserve is 635 nm (88% power) to 970 nm (45% power).

I got my numbers off Cessna's own web site. If they are wrong then Cessna
should hear about it.

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:

> First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just
> because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22
> has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run
> some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Okay. I don't give Cirrus a blanket endorsement either, but I think
Cessna's going to have their hands full for the forseeable future in the
single-engine airplane market. The Cessna products are still fine for
what they do, but I think the majority of the market will choose Cirrus
for the average private pilot mission.

> Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
> then that removes one of my major objections.

Do you honestly still think there's any doubt? :)

>I think the safety record is
> still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the
> kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

This is a voluminous subject on which I have many opinions, but in a
nutshell
I believe the statistics show it's the training, not the airplane. This is
another area Cirrus (and the aircraft insurance industry) has addressed,
and these days buying a new Cirrus involves a type-rating style checkout
which
takes most new owners 10-15 hours. Cirrus fired their former training
provider
and gave the contract to the University of North Dakota, who developed
an impressively good (although imperfect) training syllabus for
transitioning owners and instructors. The training is all
scenario-based with a
heavy emphasis on ADM and personal minimums. It's going in the right
direction.

> No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any
> criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me.

There's still plenty to criticize. Fortunately, most if not all of it
can be fixed, and Cirrus has been steadily improving their products.

-Ryan

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I did post the link to TCM's datasheet on the engine, stating a
> > TBO of 2000 hours.
> >
> > The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours.
>
> I hope it has been, but you still have not given me any evidence of that.
> Given that you have made a religious issue of it, I am hardly likely to take
> you at your word.

Someone already posted a copy of a letter they received from the
FAA. I'm sure that will satisfy your requirement for proof. I don't
recall now where I first heard of the lifetime increase, avweb
newsletter maybe, it's not really important.

And I haven't made a religious issue out of anything. I just pointed a
couple of facts, and you're still foaming at the mouth.

Whatever.

-jav

[C J Campbell]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
. ..
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
> > certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
> > extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.
>
> Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.
>
> http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-96915-SR2212klifelimit.pdf
>

How come part of this document is blacked out?

There is nothing new, BTW, about fiberglass. It is heavier than aluminum,
more difficult to repair, and subject to solar radiation damage (even the
Cirrus' special 3M fiberglass -- it has to be protected by that white
paint). It does have the advantage of being somewhat tougher than aluminum
(fiberglass does not dent as easily, but it is still subject to abrasions
and cracks.

You can do anything with aluminum that you can with fiberglass or carbon
fiber.

Carbon fiber, though, is both lighter and stronger than either aluminum or
fiberglass. It is also a lot more expensive and even more difficult to
repair. It also can be woven in ways that give infinite combinations of
flexibility and strength. There are very few shops certified to repair
carbon fiber. One of the troubles with carbon fiber is it if it is
over-stressed, it doesn't just gradually crystallize and develop cracks the
way metal does. It fails suddenly and spectacularly. I learned this the hard
way when I was hit head-on by a car while riding my OCLV carbon fiber bike.
Although designed for stresses up to 14,000 pounds, the bike frame exploded
on impact. (I also flew over the car, leaving the soles of my shoes still in
the pedals. I landed on my head on the other side, which some people say
explains a lot about me. Anyway, I am now two inches shorter from having
compressed my neck and spine. The driver, of course, had no insurance, and
got her eighth and ninth outstanding traffic tickets that day. They took
away her license, but no doubt she drives anyway.)

Of course, if money is no object, then carbon fiber is the way to go. No
doubt, this is the reason the Diamond is so expensive for what you get.
Aluminum will always have an economic advantage over carbon fiber.

The Diamond uses fiberglass, too, especially in the wings and skins, no
doubt as a cost saving measure. It uses Kevlar in the seats, so your
passengers can't shoot you in the back (actually, to achieve that 26G
cockpit strength).

I think bicycles are pointing the direction to the future of aircraft. I
think we may eventually see aircraft made of titanium (the stuff is not
rare, just difficult to work with) and beryllium/aluminum alloys. You can
get bicycles made of these materials today, and they are proving their
worth, though I will probably stick with carbon fiber. You will never see a
serious fiberglass bicycle, which is even more dependent than an airplane on
strength and lightness. Fiberglass is for cheap boats, not airplanes or
bicycles.

[C J Campbell]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
om...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign.
Just
> > because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus
SR22
> > has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to
run
> > some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.
>
> Okay. I don't give Cirrus a blanket endorsement either, but I think
> Cessna's going to have their hands full for the forseeable future in the
> single-engine airplane market. The Cessna products are still fine for
> what they do, but I think the majority of the market will choose Cirrus
> for the average private pilot mission.
>

I think most people don't have much choice. Cessna has shown little
willingness to innovate or even build adequate numbers of the designs they
have. I am flabbergasted, actually, that Cessna managed to install the
G-1000 in several of their planes.

> > Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
> > then that removes one of my major objections.
>
> Do you honestly still think there's any doubt? :)
>

Not really, but I will keep annoying Javier as long as I can.

> >I think the safety record is
> > still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and
the
> > kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.
>
> This is a voluminous subject on which I have many opinions, but in a
> nutshell
> I believe the statistics show it's the training, not the airplane.

I think that is right, but the SR22 seems to be the kind of airplane that
attracts the wrong kind of pilots. Oh, well. Bonanza is, no doubt, glad to
get some competition for the title of doctor killer.

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:

> How come part of this document is blacked out?

There was a conspiracy, but it was covered up.

Reasonable points about types of materials used in airplane
construction, although I believe the Cirrus will last just as long or
longer than any other airplane out there.

-Ryan
Aluminum airplane owner

[Dude]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
> > > 100,000 hours 10 times that of average,
> >
> > Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will
> > be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane?
> >
> > Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted.
>
> The Boeing 737 is not being sold as easy and safe for low time private
> pilots to fly. The Cirrus is.
>


Which is my biggest gripe about the Cirrus after all. They are selling a
plane that takes a Bonanza like training course to people that would NEVER
say they are ready for a Bo.

[6079 Smith]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:09:59 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>C,
>
>Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
>commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
>around that particular block before.

What happens when an airframe goes beyond the lifetime limit? Is the
airworthiness certificate trash then?

[C J Campbell]

"6079 Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:09:59 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
> >C,
> >
> >Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
> >commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
> >around that particular block before.
>
> What happens when an airframe goes beyond the lifetime limit? Is the
> airworthiness certificate trash then?

In theory, yes. However, what the FAA has said is that when a significant
number of aircraft approach the lifetime limit then they will inspect the
planes for signs of age and wear and possibly extend the lifetime limit,
with perhaps some limitations and conditions. Of course, you have to take
the FAA's word for this... Anyway, I was told that all new aircraft designs
are having some sort of lifetime limit, usually 12,000 hours, imposed on
them. The Diamonds appear to be an exception; they have no limit directly
mentioned on the TCDS*, so I don't know how accurate that information is.
But that is what I was told. We will see what limitations are placed on the
DA42.

Of course, no one in their right mind trusts the FAA, least of all the FAA's
own personnel. Policies and procedures there change with the wind. It must
be hell to work there.

If nothing is done, the airplane becomes an expensive lawn ornament.

*The TCDS says that the DA40 must comply with the airworthiness limitations
and time limits specified in the maintenance manual. That manual is nearly
2000 pages long, but I could not find any airframe time limit in either
chapters 4 or 5, which cover airworthiness and time limits. There is also no
mention of any airframe time limit in the Flight Manual. Both manuals are
available on Diamond's web site for those who wish to examine them. (I wish
Cessna would do that.) Furthermore, Diamond's representative told me that
the Diamond has no airframe life limit. If I seem suspicious, I have my
reasons.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ryan,

> hey can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.
>

Could you explain a little more, please?
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[gwengler]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "gwengler" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Just a few corrections:
> > Max. cruise is 165 at 20000 ft. and 88% power.
> > Range WITH 45 miuntes reserve is 635 nm (88% power) to 970 nm (45% power).
>
> I got my numbers off Cessna's own web site. If they are wrong then Cessna
> should hear about it.

I got my numbers from my T182T POH. For example, 175 KIAS is the Vne,
never exceed airspeed, not max. cruise. Range at 12,500 incl. 45 min.
reserve is 617 nm (88%) or 968 nm (45%). Seems some computer guy put
the web-site numbers together without knowing what he was talking
about...

Having said that, I have owned a T182T for 2.5 years now and flown 600
hours. No problems, whatsoever, totally trouble free. The support
from both Cessna and the local dealer (Leggat, Toronto Buttonville) is
outstanding. The quality of the airplane equals that of a German car
- no rattling, vibrations, loud noises, avionics failures, cabin
linings falling down, door closing problems and the like (those are
all frequent issues from the public Cirrus discussion forum). Anyway,
the T182T fulfills my mission profile perfectly, going from coast to
coast with three sometimes four people (four people, four hours fuel
and 20 lbs. luggage per person). The turbocharger is worth every
penny since it lets me go high to avoid ice, CBs visually and go over
the mountains without much worrying. I have now a Garmin/Apollo MX20
with WSI weather data link and Jeppesen approach plates, all options
not available (or not working) on the Cirrus.

What bothers me in this whole discussion is the religious zeal with
which Cirrus proponents go around. That airplane is not revolutionary
different from Cessnas, Mooneys, Pipers etc. It's made from plastic -
so what? May be good, may be bad, who knows. The Avidyne avionics
definitely are now second behind the Garmin 1000 if for nothing else
for the reason that the NAV/COM parts are integrated. You don't have
to frequently look down to your Garmin NAV/COMs to change frequencies
and NAV inputs. The Cirrus is a GREAT airplane that perfectly fulfills
the mission of people who buy it (one hopes). Why do these Cirrus
missionaries try to portray existing designs as being outdated and not
up to par?

Gerd
ATP, T182T

[Peter Hovorka]

Hi Gerd,

> What bothers me in this whole discussion is the religious zeal with
> which Cirrus proponents go around.

[ .. ]

> Why do these Cirrus
> missionaries try to portray existing designs as being outdated and not
> up to par?

I guess it depends on the individual. On the one hand you'll find the
statements like 'planes are much more oldfashioned than motorcycles and
cars, it's time for something new, everything old has to be seen as crap!'
told by non-owners and tech-freaks. On the other hand you'll find the 'this
is the best plane ever - in every regard thinkable' emphasized by owners.

I haven't flown both, I don't have a mission profile for one of them, I'm
not a cessna nor a cirrus dealer etc. etc...

The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
about many problems and so on.

Though I'm not lucky with the non-improvement of the avgas guzzlers by
Lycoming and Continental and I would really like to see some improvements
in crashworthiness in the 'old' Cessna airplanes (26g seats, structural
rework) I would never think of a Cessna as a bad airplane.

These pseudo-religious fights Cirrus <-> Cessna Fans are ridiculous. Every
company does its best in regard to the market, their product image, their
target customers and the legal possibilities.

Think about the Cessna representing 'old school', being as harmless as it
gets and the Cirrus as a state-of-the-art airplane with a sleek design. One
wouldn't compare a Bonanza with a C182, would one?

Kind regards to all of you, I love these groups :)

(Although I don't really see the sense in cross posting to the whole r.a.
hierarchy... I kept the header)

Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
> cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
> about many problems and so on.
>

Well, then think about the number of ADs that have come out for
new-generation Cessnas compared to the Cirrus or the Diamond, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Icebound]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
>...snip... One of the troubles with carbon fiber is it if it is
> over-stressed, it doesn't just gradually crystallize and develop cracks
the
> way metal does. It fails suddenly and spectacularly. ...snip...
>
> I think bicycles are pointing the direction to the future of aircraft. I
> think we may eventually see aircraft made of titanium (the stuff is not
> rare, just difficult to work with) and beryllium/aluminum alloys. You can
> get bicycles made of these materials today, and they are proving their
> worth, though I will probably stick with carbon fiber.


Although the necessity of "light and strong" is obvious, the "energy
dissipation" quality of crumpling aluminum and "standard" metals is also
useful in light GA aircraft, where survivable crashes are common.

If we make stuff too strong (titanium and carbon fiber) do we risk that it
would lead to fewer GA accidents being survivable??


> You will never see a
> serious fiberglass bicycle, which is even more dependent than an airplane
on
> strength and lightness. Fiberglass is for cheap boats, not airplanes or
> bicycles.
>
>

I couldn't agree more!

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign.

Bwaw-haw-haw! You could have fooled us! Is that why you only cross-posted
to four groups?

If you keep grinding this axe, you won't have anything left but the handle.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Peter Hovorka]

Hi Thomas,

(just why did I know ...)

>> The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
>> cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
>> about many problems and so on.

> Well, then think about the number of ADs that have come out for
> new-generation Cessnas compared to the Cirrus or the Diamond, too.

I do. And I do think about the 'accidents' of both types since restart of
Cessna's production and the emerging of Cirrus.

If compared, the ADs for the 182 on the one side and the ADs and problems of
the Cirrus show a clear difference: On the one side a many years old design
of a 'rugged-and-reliable' spam can with a few minor problems due to
redesigns and on the other side a totally new design with some real
problems.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Cirrus is faulty or bad. Just
that it's ones own decission if you want to use a _very_ proven design
(with the downside of 'age') or a brand new design with many (nice?)
surprises in the first 5-10 years.

Call me conservative ;)

Peter

[Maule Driver]

What a load of BS. Have either of you guys ever seen or flown a high
performance sailplane? Where *only* airframe performance counts - aircraft
use composite construction. Anybody heard of Rutan?

You guys sound like Ford defending the Lizzy. Best way to towards
industrial obsolescence is putting your head in the ground while the world
flies past.

That sound you hear is credibility leaking away at a high rate of speed.

"Icebound" >
> "C J Campbell" > > >
> >...snip... One of the troubles with carbon fiber is it if it is
> > over-stressed, it doesn't just gradually crystallize and develop cracks
> the
> > way metal does. It fails suddenly and spectacularly. ...snip...
> >
> > I think bicycles are pointing the direction to the future of aircraft. I
> > think we may eventually see aircraft made of titanium (the stuff is not
> > rare, just difficult to work with) and beryllium/aluminum alloys. You
can
> > get bicycles made of these materials today, and they are proving their
> > worth, though I will probably stick with carbon fiber.
>
>
> Although the necessity of "light and strong" is obvious, the "energy
> dissipation" quality of crumpling aluminum and "standard" metals is also
> useful in light GA aircraft, where survivable crashes are common.
>
> If we make stuff too strong (titanium and carbon fiber) do we risk that it
> would lead to fewer GA accidents being survivable??
>
>
> > You will never see a
> > serious fiberglass bicycle, which is even more dependent than an
airplane
> on
> > strength and lightness. Fiberglass is for cheap boats, not airplanes or
> > bicycles.
> >
> >
>
> I couldn't agree more!
>
>

[Icebound]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
.com...
> What a load of BS. Have either of you guys ever seen or flown a high
> performance sailplane? Where *only* airframe performance counts -
aircraft
> use composite construction. Anybody heard of Rutan?
>

Composites, sure. But fiberglass specifically, well.....

Rutan's designs, such as the round-the-world Voyager, or Adam Aircraft's
A500... were done in carbon fiber and kevlar.... was there very much
fiberglass involved?

As for the obsolescence of aluminum, especially in alloy, try the
"Centennial of Flight" Commission:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/composites/Tech40.htm

[Dude]

I am not too sure that there has been too much design in aircraft that
utilizes the crumple capabilities of metal. Even in the metal planes. At
least the GA planes.

The likely accidents are much different than in cars, and I am not sure that
you have the weight available to really play with crumple zones. Sure, you
would want to ensure that the wings will shear off at a certain amount of
force, and that the engine will not go straight back into the cockpit.
Other than that, where would you go for a crumple rather than a solid
resistance?

Also, the likely bounce is much different in a plane than a car.

This would make a neat new thread.

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> You will never see a
> serious fiberglass bicycle, which is even more dependent than an airplane on
> strength and lightness. Fiberglass is for cheap boats, not airplanes or
> bicycles.
>

There are comparisons that make sense. Then there are comparisons that are
total BS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ryan Ferguson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Ryan,
>
>
>>hey can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.
>>
>
>
> Could you explain a little more, please?

TCM: I think Continental's quality of materials and construction is poor
these days (see Deakin's comments on TCM at AVWeb) and I would have
vastly preferred a Lycoming powerplant in the Cirrus. The current
engine is a operating expense and safety liability in an otherwise
well-thought out airplane. The TBO talk of 1,700 vs. 2,000 is largely
moot because the engine is not likely to make it past 800-1000 hours
without being topped no matter how it's operated.

Network: Components by Emax, Avidyne, Garmin, S-TEC, and L-3 all
communicate together via ethernet. A piece of garbage occasionally
appears in the data stream and causes problems - for example, the
altitude preselect may stop functioning mid-flight, or the autopilot may
stop receiving course or heading signals from the PFD. These problems
are transitory and impossible to troubleshoot. The solution is to
integrate, which is what Garmin is promising with the G-1000. Garmin is
also building their own autopilot, which will obviously be designed to
seamlessly integrate with the G-1000. A/P integration was one of the
key goals of the Garmin design team, according the G-1000 product
manager when I spoke with him after a presentation on the G-1000.

MCU: The Master Control Unit provides electrical services such as
voltage regulation and overvoltage protection, etc. It's mounted on the
left side of the firewall in the engine compartment. Oddly, it is a
single point of failure across both alternators. A failure of the MCU
makes the all-electric SR-22 a battery-powered airplane in a heartbeat.
This is supposed to be a rare event, but we've replaced two MCUs in
one of our SR-22s already.

Another common misunderstanding is that the airplane "can't" recover
from spins with CAPS. According to Cirrus' test pilots, the airplane
recovers from spins via conventional recovery techniques. The latest
iteration of the SR-22 and SR-20 POH indicates the proper recovery
method is to first try the conventional PARE technique, and if not
effective, to activate CAPS. Spin certification compliance via CAPS was
simply a matter of saving money to certify the airplane. I don't
suggest that the airplane can or should be spun, but from what I've
heard directly from the horse's mouth, spin avoidance and recovery are
no more an issue in the Cirrus than any other single-engine airplane.

-Ryan

[Thomas Borchert]

Ryan,

very interesting, thanks.

IMHO, it's a matter of time until Cirrus switches to the G1000, just
like they switched from Arnav to Avidyne. The integration really makes
sense. Maybe they're waiting for the autopilot...

As for TCM, here in Europe, many people, myself included, are really
waiting for a diesel to be integrated into the Cirrus. The way Cirrus
tells it, the SMA installation is full of problems which need solving
by SMA, not Cirrus. Not much movement there. OTOH, the small Thielert
doesn't have enough power. The big Thielert, scheduled for 2006, is too
big and heavy. So the only hope from my view is the 6-cylinder 200+ HP
Thielert, which will probably take until close to the end of the decade
to be fully certified and integrated. Oh well...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Ryan,
>
> very interesting, thanks.
>
> IMHO, it's a matter of time until Cirrus switches to the G1000, just
> like they switched from Arnav to Avidyne.

Cirrus on their web site makes some silly comment that the G1000 does not
meet their standards for safety.

[Ryan Ferguson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> very interesting, thanks.
>
> IMHO, it's a matter of time until Cirrus switches to the G1000, just
> like they switched from Arnav to Avidyne. The integration really makes
> sense. Maybe they're waiting for the autopilot...

Personally, I doubt it will happen anytime soon. The Klapmeiers view
themselves as a startup company, like Avidyne, and they like Avidyne's
scrappy spirit. Avidyne was also first to market with less dollars and
more technology than their competitors, and face a competitive landscape
similar to what Cirrus must now face: aggressive, angry competitors
(with a heck of a lot more money in the bank) who are having daily
meetings on how to put the newcomer out of business.

However, my bet is on Garmin for getting it right with the G-1000. The
market may force Cirrus to change their mind at some point.

-Ryan

> As for TCM, here in Europe, many people, myself included, are really
> waiting for a diesel to be integrated into the Cirrus. The way Cirrus
> tells it, the SMA installation is full of problems which need solving
> by SMA, not Cirrus. Not much movement there. OTOH, the small Thielert
> doesn't have enough power. The big Thielert, scheduled for 2006, is too
> big and heavy. So the only hope from my view is the 6-cylinder 200+ HP
> Thielert, which will probably take until close to the end of the decade
> to be fully certified and integrated. Oh well...

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

We have a Diamond DA-42 with the Thielert engines on order, due in 2005.
I look forward to playing with that. It certainly can boast some
impressive numbers on paper.

-Ryan

[Mick Ruthven]

>We have a Diamond DA-42 with the Thielert engines on order, due in 2005.
>I look forward to playing with that. It certainly can boast some
>impressive numbers on paper.

I can't find any single-engine numbers on the Diamond website. Do you know
what the single-engine rate of climb and service ceiling are supposed to be?

[CV]

Michael 182 wrote:
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>
> <good review snipped>
>
>>I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.
>
> I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
> reasons for your statement?
>
> Michael

From one thing to another, it is rather surprising to see a relative
newcomer on the market using "Cirrus" as a brand name, when there
have already been aircraft with that name in existance for quite
a number of years, and there are still large numbers of them
flying around in different parts of the world.

http://www.standardcirrus.org/

Did the manufacturer Schempp-Hirth not protect the "Cirrus" brand
name in the US ? A rather serious omission that, if it allows
others to clown around with their product name like this.

Would this possibly cause difficulties in some countries for the
makers of this power-"Cirrus" if they wanted to export it ?

Just wondering ...

CV