"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
Different versions of that document have been circulating for a while.
It's
a mishmash of (true) facts, opinion, apples vs. oranges comparisons, and
outright errors. I hope that for his sake, a prospective owner doesn't
use
that document to make a purchase decision.

Why? Are you a Cirrus dealer? Or are you trying to unload one of these white
elephants?


There are missions for which the T182T is the superior aircraft. There
are
other missions for which the SR22 is the best conveyance. It's all about
the mission.


If the mission is to kill yourself, yes, the Cirrus SR22 is superior.

The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not
1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF.


Even if it is, no one is going to overhaul an engine for an airframe that
has only a few hundred hours left.

The FAA has recently modified the type certificate for the SR22, giving it
an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. At the time the comparison was
written, the lower figure was correct.


Who says? The modified type certificate has not been posted by the FAA. It
has not been modified in the last 45 days, and the TCDS on the FAA website
still gives an airframe life limit of 4350 hours. The latest type data
certificate is Rev. 6, dated March 1, 2004. The airframe life limit is still
4350 flight hours according to that certificate.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...e?OpenFrameSet

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K27F158D8

I think that the document is a fair comparison. It contains fewer
inaccuracies than most of the baloney claimed by Cirrus fans. Sorry it
disappoints you, but pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a
thing.