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.