Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

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.

"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

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.

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)

"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.

"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" 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.

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)

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)

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.