Cirrus vs. 182

This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

--
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll only beat the dead horse one more time by saying about spins: If you
are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in the
pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.

Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to grind
about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
pilots? I'm a former Skylane owner, and I think they are fine airplanes.
For my mission, an SR22 is the best choice, but I'm not going to badmouth
other airplanes because I think mine is the best.

-Mike

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

--
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.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:39:51 -0500, "Mike Murdock"
wrote:

snipped....

I'll only beat the dead horse one more time by saying about spins: If you
are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in the
pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.

snipped...

The vast majority of those that are prone to spinning airplanes during
the turn from base to final already have their own permanent wings.
They don't need a Cirrus
Rich Russell

"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.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


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.

It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at
1700.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


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.

It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at
1700.

Please watch what you are snipping -- you make it look like I said something
that I did not.

As far as I know, the IO-550-N has always had a TBO of 2,000 hours. Other
IO-550 models, like the IO-550-F, still have a 1,700 hour TBO. That tricky
suffix means a lot. Two IO-550's with different suffixes could have
different cases, cylinders, etc. TCM's numbering scheme leaves a lot to be
desired.

-Mike

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


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.

It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at
1700.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
... 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?

Just a happy airplane owner. The airplane I own just happens to be a
Cirrus. I don't like to see potential airplane owners misled by
misinformation propagated by those with an agenda. I have two flying
buddies who bought new or nearly new airplanes -- they fly a 182T and a
Bonanza. They're happy with their choices, and I'm happy for them. We
frequently swap rides to service centers, and I'd do anything I could to
help them out.

While their airplane choices are different from mine, and I could think of
some disadvantages to the airplanes they own, I don't feel compelled to run
them down. Chacon a son gout.



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.

I guess I've failed in that mission, LOL. I got my first SR22 when I had
200 hours total time (100 in C-172s, 100 in C-182s) and then ink was still
wet on my instrument rating. Since then I've traded in muy first SR22 for a
PFD-equipped model, flown 900 accident-free hours in SR22s, and never had
to cancel a flight because of mechnical problems. To say I'm delighted with
the airplane would be an understatement.

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.

I'll guess I'll worry about that when I have 11,700 hours on my airframe.


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.

Apparently, the FAA has not yet updated the TCDS on their web site. In a
letter dated July 8, 2004, Angie Kostopoulos of the FAA Small Airplane
Directorate, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, said:

"The transmittal of this letter conveys our approval of the SR22 aircraft
life extension to 12,000 hours."

Unfortunately, I do not have a generally accessible link to this letter, but
you could verify it by calling Ms. Kostopoulos at 847-294-7426.

Wait, my crystal ball is telling me what your reply will be: It doesn't
matter, the airframe life limit is still too short. If it doesn't matter,
why did you bring up the issue of 4,350 vs. 12,000 hours? My apologies if
this rejoinder never crossed your mind.


I think that the document is a fair comparison.

A few parts of the document contain fair comparisons. For example, the
greater prop clearance of the 182 makes it more suitable for rough fields.
Other parts of the document, like the ones that compare the performance of a
normally aspirated airplane with that of a turbocharged plane at higher
altitudes, are not fair. Different missions.

The document also omits some comparisons. For example, turbocharger
overhaul cost: SR22, $0, T182T, $thousands.

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.

I'm not disappointed. The original document upon which this one is based
originated from a Cessna dealer, not the Cessna Corporation. Far from being
disappinted, it's just what I'd expect from a dealer who is losing a lot of
sales to a competitor.

I agree that pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a thing. It's
the major inaccuracies that taint the entire document.

-Mike

I'm a newbie here but airplanenoise.com seems like its straight out of
Cessna's marketing department? I don't think I've ever seen such blatant
self-serving product marketing dressed-up as ersatz objective analysis!!
....except maybe in the case of Bose Corporation. In the comparisons with
every other aircraft make, the message is "Buy anything except a Cessna and
you'll go broke on the way to killing yourself". That kind of message
doesn't lend itself to much credence in my book.



"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

--
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.

CJ,

Badly out of date, slanted piece. I'd suggest that one look to
Aviation Consumer for a balanced look at the airplanes. On top of
that, I can't see why one would compare the two airplanes as they are
not targeted at the same market, given that one is turbocharged and
one is normally aspirated.

The turbo 182 is a superb airplane for the person who has a need to go
high, otherwise it's far slower than the Cirrus, so the comparison
isn't really accurate from that standpoint.

What the heck is "special white paint"? The material I've seen
indicates that the Cirrus has a white primary color with various
accent colors available, just as is offered for the 182. While
testing has indicated that even with black paint the airframe does not
come close to exceeding the temperatures that might cause it to
weaken, even when parked in the Sahara desert, the FAA has been
extremely conservative in the certification of composites and calls
for overall white paint.

The article was in error in a number of places, while emergency egress
is much better in the 182, it is not "impossible" in the SR20 and 22.
As part of testing Cirrus inverted an SR20 with its smallest employee
inside. She used the hammer that is standard equipment in the
airplane, broke out a window and was out within seconds. The Cirrus
has been spin tested, its recovery is conventional, as is the 182.
Neither are certified for intentional spins. The Cirrus did not
undergo the full regime of spin testing during original certification
and thus the published recovery method for departure from controlled
flight is to deploy the CAPS.

The article does not mention handling at all. While I like flying the
182, the Cirrus is far, far nicer and more enjoyable to fly, with much
more responsive handling.

There was no comparison of crashworthiness where the 182 does well,
the Cirrus does better because it has no yoke to hit, there is more
"flail" space for the front seat occupants. There is also more rear
seat room in the Cirrus, giving more "flail" space for those
occupants.

For minor damage, composites are easier to fix, hail tends to bounce
off, where it dents aluminum. If there is actually hangar rash to a
composite aircraft, you fix it by stirring up the epoxy, brushing it
on and smoothing to match, then heating it with a hair dryer. If it's
major damage, you replace the component. Aluminum is much more labor
intensive with far more parts, so composite construction is cheaper
and, due to the FARs, stronger than aluminum. At this point the
insurers like aluminium better because something like a loss of
control where the airplane goes up on a wingtip involves just
repairing the wing, which is cheaper than the needed wing replacement
on the composite airplane.

I'm wondering who wrote up the article as the ground handling is quite
comparable in the airplanes, the only place the castoring nosewheel
can be a handful is pushing the airplane backwards into a hangar,
something that is not a problem with the 182. Yes, a brake failure in
a castoring nosewheel airplane tends to cause one to discover that
taxiing is difficult if not impossible.

The airframe life and engine TBO numbers for the Cirrus were wrong.

I'm not sure I'd compare a turbocharged 182 to anything but another
turbocharged airplane, so until GAMI and Tornado Alley turbonormalize
a Cirrus, I would put this article in the dumper.

All the best,
Rick



"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf