Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

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.

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.

"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.

"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)

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

Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.

"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).

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

"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

"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

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

Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.

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

-jav

"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?