Cirrus vs. 182

"Mike Murdock" wrote
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 not Mr. Campbell (fortunately) and I rarely agree with him on
anything. Further, I don't think much of the document cited.
However, I think that Cirrus fundamentally isn't being honest with its
target customer base.

I think the Cirrus is a fine airplane with some surprising limitations
in standard equipment. Selling what is supposed to be an IFR cruiser,
supposedly fully equipped without spherics, is just a bit odd. No
option for known ice is equally odd. I can't think of any part of the
US where you need IFR capability and don't need either one to maintain
that IFR capability year-round.

I think it's silly to compare the Cirrus and turbo 182 - the Cirrus
is, after all, over 30 kts faster. No amount of dancing will get
around that - and the 26 minute average trip difference falls appart
when the headwinds kick up.

I think the whole spin thing is way overrated - lots of GA airplanes
should not be spun. In fact, outside of some military trainers, I
really can't think of any 170+ kt IFR cruisers that don't have ugly
stall/spin characteristics. I see no real issue here - these are not
trainers, and should not be flown by novices.

And that is at the heart of the problem I have with the Cirrus. It's
presented as an airplane that the low time pilot can use to get solid
VFR and IFR utility. In reality, it will take significantly more
advanced designs than the Cirrus before this is possible, along with
some changes to the national airspace system. The 182 is a reasonable
airplane for a low time pilot, and turbocharging the engine really
doesn't change that. The Cirrus should be evaluated alongside planes
like the Bonanza, Viking, and similar performers - and pilot
experience should also be similar.

Michael