Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

"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.

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)

"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.

"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:

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).

Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not
"flawed " data.

You really should work for the DNC :~)

"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"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).

Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not
"flawed " data.

You really should work for the DNC :~)

Whatever. "Inaccurate information for the purposes of comparing current
revisions of the products under consideration".

Happy now?

You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting
evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because
the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes
along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces.

-jav

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"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).

Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not
"flawed " data.

You really should work for the DNC :~)

Whatever. "Inaccurate information for the purposes of comparing current
revisions of the products under consideration".

Happy now?

No. Your implication is one of misrepresentation.

You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting
evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because
the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes
along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces.

When the "new design" ("New and Improved") is seriously flawed, we damn well
better bash it to pieces. When the "new design" is more marketing than
engineering, it's even more appropriate.

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

Happy now?

You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting
evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because
the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes
along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces.

First of all, I thought my report of the Diamond was very favorable, and it
is even newer than the Cirrus. In fact, it has many more innovations than
the Cirrus, which hardly innovates at all. What is new about fiberglass, for
example, or even the rather outdated Avidyne flight display (superVGA,
non-integrated, slow) compared with the G-1000 (XVGA, fully integrated,
fast)?

The Cirrus is old news. You know, I am not making up these criticisms. You
have not addressed them at all; you are just complaining that those who
point out these weaknesses are anti-Cirrus, as if Cirrus were running for
class president instead of an airplane that peoples' lives depend on.

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"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).

Actually, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
proves it wrong.

"C J Campbell" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"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).

Actually, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
proves it wrong.

I did post the link to TCM's datasheet on the engine, stating a
TBO of 2000 hours.

The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours.

Now what?

-jav