New G-1000 182 & Cirrus SR-22 GTS

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:57:13 GMT, "Meat Eater" wrote:


I mis-spoke, you are of course correct ument panel mounted
computer unit. The static plumbing goes to the back of the autopilot tray.
That means any time you pull the KAP-140 out, like if it needs replacement
or adjustment, you're also breaking open the static system, which means you
have to do a static leak test. It's not a big deal as long as you never
need to pull the KAP140 out, but in my experience, you will. I haven't
found the STEC autopilots to have any better reliability, but at least
you're not forced to static leak check every time since they use a separate
sensor.

IIUC, the 172/182 KAP140 install (at least ones done at the factory)
have a second static port dedicated to the autopilot, it's not plumbed
into the port that feeds the standard (or ADC/backup instruments in
the case of the G1000) instruments.

The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot

The KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot.

"Charles Oppermann" wrote:
* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed
135 for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can
do.

Yeah, but if 135 is all it'll do, they haven't done *anything*. My
buddy's old Skylane will do 133.

The Cirrus has a composite body that is lighter and much more
aerodynamic with less drag.

Less drag, yes. Lighter? No; the Cirrus is more than 300 lbs. heavier.
Composite construction is not lighter than aluminum.

Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in
with fuel burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour trip, a 2 hour trip
and a 4 hour trip. Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn
goes up 50% - I'm not saying that the Cirrus does that, just that you
should take the true airspeed value as a factor in other performance
figures.

The Cirrus wins. 180kt @ 16gph = ~11nm/gal vs.135kt @ 13 gph =
~10nm/gal. The Cirrus' advantage is even greater if you consider that
the engine/airframe cost/mile will be higher for the Skylane, because it
takes longer to get anywhere.

I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo).

That's really what kills the 182 for me. I don't think I could stand to
buy a new airplane that's slower than my 172RG, even if it's only by a
little.



Also check on the availability of maintenence.

Yep. I'd have to fly to Destin, FL for warranty service on the Cirrus.
The local shop could work on a new Skylane for me.

[snip]


Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported
than the system in the Cirrus.

Why?

The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

Roll, pitch, what's the 3rd axis?

[snip]

I'm sure you know this already, but it's not the initial cost, but the
operating and owning costs over time.

$100,00 invested over time is a lot of money.

Insurance will be lower and maintenence might be cheaper with the
Skylane.

Maybe.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Charles Oppermann" wrote in message
...
Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at
how
closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can do.
The Cirrus has a composite body that is lighter and much more aerodynamic
with less drag.

And it's 300 HP vs 235.

Last I heard, Cirrus still have the ~5000 hour airframe limitation. Has
this been lifted? Did you ask the Cirrus rep about it?



Dan Luke wrote:
Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
alas.

Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at
how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

* Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
600+ hours of retract time.

* Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.

* ROC: Cirrus wins big; 1,400 fpm vs. 923 fpm.

* Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
obstacle.

* Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument
panel puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles
and labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the
old plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility
and durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view
over the glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.

* Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are
delivered wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new
Garmin ap built into the G-1000.

So if I were of a mind to plunk down a few hundred large for a new
piston single, I might have trouble choosing between these two very nice
rides. The SR-22 is more airplane, but it's a lot more money, too.
Cessna has done a fine job modernizing the 182, IMO, and I'd be very
happy to own one.

When (if ever) will Cirrus offer the Turbo with the electronic engine
control? It seems right up their alley (technology plus cruise performance)
to offer it except for maybe the insurance issues.

I hope they will decide to compete with the Columbia 400.


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
alas.

Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at how
closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

* Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
600+ hours of retract time.

* Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.

* ROC: Cirrus wins big; 1,400 fpm vs. 923 fpm.

* Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
obstacle.

* Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument panel
puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles and
labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the old
plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility and
durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view over the
glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.

* Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are delivered
wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new Garmin ap built
into the G-1000.

So if I were of a mind to plunk down a few hundred large for a new piston
single, I might have trouble choosing between these two very nice rides.
The SR-22 is more airplane, but it's a lot more money, too. Cessna has
done a fine job modernizing the 182, IMO, and I'd be very happy to own
one.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Tim B" wrote in message
news:TCIve.3021$4o.1201@fed1read06...
When (if ever) will Cirrus offer the Turbo with the electronic engine
control? It seems right up their alley (technology plus cruise
performance)
to offer it except for maybe the insurance issues.

I hope they will decide to compete with the Columbia 400.



Compare the Lancair 350 to the Cirrus SR-22 and what do you get?

Tim,

the Turbo with the electronic engine
control


Which?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
alas.


For about the same money I'd rather have a Lancair Columbia 350.

http://www.flycolumbia.com/Aircraft/...ficationsC350/

(And no parachute required).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Dan Luke wrote:
Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
alas.

Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at
how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

The Stearman flies slowly enough that one has time to enjoy the view as
the world slips by at 100 mph - The Stearman wins!

* Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
600+ hours of retract time.

One could buy a Stearman for the $100G's. The Stearman wins again!


* Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.


The Stearman is a load unto herself. I've cracked a rib trying to move
her around on the ground (really, and it was stupid and it *hurt*!).
In a previous life, she was fitted with a huge hopper to spray crops.
I'm not sure what a few hundred gallons of insecticide weighs, but...
The Stearman wins AGAIN!


* ROC: Cirrus wins big; 1,400 fpm vs. 923 fpm.

Swinging that beautiful wooden prop and with 220 roaring HP... uh, go
back up and reread about enjoying the view again. You'll be very close
to it for a long time.


* Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
obstacle.


The Stearman has a wing that kinda gets in the way when you land.
Since one can't even see the 50' obstacle, why worry about how close
you can land to it?


* Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument
panel puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles
and labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the
old plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility
and durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view
over the glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.


What's an "interior"???


* Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are
delivered wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new
Garmin ap built into the G-1000.


The "display" is viewed over the nose and is framed by airplane wings
and flying wires. My "autopilot" is really cute and sits in the front
cockpit. No contest on either point, boys.

A few other important things you forgot to talk about:

Landings - In the Stearman, everyone and their grandmother will flock
to watch when you enter the pattern, and the Stearman has a
not-undeserved reputation for being... interesting.... when she comes
back to Earth. You will absolutely, positively, concentrate during
every landing to polish-and-shine your landing technique. Or else.

Engine Starts - What's it take to start a Cirrus? Punch a few buttons,
wiggle a knob, and it rolls over and runs. Bah! The Stearman requires
priming the engine (it's at the front of the plane, about 12 feet
forward of the cockpit, btw), then running around to the cockpit to hit
the starter before that gas all boils away. One good chug, then BAWHAM
and CHUGG and POOOFF! and a humongous cloud of smoke announces that
real aviation is about to take place. Unless you miss something a
little bit and she doesn't start. In that case, you get to unstrap and
climb back out and walk back around the wing and prime her again....

Then there are the bugs. OK, you might win on that one. :-|

-Dave Russell
N2S-3