Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

C J Campbell wrote:

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.

http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf

I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the
spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the
composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your
anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in,
but until then I think you're spouting hot air.

And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently
stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.

-Ryan
ATP, CFI, CSI (Cirrus Standardized Instructor)

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

"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?

Oh, good grief.

I'm saying that the engine in the SR22, which is the IO-550N, has
a TBO of 2000 hours.

"Good grief" is right. You stated "stating inaccurate data to make a point
_is not right._" (emphasis mine) -- just what implication are we to make
from that statement?

"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
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

You are ignoring facts, however.

Which "facts" are those?

You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss
this topic with you.

Seems your pouting while failing to answer the question posed indicated
YOU'RE the one who can't _rationaly_ discuss the topic.

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
. ..
C J Campbell wrote:

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.

http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf

I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the
spam-cans. You're really missing the picture by focusing on the
composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your
anti-Cirrus campaign. A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in,
but until then I think you're spouting hot air.

And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently
stands. They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.


First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just
because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22
has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run
some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
then that removes one of my major objections. I think the safety record is
still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the
kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any
criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me.

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
100,000 hours 10 times that of average,

Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will
be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane?

Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted.

The Boeing 737 is not being sold as easy and safe for low time private
pilots to fly. The Cirrus is.

"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
...

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.

I hope it has been, but you still have not given me any evidence of that.
Given that you have made a religious issue of it, I am hardly likely to take
you at your word.

"gwengler" wrote in message
om...
Just a few corrections:
Max. cruise is 165 at 20000 ft. and 88% power.
Range WITH 45 miuntes reserve is 635 nm (88% power) to 970 nm (45% power).

I got my numbers off Cessna's own web site. If they are wrong then Cessna
should hear about it.

C J Campbell wrote:

First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign. Just
because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus SR22
has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to run
some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Okay. I don't give Cirrus a blanket endorsement either, but I think
Cessna's going to have their hands full for the forseeable future in the
single-engine airplane market. The Cessna products are still fine for
what they do, but I think the majority of the market will choose Cirrus
for the average private pilot mission.

Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
then that removes one of my major objections.

Do you honestly still think there's any doubt?

I think the safety record is
still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and the
kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

This is a voluminous subject on which I have many opinions, but in a
nutshell
I believe the statistics show it's the training, not the airplane. This is
another area Cirrus (and the aircraft insurance industry) has addressed,
and these days buying a new Cirrus involves a type-rating style checkout
which
takes most new owners 10-15 hours. Cirrus fired their former training
provider
and gave the contract to the University of North Dakota, who developed
an impressively good (although imperfect) training syllabus for
transitioning owners and instructors. The training is all
scenario-based with a
heavy emphasis on ADM and personal minimums. It's going in the right
direction.

No, the guys who are on a crusade are those who cannot tolerate any
criticism of the holy SR22. Sounds religious to me.

There's still plenty to criticize. Fortunately, most if not all of it
can be fixed, and Cirrus has been steadily improving their products.

-Ryan