New Cessna panel

"Tom S." writes:

"Craig Prouse" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." wrote:

I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
conversion?

The 182RG always had a Lycoming O-540 vice the Continental O-470. All
you're missing is the fuel injection.

Huh!! Memory isn't what it used to be :~(

I wish Cessna would bring back the RG in it's current line.

Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
time around.

-jav

Javier Henderson ) wrote:

Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
time around.

Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
relatively problem-less. No?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Peter R." wrote in message ...
Javier Henderson ) wrote:

Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
time around.

Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
relatively problem-less. No?

Nope. The whole gear retraction system on the 210 is a bizarrely
complicated thing. AD's persisted up until the J model, and even
then they're a bit more complicated than most retract systems.

Ron Natalie ) wrote:

"Peter R." wrote:
Javier Henderson ) wrote:

Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
time around.

Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
relatively problem-less. No?

Nope. The whole gear retraction system on the 210 is a bizarrely
complicated thing. AD's persisted up until the J model, and even
then they're a bit more complicated than most retract systems.

Thanks, Ron. I was clearly mistaken in my impression of the 210's RG.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter R. writes:

Javier Henderson ) wrote:

Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
time around.

Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
relatively problem-less. No?

No, they're all a pain to maintain, some are plagued by AD's, and
parts are expensive.

I should mention, I hold no grudge against Cessna (heck, I even own a
straight legged Skylane). But I doubt I will ever own a retract Cessna
single.

-jav

Javier Henderson wrote:


I should mention, I hold no grudge against Cessna (heck, I even own a
straight legged Skylane). But I doubt I will ever own a retract Cessna
single.

Me either. I'm gettin' a Bonanza when the time comes for a second airplane.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Javier Henderson ) wrote:

Please, not while I'm eating. The retractable gear mechanism on
the Cessna singles has been such a trouble spot over the years,
it might be just as well they're sticking with fixed gear this
time around.

Is that true of the later model 210s? Granted I am relatively new to
aviation, but I recall reading that the 210's retractable gear was
relatively problem-less. No?

Nope. The whole gear retraction system on the 210 is a bizarrely
complicated thing. AD's persisted up until the J model, and even
then they're a bit more complicated than most retract systems.

I take it the 182 is the same system (which is the bird in question)?

Between 1979 and 1987, I did quite a few hours in a 182RG with no excitement
other than one time the gear down lights didn't come on, even though it WAS
down and locked. I don't remember the cause or the cure.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:15:36 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Basically, a new 2004 Cessna 182 will compete favorably with a Cirrus
SR-22,
but for about $50,000 less.

Hmmm. I don't know what you consider "competing favorably", but the specs
sure look weighted in favor of the Cirrus:

The Skylane wins in other categories. Efficiency, for one. At 180
knots, the SR-22 burns nearly 19 gph. I didn't think it was possible
to have worse fuel economy than a 182, but Cirrus managed to do it.

The Skylane's insurance prices will be cheaper. And the parts
availability is better for the 182, with a lot more after market
parts. More STCs. More mechanics know how to work on it.

The Skylane also has better low speed numbers. Look at the flaps down
stall speeds for the 182 and the SR22. It's 59 knots for the SR22,
and 49 knots for the 182. The 182 cabin is also larger. I think you
had the range wrong for the Skylane--it's 845 nm at 75% power.

As you noted, the landing and takeoff distances are better for the
182. Much better, in some cases.

Even so, the SR-22 is a very very nice aircraft. I'm not sure it's a
fair comparison, though. The SR-22 has an IO-550 putting out 310
horsepower. The Skylane is only putting out 230. If you put a 310
horsepower engine in the Skylane, you'd see the airplane doing closer
to 160 knots, maybe a little more with the aerodynamic improvements.
Still not SR-22 speed, but a lot more comparable.

The SR-20 has a smaller engine--200 hp. It still goes faster than the
Skylane, but look at the useful load, and the takeoff and landing
distances. It climbs slowly and runs hot. Again, I certainly would
love to have one--I'm not trying to dog the Cirrus planes. But the
Skylane is a good airplane that still makes sense for many people.
And with the new avionics, I believe it improves the 182 that much
more.

I think you should be a big Skylane proponent, Jay. After all,
you've wondered why New Piper doesn't put the Dakota back into
production, and that's basically a low-wing equivalent for the
Skylane....

--Ron

I think you should be a big Skylane proponent, Jay. After all,
you've wondered why New Piper doesn't put the Dakota back into
production, and that's basically a low-wing equivalent for the
Skylane....

While that's true, I prefer the flight characteristics of the Pathfinder
over the Skylane.

If Piper did have the Dakota in production, and I were given a choice
between it and an SR-22, the Cirrus would win, hand's down. Piper would
have to put in a glass cockpit AND price the Dakota WAY lower in order to
compete at all.

And that won't ever happen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"