Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

OK, I know I said I would not get to fly this plane until tomorrow, but it
arrived early and so I took a flight. This is a new turbocharged Cessna
T182T.

For those that have not seen the 182T (either turbo or normal, introduced
last year), you might be a little startled the first time you take a look.
It does not look like a 182. All the fairings and cowling have been
redesigned and even the windscreen got a speed treatment, so it looks more
like a racy little Cardinal on steroids instead of a 182. Useful load has
increased by about 50 pounds with the lightweight Nav III package and the
additional streamlining increased the cruise speed another four knots to 158
KTAS at 88% power at 12,500 feet. Max cruise is 178 knots. Range at 88%
power is about 600 nm, but you could stretch it out to 886 nm at 45% power.

Inside is equally different. The seats, panel, and general interior are
radically re-arranged. The seats have gone on a diet from the earlier "new"
182s; they are much trimmer and lighter. All interior lighting is now LED.
But the big change is the G-1000 panel, which Cessna modeled after its jets.

All the knobs, switches, etc., are big and utilitarian and color coded. The
G-1000 in this bird has a 30 minute lithium battery backup; you lose power
and you still have your full panel for 30 minutes. The master switches have
been moved high and to the left with all the other switches grouped under
them. Interior light dimmer switches are big gray plastic knobby things
mounted to the left of the panel; Cessna no longer makes each pot do double
duty. All the circuit breakers for lighting and such are the standard
non-pullable white circuit breakers and they are grouped to the left. All
the other circuit breakers are now pullable and grouped under the main
panel.

Below the panels and in the center are backup airspeed, vacuum attitude, and
altitude indicators. The KLN 140 autopilot is located awkwardly off somewhat
to the right and above these. Overall cabin visibility really bites after
riding in the Diamond. The entire panel is metal painted black and gray.

The avionics now run off no less than five busses, but the avionics master
still only turns on bus 1 and 2. Anyway, in order to lose your panels
completely you would probably have to be on fire with an engine failure,
alternator failure, and failure of both your primary and backup batteries --
and you still would have your backup pitot/static instruments and vacuum
attitude indicator (at least until the dual vacuum pumps spun down because
of the engine failure). In such circumstances the panels would probably be
the least of your worries.

You start the engine with the backup battery on so you can see your engine
instruments. Otherwise, the start is normal. Once everything is going you
turn the backup battery off, flip on the avionics master and go. The
controls on this particular airplane were extremely heavy for a 182; I kept
looking to see if the control lock is in. If it was my plane it would go
into the shop immediately to see if the controls can be loosened up some.
The G-1000s work pretty much the same as the Diamond, so this time I wanted
to fly a GPS autopilot coupled approach.

Garmin has not yet developed an FMS for the G-1000, but one is supposedly
coming. Nevertheless, the autopilot tracked and followed the entire
approach, though it turned a little late. There was no need to set new
courses or heading bugs; the G-1000 handles all that automatically. Setting
up the approach took only a few seconds. The KLN-140 autopilot, of course,
still does not know when to descend, so you have to tell it. Still, it
didn't do a bad job for what is really a basic autopilot.

One thing I did not mention about the G-1000 in my previous report is the
fuel circle; the map shows the limits of your remaining fuel with a red
circle.

I checked on the transponder issue: the G-1000 while on the ground responds
to Mode S interrogations for traffic movement, but you can also switch it to
mode A or C by pushing a button.

The Cessna 182 gives you more speed and payload than the Diamond, but not
more range, 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) and has greatly reduced visibility and it just does
not look as cool. I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus
hands down.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

good review snipped

I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.



I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
reasons for your statement?

Michael

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:uh%Kc.123635$IQ4.113575@attbi_s02...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message

good review snipped

I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.



I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
reasons for your statement?

The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus
will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time now,
but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes.

Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite make
TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the money
on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:uh%Kc.123635$IQ4.113575@attbi_s02...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message

good review snipped

I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.



I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
reasons for your statement?

The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus
will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time
now,
but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes.

Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite
make
TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the
money
on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

Actually, I misspoke. The TBO on the Cirrus is only 1700 hours, not 2000
hours as on the T182. Even if the engine makes TBO both times, at 3400 hours
you are left with the choice of overhauling an engine for an airframe that
has only 950 hours left on it, or just throwing the whole airplane away. So
it is even worse than I thought.

"C J Campbell" writes:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:uh%Kc.123635$IQ4.113575@attbi_s02...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message

good review snipped

I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.



I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
reasons for your statement?

The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus
will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time
now,
but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes.

Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite
make
TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the
money
on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

Actually, I misspoke. The TBO on the Cirrus is only 1700 hours, not 2000
hours as on the T182. Even if the engine makes TBO both times, at 3400 hours
you are left with the choice of overhauling an engine for an airframe that
has only 950 hours left on it, or just throwing the whole airplane away. So
it is even worse than I thought.

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.

So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?

-jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)

"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).

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.


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.

So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?


Right where I started. I didn't like the plane when I thought the TBO was
2000 hours.

-jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

Well, there are plenty of aviation experts that agree with me. It is a big
deal. Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
100,000 hours 10 times that of average, the 1700 hour TBO on a normally
aspirated engine, higher direct operating costs, lower ceilings, the fact
that the plane cannot recover from a spin without deploying the parachute,
less stability on approach, longer wings which increase the chance of hangar
rash, insurance rates as much as 52% higher, repetitive and costly
inspections of the Caps system, and seven times more noise than a T182. The
Cirrus may well supplant the Bonanza as the next doctor killer.

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.

Stefan