If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1/72 Cessna 300, 400 series scale models | Ale | Owning | 3 | October 22nd 13 03:40 PM |
Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware ! | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 93 | December 20th 04 02:17 PM |
Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 63 | July 22nd 04 07:06 PM |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |