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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: (The Cessna website seems to be down, so I used http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/ for Skylane performance data. They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182. George Patterson Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
(The Cessna website seems to be down, so I used
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/ for Skylane performance data. They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182. I wasn't sure what a 2004 182 was called ("M?" "N?" "O?") But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any single parameter? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any single parameter? I would also be surprised to find that sort of improvement, but I can't say it's not possible, How do you know Cessna's changes were "minor"? Do you really have any idea what they changed? George Patterson Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I would also be surprised to find that sort of improvement, but I can't
say it's not possible, How do you know Cessna's changes were "minor"? Do you really have any idea what they changed? Um, well, they sure *look* the same as the old 182s. I've read that they've cleaned up the airframe some, but the engine and prop are still the same -- and the gross weight has gone up. These are usually indications of a performance *decrease*, but maybe Cessna has pulled some kind of magic? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any single parameter? George Patterson Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182. I wasn't sure what a 2004 182 was called ("M?" "N?" "O?") But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any single parameter? Um, well, Jay, we're up to "T" now. Mine is an "S." Ever since "Q" or "R" we've had integral 88 gal fuel tanks and a range well in excess of 800 NM. That's a far sight better than a 5% improvement in range. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
Um, well, they sure *look* the same as the old 182s. I've read that they've cleaned up the airframe some, but the engine and prop are still the same -- and the gross weight has gone up. These are usually indications of a performance *decrease*, but maybe Cessna has pulled some kind of magic? Um, well, the engine and prop are not the same. Cessna replaced the Continental O-470, with a Lycoming IO-540, which eliminates the carb heat and the premature top overhauls, and provides better fuel economy. (I never burn more than 11.5 GPH compared to 12-13 for many older 182s.) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Um, well, the engine and prop are not the same. Cessna replaced the
Continental O-470, with a Lycoming IO-540, which eliminates the carb heat and the premature top overhauls, and provides better fuel economy. (I never burn more than 11.5 GPH compared to 12-13 for many older 182s.) Wow. You've got to be running at some pretty low power settings to achieve 11.5 GPH. We usually average between 13 and 15 gph on our O-540, at 23 squared, leaned using a JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer. (As measured with the JPI FS-450 flow meter.). -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
Wow. You've got to be running at some pretty low power settings to achieve 11.5 GPH. We usually average between 13 and 15 gph on our O-540, at 23 squared, leaned using a JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer. (As measured with the JPI FS-450 flow meter.). Flying where I do, I spend a lot of time between 9000 and 12000, so perhaps I get better economy than those who fly lower. I'd have to have a turbocharger to fly 23 squared. I might fly 22 squared or 21"/2300 RPM, which is right about 65%. At the weights I fly (usually a few hundred under MGTW) I often true out around 143 kts. The IO-540 on my Cessna seems very well balanced even without GAMIjectors. I can fly quite a bit LOP without roughness, although I usually follow the POH and just lean to peak EGT. I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I add fuel. Whenever I top off, I run the spreadsheet to figure my average economy since the last time I topped off. In all seriousness, I've never seen 12 GPH. The number that most commonly turns up is 11.3 GPH. As for the new panel that's the subject of the thread, I think it's a bit much to put up front of a C182. I haven't even sprung for a color map GPS. My KLN 89B is certified for IFR and it gets me where I'm going just fine. This reminds me of the Archer at the local FBO, which is equipped with dual 430s and TCAS. I think for that much money, one should have an airplane with a useful IFR range and ceiling, but hey, we all have our reasons for what we fly. I'm getting my first ride in an SR-22 next week as I've agreed to do some safety pilot work for a buddy at work. Lands too fast and requires too much runway for my taste, but it's a nice piece of engineering. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
add fuel. Wow -- I'm not sure whether I should be impressed, or incredulous. :-) I thought I was doing well to remember to write each flight in my logbook! -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:ci%hb.734179$YN5.656514@sccrnsc01... | 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: Well, OK, lets save only about $20,000 and go with the Turbo Skylane with the Nav III package (the price reduction is not yet reflected on Cessna's web site) over a similarly equipped Cirrus SR 22, remembering that the Turbo Skylane uses a 235 hp IO 540 while the Cirrus while the Cirrus has to use 310 hp, and tell me if the Cirrus airframe is really all that more efficient than that of the 182. We can also throw in a few corrected figures for the normal Skylane. | | Cruise Speed | Skylane: 141 knots Turbo Skylane 175 knots Skylane: 145 knots | Cirrus: 180 knots | | Maximum Range | Skylane: 550 nm (697 nm with optional extra fuel tanks) Turbo Skylane: 886 nm Skylane: 968 nm Cirrus: They don't say under what conditions an SR 22 will get 1000+ nm, but either they don't know or they won't admit that you could probably squeeze as much mileage out of a 182. | Cirrus: 1000+ nm | | Climb Rate | Skylane: 980 fpm Turbo Skylane: 1040 fpm Skylane: 924 fpm | Cirrus: 1400 fpm | | The only parameters the Skylane wins are for takeoff & landing distances: | | Takeoff over 50' Obstacle | Skylane: 1205 ft Turbo Skylane: 1385 ft Skylane: 1514 ft | Cirrus: 1575 ft | | Landing over 50' Obstacle | Skylane: 1350 ft. | Cirrus: 2325 ft These stay the same Useful load is better for the Cirrus: Turbo Skylane: 1095 lbs Skylane: 1213 lbs Cirrus: 1150 lbs Then there is the useful life of the airframe: Skylane and Turbo Skylane: unlimited Cirrus: 4030 hours IIRC the Skylane and Turbo Skylane both have longer TBO on their engines than the Cirrus SR 22, too. Nav III Garmin G1000 package vs. Cirrus' Garmin 430 package: um, right. I don't see enough value added in the SR22 to make it worth so much more than either Skylane. Of course, if you want to put your plane on floats or skis, you can forget about the Cirrus entirely. It may be a little unfair to mention that the 182 has one of the best safety records of anything that flies, while the Cirrus has one of the worst. Pilots are still getting used to the Cirrus' quirky handling and the fact that the plane will not recover from even an incipient spin. The parachute system has failed more often than it has worked. While we can blame Cirrus airframes coming apart in the air on improper maintenance, we know that the 182 has never had an airframe failure and almost all mechanics know how to work on them. But perhaps Cirrus will be able to work out its safety problems, given time. |
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 |