New G-1000 182 & Cirrus SR-22 GTS

Cessna and Cirrus brought one of each to the Angel Flight fly-in at PNS
yesterday, and I got the sales pitch from each rep. No test flights,
alas.

Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at
how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

* Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
600+ hours of retract time.

* Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.

* ROC: Cirrus wins big; 1,400 fpm vs. 923 fpm.

* Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
obstacle.

* Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument
panel puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles
and labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the
old plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility
and durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view
over the glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.

* Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are
delivered wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new
Garmin ap built into the G-1000.

So if I were of a mind to plunk down a few hundred large for a new
piston single, I might have trouble choosing between these two very nice
rides. The SR-22 is more airplane, but it's a lot more money, too.
Cessna has done a fine job modernizing the 182, IMO, and I'd be very
happy to own one.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at how
closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135
for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can do.
The Cirrus has a composite body that is lighter and much more aerodynamic
with less drag.

Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in with fuel
burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour trip, a 2 hour trip and a 4 hour trip.
Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn goes up 50% - I'm not
saying that the Cirrus does that, just that you should take the true
airspeed value as a factor in other performance figures.

I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo). The C182T
(non-turbo) should do 2-3 knots better under same conditions.

* Cost: 182 wins big: ~$100k lower sticker price and $3.5k insurance
premium vs. $8k(!) for the SR-22. The Cirrus guy said mine might be as
much as $1.5k lower since I have 1,000 hours, an instrument rating and
600+ hours of retract time.

Also check on the availability of maintenence. When I was comparing the
SR-20 vs. a C182S a few years ago, Cirrus was new and would have been more
expensive to maintain.

* Useful load: Slight edge to the 182; 1213 lbs. vs. 1150 lbs.

I'm often bumping up into the max useful load on my C182S. Those 63 pounds
might come in handy!

* Takeoff/Landing performance: 182 wins big. Although they are pretty
close on takeoff, the Skylane is 1,000' better landing over a 50'
obstacle.

Put you can fly a Skylane with those huge flaps and high wing into the
shortest and roughest of strips.

* Interior: Very slight edge to Cirrus. It's a bit roomier, and the
accessibility of controls and switches without a yoke in the way is very
good. The 182 was very nice inside, too. The redesigned instrument panel
puts the switches easily to hand, and they have nice big handles and
labels. The no-nonsense metal panel is a great improvement over the old
plastic crap - overall, the interior gives the impression of utility and
durability. With the seat at max. vertical adjustment, the view over the
glare shield seems a bit better than in older Skylanes.

It's better view from the Cirrus for everyone, but that generally means it's
hotter in the summer - might be an important factor depending on where you
live. The Skylane is easier to get in and out of for everyone.

From a comfort standpoint, I wonder which one is noiser - does the composite
airframe of the Cirrus help with that at all? Might be a consideration.

* Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are delivered
wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new Garmin ap built
into the G-1000.

Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported than the
system in the Cirrus. The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

So if I were of a mind to plunk down a few hundred large for a new piston
single, I might have trouble choosing between these two very nice rides.
The SR-22 is more airplane, but it's a lot more money, too. Cessna has
done a fine job modernizing the 182, IMO, and I'd be very happy to own
one.

I'm sure you know this already, but it's not the initial cost, but the
operating and owning costs over time. Insurance will be lower and
maintenence might be cheaper with the Skylane.

"Charles Oppermann" wrote in message ...
Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135 for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for
an airframe that has supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can do. The Cirrus has a composite body that is
lighter and much more aerodynamic with less drag.

Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in with fuel burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour
trip, a 2 hour trip and a 4 hour trip. Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn goes up 50% - I'm not saying
that the Cirrus does that, just that you should take the true airspeed value as a factor in other performance figures.

I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo). The C182T (non-turbo) should do 2-3 knots better
under same conditions.



So what are the fuel economy numbers for the 182 vs. Cirrus? Anticipate $5.00 gallon gas cost in the next 10 years...

* Avionics: A tie. The displays looked terrific in full daylight. The
182 does not have XM weather on the Garmin MFD yet, but Cessna says it
will be added at no cost when it's available. For now, 182s are
delivered
wit a B/K KAP-140 autopilot; later models will have a new Garmin ap
built
into the G-1000.

Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported than
the
system in the Cirrus.

And just what makes you think that ? I think you are confused, or maybe you
work for Garmin's marketing department.

The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

Sure it is, if you don't like GPS roll steering, and you enjoy retesting
your static system every time you pull it out for repair or adjustment. The
KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot and the variant that comes in the 182 is two
axis with altitude preselect, not 3 axis. At least on the Cirrus the
autopilot's altitude preselect is on the PFD.

Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported than
the system in the Cirrus.

And just what makes you think that ? I think you are confused, or maybe
you
work for Garmin's marketing department.

I don't work for Garmin. My opinion is based on the adoption rate of the
G1000 and my own experiences flying the SR-22 and aircraft with the G1000.

The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

Sure it is, if you don't like GPS roll steering, and you enjoy retesting
your static system every time you pull it out for repair or adjustment.
The
KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot and the variant that comes in the 182 is
two
axis with altitude preselect, not 3 axis. At least on the Cirrus the
autopilot's altitude preselect is on the PFD.

I mis-spoke, you are of course correct that the KAP-140 is a 2-axis system.

Personally, I haven't had any issues with regard to the static system in my
plane. Can you go into futher detail?

I don't work for Garmin. My opinion is based on the adoption rate of the
G1000 and my own experiences flying the SR-22 and aircraft with the G1000.

Surely you mean the C182 with the G1000.

My point was that your statement is one - sided since Cirrus makes a lot
more SR-22s than Cessna makes C182s. Granted, Cirrus doesn't give you an
option, but based on how many are sold, saying the Garmin will support the
G1000 more or better than Avidyne will support their Entegra is baseless.


The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

Sure it is, if you don't like GPS roll steering, and you enjoy retesting
your static system every time you pull it out for repair or adjustment.
The
KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot and the variant that comes in the 182 is
two
axis with altitude preselect, not 3 axis. At least on the Cirrus the
autopilot's altitude preselect is on the PFD.

I mis-spoke, you are of course correct that the KAP-140 is a 2-axis
system.

Personally, I haven't had any issues with regard to the static system in
my
plane. Can you go into futher detail?

The KAP-140's static pressure sensor is inside the instrument panel mounted
computer unit. The static plumbing goes to the back of the autopilot tray.
That means any time you pull the KAP-140 out, like if it needs replacement
or adjustment, you're also breaking open the static system, which means you
have to do a static leak test. It's not a big deal as long as you never
need to pull the KAP140 out, but in my experience, you will. I haven't
found the STEC autopilots to have any better reliability, but at least
you're not forced to static leak check every time since they use a separate
sensor.

I don't work for Garmin. My opinion is based on the adoption rate of the
G1000 and my own experiences flying the SR-22 and aircraft with the
G1000.

Surely you mean the C182 with the G1000.

Actually I meant flying the SR-22 with their system (which I did in a
pre-certified model at the Cirrus factory in August 2002) and flying the new
G1000 in a C182T.

My point was that your statement is one - sided since Cirrus makes a lot
more SR-22s than Cessna makes C182s. Granted, Cirrus doesn't give you an
option, but based on how many are sold, saying the Garmin will support the
G1000 more or better than Avidyne will support their Entegra is baseless.

I don't think it's baseless - Garmin is a much bigger company and has been
very aggressive in adding functionality to their existing models, which have
been standard and optional equipment on many different models for quite
awhile now.

I'm not knocking Avidyne in the slightest - although my experience with the
software on the pre-certified model was mixed. It's just that I feel
Garmin's dealer and service structure is more established. It's a gut feel,
I haven't done research in this area.

plane. Can you go into futher detail?

The KAP-140's static pressure sensor is inside the instrument panel
mounted
computer unit. The static plumbing goes to the back of the autopilot
tray.
That means any time you pull the KAP-140 out, like if it needs replacement
or adjustment, you're also breaking open the static system, which means
you
have to do a static leak test. It's not a big deal as long as you never
need to pull the KAP140 out, but in my experience, you will. I haven't
found the STEC autopilots to have any better reliability, but at least
you're not forced to static leak check every time since they use a
separate
sensor.

Interesting, thanks.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:57:13 GMT, "Meat Eater" wrote:


I mis-spoke, you are of course correct ument panel mounted
computer unit. The static plumbing goes to the back of the autopilot tray.
That means any time you pull the KAP-140 out, like if it needs replacement
or adjustment, you're also breaking open the static system, which means you
have to do a static leak test. It's not a big deal as long as you never
need to pull the KAP140 out, but in my experience, you will. I haven't
found the STEC autopilots to have any better reliability, but at least
you're not forced to static leak check every time since they use a separate
sensor.

IIUC, the 172/182 KAP140 install (at least ones done at the factory)
have a second static port dedicated to the autopilot, it's not plumbed
into the port that feeds the standard (or ADC/backup instruments in
the case of the G1000) instruments.

The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot

The KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot.

"Charles Oppermann" wrote:
* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed
135 for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can
do.

Yeah, but if 135 is all it'll do, they haven't done *anything*. My
buddy's old Skylane will do 133.

The Cirrus has a composite body that is lighter and much more
aerodynamic with less drag.

Less drag, yes. Lighter? No; the Cirrus is more than 300 lbs. heavier.
Composite construction is not lighter than aluminum.

Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in
with fuel burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour trip, a 2 hour trip
and a 4 hour trip. Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn
goes up 50% - I'm not saying that the Cirrus does that, just that you
should take the true airspeed value as a factor in other performance
figures.

The Cirrus wins. 180kt @ 16gph = ~11nm/gal vs.135kt @ 13 gph =
~10nm/gal. The Cirrus' advantage is even greater if you consider that
the engine/airframe cost/mile will be higher for the Skylane, because it
takes longer to get anywhere.

I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo).

That's really what kills the 182 for me. I don't think I could stand to
buy a new airplane that's slower than my 172RG, even if it's only by a
little.



Also check on the availability of maintenence.

Yep. I'd have to fly to Destin, FL for warranty service on the Cirrus.
The local shop could work on a new Skylane for me.

[snip]


Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported
than the system in the Cirrus.

Why?

The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

Roll, pitch, what's the 3rd axis?

[snip]

I'm sure you know this already, but it's not the initial cost, but the
operating and owning costs over time.

$100,00 invested over time is a lot of money.

Insurance will be lower and maintenence might be cheaper with the
Skylane.

Maybe.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM