New Cessna panel

"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.