Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

"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)