Cirrus vs. 182

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
... I hope that for his sake, a prospective owner doesn't use that
document to make
a purchase decision.

Why? Are you a Cirrus dealer? Or are you trying to unload one of these
white
elephants?

Just a happy airplane owner. The airplane I own just happens to be a
Cirrus. I don't like to see potential airplane owners misled by
misinformation propagated by those with an agenda. I have two flying
buddies who bought new or nearly new airplanes -- they fly a 182T and a
Bonanza. They're happy with their choices, and I'm happy for them. We
frequently swap rides to service centers, and I'd do anything I could to
help them out.

While their airplane choices are different from mine, and I could think of
some disadvantages to the airplanes they own, I don't feel compelled to run
them down. Chacon a son gout.



There are missions for which the T182T is the superior aircraft. There
are
other missions for which the SR22 is the best conveyance. It's all
about
the mission.


If the mission is to kill yourself, yes, the Cirrus SR22 is superior.

I guess I've failed in that mission, LOL. I got my first SR22 when I had
200 hours total time (100 in C-172s, 100 in C-182s) and then ink was still
wet on my instrument rating. Since then I've traded in muy first SR22 for a
PFD-equipped model, flown 900 accident-free hours in SR22s, and never had
to cancel a flight because of mechnical problems. To say I'm delighted with
the airplane would be an understatement.

The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not
1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF.


Even if it is, no one is going to overhaul an engine for an airframe that
has only a few hundred hours left.

I'll guess I'll worry about that when I have 11,700 hours on my airframe.


The FAA has recently modified the type certificate for the SR22, giving
it
an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. At the time the comparison was
written, the lower figure was correct.


Who says? The modified type certificate has not been posted by the FAA. It
has not been modified in the last 45 days, and the TCDS on the FAA website
still gives an airframe life limit of 4350 hours. The latest type data
certificate is Rev. 6, dated March 1, 2004. The airframe life limit is
still
4350 flight hours according to that certificate.

Apparently, the FAA has not yet updated the TCDS on their web site. In a
letter dated July 8, 2004, Angie Kostopoulos of the FAA Small Airplane
Directorate, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, said:

"The transmittal of this letter conveys our approval of the SR22 aircraft
life extension to 12,000 hours."

Unfortunately, I do not have a generally accessible link to this letter, but
you could verify it by calling Ms. Kostopoulos at 847-294-7426.

Wait, my crystal ball is telling me what your reply will be: It doesn't
matter, the airframe life limit is still too short. If it doesn't matter,
why did you bring up the issue of 4,350 vs. 12,000 hours? My apologies if
this rejoinder never crossed your mind.


I think that the document is a fair comparison.

A few parts of the document contain fair comparisons. For example, the
greater prop clearance of the 182 makes it more suitable for rough fields.
Other parts of the document, like the ones that compare the performance of a
normally aspirated airplane with that of a turbocharged plane at higher
altitudes, are not fair. Different missions.

The document also omits some comparisons. For example, turbocharger
overhaul cost: SR22, $0, T182T, $thousands.

It contains fewer inaccuracies than most of the baloney claimed by Cirrus
fans. Sorry it
disappoints you, but pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a
thing.

I'm not disappointed. The original document upon which this one is based
originated from a Cessna dealer, not the Cessna Corporation. Far from being
disappinted, it's just what I'd expect from a dealer who is losing a lot of
sales to a competitor.

I agree that pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a thing. It's
the major inaccuracies that taint the entire document.

-Mike