Cirrus vs. 182

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Mike,

If you
are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in
the
pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus.


Pleas don't buy ANY airplane, in that case. None are any more
recoverable
than the other.

That is just plane silly (sorry). :-)

Seriously, are you suggesting that roll rate and other maneuverability
factors are equal in all airplanes? I am certain that it is possible to
recover from even an inverted spin from 500 feet in some airplanes. I
would
bet that it is even possible in a Cessna 172. I haven't tried it, but in
such a situation I would add rudder opposite the spin, push the yoke
forward
to break the stall, add power if not nose down and the engine is still
running, otherwise reduce power until the nose comes up. Once the stall is
broken then roll wings level and let the engine restart (it probably will
quit if you are inverted). Of course, I would be miffed that I managed to
get myself into a skidding base to final in the first place.

No you are plane silly. I know how to spin. I like spins. I know how to
recover. Just like the FAA, I slowly realized that spin recovery has little
to do with spin danger for non acro operations.

This past Saturday a pilot lost his life a few hundred yards from my house
in a stall spin accident. Since the a/c was an extremely manueverable
model, it entered the spin quickly. The fact that it occurred about 2
wingspans above the ground made recovery difficult.

The point is *not spinning* in normal ops.

Maule Driver wrote:

This past Saturday a pilot lost his life a few hundred yards from my house
in a stall spin accident. Since the a/c was an extremely manueverable
model, it entered the spin quickly. The fact that it occurred about 2
wingspans above the ground made recovery difficult.


Do you by any chance live at Lake Ridge Aero in North Carolina? This
sounds a lot like an accident that happened there this past weekend.

C,

Yep, and all that in 500 ft. Nice of you to be on the forum, Superman.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I'm a newbie here but airplanenoise.com seems like its straight out of
Cessna's marketing department? I don't think I've ever seen such blatant
self-serving product marketing dressed-up as ersatz objective analysis!!
....except maybe in the case of Bose Corporation. In the comparisons with
every other aircraft make, the message is "Buy anything except a Cessna and
you'll go broke on the way to killing yourself". That kind of message
doesn't lend itself to much credence in my book.



"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

H.P. wrote:

I'm a newbie here but airplanenoise.com seems like its straight out of
Cessna's marketing department? I don't think I've ever seen such blatant
self-serving product marketing dressed-up as ersatz objective analysis!!
...except maybe in the case of Bose Corporation. In the comparisons with
every other aircraft make, the message is "Buy anything except a Cessna and
you'll go broke on the way to killing yourself". That kind of message
doesn't lend itself to much credence in my book.

True, but the most egregious error is that it fails to mention that real
airplanes have the wing on top! :-)


Matt

CJ,

Badly out of date, slanted piece. I'd suggest that one look to
Aviation Consumer for a balanced look at the airplanes. On top of
that, I can't see why one would compare the two airplanes as they are
not targeted at the same market, given that one is turbocharged and
one is normally aspirated.

The turbo 182 is a superb airplane for the person who has a need to go
high, otherwise it's far slower than the Cirrus, so the comparison
isn't really accurate from that standpoint.

What the heck is "special white paint"? The material I've seen
indicates that the Cirrus has a white primary color with various
accent colors available, just as is offered for the 182. While
testing has indicated that even with black paint the airframe does not
come close to exceeding the temperatures that might cause it to
weaken, even when parked in the Sahara desert, the FAA has been
extremely conservative in the certification of composites and calls
for overall white paint.

The article was in error in a number of places, while emergency egress
is much better in the 182, it is not "impossible" in the SR20 and 22.
As part of testing Cirrus inverted an SR20 with its smallest employee
inside. She used the hammer that is standard equipment in the
airplane, broke out a window and was out within seconds. The Cirrus
has been spin tested, its recovery is conventional, as is the 182.
Neither are certified for intentional spins. The Cirrus did not
undergo the full regime of spin testing during original certification
and thus the published recovery method for departure from controlled
flight is to deploy the CAPS.

The article does not mention handling at all. While I like flying the
182, the Cirrus is far, far nicer and more enjoyable to fly, with much
more responsive handling.

There was no comparison of crashworthiness where the 182 does well,
the Cirrus does better because it has no yoke to hit, there is more
"flail" space for the front seat occupants. There is also more rear
seat room in the Cirrus, giving more "flail" space for those
occupants.

For minor damage, composites are easier to fix, hail tends to bounce
off, where it dents aluminum. If there is actually hangar rash to a
composite aircraft, you fix it by stirring up the epoxy, brushing it
on and smoothing to match, then heating it with a hair dryer. If it's
major damage, you replace the component. Aluminum is much more labor
intensive with far more parts, so composite construction is cheaper
and, due to the FARs, stronger than aluminum. At this point the
insurers like aluminium better because something like a loss of
control where the airplane goes up on a wingtip involves just
repairing the wing, which is cheaper than the needed wing replacement
on the composite airplane.

I'm wondering who wrote up the article as the ground handling is quite
comparable in the airplanes, the only place the castoring nosewheel
can be a handful is pushing the airplane backwards into a hangar,
something that is not a problem with the 182. Yes, a brake failure in
a castoring nosewheel airplane tends to cause one to discover that
taxiing is difficult if not impossible.

The airframe life and engine TBO numbers for the Cirrus were wrong.

I'm not sure I'd compare a turbocharged 182 to anything but another
turbocharged airplane, so until GAMI and Tornado Alley turbonormalize
a Cirrus, I would put this article in the dumper.

All the best,
Rick



"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

C J Campbell wrote:
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

It's telling that the article starts with flyover noise comparisons and
prop clearance. It's a poorly done attempt at a smear and shouldn't be
taken seriously by anyone with the ability to recognize obvious bias.

I have no vested interest in either aircraft, although I instruct in
both Cessna and Cirrus products. The Cirrus is an "interesting
airplane," and overall the value for the average prospective owner
(let's say, private pilot with an instrument rating) undergoing the
average mission (regional travel, 100-300 hours of flight time per year)
is just not there with the Cessna products anymore. Single-engine
piston airplane sales trends reflect this.

As a Cirrus Standardized Instructor, I have my own set of issues with
the SR-20 and SR-22. The cited article barely hints at the real
problems (which are NOT the chute or the composite airframe), and it
reads much like it was written by a person who has flown neither
aircraft. I believe that over time the Cirrus product will improve and
flourish, while the Cessna line has been taken as far as it can go,
G1000 or no.

In summary, if you operate from short/unimproved fields, the Cirrus is
not a realistic choice for you. If you want to rocket along at 180+
knots with a fairly advanced (although not overly redundant) avionics
package, the SR-22 might fit you like a glove.

Side note, the SR-22 is among the most spin-resistant airplanes on the
market today. Spins in the SR are a red herring - think electrical
system and avionics redundancy if you want to dive into the real can of
worms.

-Ryan

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
om...
C J Campbell wrote:
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

It's telling that the article starts with flyover noise comparisons and
prop clearance. It's a poorly done attempt at a smear and shouldn't be
taken seriously by anyone with the ability to recognize obvious bias.

Have you seen the "Stop the Noise" thread?

Well, I wish it was a buying decision I expect to face...

CJC - I've always taken your posts seriously in the past. Will be difficult
after that biased pile of dung.

I hope you do work for Cessna - it's the only reasonable excuse.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
This article pretty much describes the differences between the two
airplanes
and points up the issues that I have with the Cirrus.

http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
.com...
Well, I wish it was a buying decision I expect to face...


I wish it was, too.

CJC - I've always taken your posts seriously in the past. Will be
difficult
after that biased pile of dung.


I did not write the biased pile of dung. However, I think it is no more
biased than Cirrus' advertising. I believe it brings up a serious number of
legitimate issues.

I hope you do work for Cessna - it's the only reasonable excuse.


Most know that I work for a CSTAR, but not Cessna itself. Personally, I
enjoyed flying the Diamond far more than I did the 182.

I am also not yet convinced that the G-1000 (or any other flat panel
display) is really worth the premium. It is pretty and I could get used to
it, maybe even proficient with it, but how much additional utility do I get
out of it?