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.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:15:36 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

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:

The Skylane wins in other categories. Efficiency, for one. At 180
knots, the SR-22 burns nearly 19 gph. I didn't think it was possible
to have worse fuel economy than a 182, but Cirrus managed to do it.

The Skylane's insurance prices will be cheaper. And the parts
availability is better for the 182, with a lot more after market
parts. More STCs. More mechanics know how to work on it.

The Skylane also has better low speed numbers. Look at the flaps down
stall speeds for the 182 and the SR22. It's 59 knots for the SR22,
and 49 knots for the 182. The 182 cabin is also larger. I think you
had the range wrong for the Skylane--it's 845 nm at 75% power.

As you noted, the landing and takeoff distances are better for the
182. Much better, in some cases.

Even so, the SR-22 is a very very nice aircraft. I'm not sure it's a
fair comparison, though. The SR-22 has an IO-550 putting out 310
horsepower. The Skylane is only putting out 230. If you put a 310
horsepower engine in the Skylane, you'd see the airplane doing closer
to 160 knots, maybe a little more with the aerodynamic improvements.
Still not SR-22 speed, but a lot more comparable.

The SR-20 has a smaller engine--200 hp. It still goes faster than the
Skylane, but look at the useful load, and the takeoff and landing
distances. It climbs slowly and runs hot. Again, I certainly would
love to have one--I'm not trying to dog the Cirrus planes. But the
Skylane is a good airplane that still makes sense for many people.
And with the new avionics, I believe it improves the 182 that much
more.

I think you should be a big Skylane proponent, Jay. After all,
you've wondered why New Piper doesn't put the Dakota back into
production, and that's basically a low-wing equivalent for the
Skylane....

--Ron

I think you should be a big Skylane proponent, Jay. After all,
you've wondered why New Piper doesn't put the Dakota back into
production, and that's basically a low-wing equivalent for the
Skylane....

While that's true, I prefer the flight characteristics of the Pathfinder
over the Skylane.

If Piper did have the Dakota in production, and I were given a choice
between it and an SR-22, the Cirrus would win, hand's down. Piper would
have to put in a glass cockpit AND price the Dakota WAY lower in order to
compete at all.

And that won't ever happen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

C J Campbell wrote:

It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup (not certified for part 135
IFR, though).

So, if an aircraft has a second electrical source (among the other part
135 requirements - dual vacuum, etc), will an aircraft with this
avionics configuration be certified for part 135 IFR, or is there
something specific about the Garmin 1000 system that does not allow it
to be certified at this time?

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Peter" wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell wrote:
|
| It is a Garmin 1000 system with battery backup (not certified for part
135
| IFR, though).
|
| So, if an aircraft has a second electrical source (among the other part
| 135 requirements - dual vacuum, etc), will an aircraft with this
| avionics configuration be certified for part 135 IFR, or is there
| something specific about the Garmin 1000 system that does not allow it
| to be certified at this time?
|

The backup battery is only good for thirty minutes, and Cessna has not
applied to certify the backup system for IFR.