Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"gwengler" wrote in message
om...
Just a few corrections:
Max. cruise is 165 at 20000 ft. and 88% power.
Range WITH 45 miuntes reserve is 635 nm (88% power) to 970 nm (45% power).

I got my numbers off Cessna's own web site. If they are wrong then Cessna
should hear about it.

I got my numbers from my T182T POH. For example, 175 KIAS is the Vne,
never exceed airspeed, not max. cruise. Range at 12,500 incl. 45 min.
reserve is 617 nm (88%) or 968 nm (45%). Seems some computer guy put
the web-site numbers together without knowing what he was talking
about...

Having said that, I have owned a T182T for 2.5 years now and flown 600
hours. No problems, whatsoever, totally trouble free. The support
from both Cessna and the local dealer (Leggat, Toronto Buttonville) is
outstanding. The quality of the airplane equals that of a German car
- no rattling, vibrations, loud noises, avionics failures, cabin
linings falling down, door closing problems and the like (those are
all frequent issues from the public Cirrus discussion forum). Anyway,
the T182T fulfills my mission profile perfectly, going from coast to
coast with three sometimes four people (four people, four hours fuel
and 20 lbs. luggage per person). The turbocharger is worth every
penny since it lets me go high to avoid ice, CBs visually and go over
the mountains without much worrying. I have now a Garmin/Apollo MX20
with WSI weather data link and Jeppesen approach plates, all options
not available (or not working) on the Cirrus.

What bothers me in this whole discussion is the religious zeal with
which Cirrus proponents go around. That airplane is not revolutionary
different from Cessnas, Mooneys, Pipers etc. It's made from plastic -
so what? May be good, may be bad, who knows. The Avidyne avionics
definitely are now second behind the Garmin 1000 if for nothing else
for the reason that the NAV/COM parts are integrated. You don't have
to frequently look down to your Garmin NAV/COMs to change frequencies
and NAV inputs. The Cirrus is a GREAT airplane that perfectly fulfills
the mission of people who buy it (one hopes). Why do these Cirrus
missionaries try to portray existing designs as being outdated and not
up to par?

Gerd
ATP, T182T

Hi Gerd,

What bothers me in this whole discussion is the religious zeal with
which Cirrus proponents go around.

[ .. ]

Why do these Cirrus
missionaries try to portray existing designs as being outdated and not
up to par?

I guess it depends on the individual. On the one hand you'll find the
statements like 'planes are much more oldfashioned than motorcycles and
cars, it's time for something new, everything old has to be seen as crap!'
told by non-owners and tech-freaks. On the other hand you'll find the 'this
is the best plane ever - in every regard thinkable' emphasized by owners.

I haven't flown both, I don't have a mission profile for one of them, I'm
not a cessna nor a cirrus dealer etc. etc...

The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
about many problems and so on.

Though I'm not lucky with the non-improvement of the avgas guzzlers by
Lycoming and Continental and I would really like to see some improvements
in crashworthiness in the 'old' Cessna airplanes (26g seats, structural
rework) I would never think of a Cessna as a bad airplane.

These pseudo-religious fights Cirrus - Cessna Fans are ridiculous. Every
company does its best in regard to the market, their product image, their
target customers and the legal possibilities.

Think about the Cessna representing 'old school', being as harmless as it
gets and the Cirrus as a state-of-the-art airplane with a sleek design. One
wouldn't compare a Bonanza with a C182, would one?

Kind regards to all of you, I love these groups

(Although I don't really see the sense in cross posting to the whole r.a.
hierarchy... I kept the header)

Peter

C J Campbell wrote:

Few people are really interested in
renting the 182,

What do you mean by this? One of the major advantages our club has over
local FBOs is our pair of 182s. So there does seem to be *some* interest.

Or did you mean few *FBOs* are interested in renting?

A friend of mine has a 172SP on leaseback. It's done well for him (I think
it's been in place for a couple of years, but I'm not sure). He's giving
serious thought to putting a (glass panel) 182 on leaseback as well.

Should he not?

As an owner I think I would prefer the 182T, especially the T182T if I
could afford it. The built-in O2, turbocharging, and long distance
capability make this the ultimate in utility.

Flying has an article this month on the Lancair 400. They make a pretty
good case for turbo, even in areas w/o much in the way of high terrain.


[...]


As for Garmin G-1000, it is very nice as flat panels go. However, it gives
you little more capability than traditional instruments, costs more, and
requires special training. It is more attractive visually, but I don't see
that it is necessarily more reliable than what we had before. Is it really
worth a $30,000 premium? I think it is, but I am sure not going to insist
that everyone else agree with me. Maybe my money would be better spent on
other art forms, but I like this panel.

One of the less visible benefits of glass panels, to me, is the lack of
vacuum pumps. Sure, the manufacturers could have lost those w/o going to a
glass panel. But they didn't (for the most part).


I might as
well try to buy flying saucers from Betelgeuse. Now I suppose that people
will accuse me of being on an anti-Cessna crusade.


Actually, you may get an angry visit from that shop on Betelgeuse that sells
flying saucers.

- Andrew

"Peter Hovorka" wrote in message
...
Hi Gerd,
The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
about many problems and so on.


I think the glut of used airplanes on the market has more to do with current
tax laws than anything else. What with bonus depreciation and other
incentives to buy a new airplane, you have people wanting to dump their old
planes in order to get a new one and no one wanting to buy a used airplane.


Though I'm not lucky with the non-improvement of the avgas guzzlers by
Lycoming and Continental and I would really like to see some improvements
in crashworthiness in the 'old' Cessna airplanes (26g seats, structural
rework) I would never think of a Cessna as a bad airplane.


Actually, the 'new' Cessna airplanes are much more crashworthy than the
'old' Cessna airplanes.

These pseudo-religious fights Cirrus - Cessna Fans are ridiculous.

Yeah, right on bro. Fights between Ford and Chevy fans or Bush and Kerry
fans are much more meaningful.

Peter,

The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
about many problems and so on.


Well, then think about the number of ADs that have come out for
new-generation Cessnas compared to the Cirrus or the Diamond, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

...snip... One of the troubles with carbon fiber is it if it is
over-stressed, it doesn't just gradually crystallize and develop cracks
the
way metal does. It fails suddenly and spectacularly. ...snip...

I think bicycles are pointing the direction to the future of aircraft. I
think we may eventually see aircraft made of titanium (the stuff is not
rare, just difficult to work with) and beryllium/aluminum alloys. You can
get bicycles made of these materials today, and they are proving their
worth, though I will probably stick with carbon fiber.


Although the necessity of "light and strong" is obvious, the "energy
dissipation" quality of crumpling aluminum and "standard" metals is also
useful in light GA aircraft, where survivable crashes are common.

If we make stuff too strong (titanium and carbon fiber) do we risk that it
would lead to fewer GA accidents being survivable??


You will never see a
serious fiberglass bicycle, which is even more dependent than an airplane
on
strength and lightness. Fiberglass is for cheap boats, not airplanes or
bicycles.



I couldn't agree more!

"C J Campbell" wrote:
First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign.

Bwaw-haw-haw! You could have fooled us! Is that why you only cross-posted
to four groups?

If you keep grinding this axe, you won't have anything left but the handle.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Hi Thomas,

(just why did I know ...)

The only thing that makes me think is the very huge quantity of low time
cirrus airplanes on the market, several mods in the meantime, complaints
about many problems and so on.

Well, then think about the number of ADs that have come out for
new-generation Cessnas compared to the Cirrus or the Diamond, too.

I do. And I do think about the 'accidents' of both types since restart of
Cessna's production and the emerging of Cirrus.

If compared, the ADs for the 182 on the one side and the ADs and problems of
the Cirrus show a clear difference: On the one side a many years old design
of a 'rugged-and-reliable' spam can with a few minor problems due to
redesigns and on the other side a totally new design with some real
problems.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Cirrus is faulty or bad. Just
that it's ones own decission if you want to use a _very_ proven design
(with the downside of 'age') or a brand new design with many (nice?)
surprises in the first 5-10 years.

Call me conservative

Peter

Hi,

I think the glut of used airplanes on the market has more to do with
current tax laws than anything else. What with bonus depreciation and
other incentives to buy a new airplane, you have people wanting to dump
their old planes in order to get a new one and no one wanting to buy a
used airplane.

That may be true to some extend - especially for the US market at the
moment. But what about all the Cirrus aircraft being sold in and around
germany? Maybe that's because of the lack of interest by Cirrus to do a
full certification in the EU? Or it's because of the typical Cirrus buyer
using this plane just as an interim solution whilst 'growing up' to a twin?

I don't know... Pity that there doesn't seem an expert in used airplanes
here...

Actually, the 'new' Cessna airplanes are much more crashworthy than the
'old' Cessna airplanes.

Oh I bet they are. Not only due to the usual metal fatigue of a 30-40 year
old peace of aluminium, but also due to constructional improvements. Having
seen pictures of a lot of crashed metal planes and composites I would
always prefer the composites. (I would prefer the proven design in spite of
this until the 'new' design has flown some years without (!) strange
accidents that can not be related easily to 'bad airmanship').

These pseudo-religious fights Cirrus - Cessna Fans are ridiculous.

Yeah, right on bro. Fights between Ford and Chevy fans or Bush and Kerry
fans are much more meaningful.

Windows - Linux - FreeBSD etc. etc. etc.

I think discussions about these things are doomed before they really start.
Every one has another set of beliefs, another viewpoint in regard to 'what
is safe?' etc.

The more conservative pilot who decides to choose the proven, but slower,
design - or the more modern pilot who decides to go with the sleek side
stick sportster

Honestly - the Cirrus is a very nice airplane - in my eyes. It's just that I
dislike their marketing, their certification policies, their accident
history and their fanatic fans

The Cessna is much less adorable regarding 'how sexy' the plane seems to be
(my god...) but it's proven, proven, proven. Cessna uses this concepts for
many many years with a very good safety record, their marketing seems to be
more honest (can marketing be honest?) and their fans write great IFR
diaries *g*

Kind regards,
Peter

PS: I think no one will question that composite is the future, no one will
question that the Cessna designs are historic (as are the dinosaurs...) and
there definitely IS a need for companies like Piper, Cessna etc. to put
some money into R&D. NOW. But who says that they don't yet work at it?

What a load of BS. Have either of you guys ever seen or flown a high
performance sailplane? Where *only* airframe performance counts - aircraft
use composite construction. Anybody heard of Rutan?

You guys sound like Ford defending the Lizzy. Best way to towards
industrial obsolescence is putting your head in the ground while the world
flies past.

That sound you hear is credibility leaking away at a high rate of speed.

"Icebound"
"C J Campbell"
...snip... One of the troubles with carbon fiber is it if it is
over-stressed, it doesn't just gradually crystallize and develop cracks
the
way metal does. It fails suddenly and spectacularly. ...snip...

I think bicycles are pointing the direction to the future of aircraft. I
think we may eventually see aircraft made of titanium (the stuff is not
rare, just difficult to work with) and beryllium/aluminum alloys. You
can
get bicycles made of these materials today, and they are proving their
worth, though I will probably stick with carbon fiber.


Although the necessity of "light and strong" is obvious, the "energy
dissipation" quality of crumpling aluminum and "standard" metals is also
useful in light GA aircraft, where survivable crashes are common.

If we make stuff too strong (titanium and carbon fiber) do we risk that it
would lead to fewer GA accidents being survivable??


You will never see a
serious fiberglass bicycle, which is even more dependent than an
airplane
on
strength and lightness. Fiberglass is for cheap boats, not airplanes or
bicycles.



I couldn't agree more!