Cirrus vs. 182

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

and the sales figures for the last quarter and last year tell the real story of
aircraft acceptance. The article sounds like it was written by an aircraft
sales person desperate to stop losing sales to Cirrus Design.

John

23 years in Cessna., 18 happy months in Cirrus

"Mike Murdock" wrote
Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to grind
about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
pilots?

I'm not Mr. Campbell (fortunately) and I rarely agree with him on
anything. Further, I don't think much of the document cited.
However, I think that Cirrus fundamentally isn't being honest with its
target customer base.

I think the Cirrus is a fine airplane with some surprising limitations
in standard equipment. Selling what is supposed to be an IFR cruiser,
supposedly fully equipped without spherics, is just a bit odd. No
option for known ice is equally odd. I can't think of any part of the
US where you need IFR capability and don't need either one to maintain
that IFR capability year-round.

I think it's silly to compare the Cirrus and turbo 182 - the Cirrus
is, after all, over 30 kts faster. No amount of dancing will get
around that - and the 26 minute average trip difference falls appart
when the headwinds kick up.

I think the whole spin thing is way overrated - lots of GA airplanes
should not be spun. In fact, outside of some military trainers, I
really can't think of any 170+ kt IFR cruisers that don't have ugly
stall/spin characteristics. I see no real issue here - these are not
trainers, and should not be flown by novices.

And that is at the heart of the problem I have with the Cirrus. It's
presented as an airplane that the low time pilot can use to get solid
VFR and IFR utility. In reality, it will take significantly more
advanced designs than the Cirrus before this is possible, along with
some changes to the national airspace system. The 182 is a reasonable
airplane for a low time pilot, and turbocharging the engine really
doesn't change that. The Cirrus should be evaluated alongside planes
like the Bonanza, Viking, and similar performers - and pilot
experience should also be similar.

Michael

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

ISLIP wrote:

and the sales figures for the last quarter and last year tell the
real story of
aircraft acceptance. The article sounds like it was written by an aircraft
sales person desperate to stop losing sales to Cirrus Design.

You're right. They are worried, and they are desperate. It is common
practice by every Cessna salesperson I've known to viciously slam the
Cirrus product line.

In my view they should go the same route Piper has, which is to focus on
aircraft which have load-hauling capability. This is the only real area
in which Cessna has an advantage over Cirrus, for now.

-Ryan

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

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.

"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?

On 20 Jul 2004 13:31:05 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

"Mike Murdock" wrote
Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to grind
about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
pilots?

I'm not Mr. Campbell (fortunately) and I rarely agree with him on
anything. Further, I don't think much of the document cited.
However, I think that Cirrus fundamentally isn't being honest with its
target customer base.

I think the Cirrus is a fine airplane with some surprising limitations
in standard equipment. Selling what is supposed to be an IFR cruiser,
supposedly fully equipped without spherics, is just a bit odd. No
option for known ice is equally odd. I can't think of any part of the
US where you need IFR capability and don't need either one to maintain
that IFR capability year-round.

WX-500 displayed on the Avidyne is an option on all Cirrus models:
SRV, SR20 & 22. I flew a Skywatch equipped SR22 a few months ago,
what a treat. Really helps with traffic awareness. I'm sure the
WX-500 is equally cool.

TKS is also an option. Not sure if it is K-ice though.

-Nathan

"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?

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Murdock" wrote
Mr. Campbell, based on your previous posts, you seem to have an axe to
grind
about Cirrus. Why? Do you think Cirrus Design is trying to hoodwink
pilots?

I'm not Mr. Campbell (fortunately) and I rarely agree with him on
anything.

I really hate having to agree with you on something. It is almost enough to
make me change my mind. But, yes, I think the big problem is the type of
pilot that the SR22 is being marketed to.