Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

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

Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.

Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
engine TBO).

Actually, the data are not flawed. Let's see you come up with something that
proves it wrong.

Why that?


Turbocharging is worth its weight in gold in much of the Western U.S. I'd
rather have that, and the fat Cessna wing, over sleek-and-neat.

wrote in message ...



Why that?


Turbocharging is worth its weight in gold in much of the Western U.S. I'd
rather have that, and the fat Cessna wing, over sleek-and-neat.

Yup!!!

Tom
------
00V@6875 or COS@6100 == DA 10,000 in June/July/August

C J Campbell wrote:

Thanks for the great report.

When the autopilot was a bit late in turning the corners in NAV mode, did you
notice if the displayed XTRK error increased? If so, the Garmin was computing
the turn correctly but the autopilot couldn't (or wouldn't) keep up.

I've found that the Garmin units tend to compute the fly-by maneuver quite well.

wrote in message ...


C J Campbell wrote:

Thanks for the great report.

When the autopilot was a bit late in turning the corners in NAV mode, did
you
notice if the displayed XTRK error increased? If so, the Garmin was
computing
the turn correctly but the autopilot couldn't (or wouldn't) keep up.

I've found that the Garmin units tend to compute the fly-by maneuver quite
well.


Right. I think it is the autopilot.

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).

Gerd
ATP, T182T

"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.

"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

"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.