Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

(...)
The Cessna 182 gives you more speed and payload than the Diamond, but
not
more range, for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel
(but
gas mileage is about the same -- so much for supposedly more streamlined
design of the Diamond) and has greatly reduced visibility and it just
does
not look as cool. I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus
hands down.


so if you had to decide what to buy, what would you buy? a Diamond or this
C182?
what would you buy as a FBO/renter? as an owner? a a club? and why?

Personally, I like the Diamond, but I think it is overpriced. It should sell
for $30,000 less. The WX band system is a $6,900 option on the Diamond; it
is standard on the 182T. That puts a DA40 equipped with WX band at nearly
$267,000 -- pretty darned close to the low end of a 182T for an airplane
that is basically a fast 172SP. I have to ask, is the extra fifteen knots
really worth $80,000 more than what a 172S costs? I like the way the Diamond
flies and the nice cockpit layout; the only trouble I had with it at all was
reaching the rudder adjustment handle. Visibility is second to none.

As an FBO/renter I think I would prefer the Diamond. Operating costs are
much less, the airplane is easy to fly, and it seems about as bullet proof
as you can get. Also, Diamond has the DA42, which offers a quick upgrade to
multi-engine for your customers. Trouble is, acquisition cost of the Diamond
is very high, so the maybe the best plane for an FBO is still going to be
the old reliable 172SP. Few people are really interested in renting the 182,
but the Diamond would draw customers who want the latest in design and
technology. I also think the better visibility of the Diamond makes it a
better scenic plane, but then again the 182T can actually fill the seats and
the guys in back don't have their view obstructed by the wing.

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. The vast network of repair shops that can work
on these airplanes pretty much guarantees that you will never be stranded
out in the middle of Montana somewhere (though that is a pretty nice place
to get yourself stranded... especially if you brought your fly fishing
gear).

Back to the club, I would like to have both. :-) And a Cirrus, too. And a
DA42, and a choo-choo train, and a horsy. But if I had to choose a club
plane I would go with the Diamond for the same reasons I would choose that
plane for an upscale FBO.

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.

In many respects, the question is moot. If I wanted a Diamond it would be on
the ramp tomorrow (well, the day after tomorrow). I could get a Cirrus
pretty darned quick, too, and I would be willing to take another look at
this plane if the 4350 hour restriction has been removed. If I want the
T182T (and really, Cessna is not making very many G-1000 equipped normal
182s), then I "might" be able to get one if one shakes loose from another
dealer sometime this year, but there are no guarantees and I can't go to a
dealer in another part of the country if I want one. Put it this way: the
Diamond and the Cirrus actually exist. The T182T is vaporware. 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.

"C J Campbell" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

I did post the link to TCM's datasheet on the engine, stating a
TBO of 2000 hours.

The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours.

I hope it has been, but you still have not given me any evidence of that.
Given that you have made a religious issue of it, I am hardly likely to take
you at your word.

Someone already posted a copy of a letter they received from the
FAA. I'm sure that will satisfy your requirement for proof. I don't
recall now where I first heard of the lifetime increase, avweb
newsletter maybe, it's not really important.

And I haven't made a religious issue out of anything. I just pointed a
couple of facts, and you're still foaming at the mouth.

Whatever.

-jav

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
. ..
C J Campbell wrote:

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type
certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been
extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh. If it makes you feel better, here ya go.

http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-9...klifelimit.pdf


How come part of this document is blacked out?

There is nothing new, BTW, about fiberglass. It is heavier than aluminum,
more difficult to repair, and subject to solar radiation damage (even the
Cirrus' special 3M fiberglass -- it has to be protected by that white
paint). It does have the advantage of being somewhat tougher than aluminum
(fiberglass does not dent as easily, but it is still subject to abrasions
and cracks.

You can do anything with aluminum that you can with fiberglass or carbon
fiber.

Carbon fiber, though, is both lighter and stronger than either aluminum or
fiberglass. It is also a lot more expensive and even more difficult to
repair. It also can be woven in ways that give infinite combinations of
flexibility and strength. There are very few shops certified to repair
carbon fiber. 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. I learned this the hard
way when I was hit head-on by a car while riding my OCLV carbon fiber bike.
Although designed for stresses up to 14,000 pounds, the bike frame exploded
on impact. (I also flew over the car, leaving the soles of my shoes still in
the pedals. I landed on my head on the other side, which some people say
explains a lot about me. Anyway, I am now two inches shorter from having
compressed my neck and spine. The driver, of course, had no insurance, and
got her eighth and ninth outstanding traffic tickets that day. They took
away her license, but no doubt she drives anyway.)

Of course, if money is no object, then carbon fiber is the way to go. No
doubt, this is the reason the Diamond is so expensive for what you get.
Aluminum will always have an economic advantage over carbon fiber.

The Diamond uses fiberglass, too, especially in the wings and skins, no
doubt as a cost saving measure. It uses Kevlar in the seats, so your
passengers can't shoot you in the back (actually, to achieve that 26G
cockpit strength).

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. 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.

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
om...
C J Campbell wrote:

First of all, I am not interested in running an anti-Cirrus campaign.
Just
because I favor the T182 over the Cirrus and that I think the Cirrus
SR22
has some serious defects, some of you guys seem to think that I want to
run
some kind of holy crusade against Cirrus.

Okay. I don't give Cirrus a blanket endorsement either, but I think
Cessna's going to have their hands full for the forseeable future in the
single-engine airplane market. The Cessna products are still fine for
what they do, but I think the majority of the market will choose Cirrus
for the average private pilot mission.


I think most people don't have much choice. Cessna has shown little
willingness to innovate or even build adequate numbers of the designs they
have. I am flabbergasted, actually, that Cessna managed to install the
G-1000 in several of their planes.

Now, if Cirrus really has managed to get the 4350 hour limitation lifted
then that removes one of my major objections.

Do you honestly still think there's any doubt?


Not really, but I will keep annoying Javier as long as I can.

I think the safety record is
still terrible, but I suspect that is more a function of training and
the
kind of pilots that buy Cirrus than it is of the airplane.

This is a voluminous subject on which I have many opinions, but in a
nutshell
I believe the statistics show it's the training, not the airplane.

I think that is right, but the SR22 seems to be the kind of airplane that
attracts the wrong kind of pilots. Oh, well. Bonanza is, no doubt, glad to
get some competition for the title of doctor killer.

C J Campbell wrote:

How come part of this document is blacked out?

There was a conspiracy, but it was covered up.

Reasonable points about types of materials used in airplane
construction, although I believe the Cirrus will last just as long or
longer than any other airplane out there.

-Ryan
Aluminum airplane owner

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
100,000 hours 10 times that of average,

Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will
be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane?

Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted.

The Boeing 737 is not being sold as easy and safe for low time private
pilots to fly. The Cirrus is.



Which is my biggest gripe about the Cirrus after all. They are selling a
plane that takes a Bonanza like training course to people that would NEVER
say they are ready for a Bo.

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the
spam-cans.

It'll have to be a very long run, considering the spam cans have almost
a 60 year head start.


Jack

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:09:59 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

What happens when an airframe goes beyond the lifetime limit? Is the
airworthiness certificate trash then?

"6079 Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:09:59 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

What happens when an airframe goes beyond the lifetime limit? Is the
airworthiness certificate trash then?

In theory, yes. However, what the FAA has said is that when a significant
number of aircraft approach the lifetime limit then they will inspect the
planes for signs of age and wear and possibly extend the lifetime limit,
with perhaps some limitations and conditions. Of course, you have to take
the FAA's word for this... Anyway, I was told that all new aircraft designs
are having some sort of lifetime limit, usually 12,000 hours, imposed on
them. The Diamonds appear to be an exception; they have no limit directly
mentioned on the TCDS*, so I don't know how accurate that information is.
But that is what I was told. We will see what limitations are placed on the
DA42.

Of course, no one in their right mind trusts the FAA, least of all the FAA's
own personnel. Policies and procedures there change with the wind. It must
be hell to work there.

If nothing is done, the airplane becomes an expensive lawn ornament.

*The TCDS says that the DA40 must comply with the airworthiness limitations
and time limits specified in the maintenance manual. That manual is nearly
2000 pages long, but I could not find any airframe time limit in either
chapters 4 or 5, which cover airworthiness and time limits. There is also no
mention of any airframe time limit in the Flight Manual. Both manuals are
available on Diamond's web site for those who wish to examine them. (I wish
Cessna would do that.) Furthermore, Diamond's representative told me that
the Diamond has no airframe life limit. If I seem suspicious, I have my
reasons.

Ryan,

hey can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU.


Could you explain a little more, please?
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)