Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:uh%Kc.123635$IQ4.113575@attbi_s02...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message

good review snipped

I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.



I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
reasons for your statement?

The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus
will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time
now,
but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes.

Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite
make
TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the
money
on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

Actually, I misspoke. The TBO on the Cirrus is only 1700 hours, not 2000
hours as on the T182. Even if the engine makes TBO both times, at 3400 hours
you are left with the choice of overhauling an engine for an airframe that
has only 950 hours left on it, or just throwing the whole airplane away. So
it is even worse than I thought.

"C J Campbell" writes:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:uh%Kc.123635$IQ4.113575@attbi_s02...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message

good review snipped

I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.



I have a TR-182, and I'm looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key
reasons for your statement?

The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus
will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time
now,
but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes.

Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite
make
TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the
money
on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

Actually, I misspoke. The TBO on the Cirrus is only 1700 hours, not 2000
hours as on the T182. Even if the engine makes TBO both times, at 3400 hours
you are left with the choice of overhauling an engine for an airframe that
has only 950 hours left on it, or just throwing the whole airplane away. So
it is even worse than I thought.

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.

So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?

-jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated).

"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated).

No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO.

http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF

The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom.

Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating
inaccurate data to make a point is not right.

-jav

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

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated).

No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO.

http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF

The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom.

Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating
inaccurate data to make a point is not right.

Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one model
of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700?

"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

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

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally aspirated).

No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO.

http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF

The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom.

Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating
inaccurate data to make a point is not right.

Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one model
of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700?

Oh, good grief.

I'm saying that the engine in the SR22, which is the IO-550N, has
a TBO of 2000 hours.

-jav

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

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

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

Nope...CJ was right, it's 1700 hours (TCM IO-550...normally
aspirated).

No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO.

http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF

The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom.

Again, I don't own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating
inaccurate data to make a point is not right.

Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one
model
of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700?

Oh, good grief.

I'm saying that the engine in the SR22, which is the IO-550N, has
a TBO of 2000 hours.

"Good grief" is right. You stated "stating inaccurate data to make a point
_is not right._" (emphasis mine) -- just what implication are we to make
from that statement?

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.


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.

So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?


Right where I started. I didn't like the plane when I thought the TBO was
2000 hours.

-jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

"C J Campbell" writes:

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

You are ignoring facts, however.

You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss
this topic with you.

-jav

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

You are ignoring facts, however.

Which "facts" are those?

You may also have the last word, clearly one can't reasonably discuss
this topic with you.

Seems your pouting while failing to answer the question posed indicated
YOU'RE the one who can't _rationaly_ discuss the topic.