If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Different versions of that document have been circulating for a while. It's
a mishmash of (true) facts, opinion, apples vs. oranges comparisons, and outright errors. I hope that for his sake, a prospective owner doesn't use that document to make a purchase decision. There are missions for which the T182T is the superior aircraft. There are other missions for which the SR22 is the best conveyance. It's all about the mission. The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF. The FAA has recently modified the type certificate for the SR22, giving it an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. At the time the comparison was written, the lower figure was correct. I'll only beat the dead horse one more time by saying about spins: If you are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in the pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus. 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 a former Skylane owner, and I think they are fine airplanes. For my mission, an SR22 is the best choice, but I'm not going to badmouth other airplanes because I think mine is the best. -Mike "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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:39:51 -0500, "Mike Murdock"
wrote: snipped.... I'll only beat the dead horse one more time by saying about spins: If you are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final in the pattern, please don't buy a Cirrus. snipped... The vast majority of those that are prone to spinning airplanes during the turn from base to final already have their own permanent wings. They don't need a Cirrus Rich Russell |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Murdock" wrote in message ... Different versions of that document have been circulating for a while. It's a mishmash of (true) facts, opinion, apples vs. oranges comparisons, and outright errors. I hope that for his sake, a prospective owner doesn't use that document to make a purchase decision. Why? Are you a Cirrus dealer? Or are you trying to unload one of these white elephants? There are missions for which the T182T is the superior aircraft. There are other missions for which the SR22 is the best conveyance. It's all about the mission. If the mission is to kill yourself, yes, the Cirrus SR22 is superior. The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF. Even if it is, no one is going to overhaul an engine for an airframe that has only a few hundred hours left. The FAA has recently modified the type certificate for the SR22, giving it an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. At the time the comparison was written, the lower figure was correct. Who says? The modified type certificate has not been posted by the FAA. It has not been modified in the last 45 days, and the TCDS on the FAA website still gives an airframe life limit of 4350 hours. The latest type data certificate is Rev. 6, dated March 1, 2004. The airframe life limit is still 4350 flight hours according to that certificate. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...e?OpenFrameSet http://makeashorterlink.com/?K27F158D8 I think that the document is a fair comparison. It contains fewer inaccuracies than most of the baloney claimed by Cirrus fans. Sorry it disappoints you, but pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a thing. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF. It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at 1700. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF. It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at 1700. Please watch what you are snipping -- you make it look like I said something that I did not. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
As far as I know, the IO-550-N has always had a TBO of 2,000 hours. Other
IO-550 models, like the IO-550-F, still have a 1,700 hour TBO. That tricky suffix means a lot. Two IO-550's with different suffixes could have different cases, cylinders, etc. TCM's numbering scheme leaves a lot to be desired. -Mike "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF. It's changed in the past ten years...the IO-550 in the F33A is TBO'd at 1700. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... ... I hope that for his sake, a prospective owner doesn't use that document to make a purchase decision. Why? Are you a Cirrus dealer? Or are you trying to unload one of these white elephants? Just a happy airplane owner. The airplane I own just happens to be a Cirrus. I don't like to see potential airplane owners misled by misinformation propagated by those with an agenda. I have two flying buddies who bought new or nearly new airplanes -- they fly a 182T and a Bonanza. They're happy with their choices, and I'm happy for them. We frequently swap rides to service centers, and I'd do anything I could to help them out. While their airplane choices are different from mine, and I could think of some disadvantages to the airplanes they own, I don't feel compelled to run them down. Chacon a son gout. There are missions for which the T182T is the superior aircraft. There are other missions for which the SR22 is the best conveyance. It's all about the mission. If the mission is to kill yourself, yes, the Cirrus SR22 is superior. I guess I've failed in that mission, LOL. I got my first SR22 when I had 200 hours total time (100 in C-172s, 100 in C-182s) and then ink was still wet on my instrument rating. Since then I've traded in muy first SR22 for a PFD-equipped model, flown 900 accident-free hours in SR22s, and never had to cancel a flight because of mechnical problems. To say I'm delighted with the airplane would be an understatement. The TBO for the Continental IO-550-N used in the SR22 is 2000 hours, not 1700 hours. See http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF. Even if it is, no one is going to overhaul an engine for an airframe that has only a few hundred hours left. I'll guess I'll worry about that when I have 11,700 hours on my airframe. The FAA has recently modified the type certificate for the SR22, giving it an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours. At the time the comparison was written, the lower figure was correct. Who says? The modified type certificate has not been posted by the FAA. It has not been modified in the last 45 days, and the TCDS on the FAA website still gives an airframe life limit of 4350 hours. The latest type data certificate is Rev. 6, dated March 1, 2004. The airframe life limit is still 4350 flight hours according to that certificate. Apparently, the FAA has not yet updated the TCDS on their web site. In a letter dated July 8, 2004, Angie Kostopoulos of the FAA Small Airplane Directorate, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, said: "The transmittal of this letter conveys our approval of the SR22 aircraft life extension to 12,000 hours." Unfortunately, I do not have a generally accessible link to this letter, but you could verify it by calling Ms. Kostopoulos at 847-294-7426. Wait, my crystal ball is telling me what your reply will be: It doesn't matter, the airframe life limit is still too short. If it doesn't matter, why did you bring up the issue of 4,350 vs. 12,000 hours? My apologies if this rejoinder never crossed your mind. I think that the document is a fair comparison. A few parts of the document contain fair comparisons. For example, the greater prop clearance of the 182 makes it more suitable for rough fields. Other parts of the document, like the ones that compare the performance of a normally aspirated airplane with that of a turbocharged plane at higher altitudes, are not fair. Different missions. The document also omits some comparisons. For example, turbocharger overhaul cost: SR22, $0, T182T, $thousands. It contains fewer inaccuracies than most of the baloney claimed by Cirrus fans. Sorry it disappoints you, but pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a thing. I'm not disappointed. The original document upon which this one is based originated from a Cessna dealer, not the Cessna Corporation. Far from being disappinted, it's just what I'd expect from a dealer who is losing a lot of sales to a competitor. I agree that pointing out minor inaccuracies does not change a thing. It's the major inaccuracies that taint the entire document. -Mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
C,
Why? Are you a Cirrus dealer? Well, the author of those documents is a Cessna dealer, that's for sure. Look at the other docs on the site. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed. | Dennis | Owning | 170 | May 19th 04 04:44 PM |
Cirrus Airframe Life Limits | Dave | Owning | 16 | April 27th 04 05:58 PM |
New Cirrus SR22 Lead Time | Lenny Sawyer | Owning | 4 | March 6th 04 09:22 AM |
Fractional Ownership - Cirrus SR22 | Rich Raine | Owning | 3 | December 24th 03 05:36 AM |
Cirrus vs Mooney | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 6 | July 8th 03 11:35 PM |