"Charles Oppermann" wrote in message ...
Both are highly desirable airplanes, of course, but I was surprised at how closely I rated them as a potential buyer:

* Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed 135 for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for
an airframe that has supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.

But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can do. The Cirrus has a composite body that is
lighter and much more aerodynamic with less drag.

Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in with fuel burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour
trip, a 2 hour trip and a 4 hour trip. Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn goes up 50% - I'm not saying
that the Cirrus does that, just that you should take the true airspeed value as a factor in other performance figures.

I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo). The C182T (non-turbo) should do 2-3 knots better
under same conditions.



So what are the fuel economy numbers for the 182 vs. Cirrus? Anticipate $5.00 gallon gas cost in the next 10 years...