I like Flying. It focuses a bit too much on high end airplanes for my taste, but I find the quality of its writing and the professionalism of its layout and graphics to be far superior to any other aviation magazine.
Other magazines often have typos and other editorial annoyances like pictures that are poorly placed and captioned making it hard to relate them to the articles they illustrate.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
I enjoy Flying, but it is a bit high brow. Dick Collins is definitely a flying snob, who has had it out for the parachute since its inception. I understand he took an SR22 for a ride recently and an article will appear shortly in Flying. Let’s see what he has to say about it in comparrison to the T182.
Based upon my memory of the T182 article, here is how the two planes should stack-up:
Rate of Climb: SR22
Payload w/FF SR22
Your Father’s airplane: T182
Not your Father’s airplane: SR22
Ease/reliability of maintenance: 182 (service centers all over)
Altitude: 182 (I think)
Fuel Consumption: SR22
Sex appeal: SR22
Final score: SR22 9, C-T182 4! No contest, & we didn’t even disucss the parachute!
There is one more factor: Which airplane does Paul Traina Fly? The SR22 of course!
Anyone who gets “Flying” mag. check out the July issue page 81. I picked this up at a news stand and it just confirmed why I don’t subscribe to it. They have a pict. of the O2 system and in this pict. it clearly shows the O2 meter was mounted upside-down!
Seems “Flying”'s love afair with anyone that advertises in thier mag. back fired here. They where so blinded to the truth of looking at rehashed 30 year old spam-can technology, they didn’t even bother checking there own photos, making Cessna look as bad as they are!.