Just wait till next quater. Cessna will cream cirrus. The 182T g1000
is a better product than the cirrus 20 is faster in actual flight has much better avionics, more horsepower, studier and much better value. Their support is far better cirrus, I have been waiting 22 month for a replacement fairing.
The g1000 is farsuperior and more integrated than avadyne and entegra.
so watch those figures next quater.
I wishh cirrus good luck for the pioneering but now they are behind.
This all the good for the buyers.
In reply to:
Just wait till next quater. Cessna will cream cirrus. The 182T g1000
is a better product than the cirrus 20 is faster in actual flight has much better avionics, more horsepower, studier and much better value. Their support is far better cirrus, I have been waiting 22 month for a replacement fairing.
The g1000 is farsuperior and more integrated than avadyne and entegra.
That’s quite a few interesting claims. But at well over $300,000, shouldn’t the C-182T be compared to the Cirrus SR22? In this case, the Cirrus is quicker “in actual flight.,” I don’t know about the Garmin MFD/PFD Combo, but from the many posts on the forums, there is some contention to that claim that the Garmin is “better.” Clearly they each have some advantages and I am sure the next versions of both will be even better. In any event, I suspect that the competing companies will be leap-frogging each other for some time. But the bottom line is that there are hundreds of Cirrus SR20/22s DELIVERED with the Avidyne MFD/PFD combo compared to how many Cessnas?
As for sturdiness, how do you quantify that? The Cessna is certified to the very old and outdated CAR 3 standard and the Cirrus to the much newer CAR 23. The Cessna 182 is renown for damage to the firewall. No doubt it is a great plane, but I’m not sure your claims stand up to a lot of close inspection.
In reply to:
… so watch those figures next quater.
Yup, I supsect you are correct. I had heard that there was a big backlog of planes in Q2 waiting for airworthiness certs to be delivered and the backlog will catch up in Q3. But so what? Cirrus started from -0- and is number two. What shame is there in that? sounds like the only shame is to the established manufacturers who have let a start-up fly right by them in terms of sales and inovation.
In reply to:
I wish cirrus good luck for the pioneering but now they are behind.
Behind? They have done a fantastic job. Whether the MFD/PFD is the best or a close second, whether their planes are the fatest or not, whether their sales are #1 or 2 is not the issue. The aircraft they produce are the issue; the inovation and revitalization that they have brought to GA is the issue, and the 1,400 happy customers are the issue.
Enjoy life.
In reply to:
Just wait till next quater. Cessna will cream cirrus. The 182T g1000
is a better product than the cirrus 20 is faster in actual flight has much better avionics, more horsepower, studier and much better value. Their support is far better cirrus, I have been waiting 22 month for a replacement fairing.
The g1000 is farsuperior and more integrated than avadyne and entegra.
so watch those figures next quater.
I wishh cirrus good luck for the pioneering but now they are behind.
This all the good for the buyers.
Yea, and the 182 is so sexy too!! Every time one pulls up on the ramp at my field there are at least 3 or 4 people coming up to the pilot and wanting a look at it.
In reply to:
Just wait till next quater. Cessna will cream cirrus. The 182T g1000
is a better product than the cirrus 20 is faster in actual flight has much better avionics, more horsepower, studier and much better value. Their support is far better cirrus, I have been waiting 22 month for a replacement fairing.
The g1000 is farsuperior and more integrated than avadyne and entegra.
so watch those figures next quater.
I wishh cirrus good luck for the pioneering but now they are behind.
This all the good for the buyers.
Simon,
Where in the world did that come from? It looks like a Cessna sales rep with an inferiority complex snuck into your house and posted that while you were away from your keyboard. [:D] Do you still own a 182? I’m not going to knock the airplane because it’s the best thing to happen to general aviation…in 1956. Seriously, the Cessna singles have an enormous place in aviation history, but if Cessna doesnÂ’t do more than a few cosmetic touchups and new avionics then forward-thinking companies like Cirrus are going to run CessnaÂ’s singles into irrelevance.
Far from being “creamed” by Cessna (past or future), Cirrus has forced them as well as others (Piper, Mooney) to make a half-hearted effort at upgrading a product that has seen relatively little change in 50 years! WhoÂ’s behind? Regarding the G1000; it is more integrated, but I would argue that the jury is still out on whether it is a “superior” system.
Honestly, would you choose an SR20 or a 182 based upon the previous discussion on this thread? For me, the only kind of Cessna I want takes Jet-A. [;)]
I have to put my 2 cents worth in-----The Cessna is like driving my parents old station wagon–It gets me there but it is not very sexy and I can not pick up pretty girls!
I love the SR22 and Avidyne but I do like the Garmin feature that if you have a problem with one you can touch a button and switch to the other screen.
With regard to quality and service I have only had one problem and that was with Skywatch. They pluged in a laptop, looked at the history and I had a new one the next day. Cirrus has always bent over to help with any service issue but I do believe the key is good communications and a service center that cares. If you have a problem just call Cirrus and they will respond.
While in Oskosh I ran into a guy who saw my Cirrus shirt and we started to talk. He then said–you know you gave up 60+ pounds of usefull load and I can put my Cessna down any place if I have to. Who needs that darn parachute? I said–OK but when my wife and partner saw the new Cirrus and the BRS she said-- Why don’t we buy this new airplane. I then looked at him and said-- What are you flying, he just looked at his shoes and said well a 1972 Cessna 172. He then walked off and said looking over his shoulder. Well maybe I will show that brochure to my wife.
This all the good for the buyers.
[/quote]
Ford, chev, Dodge, Piper, Cirrus, Cessna like or not There will always be a fight for Bigger Better Faster. If you like a high wing so much buy one. MHO High wing are ugly and at this point dont have CAPS. And when was the last time you tried to clean a rib metal plane or see the run way on base flying a high wing. When it comes to a safer plane there is no substitution for a Cirrus
I would like to make an intelligent response to this post, but I am laughing so hard that it is tough for me to even see my computer screen!!!
P.S. Had a C182 for 10 years…put 550 hours on it…have had an SR22 for 2.5 years and am approaching 770 hours…figure it out!!
That Cirrus is one of the top two players in single-engine piston GA just 5 years after delivering their first plane is astonishing and speaks volumes of good things about both the company and their products.
That being said, the Cirrus-to-Cessna product comparison is evolving in an interesting way. IMHO the SR22 is in a completely different market niche than the normally aspirated 182T and the comparison is not appropriate. The 182T is 30-35 kt slower and $70-90K less expensive. A G1000-equipped 182T is just under $300K and needs little in the way of extra options. Contrast that to the SR22: base price is $330-340K but most delivered aircraft nudge or exceed $400K.
The SR20 used to compete with the Cessna 172SP. No longer. A NavII 172SP is just north of $200K. Even a 172SP-G1000 will be less than $230K. When last I checked, an SR20 with two GNS430s, leather, STEC55X, Emax and EX5000 was $267K. Max out your options and you’ll part with $302K. The SR20 is now priced out of competition with the 172SP, although the DA40, Archer III and Tiger are closer to it. The fact of the matter is that the SR20 now competes with the 182T, not 172SP. Notice that for every 5 SR22s sold, only 1 SR20 goes out the door. I’m sure this ratio will ever increasingly favor the '22.
I have flown both SR20s and 182T quite a bit recently. In the real world, the 182T is every bit as fast–or faster–than the SR20s I’ve flown, uses much less runway, climbs far more robustly, has much better range, and much better power loading and density altitude performance. Its load carrying ability is significantly better too.
Don’t get me wrong, I certainly love the Cirrus aircraft and admire the company, but for me the SR20 is no longer competitive in value and performance with at least one other similarly priced aircraft (the 182T). Its only remaining advantages are visibility (by a good margin), comfort (by a smaller margin), and of course CAPS (for some customers I realize that CAPS trumps everything else). Cessna will be selling a lot of 182T-G1000 aircraft.
In reply to:
Yea, and the 182 is so sexy too!! Every time one pulls up on the ramp at my field there are at least 3 or 4 people coming up to the pilot and wanting a look at it.
Mmmmm…and don’t get me started on that “full-figured” 206 [:P]. I believe that “Sir-flies-alot” wrote a song about it. [:D]
Kevin,
What would be a great comparison to the 182 is if they ever finish the SR21TDI diesel with 230 HP, now that would be a great comparison. Can’t wait.
Mark Fowler
In reply to:
A G1000-equipped 182T is just under $300K and needs little in the way of extra options. Contrast that to the SR22: base price is $330-340K but most delivered aircraft nudge or exceed $400K.
So compare the 182T to the SR20 then. Price, call it 300K, cruises at 145kts, 80% power, a bit
slower than the SR20 and drinking more fuel. You have the SR20 down at 267k well loaded, somewhat
cheaper than the 182T, a little faster, more economical and with a parachute too. It’s not really
very fair to compare the 302K number because that includes skywatch, and the 182T at 300K
doesn’t. So apples to apples the SR20 is 30K and a few knots ahead. Seems like a good deal to me.
For your extra 30K, more fuel and slightly slower speed you do get more payload, but that’s the
only place the skylane could even remotely be ahead.
In reply to:
The SR20 used to compete with the Cessna 172SP. No longer.
Indeed it doesn’t. The SR20 is much faster, different market segment altogether.
In reply to:
Notice that for every 5 SR22s sold, only 1 SR20 goes out the door. I’m sure this ratio will ever increasingly favor the '22.
So does cirrus. They make more money on the 22s and they push them harder. For many
people buying new planes the extra $$$ aren’t that important and they go for the speed
and the available deice. The SR20s are bought by people who happen to have that mission.
In reply to:
forme the SR20 is no longer competitive in value and performance with at least one other similarly priced aircraft (the 182T). Its only remaining advantages are visibility (by a good margin), comfort (by a smaller margin), and of course CAPS (for some customers I realize that CAPS trumps everything else). Cessna will be selling a lot of 182T-G1000 aircraft.
no - the SR20 is cheaper too, 10% cheaper in fact, for better cruise performance. Plus
it has the other advantages you mention.
Planes are a personal choice, load may be more important to one pilot, or the ability
to go into unimproved strips, and those are the things which sway people one way
or the other. Looking at the actual numbers the 182T and the SR20 are very competetive
with each other in many ways and only those last few factors will determine what each
pilot buys.
I do agree that cirrus has been having a bit of price creep recently. But when you’re
selling 2+ planes a day, I guess you figure you can push it a bit. It’s nice to see
cessna trying to compete, good for us all.
BRS Systems just received FAA Certification for the BRS System (Same manufacturer of Cirrus’ Caps system) to be added to any Cessna 182 model ( New or Old, but no RG). Wondering if Cessna will offer this as an option sometime in the near future? BRS is quoting 4-6 weeks for a position. See attached photo. Price tag of about $ 16,995 and useful load reduction of about 80 lbs.
Superb analysis, Kevin!
I agree, an SR20 airframe with 230-260 hp and a sub-$300K price would be a great package. My 260se’s 260 hp TCM IO-470 ran lean of peak at 10.8-11 gph and that would do quite well for the SR20, even if they didn’t increase the fuel capacity very much. The diesel might be even better.
New avionics doesn’t make an old dog a new puppy. Everyone likes a new puppy!
One early Cirrus SR20 owner sold his 182 to get the Cirrus and have more than ten AD’s on his new 182 with problems in every major system of a 30 year old design. He had several AOG situations as a result of those AD’s.
The induustry was long overdue for new thinking, and new technology. A 1972 style car with a new engine and dash doesn’t sell. Why buy spend more for an airplance and get that old style. Unless you think the Cessna is on par with a classic car like a Corvette or T-Bird.
You have to admit that the avionics in the 182T are FAR more reliable than the Avidyne, so I’d suggest that the Honeywell King folks have a lot more experience with building reliable avionics than Avidyne. My jury is out on whether Garmin will be any better at their first pass at the full panel of integrated avionics than component only production. I’d bet it will be good, with quite a few “updates” to add features.
Another comment, after having 2001 182T purchased new and a 2003 SR22, is the product support from Cessna was much more timely than Cirrus. Maybe that’s just a matter of being a more mature organization with more planes in the field.
The Lincoln Park Aviation Service Center folks have worked on both my Cessna and my Cirrus, since they have two centers. So I’m very pleased with the LPA support, but I wonder what my experience would have been without such a dedicated bunch of folks having access to two manufactures.
If Cessna can do whatever is necessary and get their speed closer to the SR22, I’m not sure I would not be very tempted to go back to the Cessna service and support network, plus the Garmin panel —but for now, that’s not in the market, yet.
Finally, except for the parachute, I’d much rather face a forced landing at 65 nm/hr in a 182, than a 75-80 nm/hr landing in my SR22 - BUT, we do have the parachute!
exactly…
I WONDER why they are all of a sudden offering new options to a 50 year old plane…nothing like competition to make a company better itself…
hello, My brother recently purchased a 182 T with the garmins . He and his son flew our SR22 to vgt then got a commericial flight to end up at factory at cessna. They took a couple of days ground training on the garmin But because the insurance would not let cessna pilots fly they left and returned to vgt with the 182T On the way back the had a alarm salying the back up battery was loosing volts So in alburgue they had the cessna dealer look at it . but as you know being new they wern t able to diog the problem. the weather was bad that afternoon. they took off next morning for vgt. on thisd leg the same alarm came on at vgt they left the 182 at the dealer and returned to l45 in the cirrus . not without problems just a reminder we dont know if the garmins or 182 may have a few bugs to work out also!
I do not think I agree. Again, you are talking apples and oranges. The 182 uses King radios but they aare only for COM/NAV and GPS. The Garmins are just as reliable, are more user friendly (particulary the GPS) and are no more prone to failure than the Kings.
The MFD by Avidyne does not have a King/Bendix equivalent, is much larger, but is a computer so it is prone to have software problems. Same holds for the PFD.
The Garmin G1000 has no track record established yet. It is too new.
In reply to:
You have to admit that the avionics in the 182T are FAR more reliable than the Avidyne, so I’d suggest that the Honeywell King folks have a lot more experience with building reliable avionics than Avidyne. My jury is out on whether Garmin will be any better at their first pass at the full panel of integrated avionics than component only production. I’d bet it will be good, with quite a few “updates” to add features.
Charles,
I would certainly admit that the Honeywell/Bendix King team has more experience than Avidyne making avionics. They have been in business far longer. However, I don’t have enough experience with the former to comment on reliability. Personally, I have never had a problem with my MFD, although I know there are some guys out there that have. The package I am keeping my eye on right now is http://Honewell’s APEX integrated avionics system. If Honeywell poured their brainpower from the development of their Primus Epic line into APEX then I think that it will be a very competitive setup—but this is getting off of the subject.
In reply to:
Another comment, after having 2001 182T purchased new and a 2003 SR22, is the product support from Cessna was much more timely than Cirrus. Maybe that’s just a matter of being a more mature organization with more planes in the field.
In the 2+ years that I have had direct contact with Cirrus, I have seen a tremendous improvement in customer service and product support. I fully expect that this trend will continue and agree with you that organizational maturity, which Cessna (founded decades before Alan and Dale were even born) has had over 70 years to develop, has a lot to do with it.
In reply to:
If Cessna can do whatever is necessary and get their speed closer to the SR22, I’m not sure I would not be very tempted to go back to the Cessna service and support network, plus the Garmin panel —but for now, that’s not in the market, yet.
Remember that my comments were a response to a post by Simon saying among other things, “I wishh cirrus good luck for the pioneering but now they are behind.” All I am saying is that Cirrus is still pioneering, and Cessna is behind with their single-engine line. Their innovation with the Citation line is extraordinary, but the profit margins are immensely higher as well, which is why I think it is unlikely that Cessna will field competitive alternatives to the SR2X anytime soon.
In reply to:
Finally, except for the parachute, I’d much rather face a forced landing at 65 nm/hr in a 182, than a 75-80 nm/hr landing in my SR22 - BUT, we do have the parachute!
Yes, we have the parachute, and frankly, it would not be too hard to touch down at 65 knots with full flaps in an emergency landing.