I am currently the proud owner of an '85 Skylane. Like probably most people here I am contemplating purchasing an SR22. My first move was to join this forum which has been very informative. I spent last Thursday on a great factory tour and demo ride with Gary Black of CD. Very impressive. I am seeking feedback from pre-Skylane owners on their decisions to purchase an SR22, what made your decision and what has been you experience so far…good or not so good. I already have a Garmin stack and Stec AP so I am familar with those attributes. Thanks in advance for you help.
In reply to:
I am seeking feedback from pre-Skylane owners on their decisions to purchase an SR22, what made your decision and what has been you experience so far…good or not so good.
Gary,
I was an owner of a Skylane RG before buying my SR20 (not sure whether yours is an RG or not).
To be sure, the Skylane is a very good airplane - relatively roomy and comfortable, fast, reasonable range and payload.
But, for me, the Cirrus was a breed apart. Now, almost 20 months into my ownership experience, it’s still a breed apart, and I’ve never looked back on my decision, with the exceptions noted below:
-
Ramp “presence” - my SR20 still draws “lookenpeepers” wherever I go. That never happened with my 182.
-
On board comfort, visibility - better in my SR20, by far.
-
Reliability – my experience has been excellent; I’ve had zero trips canceled for mechanicals in 630 hours of operation. I have had two delayed departures. My 182 had a much closer relationship with Murphy than my SR20.
-
Support - I really never had any need of Cessna support per se when I owned my 182; but then I didn’t have anything that was under warranty. Cirrus’ support as been top notch, with only an occasional glitch.
-
Speed, economy – speed was close to on par, but the SR20 is much more economical. But the 182 had a bigger engine. Not sure how this part of the equation would work out against an SR22 – speed will go to the '22 for sure, but not sure if the relative economy (MPG) is in favor of the '22 or the 182.
-
Simplicity - All for the Cirrus, because of the combined throttle/prop control, no cowl flaps, no gear, and other factors that make life easier for me (like checklists on the MFD).
-
The major areas where I felt I had an easier time with my 182 are payload (always a challenge for me, but was less so in my 182), and engine temperature/performance management in hot/high operations. I plan to solve these by moving to an SR22.
Additional benefits you could look forward to if you’re buying a new '22 include optional TKS de-ice/anti-ice, very nice Avidyne MFD and optional PFD (which is to DIE for IMHO), a very nice engine management package that is not yet available but is apparently imminent, optional SkyWatch TCAD, and optional satellite wx downlink (also not yet available). If you get all of that (I am!) then you’ve truly left the 182 so far behind as to make further comparisons meaningless. But you’re also spending the money for it.
No doubt if you use the SEARCH function you can find lots of previous discussion on these topics.
Mike.
Having flown Cirri and 182s, here’s my take:
Speed: SR22 by 25-30 kt over the 182RG and by 40-45 kt over a stock 182, at max cruise.
Miles-per-gallon: SR22 and 182 are both about 11 nmpg at max cruise. SR22 can do better if you run LOP: up to ~14 nmpg (165 KTAS @12 gph). But let’s get real here. I have always been wryly amused by folks who lay down $250+K for a new plane and then fuss about a few mpg here or there.
Runway required: The SR22 uses a bit more for takeoff, and its final approach speed is 10-15 kt higher so it uses substantially more for landing. Still, there are at least 6-7 Cirri based here at PAO with its <2500 foot runway, and no one seems to have any trouble.
Rate of climb: SR22 hands-down. However a 182 with a 280-300 hp conversion will compete with it handily.
Full-fuel payload: 182RG is best at 700+ lb, SR22 and 182 are about the same, in the low-mid-600 lb area.
CG envelope: the 182 envelope is cavernous and it’s nearly impossible to exceed the limits unless you’re hauling osmium ingots in baggage. The SR22 envelope is quite good. On the other hand when I flew the SR20, I had to repeatedly pay close attention to where I seated passengers and how much fuel I was carrying. It quickly got to be really tiresome, but then I often flew with full seats and that’s not the SR20’s intended mission.
Comfort: the Cirrus is significantly better in front, but a 182 is more comfy in back, especially regarding leg room. This is subjective and I anticipate howls of outrage, but that’s the majority opinion from passengers (not just from me) that I have flown in both. In hot weather the Cirrus is a greenhouse while the 182 has that high wing. Of course, you can open windows in the 182 and doors in the Cirrus if needed.
Visibility: Cirrus in a walk.
Ramp appeal: Cirrus in a walk.
CAPS: Cirrus 1, skylane 0
Panel/avionics: Mike has said it well. One can equip a 182 with all of that stuff if one’s checkbook is fat enough, though. But why?
Reliability: The new Cessnas have numerous ADs and an SB list that rivals the thickness of a Russian novel. Like other new aircraft, they have a warranty, but it’s guaranteed buyers will use it! Stay away, IMHO.
If you are picky and choose a good airframe in a late '70s or early '80s 182, reliability should be excellent. In 430+ hr in a '74 and ‘78 airframe, I had only two cancelled trips. In the most recent 250 hr, no cancelled trips.
Despite the seemingly numerous reports of Cirrus squawks on this forum, I think most owners’ experiences are good ones like Mike’s.
No way would I choose a stock Skylane over an SR22. But there is this one skylane mod…oops, don’t get me started! 
Leo,
Not sure what I can add to the other two posts. I owned a 182P for almost 9 years, and while I enjoyed the heck out of it, I now truly have a traveling machine. I now think nothing of hoping into my SR22 and taking a business trip anywhere from Denver east. I had contemplated taking my Skylane to Dallas once (from York, PA) but finally decided that it was just not worth the fatigue. On the other hand, I have been known to take my SR22 to Chicago early in the morning for an all day meeting, then hop back in and head to Dallas in the evening.
I think that the only area where the 182 comes out ahead is in short field takeoffs and landings. While I have been able to land my 22 in less than 1000 feet, I do it behind the power curve and it is just not the place that I like to be on final. Otherwise there is just NO comparison that works for the 182.
BTW, I have had my SR22 since last December and I have over 300 hours on it so far. That might tell you how much that I have enjoyed this spectacular aircraft.
Good Luck!
Paul
N925PW
I’ve owned a '73 Skylane since 1987 and I got the SR-22 in May. I agree with all of what’s been said here, but I’ll add my short list of salient differences.
The most significant operational difference is landing distance, and I agonized over this before deciding on the SR-22. What I found is that being a bush pilot is more in my head than in the places I fly. Almost all sea level strips are at least 2300 ft, and the higher elevation ones are almost all much longer. So it really is not much of a practical limitation. I think the SR-22 does have a greater tendency to suck rocks into the prop, and I consider it a pavement-only airplane.
The only other things I miss about the Skylane are the large flat floor and the openable windows. I spent many comfortable nights sleeping in the back of the Skylane (with the back seat out) and took many sharp aerial photos through the open window.
Two plusses for the Cirrus that were not yet mentioned: It is more comfortable in turbulence due to the higher wing loading, and I, at least, find it easier to fly. The controls are much less ponderous and gusting cross wind landings are a non-event compared with some of the frightening dances I regularly did the the Cessna.
Time will tell how the Cirrus airframe holds up, but I am looking forward to fewer rain leaks, skin cracks, inaccessible damaged nut plates, etc. I hope I’m right.
–Frank
I agree with what I’ve read. I think the SR22 is far ahead of the 182. I owned a 1999 182S and had to cancel several trips in an 18 month period due to reliability. After about 400 hours I think the 182 finally started to be reliable. When I wanted to upgrade the panel I decided to buy an SR22. I love the SR22 and am looking forward to flying it more.
I did have a great shop for the 182 and I will use them for the SR22 maintenance. What this shop fixed stayed fixed plus they were great to work with.
I’ve flown the SR20 and really enjoyed it. However I often wanted more payload. Also the “older” SR20s need careful temperature management in hot weather in my experience. The SR22 does not seem to care too much about the temperature.
Well as a 182rg flyer I would have to say I perfer the cirus. Why? The performance of the cirrus and speed are major factors. The skylane is a bus and the cirrus is a sports car. Just be careful on the flare to land a tail strike on the cirrus can happen easily…
I owned a '97 C-182S for about four months before I got my SR22. I got my instrument rating in the 182 and did quite a few cross countries in it, with about 100 hours of flight time. I enjoyed flying my 182, and I think they are marvelous airplanes. However, they are not in the same class as SR22s.
I’ve had my SR22 for 15 months now, and I still love it. Any problems I’ve had have been minor, and it performs as advertised or better in every respect.
My reasons for getting a Cirrus:
-
I wanted a new airplane. Buying new is expensive, but it solves a lot of the problems with buying used.
-
The speed.
-
The avionics.
-
The parachute made it an easy sell to my spouse.
-
The speed.
The only advantage the 182 has is more headroom in the front, with seat height adjustment independent of position on the tracks.
I’ve flown in the back of both airplanes, and I think the Cirrus back seat is far more comfortable and roomy than the 182 back seat. All of my passengers agree.
Here is a post about the ten Cirrus features I love:
/forums/t/31011.aspx?View=Threaded
-Mike
I’m a big fan of Cirrus and applaud its remarkable progress. Big fan of this site, too. Nevertheless I have decided to buy a new turbo 182 over the SR22.
Reasons:
-
Time in (almost) t ype, which is an underrated safety factor. Within the last 12 months I got my private and instrument tickets in the 172SP. I have put almost 300 hours in that plane, and have crossed the U.S. twice in it. My eyes and hands are used to the Cessna panel.
-
Better ability to get from California to east of the Rockies. The turbo 182 can climb at full power to 20,000 feet. It has built-in oxygen.
-
It goes 160 TAS at 12,000 feet and 170 TAS in the mid-teens.
-
It has built-in oxygen.
-
The avionics aren’t as dazzling, but are fine enough, and I’m used to it: KLN94, 550 MFD, terrain, WX, TCAD.
-
I’ve had no squawks in the 172SP in 212 hours other than a burned out AP servo at 75 hours.
-
Believe it or not, I prefer the Cessna’s chair-like seats and the 3-way articulation to the Cirrus seats, which are too hard on my bony butt.
-
If I am ever stupid enough to bumble into ice, I’d rather be in a turbocharged Cessna than an SR22. The laminar flow wing loses it too quickly.
-
Do I trust a Lyc. turbocharged engine? Yes if it is derated to 235 hp, which is the case for the turbo 182.
-
In all, I believe the SR22 is a better airplane when the chips are up. When the chips are down, I’ll take the known 182.
Bonus points: Cirrus is doing so well it has forced Cessna to offer incredible financing: zero percent for first year, prime plus quarter thereafter. I have no down payment since I am upgrading from the 172SP.
In reply to:
a very nice engine management package that is not yet available but is apparently imminent,
I have been told by Michaelle at CD that new planes have been delivered with EMax
In reply to:
Two plusses for the Cirrus that were not yet mentioned: It is more comfortable in turbulence due to the higher wing loading, and I, at least, find it easier to fly. The controls are much less ponderous and gusting cross wind landings are a non-event compared with some of the frightening dances I regularly did the the Cessna.
Completely agree! I was going to submit these observations, also. I had 50 hrs in a 182 before the SR22, so I felt that my experiences might have been isolated and subject to my relative inexperience in the 182. You’re not alone in feeling the SR22 is easier to fly.
One other thing, at LOP, I plan 13 gph at 175kts. In the 182 I used to plan 13gph at 135kts. 40 extra knots on the same fuel burn! The 182 had a small advantage in useful load.
Paul
I’ve never been “careful in the flare;” I’ve just landed the airplane a zillion times over about 350 hours and I’ve never had a tail strike, and nobody I know has ever had a tail strike.
They’ve happened, but you have to be badly manhandling the airplane to achieve it. As far as I can tell, the only way to pull this off is to come in too fast (fly the numbers in the POH, they work, really, honest) and then yank too hard on the yoke to try to make the runway disappear like it does in a Cessna.
If you fly the book approach speeds, it’s much harder to get the nose that high (unless you’ve left the power in) and in any case you’d have to really be hauling back on the yoke.
This is what the training is for. It’s really not that tough.
(FWIW I’ve seen a couple of nasty tail strikes in badly botched Cessna landings. Love that shower of sparks.)
In reply to:
Just be careful on the flare to land a tail strike on the cirrus can happen easily…
That just isn’t true. If it were easy to do, I would have done it by now.
Fwiw, the 2000 Cessna 182 that I rented last year and flew 50 hours in, had a tail strike that kept it grounded for a couple of weeks, but that doesn’t mean that it’s “easy” to do.
Paul
Sounds like you’ve made a well-reasoned decision.
I’ve heard rumors that Cessna has been giving discounts up to 40% on new airplanes, so you might want to negotiate hard.
Happy flying!
-Mike
Good Post.
One comment though:
In reply to:
When the chips are down, I’ll take the known 182.
When the chips are REALLY down, I’ll take CAPS.
Paul
If you don’t mind, I had a few questions for you about your T182T:
[1] Whats the full fuel useful load?
[2] What cruise speed would you get at a non-oxygen altitude, like 10000 ft
(since use of oxygen for pilot and passengers isn’t too convenient in a
non-pressurized airplane)? Say at 75% power?
[3] What does a fully configured T182T (with Stormscope, traffic…) cost?
thanks
M Nagy
I appreciated your contribution here, but would u please elaborate on how much the turbo 182 uses for fuel per hour, thanks
In reply to:
In reply to:
When the chips are down, I’ll take the known 182.
When the chips are REALLY down, I’ll take CAPS.
182LK - I agree with Paul - excellent post, well reasoned, refreshing to read.
Paul,
This is the nub of the debate.
It depends what brought the chips down… if icing, or perhaps an overloaded airplane, the 182 may do better (I have the impression that it’s tolerance for “extending the envelope” illegally might be better, although I have no evidence to suggest that it’s true). It seems very clear to me that a 182 would handle an inadvertent icing encounter better than a non-TKS-equipped SR22.
On the other hand… if the nature of the chips being down has anything to do with a mid-air collision, or pilot incapacitation, CAPS is the chip-catcher of choice.
Then there are the gray areas… structural failure, etc., where the debate swings rapidly to which type is most likely to suffer the problem in the first place… those debates really will never end. One of the more insidious factors is the type of pilot likely to be flying one type vs. the other to begin with - not often discussed, but a significant factor, because it governs how, why, where and when the airplanes are likely to be flown.
One other comment made by 182LK strikes a chord for me – built-in O2. That would be really attractive to me, too.
Mike.
I won’t pick up the turbo 182 until November. The following specs are from memory. Now, with those caveats . . .
[1] Whats the full fuel useful load?
Not great. Oxygen and turbocharging cost weight. About 540 pounds. Plane carries 88 gallons of useable fuel, so there is some flexibility.
[2] What cruise speed would you get at a non-oxygen altitude, like 10000 ft
(since use of oxygen for pilot and passengers isn’t too convenient in a
non-pressurized airplane)? Say at 75% power?
Mid 150s is what I hear. Ah, convenience. Ever cross Utah and Nevada in the summer? I’ll take O2 and 16,000 over 10,000 any day. As for 75%, remember that a 540 Lyc. turbo can turn 350hp, not that I’d care to bet my life on the crankshaft doing such work. But the turbo 182 is derated down to 235hp. That means cruising near the redline at 88% is actually more like 65% of the engine’s capability. The turbo 182 maxes at 2400 rpm.
[3] What does a fully configured T182T (with Stormscope, traffic…) cost?
About $330K. But with Cessna’s low financing, payments would be around the same as for the SR22.
The SR22 is a fine Lexus or BMW sedan. It has ramp appeal, and all the rest. The turbo 182 is a Range Rover, only uglier. So it comes down to mission, really. Most have, and will, vote for the splendid SR22. But I want to cross the mountainous West while minimizing thermal bumps. I also want the slower stall speed and panel familiarity for those times when I blunder into something. When I’m sweating bricks I like the shade of a high wing.
Sounds like you’ve made a wonderful choice given your mission, needs and taste. Wish you the best of luck.
Marty