Switching from 182 to SR22

Guest Discussion
#1

Thinking about a switch from my 1972 182 to an SR22. I have a beautiful 182. but before I spend a bundel on 530, Stec 55x and other stuff, I am thinking about selling it and buying a 2001 or 2002 SR22 for around 250K. I have also discussed buying 1/2 interest in a 2004 SR22 G2 from a pilot in the hangar next to me. I will most likly join COPA to learn as much as I can about these very interesting planes. I have never flown one, but am taking the G2 owner over to pick his up from the service center in my 182. He has offered to take me up flying upon our return. He grinned and said once I flew his G2, I could never be satisfied with my 182 again. Well, I want a bit more speed and updated technology. Hand flying my 182 for 3 hours is a chore so I either need to update my plane or replace it. Plus, I plan on getting my IFR ticket with PIC and am waiting until I have a GPS plane before I begin my training. I would like to hear from some of you SR22 owners concerning my possible switch. I do wonder about having the wings under me as I really like the down view from a high wing.

crpaulk

#2

…once you fly it - you will want to buy one. The 182 is a excellent plane, but it is as far from an SR22 as it is from a 152. I compared the Cirrus with my former 310 - the Cirrus won hands down and the 310 already had an upgraded cockpit with a 530. We would be interested in hearing what you think after you fly it.

#3

This comparison has been discussed before on the “guest” forum and can be seen by clicking here

It has also discussed on the “members” side of the forum

#4

In reply to:

Thinking about a switch from my 1972 182 to an SR22. I have a beautiful 182.

Great choice. I think you will be amazed. After your first flight, when the feeling is still fresh, post here and let us know what you think. [;)]

In reply to:

… but before I spend a bundel on 530, Stec 55x and other stuff, I am thinking about selling it and buying a 2001 or 2002 SR22 for around 250K.

As an owner of a 2001 '22, I would love it to be worth $250K, but in the interest of honesty, my guess is that you could save $25K and probably up to $50K.

In reply to:

I do wonder about having the wings under me as I really like the down view from a high wing.

I owned a Cessna for 10 years before buying my Cirrus. The wings are the easiest part. you never have to worry about hitting your noggin and ending up with those nice diamond shaped lines in your forehead! You also don’t need a ladder to fuel, but you give up the ease of tying down, sumping and a nice dry place to stand in the rain. One thing many don’t realize is that in the Cirrus the pilot sits relatively far forward, compared to most low wing airplanes, and the view down is actually quite good.

The big issue as some Cessna drivers have found out is the difference in landing “sight” pictures. Due to the exceptional visibility, it ‘feels’ as if you are very nose down on final. I recommend that before you try, you sit in the plane at the end of the runway and get use to that view - then realize that in the flare, you’re nose is only slightly higher.

Welcome aboard.[:)]

#5

When you join COPA, read this thread.

Also, I can’t resist, have you considered one of these?

#6

CR—it will be like a puppy----once you fly in ti you will want one. A truely awesome plane------you don’t become the best selling GA single 4 years straight without having something going for you! Buy into it and have a ball going fast and enjoying the people of COPA!

#7

What is your e-mail address???

jmicek@cox.net

#8

Having flown both I can tell u the 182 is no comparison to the 22. Id compare the 182 to the 20 and the 210 to the 22. U wont miss the high wings, unless its raining out or super sunny and u need the cover/shade. Otherwise the performance, handling, and ease of navigation with all the fun panel stuff really puts the Cirrus in another class. I currently own the Cessna(s) and as soon as practical will switch to a Cirrus as well…

#9

After further reflection, I’d like to add the following. I have about 800 hr in 182’s of various types, including 600+ hr in the Peterson 260se/stol modified version, and about 150 hr in Cirri, evenly divided between 20 and 22.

If what you want is a fast, efficient traveling airplane and don’t envision much in the way of short- or off-field work, the SR22 wins hands-down. Passengers love it; it’s not only a “pilot’s airplane,” it’s also a “passenger’s airplane.” It also has the airframe parachute which the 182 does not, although it can be retrofitted. For some non-pilot spouses/companions, CAPS is a make-or-break issue: I know some spouses who simply would not fly unless it were in the “plane with the parachute.”

If short-field or unimproved-field operations or a combination of these with high density altitudes are likely to be on your menu frequently, then I would give the 182 serious consideration, with its high wing and greater prop clearance. Of course, you could always rent a 182 for those flights.

The 182T and 260se will cruise at speeds similar to the SR20 but with about 30% greater fuel burn. Running lean of peak (LOP), 260se’s are nearly as efficient as an SR22 but of course slower: ~140-145 vs. ~170 for the '22.

The older 182s (not the post-1997 models) are full-fuel full-seats airplanes. The SR22 is not, although it has a respectable payload. If long range flights with full seats & baggage are your usual mission, you may want to look at range vs. payload profiles and decide whether the SR22 will work for you. For most people, the 22’s 570-600 lb full-fuel payload and 80 gallons of fuel work just fine, especially in LOP operation.

The '22 is a terrific plane and you won’t be disappointed if you choose it!

#10

Cirrus planes are not good planes . . .
to camp under. I keep hitting my head when I sleep under the wing.
So if you are going camping, buy a Cessna.
For flying . . . why pay the same price and go 30-40 kts slower w/o a parachute option built in.

#11

Yes,

the Cirrus is Addictive. My non pilot friend that gave me grief for buying new progressively find flying with me in the Cirrus to be addictive.

My brother, recently flew w/ me down to San Diego as his first GA flight. He loves telling me about his at work water cooler conversations about his Cirrus flight and how positive the comments are.

#12

In reply to:

The older 182s (not the post-1997 models) are full-fuel full-seats airplanes. The SR22 is not, although it has a respectable payload. If long range flights with full seats & baggage are your usual mission, you may want to look at range vs. payload profiles and decide whether the SR22 will work for you. For most people, the 22’s 570-600 lb full-fuel payload and 80 gallons of fuel work just fine, especially in LOP operation. The '22 is a terrific plane and you won’t be disappointed if you choose it!

Kevin: Very good points, it’s all about mission.

However, as a point of order, my SR22 has a UL of 664 with full fuel. Account for the pre take-off taxi and run-up, you are around 670-675, that is certainly two couples or a family of four (with light baggage depending upon the size of the people). If I wnated to leave 10 gallons at home, giving me a very comfortable range of over 550 NMs. and quite a bit of baggage.

Some of the newer heavily option laden SR22s have lower ULs. Just the comprormise between missions. I don’t have TKS, traffic or A/C, but then, I don’t think the older 182’s do either.

#13

In reply to:

…my SR22 has a UL of 664 with full fuel. Account for the pre take-off taxi and run-up, you are around 670-675, that is certainly two couples or a family of four (with light baggage depending upon the size of the people). If I wnated to leave 10 gallons at home, giving me a very comfortable range of over 550 NMs. and quite a bit of baggage.
Some of the newer heavily option laden SR22s have lower ULs. Just the comprormise between missions. I don’t have TKS, traffic or A/C, but then, I don’t think the older 182’s do either.

That’s wonderful, payload right at book value. [:)] The SR22’s I have flown at West Valley Flying Club all have payloads from the mid-500s to 600 or slightly greater. One is a Centennial, three are 2004-2005 G2’s, one is a PFD-equipped 2003 model. As you point out, these planes have a fairly high level of optional equipment, resulting in 60+ lb heavier empty weight than yours.

The new 182’s (3100 MGTOW) have full fuel payload around 600 lb, but the devil’s in the details: you have to fly about 2 hr at high cruise in order to legally land again (2950 max landing weight). This really compromises their utility in my opinion. If you retrofit a BRS (~70-80 lb), the situation gets even worse and the “brawny” 182 is reduced to a 2 person plus bags or 3 person airplane with full fuel.