Transition from C182S to SR22TN

I realize that much of what I ask here will have been addressed in many cases many years ago on this site. Nevertheless, here it is. I am a late to aviation pilot (I’ll be 50 in a month). I lived for many years in a remote area where there was no flying school and life and work obligations prevented me from following my life long dream to be a pilot. I recently (3yrs ago) sold my practice, moved to a larger center where my office overlooks the airport and earned my PPL, OTT, NIGHT ,and IFR ratings. I did all of my training in a beat up C172N, so the natural first purchase was a C182S. I have built 380 hrs in her, but now have a few concerns.

  1. My kids live 200nm away at University so flying is the best way to see them

  2. my wife hates the 182, she says that it is scary and is like an old farm truck even though I have upgraded it to a GTN750, GTX345, GMA345, twin G5’s and GPSS.

As I live in northern Alberta, icing and CB’s are a regular concern and a more capable aircraft will decrease the number of missed trips.

I feal like I want the same comfort in my airplane that I have in my X5. I think the parachute is a game changer and the wife would likely be more comfortable in the SR22TN.

My insurer tells me I need 500hrs to be insurable in a SR22TN. I will likely have that in a year.

My questions: 1). What pitfalls should I expect other than getting used to the speed and layout.

  1. what are the annual costs compared to my C182S

to any western Canadians out there, where do you get them serviced?

I don’t know the costs of a annual on a Turbo.

But, if you should have little issues moving to the 22 from a flying perspective. You can buy a glass cockpit simulator online and practice and get used to buttonology.

At the end of the day the speeds are pretty close and not much difference in the critical phases of flight.

Forget the cowl flaps!

Forget the blue knob

When you look left and up don’t panic if the wing is missing!

When you look left and down you will not see your undercarriage

Now you have a parachute!


Enjoy your new plane!!!

I’m not sure why you would need 500 hours to get insured in a cirrus if you’re insurable in a 182. When I bought my cirrus, I had under 200 hours and was not IFR yet. The insurance company required a transition course, then 20 hours of solo time before I took passengers. I think you will find the transition pretty easy.

Hi Michael,

I’m a fellow Albertan and made the transition from C182 to a SR22TN about 8 years ago. I loved my 182 but the Cirrus made more sense for the longer cross country trips I was doing. One of the things your wife will like about the Cirrus is that it just feels more solid - it doesn’t rock or creak while taxiing, and the higher wing loading generally gives you a smoother ride when the air is a bit bumpy. It doesn’t eliminate the bumps, it just cuts through them a bit better so you don’t get tossed around as much. My wife used to get queasy in the 182 but has never been that way in the Cirrus. With the TN, you can easily fly above 10,000 feet where the air is almost always smooth.

On longer cross country tips my wife prefers to sit in the back seat. She finds that there is more room to spread out and it feels more like airline business class - she has her iPad, magazines, and a small cooler for refreshments. It’s also easier to get in and out of the back seat than the front seat where you have to lower yourself into the seat while holding the grab handle and door sill.

The SR22TN is a great IFR cross country machine but it is still a small aircraft so icing and CBs will always be a concern. Even in the summer, the freezing level is typically only 12,000 feet so I don’t file IFR above that altitude unless I’m sure I will be above the clouds. The Canadian XM weather radar is no where near as good in Canada as it is in the US - radar updates often take up to 50 minutes, and the precipitation picture is often wrong. And we won’t have ADS-Bin in Canada anytime soon so you still have to be able to see the CBs so you can avoid them.

There is an excellent Cirrus Service Center at Springbank (Calgary). Cody at Foster Aviation is excellent and knows the Cirrus very well. They also understand the distance challenge for aircraft owners who don’t live in Calgary. If you need something done, just let them know when you are coming and they will descend on your airplane like a pit crew and have you back out the door in a couple of hours. If you need to leave your aircraft with them for a few days it can get inconvenient with travel.

There are 7 or 8 Cirrus’ based at Cooking Lake (Edmonton) so we have a mechanic there who is getting quite proficient at annual inspections and routine maintenance/repairs. But for the unique Cirrus stuff I typically take it to Cody at Foster Aviation. The 182 is a vastly simpler machine, there’s less stuff that can break, so I found maintenance to be cheaper. Also the Cirrus has a bunch of stuff that has to be replaced on a schedule (parachute, reefing line cutters, seat belt inflators, TN oil lines, V-clamps, etc.) so there is almost always something coming due. That stuff gets expensive but with a little planning you can usually minimize the downtime.

For longer cross country trips the Cirrus is definitely superior to the C182 for speed, comfort, and safety. And if you are flying around Northern Alberta the parachute is a big safety feature since you fly over a lot of bush where there are few roads or open fields for emergency landings.

Thanks very much for the response Jim. It’s good to know there is someone at cooking lake who is comfortable doing the routine maintenance. I have a friend who hangars there and I am in there occasionally to see my kids at school (I usually go into Villeneuve because of the convenience of a rental car).

It sounds like your wife’s tastes are similar to mine. I can see mine doing the same.

With the number of planes that have gone down in the last year or two between Edmonton and B.C. as well as the 172 that went down near Westlock this year, the CAPS system will be piece of mind.

You mentioned that you still fly below the freezing level. This is one of the main reasons I am looking to upgrade to the Cirrus as something with TKS or FIKI would relieve some of my concerns as it seems we are always in ice hear except when we are worried about embedded CB’s.

Have you used your TKS much? How well does it work? My concern is being above the ice, then having to get down again through it.

thanks again for your response.


Back in 02 I sold my 182 (my first airplane) and bought a new G 1 22. The transition is easy but there is one area I’d encourage you to focus on; slowing down for landing. The 22 is “slicker” and doesn’t slow down as quickly as the 182.

I made a number of dangerous bounced landings from excessive speed early on and it was pretty scary!

I have TKS and it works well for inadvertent icing encounters.


In your defense, Jeffrey, the Cirrus syllabus (created by UND I believe) once taught 80 knots on short final. Some old school CFIs not versed in Cirri would add another 5 knots “for safety.”

What works well for 3,400 lb. gross weight SR22s is 1.3 x 59 kias, minus 1 knot for every 100 pounds under gross weight. So typically 73 to 77 kias. Faster as the cross wind component rises.

Hi Michael,

My Cirrus has the non-FIKI version of TKS so I’m not safe, or legal, to take on any known ice. I like to fly in the mid teens on longer trips and there is almost always some ice in clouds at that level. So I tend to be pretty careful to stay clear of cloud at those altitudes. Fortunately, I have found the weather to be generally pretty clear in the mid teens. The Canadian GFAs are really good at providing cloud heights and another website called Ogimet also does a very good job.

I have occasionally run into unforecast light icing up high and I have found the non-FIKI TKS system works very well to allow a safe exit from those conditions. But the non-FIKI system doesn’t protect the vertical stabilizer, wing tips, or elevator horns so you wouldn’t want to take any chances with it. It is only designed for making a safe exit from inadvertent icing conditions.

The TN is nice because it also gives you the option to climb over adverse weather if necessary. I’ve got around 1,100 hours in my TN and hove only had to go up to 23,000 once to cross a short band of adverse weather. There are some extra hazards associated with hypoxia when you go that high so you want to make sure your O2 masks are working properly, you are using a pulse oximeter, and you have another person in the cabin with you so you can watch each other carefully for signs of hypoxia.

You also need to practice donning your O2 masks once in a while so you aren’t trying to remember how to fit them and hook up the mics while your climbing into those riskier altitudes. To be honest, I don’t really like flying above 18,000 because of the added risks, plus the masks are uncomfortable. But the systems do work well if you need them, and take the extra steps to be safe.


I transitioned from a 182. You will have a lot of bad habits to kick. The 182 is a go anywhere any how airplane, you can fly it by the seat of your pants and you can put it anywhere you want. The cirrus is flown by the numbers. There margins for Tom foolery aren’t there. The newer 182’s are underpowered for their weight, so you’ll have to get used to the new power curve too.

The cabin is much better , but it is also a louder cabin.

The TN is a fantastic machine. I hop back and forth between a 2008 SR 22TN and a 1981 T182RG - talk about generations of difference! I am most sold on the Perspective system - everything seemlessly integrated! My transition into the Cirrus was a rusty IFR in a 172 with a mix of complex time. And as an older dog, the learning curve was steep, but SO worth it. You are miles ahead due to the advanced avionics and ifr proficiency you have. The online Cirrus courses are outstanding - strongly recommend you hop on the Cirrus Learning Portal to work on the transition.

If you are regularly going to be dealing with ice, get FIKI. The TKS works very well, but having the larger tanks and heated stall warning (it gave me a real scare last year in actual), FIKI is a must.

We just repacked the parachute and replaced the hoses (mandatory). The annuals on a 2008 will be much more costly than something new, plus the in-between squawks. It’s been about $12k/yr @ 200 hrs/yr for the 2 years we’ve owned it.

Get a different insurer! An IFR rating and 25 hours in type should be more than enough to make most insurers comfortable. The owner of our aircraft obtained insurance (albeit pricey) as a vfr pilot with 100 hours.

Good luck - keep us updated!

Thanks Jim,

That answers my next question regarding turbo or no turbo. I know of some other pilots in my area (Grande Prairie) that have had issues with longevity of their turbocharged Cessnas. Some wastegate issues and an engine overspeed issues. There arent many Cirri (Cirusses?) here, however it sounds like they are less problematic with repect to turbo issues.

It seems like from your feedback as well as what I am hearing from friends in the area, I need to operate in the teens and get comfortable with O2 as well as turbo operations. That is consistent with my experience to date. I feal like if I could get on top, I would have less ice issues and see the imbedded CB’s.

Once again, thanks for the valuable information!



Thanks for the info.

Those sound like painful annuals! Although, i would be saving on what i put into my 182, as i am constantly updating and dealing with small things!


Hi Dr. Mike

I am glad to see that C-GOPB has served you well, as it did for me prior to you owning it. Experience wise, your 380 hours in the 182S would make a very smooth transition into a Cirrus.

I am interested in hearing that your wife compares GOPB to an old farm truck! I have always thought it to be a very nicely appointed airplane and I would regularly get complements on her on the ramp when I owned her. With all those upgrades it must be even nicer. That being said, the SR22 overall is a step up from any 182; however I would caution that some of the complaints your wife has about the Cessna may still exist with the Cirrus. After all, while the Cirrus airframe is more modern; power plant wise they are still both single engines pistons with 1940’s engine technology. The CAPS on the other hand is a true differentiator between a Cirrus and anything else, and likely the reason I went with a Cirrus over a Columbia/Corvalis.

After reading your post I asked my wife what she thought of the differences between your plane (our old plane) and our present 2004 Cirrus SR22 G2. Her thoughts were as follows:

  • The Cirrus has a much more modern exterior and look (composite, gull wing doors, low wing gives more sporty look), so curb appeal is definitely more appealing than a Cessna.
  • The interior in GOPB is a little more luxurious in our Cirrus with a more car like feel (although still not as nice as a brand new G5 interior), but is not significantly more comfortable; both have ample leg and head room, but the Cirrus is slightly wider.
  • The Cirrus seems to have the exact same HVAC system - too cold in the back seats in winter when the front cabin is too warm.
  • With the higher revving prop and no prop adjustment, the Cirrus is louder than the 182S, even if flown at same speeds. Noise cancelling headphones help.
  • Both are non-pressurized cabins so oxygen cannulas are the most inconvenience aspect of both planes from both pilot and passenger perspective at altitudes above 10K’.
  • Overall, while the Cirrus is a slightly better overall for passenger experience, the Cirrus is still a far cry from a cabin class aircraft like a Malibu (in our opinion).
    Icing and CB’s will still be a regular concern in a Cirrus, however TKS and a Turbo will provide some flexibility. You still won’t be able to keep a schedule, at least not without a FIKI Cirrus.

No aircraft short of a jet will provide the same comfort that you have in your X5. The interior leather and fit and finish will be much closer to a BMW compared to the 182S, however the HVAC system, loud interior noise, and no cabin pressurization will be a constant reminder to your wife that she’s still in a single engine piston, although to some extend may be a bit more comfortable in the SR22.

Since your 182S is an honest 140 kt. airplane, A SR22 NA will be around 30 kts faster between 6-12K’ for 1-2 extra GPH, and even faster above those altitudes with a bit better altitude performance up to 17.5K’; so in that regard, the Cirrus will be more comfortable for your wife as the trips simply take less time with greater speed.

Both NA planes will remind you that you are not in a Turbo, but the Cirrus less so. I have never flown in a TN Cirrus so I can’t offer advice on that.

If your insurer tells you that you need 500hrs to be insurable in a SR22TN, send me a private message and I’ll pass along the contact for my insurer. I had the same total time and ratings when I transitioned into our Cirrus.

One area the Cirrus is not as strong as the 182 is mountain flying. IMO, the Cirrus simply cannot, and should not be flown low and slow (nor was it designed to be flown that way). I don’t carve the valleys of the Rockies anymore like I did in GOPB, but the Cirrus is a different kind of plane anyway. One more thing to consider - you can’t put floats or bush wheels on a Cirrus :wink:

My rule of thumb is to never fly below 85 KIAS in the pattern unless on short final, and even then, never under 80 unless short field technique used. The biggest thing you’ll notice in this flight regime is that a Cirrus is hard to slow down when entering a pattern or setting up for an approach. Flaps don’t help either as you can’t even deploy the first stage until under 120 kts. Not an issue once you get used to it, but I imagine the increase on flap speeds in the G5 is a welcome improvement.

You’ll need more stopping distance in the Cirrus too as the plane is heavier and the brakes are terrible. Not an issue with long runways, but on shorter fields you’ll have to factor in landing distances in a Cirrus whereas with the 182 I felt like I could land it in a parking lot.

Jeff at Fosters Aviation (western Canada Cirrus auth service centre) tells me that over the long run an owner can expect the maintenance costs of a turbo to roughly double that of a NA (not sure if he was exaggerating, and I don’t mean to quote him). Other COPA members on this forum have stated about $10 an hour more. Apparently that’s what cylinders and exhaust repairs adds up to…

Fosters currently does the maintenance for over 60 Cirrus owners; so many if not most western Canadians get their Cirrus’ serviced there. They are highly regarded (perhaps Jeff Foster is the Jim Barker of Canada?). I recommend using them for a pre-buy, and if you are buying a Canadian Cirrus, chances are he even knows a little about that specific plane.

Regarding turbo or no turbo: I recommend getting a turbo now if it fits your budget and you intend to use your IFR rating. Especially if going anywhere over the mountains in the wintertime, which as you know as an Albertan, is any flight not going eastbound.

If you are interested, feel free to fly GOPB and your wife down to CYBW to have a look at our Cirrus – I’d love to see my old plane again.



That sounds great! I’ve never heard of the Embark program, where do I find more information on it?

Just finished. Cirrus has raised the bar. Again.

Hi Rob, what a small world. So glad to hear that you are enjoying your new plane.

Just to be clear, I have loved my time in GOPB. She has been a great learning platform and has taught me a lot. She has been very solid mechanically, although my AME is constantly looking for something to replace (I also took a beating on the reman I put in her):(. I too get many compliments at the FBO’s on how pretty GOPB is.

I am looking for more speed and comfort as well as some deice (to escape unforecast icing) now that I am IFR rated. Having the envelope to get on top instead of ploughing through the soup would be a plus as well.

I think my wife will be more comfortable with the CAPS as backup as well as with the more modern appearance of the SR22. I have read that most people find that the Cirrus is more comfortable in turbulence due to the higher wing loading. This is a major concern for her as she becomes quite nervous in the bumps.

I’m curious to hear what altitudes you usually fly at and how long your usual mission is. I have joined Angel Flight and look forward to being able to fly more missions with a more capable aircraft.

I will take you up on that offer. I will let you know when next I am at Springbank so you can check out GOPB. I would like to stop by and see the maintenace centre before I pull the trigger on a Cirrus.

Thanks for taking the time to give such a well thought out reply, with your insight with GOPB it is especially useful.

Hi Michael,

I too, picked up flying a little bit later in life (received PPL 4 years ago when I was 46 and IFR shortly thereafter). I did my training in a 172 and bought a new one to finish up my training in. I quickly realized that the 172 was not a realistic option for flights of any significant length, plus, my wife hated it (It was a brand spanking new 2014).

I transitioned to an SR22 when I had approximately 250 hours. After 4 days of factory transition training and a couple more lessons locally with a CSIP I was pretty comfortable in the Cirrus. The biggest difference is the landing sight picture in the Cirrus compared with the Cessna. The speed is not an issue as I went from my 172 chugging along at 115 to the SR22 without much difficulty. It will be less of an issue for you coming from a 182.

It’s really a fantastic plane as you can tell from this forum. The comfort and parachute were a game changer for my co-pilot wife.

Best of luck,


Thanks Mark,

That last sentence means everything. If momma’s happy …