http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AdView.jsp?aircraft_id=78326&profile_id=15217&autonoto_id=346615309145720241
OK. I know I am being a bit condisending. Yes I am a Cirrus owner and I apologize in advance, but I just don’t get it. The URL above is for a Cessna Skylane, 2002. being sold on the used aircraft market for almost $300,000.
Why would anyone pay that much for an aircraft with an antique instrument panel, that under performs?
Oh. It does have air conditioning and has a turbo. Maybe that’s it, but even then, it under performs my SR20 worth about $200,000
In reply to:
It does have air conditioning and has a turbo.
Neither of which are available on the Cirrus, and both of which could be important to people who live in certain areas of the county (southwest or mountainous areas)
In reply to:
Maybe that’s it, but even then, it under performs my SR20 worth about $200,000
I’ve not flown a turbo 182 before. But the specs for the T182 show max cruise speed of 175 kts at 20,000. (Neither number is obtainable in an SR20). It also shows a cruise speed of 158 kts (which is about the same as what the SR20 book calls for, even if my own SR20 has a hard time reaching that speed).
The useful load looks to be about 150 lbs greater in the T182 (again, comparing book spec to book spec, which may not be accurate.)
Finally, if I had a short or rough field to get in and out of, I’d definitely go with a 182 over a Cirrus.
Don’t get me wrong - I love my SR20. But I do think it’s unfair to say that buing anything other than a Cirrus shows a lack of judgement!
Reprint of my post from a month or so ago on this exact tiopic:
The Cirri are great planes; nonetheless there is still a substantial market segment for the Cessna 182. Reference Rich Karlgaard’s click here post a year ago on his choice of T182T over SR22.
Cirri are excellent aircraft for comfortable, efficient cross-country travel from one medium-to-longish paved runway to another. However many of us have a broader scope of flying than this. The 182 (or my favorite mod) can do things that the Cirrus cannot, especially short and/or unimproved and/or high/hot strips, and in addition is “fast enough” for most cross-country trips: the 182T and the 260se mod can run with all but the faster SR20s and the T182T is only about 10-12 kt slower than an SR22 at altitude. My 260se is a full fuel, full seats airplane that can takeoff and land in <500 feet, fly ~600 mile legs at 147 KTAS or ~750 mile legs at 140 KTAS running LOP. It is a more flexible airplane, but not as fast or comfortable as the Cirrus. And did I mention insurance costs?
It’s not the most modern design, but neither is it a dinosaur yet. When Cessna can’t sell any more of them, then it will be a dinosaur!
OK, this one is a 2004 on sale for 322,500 and get a load at the instrumentation copied directly from the ad:
Flight Instruments:
Attitude and Directional Gyros
3" Display (Includes Vacuum System, Suction Gauge, and Low Vacuum Warning)
Digital Clock
Magnetic Compass
Outside Air Temperature Indicator
Sensitive Altimeter
(20-ft Increments and Inches of Hg or Millibars where Required)
True Airspeed Indicator
Turn Coordinator Indicator
Vertical Speed Indicator
AND LET’S NOT FORGET THE AVIONICS
Avionics:
Avionics Cooling Fan
Emergency Locator Transmitter
KAP 140 Two Axis Autopilot With Altitude Preselect
KI 209 VOR/LOC/GS Indicator
KMA 28 Audio Panel/Marker Beacon/Four-Position, Stereo/Split Com, Voice-Actived Intercom
KT 76C Mode C Transponder
KX 155A Nav/Comm With Glide Slope
And it even comes with wing tip lights in blue and red
for only 322,500
If you want the full details, here is the URL:
http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AdView.jsp?aircraft_id=59634&profile_id=15217&autonoto_id=416165069365560961
In addition to Steve’s comments would not a turbo engine be an advantage out West where the ground rises?
Whatever floats your boat!
Mason
In reply to:
the specs for the T182 show max cruise speed of 175 kts at 20,000. (Neither number is obtainable in an SR20). It also shows a cruise speed of 158 kts (which is about the same as what the SR20 book calls for, even if my own SR20
OK OK, I am a bit partial, but I checked with the Skylane specs prior to making my comment. It showed top speed at 175 kts and cruise at 158 Kts, pretty much same as mine. AND I land my SR20 in soft short field all the time, but I grant you, a hi wing is a bit better at it.
My comparison was one of overall “Value” not just pure preformance numbers.
My 22 has no problems with the mountins. You can get a good used 22 for 300,000.00. Not a 02 but I think an 01. I think. But prices are going up. Don
In reply to:
would not a turbo engine be an advantage out West where the ground rises?
I suppose a bit, but when I checked the Skylane specs, it showed a service ceiling of 20,000, just 2500 ft higher than an SR20. Does that justify $100,000 more, and an old fashion panel to boot?
In addition to Steve’s comments would not a turbo engine be an advantage out West where the ground rises?
absolutely! normal summer density altitudes at KJAC (jackson hole) are 9500. a turbo makes this a non issue (or less of one).
In reply to:
My comparison was one of overall “Value” not just pure preformance numbers.
For an in-depth comparison that goes beyond just performance numbers, you can check this out to see a Cessna dealer’s perspective.
In reply to:
It showed top speed at 175 kts and cruise at 158 Kts, pretty much same as mine.
If you’re really seeing 175 kts in your SR20, I gotta start using the same fuel you are!
high wing is also nicer in the rain on the ramp!
Interesting that Cessna chooses to compare the T182 to the SR22, not the SR20. I think this, Dennis, may be a much closer comparision. The only real performance likeness between the SR20 and the T182 is in cruise speeds. In almost ALL other areas, the T182 is a better performer.
With SR22 prices now much higher with the PFD, and no option to not have the PFD, bargain hunters may actually see the T182 a better overall deal these days.
In reply to:
see a Cessna dealer’s perspective.
I would expect a Cessna dealer to have “an opinion”, but this is more than just one sided, there are quite a few errors. For example they said the useful load is 3000 lbs, not 3400.
But the one that gets me the most, they left out the fun quotient. Oh, that would have tilted to the the Cirrus [:)]. Actually the T182 is a great plane. Certainly no one ever said the 182 is an inspired design…, but then I am biased as well.
If I needed to haul big loads, fly frequently heavy at hot/high airports (I do a lot of hot and some high - but usually at mid weights) or use rough strips - I would not hesitate to buy one.
Now whether I could stand it after my Cirrus, thats another story [;)]
I wish I had read this before I bought my first SR22, or even before I bought my second. All this time I’ve been living in a fool’s paradise, thinking how fast, and comfortable, and easy to fly, and safe my Cirrus is. Now I know that I should have kept my 182.
-Mike
The Cessna “dude” says the airframe life for the SR22 is approx. 4300 hours, whereas the T182 is unlimited.
Can someone please comment as to whether the SR22 airframe life limit of 4300 hours is accurate. This is news to me.
Tim
I believe “top speed” would refer to Vne, but certainly, I descend typically at 180, and cruise 155-158, sometimes even 160.
In reply to:
I suppose a bit, but when I checked the Skylane specs, it showed a service ceiling of 20,000, just 2500 ft higher than an SR20.
While the higher service ceiling probably helps a bit, the real advantage to a turbocharged aircraft in mountainous areas is not so much the ceiling but rather the rate of climb at higher altitudes.
I’ve never taken my SR20 above 12,000 ft. but others who have reported going as high as 17,000 ft report anemic climb rates. In contrast, the T182, for example, holds its full 235 HP all the way up to 20,000 ft.
Again, I’m not saying the T182 is a great plane - after all, I did buy a Cirrus instead of a Cessna! Just that I do think it’s a “good thing” in general to have a wide variety of airplane choices, and I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut which plane is “better”…
I think you are incorrect. Since a turobocharged engine can develop full power up high, but most will cruise at reduced power and lower altitudes, both are quoted.
Speed
Maximum at 20,000 ft. 175 (full throttle)
Cruise, 88% power at 12,500 ft. 158 (backed off to 88%)
So, the T182 is certified higher than the SR22. It will match SR22 speed but only at very high altitudes and while burning a lot of fuel. Even the 88% at 12,500 yields only 595 nm on an 87 gallon tank.
My question would be, if you need the T182, would the Peterson 260SE do better for less money?
Different planes for different missions. My wife and I like to travel fast and in comfort. Hence, the SR22.
Like most aircraft comparisons, certain planes fit certain mission better than others. One plane is hardly ever best in all applications.
Like Steve said, if high DAs, short or soft fields, useful loads or seaplane conversion are important considerations, I would choose the 182 over the SR20, for value and a handful of other considerations, I’d put my money on the Cirrus.