In reply to:
there are quite a few errors.
They also showed the engine TBO as 1,700 when it is actually 2,000 hours. They didn’t mention the TBO on the Skylane’s turbocharger, though, or the overhaul cost.
-Mike
In reply to:
high wing is also nicer in the rain on the ramp!
Yea, but you’ve got to climb on top to get the gas in.
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!
Kevin,
Nothing wrong with being a dinosaur. After all, dinosaurs were the dominant form of animal on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, and it took a gigantic meteor to wipe them out!
Cheers,
Roger
Kevin: You are 100% right, of course, in certain missions, the Cessna T182 is better able to meet the requirements that the SR22, and for other missions, the Peterson 260SE is better. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
Unfortunately, the T182 and the 260SE are not the same plane! The T182 can’t use 500’ landing strips any more than the T182 can hit 170 KIAS at 20,000’ (BTW, what is the fuel flow for the T182 at full power at 20,000’?)
For most of us that don’t need to land on rugged strip or fly into heliports[;)] the Cirrus is a better fit for our day to day missions. Price wise, it is a much better value. It is faster, climbs better, carries similar loads, is wider, more comfortable, has better visibility, less prone to corrosion, is certified to much higher standards, and has the parachute.
Here’s the story on airframe life, as I understand it:
Cirrus certified the SR20 first. It has an airframe life limit of 12,000 hours.
The SR22 certification was based on the SR20. Since the SR22 is heavier, the FAA would not accept 12,000 hours as a life limit for the SR22 without testing. In order to save time and money, Cirrus did some extrapolation and came up with a figure of 4,350 hours for the SR22, which the FAA accepted. This was done with the intention of later doing the testing to extend the limit.
According to another COPA member, Cirrus has completed the testing and submitted the results to the FAA to extend the SR22 airframe life limit.
What will happen if you exceed the airframe life limit? Undoubtedly, the airframe will have to be inspected for signs of fatigue. If there is no structural fatigue, the local FSDO can authorize continued operation.
In other words, it’s a non-issue, unless you’re a Cessna dealer desperate to badmouth the competition.
-Mike
In reply to:
What will happen if you exceed the airframe life limit? Undoubtedly, the airframe will have to be inspected for signs of fatigue. If there is no structural fatigue, the local FSDO can authorize continued operation.
I thought I’d seen a post by Scott in the last few months refuting that and saying that a life limit is a life limit and there is no method of inspection which will extend it. ie all you can do at 12,000 hours is replace the airframe.
That said, 12,000 hours is a very long time and if you look at what a 182 is worth after 12,000 hours, ie very little, compared to what a cirrus is worth after 12,000 hours, ie nothing, the difference is pretty marginal and more than compensated for in initial cost and equipment IMHO
Mike,
Do you know the results of the testing that Cirrus submitted to the FAA recently?
In reply to:
BTW, what is the fuel flow for the T182 at full power at 20,000’?
The real question is what is the fuel flow of the T182 at 85% power, 75F LOP, which would be 200HP at 14.3GPH. Probably not the way the POH spec’s it, but with GAMIjectors you can really make a turbo hum!
Agreed. I myself would choose the SR22 over the T182T as a much better value.
Cirrus has forced Cessna to both upgrade their product with PFD and hold the line on price. Likewise, Cirrus forced Mooney to actually LOWER the price of the Ovation/Bravo line to remain competitive. An interesting fallout from this is that many Cessna/Mooney customers who bought their planes before the upgrades/price decreases are hopping mad (I would be, too). How would you feel if your newly purchased $350+K aircraft just lost $80K of its market value?
As more and more Cirri are available on the market, Cirrus will have to compete with their own recently delivered “slightly used” products too. Thus they will have to continually upgrade and offer new options on the new planes. Otherwise, the wise customer will be more inclined to purchase a late model used plane with a few hundred hours on it for 20-30% below current list price. A similar situation was a very important part of the GA manufacturing “crash” of the early '80s, even though the liability insurance issue is the most widely cited contributor to this.
“BTW, what is the fuel flow for the T182 at full power at 20,000’?” (JATIII)
“The real question is what is the fuel flow of the T182 at 85% power, 75F LOP, which would be 200HP at 14.3GPH. Probably not the way the POH spec’s it, but with GAMIjectors you can really make a turbo hum!” (CSANFOR)
Curt: My point exactly. At that fuel burn, I can comfortably expect expect 170 KIAS in my SR22. What will the T182 do 155 - 160? It seems to me that without considering any on the other advantages and disadvantages of each airframe, 10 - 15 knots for -0- additional fuel is a winner every day!
In reply to:
My point exactly. At that fuel burn, I can comfortably expect expect 170 KIAS in my SR22. What will the T182 do 155 - 160?
Actually at 20Kft Cessna claims 170 ktas. So you can get the same speed for the same fuel burn, albeit only at higher altitudes for the Cessna. That’s the efficiency of the turbocharger.
Now if we could just get a turbonormalized SR22 with a Peterson wing on the front …
Please Note – We were unable to migrate some of the attachments that were originally apart of this post. To view this post in its original format, please click the link below:
Original Post: View Post
Thank you,
The COPA Team
1-72688-sr22WITHpetersonwing.PSD (868 KB)
Kevin: I seriously looked at the Mooney before I bought the Cirrus. That was before Mooney lowered it’s prices. They were so far off the mark that even after the price drops I would have bought the Cirrus!
In reply to:
That was before Mooney lowered it’s [sic] prices.
and of course … they put 'em right back up again and then some. The low prices were for the few already on the line when they new management took over. Mooneys are now very costly indeed.