New G-1000 182 & Cirrus SR-22 GTS

Dan Luke wrote:

> A 206.  Really a different mission aircraft;  it's a 6-seat heavy hauler.

But if you frame the question this way, it's clear that Cessna offers "more
airplane" for the same dollars. But it also begs the question of a
comparison between the SR-22 and the 206 (ie. speed, load, etc.).

- Andrew

>>>The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot<<<

The KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot.

"Charles Oppermann" wrote:
>> * Speed: Cirrus wins big: 40+ KTAS faster. The Cessna rep. claimed
>> 135 for the Skylane, which seems a bit pokey for an airframe that has
>> supposedly had an extensive aerodynamic cleanup.
>
> But it's still the same basic airframe. There is only so much you can
> do.

Yeah, but if 135 is all it'll do, they haven't done *anything*. My
buddy's old Skylane will do 133.

> The Cirrus has a composite body that is lighter and much more
> aerodynamic with less drag.

Less drag, yes. Lighter? No; the Cirrus is more than 300 lbs. heavier.
Composite construction is not lighter than aluminum.

> Don't worry as much about a airspeed number. Rather, factor it in
> with fuel burn and compare the cost of a 1 hour trip, a 2 hour trip
> and a 4 hour trip. Going 20% faster isn't a bargin if your fuel burn
> goes up 50% - I'm not saying that the Cirrus does that, just that you
> should take the true airspeed value as a factor in other performance
> figures.

The Cirrus wins. 180kt @ 16gph = ~11nm/gal vs.135kt @ 13 gph =
~10nm/gal. The Cirrus' advantage is even greater if you consider that
the engine/airframe cost/mile will be higher for the Skylane, because it
takes longer to get anywhere.

> I regularly get 132-135 KTAS in my C182S above 8,000feet (solo).

That's really what kills the 182 for me. I don't think I could stand to
buy a new airplane that's slower than my 172RG, even if it's only by a
little.


>
> Also check on the availability of maintenence.

Yep. I'd have to fly to Destin, FL for warranty service on the Cirrus.
The local shop could work on a new Skylane for me.

[snip]


> Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported
> than the system in the Cirrus.

Why?

> The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.

Roll, pitch, what's the 3rd axis?

[snip]
>
> I'm sure you know this already, but it's not the initial cost, but the
> operating and owning costs over time.

$100,00 invested over time is a lot of money.

> Insurance will be lower and maintenence might be cheaper with the
> Skylane.

Maybe.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

>> Right now, I think the Garmin G1000 is going to be better supported than
>> the system in the Cirrus.
>
> And just what makes you think that ? I think you are confused, or maybe
> you
> work for Garmin's marketing department.

I don't work for Garmin. My opinion is based on the adoption rate of the
G1000 and my own experiences flying the SR-22 and aircraft with the G1000.

>> The KAP-140 is an excellent 3-axis autopilot.
>
> Sure it is, if you don't like GPS roll steering, and you enjoy retesting
> your static system every time you pull it out for repair or adjustment.
> The
> KAP-140 is a two axis autopilot and the variant that comes in the 182 is
> two
> axis with altitude preselect, not 3 axis. At least on the Cirrus the
> autopilot's altitude preselect is on the PFD.

I mis-spoke, you are of course correct that the KAP-140 is a 2-axis system.

Personally, I haven't had any issues with regard to the static system in my
plane. Can you go into futher detail?

>> I don't work for Garmin. My opinion is based on the adoption rate of the
>> G1000 and my own experiences flying the SR-22 and aircraft with the
>> G1000.
>
> Surely you mean the C182 with the G1000.

Actually I meant flying the SR-22 with their system (which I did in a
pre-certified model at the Cirrus factory in August 2002) and flying the new
G1000 in a C182T.

> My point was that your statement is one - sided since Cirrus makes a lot
> more SR-22s than Cessna makes C182s. Granted, Cirrus doesn't give you an
> option, but based on how many are sold, saying the Garmin will support the
> G1000 more or better than Avidyne will support their Entegra is baseless.

I don't think it's baseless - Garmin is a much bigger company and has been
very aggressive in adding functionality to their existing models, which have
been standard and optional equipment on many different models for quite
awhile now.

I'm not knocking Avidyne in the slightest - although my experience with the
software on the pre-certified model was mixed. It's just that I feel
Garmin's dealer and service structure is more established. It's a gut feel,
I haven't done research in this area.

>> plane. Can you go into futher detail?
>
> The KAP-140's static pressure sensor is inside the instrument panel
> mounted
> computer unit. The static plumbing goes to the back of the autopilot
> tray.
> That means any time you pull the KAP-140 out, like if it needs replacement
> or adjustment, you're also breaking open the static system, which means
> you
> have to do a static leak test. It's not a big deal as long as you never
> need to pull the KAP140 out, but in my experience, you will. I haven't
> found the STEC autopilots to have any better reliability, but at least
> you're not forced to static leak check every time since they use a
> separate
> sensor.

Interesting, thanks.