You must make a (hypothetical) choice...

Which plane do you choose?

  • Cirrus

    Votes: 27 39.1%

  • Grumman

    Votes: 15 21.7%

  • 182

    Votes: 27 39.1%
  • Total voters
    69
  • Poll closed .
The Grumman is fun to fly. The 182 drives like a truck. I've never so much as sat in a Cirrus.

I'll go with the Grumman.
 
Neither, I'm too busy tracking down the bastards that broke my airplane. :mad:
 
flhrci said:
A terrible disaster has befallen aviation. All aircraft around the world have been made nonairworthy except for three, and you want to go flying. Those three are @SixPapaCharlie's low-wing Grumman and Cirrus and @denverpilot's high-wing Cessna 182. Which do you choose?
Click to expand...
Is ADS-B still required? Who's flying the two planes I didn't choose?
 
Grumman - the only one of the three that has sweet handling. 182 is a waddling pig, and the Cirrus has the control harmony of a drunken sailor's choir. . .
 
I'm surprised on two things:
A.) Cirrus (barely) in lead
B.) Grumman has so few votes
 
Tantalum said:
I'm surprised on two things:
A.) Cirrus (barely) in lead
B.) Grumman has so few votes
Click to expand...
Grumman's poor showing should not be a surprise. I think it is just because not that many have flown one. Lack of exposure means lack of experience means lack of votes.

I've been associated with a few relatively large FBO flight school/rental operations, with fleets of over a dozen airplanes. Periodically, they would get the unusual on the line to add to the typical Piper/Cessna mix. I was introduced to Mooneys and Bonanzas that way. To some less common Piper/Cessna models too, like Cardinals. Great airplanes. Didn't last. They didn't get flown enough to make it worthwhile for the owner.
 
Given unlimited funds, the Cirrus.

But I voted Grumman, having owned both. In the real world, the Grumman would have far lower operating costs, and I think is more fun to fly.
 
I cannot understand the infatuation with C182s so many people have. 135ktas at 13.5 GPH is basically pitiful imho, the wings are on the top which makes every self serve fuel stop harder than it needs to be, nothing spacious at all about the cabin, currently obscenely ridiculous market prices for 35 year old airframes, and nothing spectacular about the range. The only really good quality about the 182 is that it can haul alot and if fitted with STOL can blast off and land in short distances. But really how often do you guys actually fly with all your seats full??? And are most of you based at sub 2000ft strips? Where I live just about every GA airport is paved 3000+ ft. is there really that many bush pilots on here??? If I had to choose between speed, economy, interior comfort, range, STOL, and weight carrying capability, weight carrying capability and STOL would be on the bottom of my list.

This Cirrus is a sleek design, has an extremely comfortable wide interior, does 165-170ktas at 13.5GPH LOP, has great range if leaving a person on the ground and excellent weight carrying ability if you only need to go 450-550nm, has fair market prices for earlier 2000s example and the danm thing has a parachute! I find it astounding that this aircraft isnt winning this poll with flying colors. I think most pollers just havent flown in a cirrus.

The only experience I have with grumman are the 2 seater AA1Cs and they were crap imo. The sliding bubble canopy everyone thinks is so cool was painfully hot in the summer.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
I cannot understand the infatuation with C182s so many people have. 135ktas at 13.5 GPH is basically pitiful imho, the wings are on the top which makes every self serve fuel stop harder than it needs to be, nothing spacious at all about the cabin, currently obscenely ridiculous market prices for 35 year old airframes, and nothing spectacular about the range. The only really good quality about the 182 is that it can haul alot and if fitted with STOL can blast off and land in short distances. But really how often do you guys actually fly with all your seats full??? And are most of you based at sub 2000ft strips? Where I live just about every GA airport is paved 3000+ ft. is there really that many bush pilots on here??? If I had to choose between speed, economy, interior comfort, range, STOL, and weight carrying capability, weight carrying capability and STOL would be on the bottom of my list.

This Cirrus is a sleek design, has an extremely comfortable wide interior, does 165-170ktas at 13.5GPH LOP, has great range if leaving a person on the ground and excellent weight carrying ability if you only need to go 450-550nm, has fair market prices for earlier 2000s example and the danm thing has a parachute! I find it astounding that this aircraft isnt winning this poll with flying colors. I think most pollers just havent flown in a cirrus.

The only experience I have with grumman are the 2 seater AA1Cs and they were crap imo. The sliding bubble canopy everyone thinks is so cool was painfully hot in the summer.
Click to expand...
Yes! Thank you thank you! That's a Tantalum level rant.. I approve!
 
Tantalum said:
I'm surprised on two things:
A.) Cirrus (barely) in lead
B.) Grumman has so few votes
Click to expand...
A.) Although I said @SixPapaCharlie 's SR22 is a -G2, I think it might actually be a -G1. I'd hold out for a -G2 or later.
B.) @SixPapaCharlie 's Grumman is a Traveler. A Tiger would be a much easier vote for me.
C.) @denverpilot 's C182P having the Robertson STOL kit distinguishes it further than the other two by virtue of being much better for short/soft fields. (I think I'd still prefer a Q model or later, though)
D.) I suspect almost everyone only read the poll choices and ignored post #1, so A, B and C probably aren't really factors for anyone except me.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
I cannot understand the infatuation with C182s so many people have. 135ktas at 13.5 GPH is basically pitiful imho, the wings are on the top which makes every self serve fuel stop harder than it needs to be, nothing spacious at all about the cabin, currently obscenely ridiculous market prices for 35 year old airframes, and nothing spectacular about the range. The only really good quality about the 182 is that it can haul alot and if fitted with STOL can blast off and land in short distances. But really how often do you guys actually fly with all your seats full??? And are most of you based at sub 2000ft strips? Where I live just about every GA airport is paved 3000+ ft. is there really that many bush pilots on here??? If I had to choose between speed, economy, interior comfort, range, STOL, and weight carrying capability, weight carrying capability and STOL would be on the bottom of my list.

This Cirrus is a sleek design, has an extremely comfortable wide interior, does 165-170ktas at 13.5GPH LOP, has great range if leaving a person on the ground and excellent weight carrying ability if you only need to go 450-550nm, has fair market prices for earlier 2000s example and the danm thing has a parachute! I find it astounding that this aircraft isnt winning this poll with flying colors. I think most pollers just havent flown in a cirrus.

The only experience I have with grumman are the 2 seater AA1Cs and they were crap imo. The sliding bubble canopy everyone thinks is so cool was painfully hot in the summer.
Click to expand...

The AA1s are a bubble canopy?
My AA5 is a sliding canopy but it has no more sun exposure than a piper or other "normal" plane.
Plus when it is hot, it opens.

53f22f75ecc98deb32a42e5b4ebd21b78e76fb86.jpg
 
AnthonyS1 said:
I cannot understand the infatuation with C182s so many people have. 135ktas at 13.5 GPH is basically pitiful imho, the wings are on the top which makes every self serve fuel stop harder than it needs to be, nothing spacious at all about the cabin, currently obscenely ridiculous market prices for 35 year old airframes, and nothing spectacular about the range. The only really good quality about the 182 is that it can haul alot and if fitted with STOL can blast off and land in short distances. But really how often do you guys actually fly with all your seats full??? And are most of you based at sub 2000ft strips? Where I live just about every GA airport is paved 3000+ ft. is there really that many bush pilots on here??? If I had to choose between speed, economy, interior comfort, range, STOL, and weight carrying capability, weight carrying capability and STOL would be on the bottom of my list.

This Cirrus is a sleek design, has an extremely comfortable wide interior, does 165-170ktas at 13.5GPH LOP, has great range if leaving a person on the ground and excellent weight carrying ability if you only need to go 450-550nm, has fair market prices for earlier 2000s example and the danm thing has a parachute! I find it astounding that this aircraft isnt winning this poll with flying colors. I think most pollers just havent flown in a cirrus.

The only experience I have with grumman are the 2 seater AA1Cs and they were crap imo. The sliding bubble canopy everyone thinks is so cool was painfully hot in the summer.
Click to expand...

My main destination is a 2600' grass strip with obstacles. Have yet to see a Cirrus come in there. Then again, there isn't a day spa, zima distillery, and a four seasons adjacent so not exactly someplace a Cirrus button pusher would want to be seen.
 
Sti
asicer said:
A.) Although I said @SixPapaCharlie 's SR22 is a -G2, I think it might actually be a -G1. I'd hold out for a -G2 or later.
B.) @SixPapaCharlie 's Grumman is a Traveler. A Tiger would be a much easier vote for me.
C.) @denverpilot 's C182P having the Robertson STOL kit distinguishes it further than the other two by virtue of being much better for short/soft fields. (I think I'd still prefer a Q model or later, though)
D.) I suspect almost everyone only read the poll choices and ignored post #1, so A, B and C probably aren't really factors for anyone except me.
Click to expand...
Still speaks to the overall perception and desirability
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
The AA1s are a bubble canopy?
My AA5 is a sliding canopy but it has no more sun exposure than a piper or other "normal" plane.
Plus when it is hot, it opens.

View attachment 77688
Click to expand...

True, the best thing about a sliding canopy is throwing it back for taxiing! I've never had an issue with my canopy being too hot, partly because I tend to cruise at at least 5500' where the ambient temp is pretty nice, even on a 100-degree day at the surface; and because Van's planes have excellent ventilation with two big NACA ducts on the sides drawing in fresh air. I put the air vents higher on the panel than standard, so that helps too.
 
..in the meantime the poor PA28 wasn't even part of the poll for a fair shake!

I thought about it because of the comment about ventilation above from SoCal.. PA28 got to have the worst ventilation! There's a foot vent that usually broken, and the overhead vent that's usually busted as well so all the vains automatically close under any kind of airflow. Flies nice though!
 
Hmmm, tough choice.

When one flies a Cirrus, are the pricks still on the inside?

A Grumman or 182 interior used by certain PofA members might be covered with peckerations, so I think I’ll have to go with a Cirrus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top