C-182T vs Cirrus SR22T

W

Worldwide trade

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
61
Location
Naples FL
Display Name
WorldWiseTrade
Home Airfield
KAPF
"Where's the Beef"? (as made famous by the Wendy's TV commercial) so what's the pros and cons between these two venerable airplanes. I do note that old 182's do seem to maintain their value better than Cirri. Lycoming vs Continental? other issues? Bring it on!
 
100 pct 182. if u dont mind the slowpoke. flies great. easy to fly. reliable. parts available. not a fortune to maintain. American not chinese
 
The mission?

C182T - more carrying capacity. ~630 lbs full fuel payload vs ~510 lbs
SR22T - faster speed. ~170 KIAS at 75% power at 8,000' at 10-11 GPH vs. ~140 KIAS at 72% power* @ 12 GPH
(Unlike the SR22T, the 182T is not turbonormalized. The T182 has about 5 KIAS more speed than the normally aspirated one, but the fuel flow gets much higher.

Those are approximate book numbers, but good enough to reflect the general differences.

Worldwide trade said:
I do note that old 182's do seem to maintain their value better than Cirri.
Click to expand...
That's probably true but I would makes sure I was comparing the sub-models you are looking at.

(I have flown both but I'm not an owner so (a) I can't talk about maintenance issues and (b) I have no skin in the game)
 
A 182T is not Turbo. It is the follow-up model to the 182S. A T182T is a Turbo. The SR22T (Technically S22T) is either a Turbo Normalized (TN) or Turbo Supercharged (TSIO) 550 Continental. The early G3 models were TN. Later model G3 and beyond are almost exclusively TSIO but I think it is still possible to convert a NA plane to TN but I’m not sure.

I’ve owned 2 C182P (one 1973 one 1974) one with a PPonk (O-520) one with an Airplanes IO-520. These were reliably mid-140KTAS planes at 7,500 +/- 1,000’. Generally 1100 lb useful load. The long range tanks hold 79 Gallons on the 182P models. My 1973 had flint tip tanks for a total of 102.

The turbo SR22 planes prior to the G5 model had a gross weight of 3400 lbs. Starting with the G5 they had a gross weight of 3600lbs but a Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) of 3400lbs. You get an extra 200lbs of useful load but it has to be fuel. The G3 turbos I looked at had useful load between 950-1000 lbs. The G3 Turbos are generally loaded with FIKI, AC and factory O2 so heavier than the Normally Aspirated models (NA). My G5 NA has a useful load of a bit over 1,260 lbs. It has AC but no O2 or FIKI. I fly at 65% power. In my previous TN SR22 it got a bit under 165KTAS on average (It had TKS panels on the wings). The NA SR22 is a bit over 165KTAS average. Both were mid 13GPH.

I prefer high wing. I love the 182. I’ve tried Turbo planes. I just don’t need it. I fly 7,500 feet and a turbo is just not needed and in my opinion a hinderance. I took off today in the NA Cirrus. Density altitude was over 5,000 feet. Maybe there’s a measurable difference between NA and TN but I flew both out of the same place and I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference without looking at the fuel flow.
 
So in summary:

Both are fixed place four passenger single engine piston planes. HP and engine sizes are fairly similar.
The cost per hour will end up being fairly close when comparing older models. Both are supported by the manufacturers somewhat reluctantly.

At the end of the day, if you want cargo or to bang your head; Cessna is the answer.
If you want speed, chute, and too climb up/down all the time loading people/cargo, Cirrus is the answer.

Pick your mission; then pick the tool.

Tim
 
Mechanics in BFE will likely be more able to work on more parts of the 182 more reliably/confidently than the Cirrus.
 
tspear said:
So in summary:

Both are fixed place four passenger single engine piston planes. HP and engine sizes are fairly similar.
The cost per hour will end up being fairly close when comparing older models. Both are supported by the manufacturers somewhat reluctantly.

At the end of the day, if you want cargo or to bang your head; Cessna is the answer.
If you want speed, chute, and too climb up/down all the time loading people/cargo, Cirrus is the answer.

Pick your mission; then pick the tool.
Click to expand...
If you operate on unimproved landing strips, the wings on a 182 is less likely to rub against the bushes on either side of the fuselage.

If you mostly fly in a northerly/southerly direction between 8am-11am or 2pm-5pm, the Cessna is more comfortable.
 
Cessna will be much more versatile in terms of missions and payloads, particularly in the short and heavy-ish category thanks to its airfoil which is very effective slow, and thus limited at speed. The Cirrus is faster but basically a point-to-point traveling machine with a much better interior and creature comforts.
 
Cirrus are great if you have a back up reliable airplane to have to fly while the Cirrus is broke down waiting on parts.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WDD
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Even on takeoff or landing below “pull” altitude?
Click to expand...
100%

26G rated seats and honeycomb energy absorbing cushion, and no big tradition yoke to stab me through the chest....and in newer models, seatbelt airbags. Oh, and the passenger compartment roll cage....watch the video from the Hollister mid-air and LMK if that's a walk away accident in a C182.
 
ConstaP67 said:
100%

26G rated seats and honeycomb energy absorbing cushion, and no big tradition yoke to stab me through the chest....and in newer models, seatbelt airbags. Oh, and the passenger compartment roll cage....watch the video from the Hollister mid-air and LMK if that's a walk away accident in a C182.
Click to expand...

I love the seats and airbags.

One can get BRS for their 182.

With Peterson canards and his engine mount structure, one can slow to 35 kts and hit stuff slowly laterally, or pull the chute (albeit without the safe seats).

No absolutes, and everyone thinks differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdb
ConstaP67 said:
26G rated seats and honeycomb energy absorbing cushion, and no big tradition yoke to stab me through the chest....and in newer models, seatbelt airbags. Oh, and the passenger compartment roll cage....watch the video from the Hollister mid-air and LMK if that's a walk away accident in a C182.
Click to expand...
C182T also has airbags and 26G seats.
 
Old 182s "maintain their value" better than SR22s simply because they are further along the depreciation curve. There is no option to buy a 1971 SR22.

Tough to compare these two planes. They were designed in different eras, and they each do certain things better than the other. It really is a question of primary mission, personal preference, and wallet size. 182 loyalists hate to hear this, but 182s compare better to their analogous PA-28s: Vanilla 182 vs PA-28-235/236, retract 182 vs NA Arrow, turbo-retract 182 vs Turbo Arrow. Commanders were also peer competitors, and I'm sure someone who knows more about Beech could chime in with what flavor of Bo would have been competitive to particular 182 variants. There is probably far more cross-shopping those aircraft than an SR-22.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The mission?

SR22T - faster speed. ~170 KIAS at 75% power at 8,000' at 10-11 GPH vs. ~140 KIAS at 72% power* @ 12 GPH
Click to expand...
Huh???

72% power is higher fuel flow than 75% power????

And no way you can get 75% power on 10 - 11 GPH. LOP 75% would be 17 GPH.

My TSIO-360 is 10 GPH at 65% power.
 
Worldwide trade said:
"Where's the Beef"? (as made famous by Clara Peller, the actress who ad-libbed the line in the TV commercial) so what's the pros and cons between these two venerable airplanes. I do note that old 182's do seem to maintain their value better than Cirri. Lycoming vs Continental? other issues? Bring it on!
Click to expand...

Added Clara Peller’s name because I remember it for some reason.

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
Added Clara Peller’s name because I remember it for some reason.

-Skip
Click to expand...

I didn’t associate Clara Peller’s name until Nauga used it in a byline in a different thread about engine selection in EAB land here in the last day or two.

Are you saying you edited or composed post 1?
069e1acf7f73d6f8737fcb506483af04.jpg
 
My 2¢...........is worthless, but I'll leave it here anyways. If we're talking "newer"

A 2022+ T182 (Turbo Skylane) will run you around 750-900,000 buckaroonies, depending on about 83½ different factors.... TIO-540-AK1A power.

A similar '22+ SR22T will run you...... more roonies probably. BUT, The Cirrus is a "21st Century" Aircraft model. Modern composites, designs, interiors blah blah blah..... TSIO-550K Conny power

The 182 is still a 182, designed by Methuselah himself after the book of Genesis was completed. Only with G1000 avionics and leather seats. But that also had its upsides. Parts are EVERYWHERE. Time tested design.

It still really comes down to dollars coming in vs leaving. And mission. You doing sight seeing tours? High wing is for you.

Some have issue with Cirrus being owned by Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), whom also own TCM (Continental Motors). That will be a factor for some buyers.

At the end of the day though, I'd fly either. But budgets leave me with a 1960/70s aircraft I can slowly upgrade as the budget allows.

Only Cirrus' in my price range at the time were OG SR20 trainers with timed out engines and a chute needing a repack. Never mind an SR22
 
traumamed said:
Care to elaborate? Look at cruise speed, useful load, range, fuel burn, and passenger capacity and then tell me they aren't direct competitors.
Click to expand...

Ok they are not.

Tim (You did dare someone to say it)
 
traumamed said:
Care to elaborate? Look at cruise speed, useful load, range, fuel burn, and passenger capacity and then tell me they aren't direct competitors.
Click to expand...
T182RG is a big, beefy, great handling aircraft with a nice torquey turbo-charged 540 engine that will happily break ground quickly and climb like a homesick angel. High wing with natural pendulum stability that will plow through weather with aplomb while you light another cigarette. Loafs along at 150-155 ktas (or more high up).Huge cabin and baggage area. Parts available; ok the landing gear forgings are expensive so get one that was owned by someone who knew how to land an aircraft. Slightly weird turbo set up, but the only real new learning is to pull back the throttle as you descend since the waste gate is coupled to throttle position not an absolute pressure controller. Burns more fuel, but it's worth it and there's 90 gallons on board anyhow, so bladder may limit range.

Turbo Arrow is a Cherokee with a heavily flogged TSIO-360 making less power while working harder. Many are t-tails, so can't play the edges of the flare on landing since there's no prop-wash over the horizontal stab. Book numbers suggest cruise speeds not that far off of the 182, but real world experience suggests those are optimistic and parity is reached at oxygen levels anyhow. They fly like any Cherokee with slight amounts of dutch roll mode ever-present even with the large amount of dihedral. Much harder to load, like any low wing. Snow banks may come into play in winter with the low wing. Easier to fuel, absolutely. Cantilever rather than truss wing; I'll take the latter after 40-60 years. Ridiculously easy to land which may be why Cherokees in general seem very popular as trainers of late. Not as easy to land on a spot though IMHO.

You can get good service out of either on a given mission, but after hundred of hours in both, would rather have the big-bore Cessna. Of course as fate would have it, will be flying a turbo arrow again soon for a bit. I don't think they are comparable even if on paper there's overlap.
 
Pinecone said:
And no way you can get 75% power on 10 - 11 GPH. LOP 75% would be 17 GPH.
Click to expand...
In my NA SR22, at 8k-9k, I run 25 LoP and get 168 to 172KTAS at 13 to 13.5 gph....and that works out to be 63% to 65% power (Fuel flow x 14.9)/310
 
ConstaP67 said:
In my NA SR22, at 8k-9k, I run 25 LoP and get 168 to 172KTAS at 13 to 13.5 gph....and that works out to be 63% to 65% power (Fuel flow x 14.9)/310
Click to expand...
A turbo SR22 would in fact be about 17 gph LOP from experience. Could be a bit more or less depending on power desired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top