Numbers on C182T vs SR20

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
Anyone with real numbers (speed, range, useful load) on the Cessna?

It has been many years since I've flown the Skylane. I don't want to switch back and forth between the SR20 and the 182T--better to stick with one.

I'm thinking the SR20 still outperforms it, and the Perspective is better, of course.
 
Just to confirm, you're talking about a normally aspirated model, not the turbo, right? I have experience in the 182S and the Turbo 182T, but not the Normally Aspirated 182T.
 
If you want I have the POH for the 182RG, but I think performance is going to be a little different.
 
gprellwitz said:
Just to confirm, you're talking about a normally aspirated model, not the turbo, right? I have experience in the 182S and the Turbo 182T, but not the Normally Aspirated 182T.
Click to expand...
Good point double-checking.

Assuming he's talking about the 182T and not the T182T, the numbers should be the same as the 182S.

Ben, Cessna has the current model Skylane PIMs available for download, both turbo and normally-aspirated:
http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skylane/skylane-documents.html

btw, which outperforms which is going to also be a matter of geographic location and phase of flight. Offhand, and having flown both in Colorado, a 200 HP SR20 is not going to outperform a 235 HP 182 in climb (except maybe at very low density altitudes) or carrying capability.
 
Last edited:
VERY different airplanes, one is a workhorse aircraft (commonly used as a jump-ship), the other is a weekend warrior plane.

Are you buying or renting? If you are buying the 182 is a no brainer, cheaper and more of a solid of a platform...more bang for your buck.

If you are renting, the Cirrus is fun for a x-country with your girlfriend and a dog, but if you need to do alot of off-field work, or haul alot of whatever, etc the 182 is the plane of choice.

Why the turbo, are you doing alot of D/A work? The N/A models are much easier on the upkeep and cheaper on the rebuilds.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Why the turbo, are you doing alot of D/A work? The N/A models are much easier on the upkeep and cheaper on the rebuilds.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's established yet that it is the turbo model. I just wanted confirmation.
 
Yep...my N/A 182T had a useful of 1104 lbs. I planned at 138 KTAS and could see book numbers of 144KTAS at 6K on a cool day. The POH numbers were achievable day in and day out but keep in mind that it was a new aircraft...

I usual cruised at 138-142 KTAS. The range was pretty stupid as you had 87 usable gallons. At 13 GPH, I flew several 5 hour legs and landed with IFR reserves...I think I flew one leg that was 6 hours...

I will give Cessan one thing...the range andUL numbers on their website are pretty accurate numbers...there is very little optional gear so the UL numbers are generally within 20 lbs...the performance numbers in the POH, again, are spot on.

I think the SR20 is faster...the SR20 is a great plane...


spiderweb said:
Anyone with real numbers (speed, range, useful load) on the Cessna?

It has been many years since I've flown the Skylane. I don't want to switch back and forth between the SR20 and the 182T--better to stick with one.

I'm thinking the SR20 still outperforms it, and the Perspective is better, of course.
Click to expand...
 
Kelvin said:
Yep...my N/A 182T had a useful of 1104 lbs. I planned at 138 KTAS and could see book numbers of 144KTAS at 6K on a cool day. The POH numbers were achievable day in and day out but keep in mind that it was a new aircraft...

I usual cruised at 138-142 KTAS. The range was pretty stupid as you had 87 usable gallons. At 13 GPH, I flew several 5 hour legs and landed with IFR reserves...I think I flew one leg that was 6 hours...

I will give Cessan one thing...the range andUL numbers on their website are pretty accurate numbers...there is very little optional gear so the UL numbers are generally within 20 lbs...the performance numbers in the POH, again, are spot on.

I think the SR20 is faster...the SR20 is a great plane...
Click to expand...
Our N/A 182S has a useful load of 1135, so that seems about right. I understand that the G1000 is actually a bit heavier than the steam gauges it replaces, which surprised me! The speed sounds about right. I filed for 135 and would frequently see about 140 - 142, and that's without wheel pants.

And I've flown nonstop between 1C5 (Chicago area) and Hartford CT and was getting about 11.5gph total, though I had dialed back the power a bit for that. It was about 6.25 hours coming back, and I still had 90 minutes remaining.
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
Just to confirm, you're talking about a normally aspirated model, not the turbo, right? I have experience in the 182S and the Turbo 182T, but not the Normally Aspirated 182T.
Click to expand...

The NA.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Good point double-checking.

Assuming he's talking about the 182T and not the T182T, the numbers should be the same as the 182S.

Ben, Cessna has the current model Skylane PIMs available for download, both turbo and normally-aspirated:
http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skylane/skylane-documents.html

btw, which outperforms which is going to also be a matter of geographic location and phase of flight. Offhand, and having flown both in Colorado, a 200 HP SR20 is not going to outperform a 235 HP 182 in climb (except maybe at very low density altitudes) or carrying capability.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mark! I'm on the East Coast, so density altitude isn't a major factor.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
VERY different airplanes, one is a workhorse aircraft (commonly used as a jump-ship), the other is a weekend warrior plane.

Are you buying or renting? If you are buying the 182 is a no brainer, cheaper and more of a solid of a platform...more bang for your buck.

If you are renting, the Cirrus is fun for a x-country with your girlfriend and a dog, but if you need to do alot of off-field work, or haul alot of whatever, etc the 182 is the plane of choice.

Why the turbo, are you doing alot of D/A work? The N/A models are much easier on the upkeep and cheaper on the rebuilds.
Click to expand...

These are the planes available at the flight school where I rent. I have flown the C182S and liked it, but I remember it being maybe 135, 140 kts in cruise.
 
I've flown both on my frequent 300 nm X-C. But like I say, it has been several years since I've flown the Skylane, and I don't recall enough about it. The Cirrus does this trip in about 2.1 hours. I seem to remember the Skylane doing it in like 2.4 or so. Not a big difference, but consider some of my frequent passengers like to pee after about two hours.
 
Three things my wife likes about the Cirrus compared to the Cessnas we've flown: 1) more space (I see now that the C182 is 43 inches in width, whereas the Cirrus is 49 inches), 2) parachute, and 3) speed. So I guess I've made up my mind.

Now, if the flight school got either a turbo C182, or even better, a C206 turbo, then I'd switch. Of course, they're more likely to get a turbo SR22. That would be sweet.
 
Ben, it also depends on the sort of strip you'll be flying into. The Skylane is much better at short strips and grass strips.

The Cirrus always feels like you're coming in flat, too, but you'd get used to that.
 
gprellwitz said:
Ben, it also depends on the sort of strip you'll be flying into. The Skylane is much better at short strips and grass strips.

The Cirrus always feels like you're coming in flat, too, but you'd get used to that.
Click to expand...

The shortest strip I'll fly into in the Cirrus is 2800'. You DO come in almost flat, and if you're off your numbers by even a little bit, you will flooaaaaat.
 
Jthamilton said:
Ouch!!! Why do I care, this doc bought the t182t.

Some might be offended by that statement...they need to get a life though:D
Click to expand...

Why would they be offended? As soon as I have enough money, I'm going to one-up you and buy a T206! :wink2:
 
spiderweb said:
Why would they be offended? As soon as I have enough money, I'm going to one-up you and buy a T206! :wink2:
Click to expand...


Good for you, all that useful space would just make my wife want to pack more crap!

I considered the t206, great aircraft came darn close then I remembered a family doc doesn't make that kinda money so quit looking!:mad2:

Wife gonna be mad when she learns I sold some of her stuff for the 182. Better to ask for forgiveness then permission!
 
Last edited:
Jthamilton said:
Ouch!!! Why do I care, this doc bought the t182t.

Some might be offended by that statement...they need to get a life though:D
Click to expand...


So did this one.

I was going to say more, but I am getting pretty sick of the way almost any thread that mentions Cirrus becomes a Cirrus bashing party.

Bottom line, and it is only my opinion(disclaimer-I am biased towards CT182T and have absolutely no first hand experience in a non Cessna plane), is that both are perfectly good planes and you cannot go wrong with either. It seems to me the Cessna is a bit more forgiving than the Cirrus, but this may be an artifact of the jealousy of non Cirrus owners.

Doug
 
Jthamilton said:
Good for you, all that useful space would just make my wife want to pack more crap!

I considered the t206, great aircraft came darn close then I remembered a family doc doesn't make that kinda money so quit looking!:mad2:

Wife gonna be mad when she learns I sold some of her stuff for the 182. Better to ask for forgiveness then permission!
Click to expand...

So true! And as I'm sure you've guessed, a Doctorate in Music doesn't make enough for a T206, either! That's why I need three other DMAs--then we're in business!
 
douglas393 said:
So did this one.

I was going to say more, but I am getting pretty sick of the way almost any thread that mentions Cirrus becomes a Cirrus bashing party.

Bottom line, and it is only my opinion(disclaimer-I am biased towards CT182T and have absolutely no first hand experience in a non Cessna plane), is that both are perfectly good planes and you cannot go wrong with either. It seems to me the Cessna is a bit more forgiving than the Cirrus, but this may be an artifact of the jealousy of non Cirrus owners.

Doug
Click to expand...

I agree. The Cirrus is easy to fly, and it is forgiving. It's just that the Cessna is ridiculously forgiving.
 
I learned in a piper 180, owned a Cherokee six 300 after getting my ticket. Flew around a lot with no one with me. I would love to have that kinda space again in a t206 but want to see how much I use the t182t before I make that jump.

Doesn't make a lot of sense for me and my 10 year old to punch holes in sky in such a big aircraft. I've owned my 182 for a month now and am really impressed at the slow flight characteristics and what can be done on final if your high or fast. Disclaimer the latter hasn't happened yet!

I think cirrus makes beautiful aircraft, for everything they have a decent price also. Although I have little to back my concerns, long term availabilty of parts and the new ownership just bugs me some. it would probably be great aircraft to cruise around in if that's your sole mission.
 
I own a 2007 N/A C-182-T with vortex generators. I am often in and out of a 18 x 750 asphalt strip in a big parking lot (with grass on both ends) at my formerly owned drag strip in Louisiana. With my 182, I can get in/out of some places that I would not have attempted with my Archer II.

As for top-end performance, I don't push much more than 60/65 % power in cruise. 132 KTAS at 7,000 asl, 21" M/P, 2,200 rpm's, 1,370 egt, 350 cht, 11.8 gph rich of peak. It will burn 9.2 gph lean of peak, but KTAS drops to 126.

Because of all the added options, my empty weight is 2,027, which is about 100 over the basic model weight. My useful load is 1,083, = 687 pounds with 66 gal fuel, or 813 pounds with 45 gal fuel. My wife would like me to buy a 206 so we can carry our friends and more luggage... I told her we just need to start hanging out with skinnier friends.
 
noproblem said:
I own a 2007 N/A C-182-T with vortex generators. I am often in and out of a 18 x 750 asphalt strip in a big parking lot (with grass on both ends) at my formerly owned drag strip in Louisiana. With my 182, I can get in/out of some places that I would not have attempted with my Archer II.

As for top-end performance, I don't push much more than 60/65 % power in cruise. 132 KTAS at 7,000 asl, 21" M/P, 2,200 rpm's, 1,370 egt, 350 cht, 11.8 gph rich of peak. It will burn 9.2 gph lean of peak, but KTAS drops to 126.

Because of all the added options, my empty weight is 2,027, which is about 100 over the basic model weight. My useful load is 1,083, = 687 pounds with 66 gal fuel, or 813 pounds with 45 gal fuel. My wife would like me to buy a 206 so we can carry our friends and more luggage... I told her we just need to start hanging out with skinnier friends.
Click to expand...
Love it! Welcome to PoA, noproblem! :)
When running LOP, do you have a multi-probe engine monitor or GAMIjectors? I haven't tried it on the 182S with a single probe. Of course, we just got a new engine in it. Maybe it has GAMIjectors now! :)

Whereabouts are you located?
 
Yes, N14890 has the GAMI injectors. My T/O procedure is to go to the ENGINE/LEAN page after I raise the flaps. During climb, proper fuel management keeps EGT at 1,250, and CHT hangs around 320. I fly out of KJKA, and stay really busy during the tourist season, giving aerial beach tours in my 182.

I do not recommend LOP operations unless you have EGT/CHT probes on all cylinders.
 
Jthamilton said:
I learned in a piper 180, owned a Cherokee six 300 after getting my ticket. Flew around a lot with no one with me. I would love to have that kinda space again in a t206 but want to see how much I use the t182t before I make that jump.

Doesn't make a lot of sense for me and my 10 year old to punch holes in sky in such a big aircraft. I've owned my 182 for a month now and am really impressed at the slow flight characteristics and what can be done on final if your high or fast. Disclaimer the latter hasn't happened yet!

I think cirrus makes beautiful aircraft, for everything they have a decent price also. Although I have little to back my concerns, long term availabilty of parts and the new ownership just bugs me some. it would probably be great aircraft to cruise around in if that's your sole mission.
Click to expand...

That's it. I'm either having fun doing airwork or practice approaches, or I'm doing medium (300-500 mile) X-Cs for business. I'm more comfortable in the Cirrus than in the Saratoga I sometimes fly, though that bird has more room.
 
noproblem said:
I own a 2007 N/A C-182-T with vortex generators. I am often in and out of a 18 x 750 asphalt strip in a big parking lot (with grass on both ends) at my formerly owned drag strip in Louisiana. With my 182, I can get in/out of some places that I would not have attempted with my Archer II.

As for top-end performance, I don't push much more than 60/65 % power in cruise. 132 KTAS at 7,000 asl, 21" M/P, 2,200 rpm's, 1,370 egt, 350 cht, 11.8 gph rich of peak. It will burn 9.2 gph lean of peak, but KTAS drops to 126.

Because of all the added options, my empty weight is 2,027, which is about 100 over the basic model weight. My useful load is 1,083, = 687 pounds with 66 gal fuel, or 813 pounds with 45 gal fuel. My wife would like me to buy a 206 so we can carry our friends and more luggage... I told her we just need to start hanging out with skinnier friends.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Those numbers ring a bell.
 
So I'm reading this months Flying Magazine. It has an article on the new JetA C-182. It says it has a no flap stall speed of 42 KIAS and a dirty stall speed of 35 KIAS. Does this sound right for a Skylane? :confused:
 
Velocity173 said:
So I'm reading this months Flying Magazine. It has an article on the new JetA C-182. It says it has a no flap stall speed of 42 KIAS and a dirty stall speed of 35 KIAS. Does this sound right for a Skylane? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sounds slow.
 
Now this is from experience recently and is not from the poh so please don't quote me.

I believe with full flaps stall (dirty) is suppose to be 49 knots for the t182t. 2 weeks ago while learning some of the slow flight characteristics I was able to hold just over 40 knots. Of course a fly landed on my right arm and we stalled to the right!:)

Seriously, the slow flight was amazing. It's a fact that survivability of crashing is related to speed at touchdown. This keeps sticking in my mind and I'm quite comfortable with the machine I purchased.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
So I'm reading this months Flying Magazine. It has an article on the new JetA C-182. It says it has a no flap stall speed of 42 KIAS and a dirty stall speed of 35 KIAS. Does this sound right for a Skylane? :confused:
Click to expand...

That sounds more like the numbers on my Robertson STOL equipped 182. Slower even.
 
I guess one of the benefits of diesel engines is it can reduce your stall speed by almost 15 kts. I want one. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top