TR182 vs Cirrus vs DA-40

W

warthog1984

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,447
Location
Chicagoan exiled to California
Display Name
Display name:
LanCA'r
I have the opportunity for one or 2 flights in any of the above aircraft.

I've previously flown 172s, PA-28s, and some of the newer LSAs.

How will each of them feel vs the others and/or is there something about any of the planes that will be particularly noteworthy?

I know the 182 will probably be more along muscle car lines while the SR-22 and DA-40 would be slicker, but how noticeable is the difference?

Similarly, how difficult is the spring-loading in the Cirrus to get used to if I feel for my airspeed in the trainers I fly?

Will the difference in speed between a 172 and the TR182 or SR-22 be manageable or should I look for an intermediate plane like the DA-40?

Thanks!
 
What generation of SR22? I have been told the early gens feel nothing like the Gen5s.
 
It'd be either a SR-22 G2, SR-20 G2, or 2006 SR-20 GTS.

The 182 is a turbo retract version. The DA-40 is a plane jane G1000 version.
 
Last edited:
Other than the fact that they each have two wings, four seats, and one engine, the 182, the DA40, and the SR22 are totally different airplanes. Once you've flown both, you could put in a sim which emulates all three and know in seconds which one is being simulated.

As for the spring-loading in the Cirrus, mostly you get used to it fast, but you'll forever hate the rudder-aileron interconnect in those which have it, especially when flying autopilot climbs and crosswind approaches/landings.

And the differences in speed between the 172/182 and the SR22 are something you'll get used to fairly quickly, but not immediately, especially when you're trying to slow down (the Cessnas are very draggy, but the Cirrus is very slick). The DA40 would be a good, but not necessary, intermediate step, but an SR20 would be better for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
Don't even entertain the DA40. It's a giant piece of junk. I've flown, instructed and maintained them before. It's a greenhouse with poor ventilation, the ones equipped with A/C are just heavier with circulation of hot air. 150KTAS is rare, low 140s was realistic. Parts and factory support ... Complete joke. Parts are expensive, long lead times...

C182. It's been in production since the 1950s. There is something to be said for that.
 
Us old timers would go with the 182 ,the sr 22 would be an option. The DA 40 not up there for price or performance.
 
CFI AandP said:
Don't even entertain the DA40. It's a giant piece of junk. I've flown, instructed and maintained them before. It's a greenhouse with poor ventilation, the ones equipped with A/C are just heavier with circulation of hot air. 150KTAS is rare, low 140s was realistic. Parts and factory support ... Complete joke. Parts are expensive, long lead times...

C182. It's been in production since the 1950s. There is something to be said for that.
Click to expand...
I've flown all three, and I'll just say they each have their strengths and the each have their weaknesses, and each one will be the right plane for somebody. And you can't gripe about 140 KTAS if you're doing it on 10 gph but need 16 gph to go 170 KTAS in an SR22 (do the math).
 
FastEddieB said:
In my 4 years owning an SR22, I would average about 172k on 13.5 gph in cruise, even better up high. LOP, of course.
Click to expand...
I've seen 165 on 15.5, but that's about as good as I've been able to get even with Boni Caldeira's help -- and that's 5000 hours of Cirrus experience flying me. And that doesn't count the difference in overhaul and other maintenance costs with the shorter-TBO 6-cylinder engine vs a 2000-hour 4-cylinder, either. The two planes simply aren't in the same class, and their prices and operating costs reflect that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top