Glass cockpit vs steam gauges for low time PPL (and getting into a fast aircraft early on)

Valentin wrote:

I would prefer a newer aircraft – less than 10 years old, 20 at most.

In that case, your biggest choice of airplanes within that age would be in the Cirrus fleet. Looking at the current offering, there are over 20 Cirri vor sale which are less than 10 years old, whereas there are 3 C182.

I agree with Jason that while the 182 fixed gear is a great family wagon in most cases you will be very grateful for the speed and range as well as the effect the parashute will have on your family’s confidence to fly with you. You said yourself that you are not operating out of small airfields and dirt strips but even so, @boscomantico here can tell you about flying the Cirrus into some of those places.

I am with those who say that the Cirrus is just another SEP. You will need a proper training, as you would with the Cessna and you need practice thereafter. But particularly with the large runways you operate from and what is in your reach in Greece, the SR22 will do the job very well and will end up giving you more airplane for probably about the same money. Personally I think that with proper training with a Cirrus savvy instructor, you will have LESS to worry about with a Cirrus than with other planes, starting with the fact that you don’t have the prop lever. And it probably is not without reason that many airlines use the SR22 these days in their pilots schools for ab initio candidates. As for the higher stall speeds, yes that is to be considered but it is not a factor on large runways. And you will see that with experience, you will be able to nail those landing distances every time. That is when you can start looking to fly into smaller airports. I’ve seen SR22’s in 600m runways without any problems.

Just to give the example: When you leave your island from your homebase, the nearest non-Fraport Avgas port is Sitia. Straight distance is 316 NM.
With an SR22 you will reach Sitia after a flight of 1 hour 45 minutes. (180 kts @ 8000 ft max cruise)
With a C182 you will reach Sitia after a flight of 2 hours and 15 minutes. (140 kts @ 8000 ft)
With an SR22 you will reach Athens after a flight of 2-30.
The C182 will need 3-10 to get to Athens.

Speed is something which is often regarded as unimportant, but in real life, speed often makes the difference between doing a trip or not. And it does make a difference for the passengers too.

Snoopy wrote:

Then again Jason as one of the few here flying in a big turbine might be best qualified to offer suggestions to you. Jason: Would be interesting which steps you would do differently looking back – from basic training to flying the Jet?

So I had about 200 hours from 10 years earlier and was ME/IR on a different licence. If I could have my time again I would have skipped the first plane I had after the comeback to flying and would have gone straight to turbine (Meridian) and accepted more onerous insurance obligations. It would have net saved money. But that doesn’t make sense for a non-IR pilot.

In general, I think get the best plane that fits your planned (and likely future) missions that a) you can afford; and b) can get insured on. This assumes you have the right attitude and are prepared to do proper training to get competent on whatever you choose. And I would always suggest 1-2 seats more than you plan to use regularly if you can manage it.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I’ve seen SR22’s in 600m runways without any problems.

You need to compare apples to apples. The SR22 ground run is about 350 m according to the POH. So you could argue that you can land it on a 350 m runway. The landing distance over a 50’ obstacle is 730 m.

At the same temperature the C182 ground run is 182 m and LDR over 50’ obstacle is 407 m

Achieving those landing distances requires some heavy braking, which again supposes that friction is good. It also supposes good (and consistent) pilot technique. And if the runway is sloped, that may change things quite a bit as well. (Imagine landing on runway 18 at Lausanne).

And the above are book numbers without any safety factor.

I think we should vote. All things considered I vote for SR22 in this case. Purchasing a Toyota Landcruise, if all you are going to do is drive on the Autobahn is just silly – and – impractical. A better option is to get a car that is made for it, like Audi/BMW/Mercedes sedan

In the SEP or MEP world there are no huge gains once you get into the 140kt+ territory, or have a turbo and climb to the “salesman territory” (FL250 and an oxygen mask).

A higher speed makes you less affected by headwinds.

The biggest speed gain is range Avoiding stops is a huge timesaver. Especially in your part of the world.

Aviathor wrote:

The [SR22] landing distance over a 50’ obstacle is 730 m

The C182 … LDR over 50’ obstacle is 407m

In the SR22, the first ~360m of this are a descent at 3 degrees from 50ft to the touch down point. Not a sensible technique for a short runway, where you put the aircraft down on the numbers, obstacles permitting. The landing roll is 370m. And yes, this will be hard on the brakes and tires

I don’t know what the assumed technique for the C182 is, since it was certified quite some time ago and it might have specific short field techniques in the manual.

Valentin wrote:

The differences are not very impressive. Not game-changers at least.

It is worth keeping in mind that 75% is max cruise power in the C182, while in the SR22 it is 85%. Also, these differences become more relevant when you have a headwind of 20-40kt.

But I see this differently. There are several aircraft that fit your mission profile. You and your family should sit in all of the aircraft you consider. Make them all get in and out, move about a bit, and see what you and they like.

When was the last time you bought a car purely by the numbers?

One important factor in Cyprus is likely Air conditioning (the SR22 has one, and it’s the only SEP I’ve flown which does)

Noe wrote:

One important factor in Cyprus is likely Air conditioning (the SR22 has one, and it’s the only SEP I’ve flown which does)

Having lived and flown in hot climates now for many years, I’d say air conditioning is irrelevant, unless you are based at an airport where you regularly have to hold forever for instrument release. At least in a Cessna, you taxi with window(s), sometimes doors, open and close them at runup and are on your way. Needless complexity in an SEP.

As an aside, the P210 has air con and AFAIK it can be fitted to some other Cessna models, not sure if the C182 is one of them.

I personally never really minded, but the passengers in the back have sometimes complained a bit