Which is safer- 182, BE36, or Cirrus?

Depends mostly on the pilot

If you want to nitt pick, the 182 has better off field performance, especially if you get one of those carnard ones
 
The one with the Lycoming engine and no bladders.
 
You have to match the pilot with the plane with the mission. If any of those are out of balance bad things can happen. Otherwise, if flown by conscientious and proficient pilots, on missions that the pilots and planes are equipped for, safety is very good. On the order of fatal accident rates well below 1 per 100K hours. What you read about in NTSB reports are 9/10 times the result of an imbalance of these factors.

As an example, a 150 hour conscientious VFR pilot, flying a C182 on a good weather day on a 100nm cross country, will have a calculated fatal rate well below 1 per 100K hours.

A 10,000 hr, nerves of steel, ATP rated pilot trying to take a C182 across the Rockies during a named winter storm..... Well I would not want to the the backer on his/her insurance policy.

The problem with trying to apply population statistics with flying to individual risk, is that individual risk is just so modifiable.
 
Rockymountain said:
You have to match the pilot with the plane .....

The problem with trying to apply population statistics with flying to individual risk, is that individual risk is just so modifiable.
Click to expand...

I am guessing the OP wants to assume the pilot skill level is a constant across the three models of planes.

And the weather conditions are constant across the three planes.

Given everything is constant, which make and model is safer?
 
Uhhh. . .none of them really. . and what diffrence does it make? All are reciprocating, single engine aircraft; you pretty much set the "safety" threshold fairly high when you decide to these such aircraft. Ghastly death is likely in any of them in a mid-air collision, thunderstorm penetration, major flight control compromise, in-flight fire, air frame icing. . .

I imagine there is little meaningful diffrence between them, given the small sample of events to draw conclusions from. If safety is a primary, driving concern, then buy a car, instead.
 
I think if a person was buying, the cirrus has a lot going for it. All good planes. My order would be 1. Cirrus. 2. Beech. 3. 182. I like the speed and don't do bunch of local casual flying.
 
They all have different capabilities. Were I fly I would like the 182. The Beech 36 is way cool, so I would take one each 182 and BE-36. I would not be interested in the Cirrus..;)
 
Whichever one you want to give me.
 
JoseCuervo said:
I am guessing the OP wants to assume the pilot skill level is a constant across the three models of planes.

And the weather conditions are constant across the three planes.

Given everything is constant, which make and model is safer?
Click to expand...

Again, I think you have to define the mission. Going into a 1500 ft. gravel field with a 10 knot cross wind... I am taking the 182. Cirrus is not going to do so well in that environment. Going on an 800 nm trip, VFR at both ends, but 750 nm of icy stratocumulus and low ceilings in between, I am taking the plane with the 900 nm range and staying on top. Night IFR over the Rockies, had to choose between the 3, Cirrus all the way. So again.... it depends on the mission ;-)
 
hindsight2020 said:
At least I'll get there in one piece...
Click to expand...

I'd take take Pepsi challenge on that one with my A185F any day,

especially in her current configuration, my standard load, having one or sometimes two people in that plane, with the high lift wing, all the STOL goodies, real IFR panel, ability to land on land or water, and those 300hp don't hurt.

If you look at the working planes that go to hell and back daily, in environments like Africa and Alaska, most all have bladders and aren't rocking lycomings, U206/7, 185, etc
 
Theboys said:
I think if a person was buying, the cirrus has a lot going for it. All good planes. My order would be 1. Cirrus. 2. Beech. 3. 182. I like the speed and don't do bunch of local casual flying.
Click to expand...

AKBill said:
They all have different capabilities. Were I fly I would like the 182. The Beech 36 is way cool, so I would take one each 182 and BE-36. I would not be interested in the Cirrus..;)
Click to expand...
Nice chocies, but the question was safest? As stated previously it's the pilot that makes the biggest difference.

After that maybe whether the plane is flown off of grass, short strips or long paved runways. The Cirrus and Beech aren't the best for that. They can do it to a degree, but the 182 is better/safer.

Overall the Cirrus offers more safety via the chute. One still has the option of gliding to a runway, road or field, but it has another option the other two don't; the chute. Hasn't the Cirrus had a below average fatality rate the past few years?

The vast majority of my flying time, when I was flying a SR22, I was within glide range of a public paved runway. I kept one of the 430s on nearest airport so I knew if that was an option if the engine failed.

None of those are bad options, and all involve risk. The SR22 has an edge due to chute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top