If you are planning a flying adventure, it makes sense to give some consideration to the make or model of aircraft that could be used. Some have features, which may be more or less suitable for what you are planning to do.
He is flying both, Cessna and Cirrus aircraft, and he has his favourite, depending on the situation.
Cessna and Cirrus both strive for maximum safety in designing aircraft. But he believes, that they are applying a different philosophy in trying to achieve that same objective. He does not judge one as generally superior to the other, but depending on the circumstances, one may be more preferable than the other.

For this brief comparison and some thoughts around differences, he uses the Cessna 182 Skylane and the Cirrus SR20.

Let’s look at some apparent design differences:

High wings versus low wings

The most obvious difference between the two aircraft is that the Cessna has high wings whilst the Cirrus has low wings.
A high wing aircraft is inherently stable, as the centre of gravity is below the centre of lift. A lot of dihedral must be incorporated into a low wing to achieve the same longitudinal stability.
The high wings also provide better sights on the ground, which is preferable during a low level inspection of a remote bush strip which has seen more rain and termites than maintenance. On the other hand, the high wing briefly obstructs your view during turns, especially when turning on the base or final leg. But if the sky, sun and moon is your thing during cruise flight, then you may prefer the low wing.

Some less obvious wing features

In terms of simplicity, there is another advantage with a high wing. Fuel flows to the carburator by the forces of gravity. There is thus no need for a fuel pump and an auxiliary pump. That is one thing less to worry about and which could pack up and spoil your trip. This advantage obviously only applies to aircraft with a carburator engine, as in most C182 models.
Talking about simplicity, the Cirrus has a simple but impactful design feature – Cuffed Wings. The leading edge of the wings are not continuous, and split the wings into an inner and outer part, each with a different angle of attack. If you approach a stall, the inner part of the wing will buffet whilst the outer part still generates lift and has aileron authority. This provides solid spin resistance, and thus a simple but effective safety feature.

A far less obvious advantage of a high wing is the provision of shelter from the elements. You can leave your tent with all its poles at home. Just carry a tarpaulin, throw it over your high wing and tie it down on each side. You have a high rise tent with direct access to your aircraft where you can keep your luggage and valuables safe. Certainly an advantage on a camping trip into remote untouched places.
It is for obvious reasons, also easier and more convenient to load your luggage and gear into a high wing aircraft.

Then there are some less obvious design and feature differences:

Aircraft Parachute System

The Cirrus comes with the Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System (CAPS). If things go completely haywire, you shut the engine and pull the CAPS. The chute will engage and the aircraft including everything inside will sail to the ground. A sophisticated honeycomb structured metal mesh inside your seat cushion will absorb that final impact on the ground. Using the CAPS is definitely much safer than any attempted forced landing. The aircraft is however guaranteed a write off.

He appreciates this safety backup especially during night flights. When flying in Africa at night, it is very dark, it is pitch dark and even if there is a road somewhere down there, don’t expect cars with lights you could follow.

Less obvious, the CAPS can be handled and engaged by a non-pilot. You can easily brief your passengers on its simple use to give them piece of mind for the unlikely event that their pilot becomes incapacitated during flight.
Such a system doesn’t come with a Cessna, although there are kits available to retrofit a Cessna with a parachute system. But that is obviously adding extra weight and affects your loading capacity.

Speaking about loading capacity, there are some fairly significant differences.

Loading Capacity

The SR20 has a fuel capacity of around 56 US gallons. At a fuel burn of 10 to 12 US gallons per hour, that gives you an endurance of about 5 hours.

The C182 with long range tanks has a capacity of around 80 US gallons. At a fuel burn of 12 to 14 US gallons the hour this translates into an endurance of 6 hours. That is one extra hour of flight. You may recall from an earlier blog post what difference 1 hour of fuel can make out there in remote Africa.

With full fuel, the C182 gives you around 300 kg of pay load, compared to around 280 kg in the Cirrus. So in standard configuration, you get about 20 kg more loading capacity plus 1 hour of additional endurance on the C182.

The pay load however depends on what extra equipment is fitted in the aircraft. With the Cirrus, there is no real need to fit anything extra, as it comes standard with virtually anything thinkable. The C182, which is a much older baby, may do well with some extras.

Nose wheel

A last minor difference to mention here is the nose wheel. The Cessna’s nose wheel is controlled with your rudder pedals, whilst the Cirrus has a free casting wheel.
An advantage of the free casting wheel is, that you can do a 180 degrees turn on the spot. When you come from the Cessna, it may be a bit tricky at the beginning, until you get used to it, when maneuvering on the ground. But then, who wants to maneuver on the ground with an aircraft for extended periods? Not him.

Let’s move to some differences in the inside:

Fuel metering

The main difference in terms of power plant is fuel metering. The C182 generally comes with a carburetor, whilst the SR20 comes with a direct injected engine.
Direct fuel injection is generally considered as non-icing. So unlike with a carburetor you don’t have to worry about carburetor icing and applying carb heat where icing may occur.

A direct fuel injected engine runs also substantially more efficient, as each cylinder gets the same amount of fuel. With a carburetor that varies quite a bit. Fuel leaning is therefore more accurate with a direct injected engine.

Fuel mixture leaning

The Cirrus comes with a built in lean assist system to identify peak and then richen or lean the mixture to the desired setting.

In your C182, if you have a cylinder head and exhaust gas temperature probe, you can use these readings for mixture setting. But the temperatures vary so much across the cylinders, that this more complex leaning method does not really bring any better result than leaning simply by using your ears.

He leans the mixture until he can feel a slight drop in power and a rougher engine running, then just richen enough until the engine runs smoothly. It’s far easier than playing around with the Engine Management System (EMS).

That does however not in anyway discount the value of an EMS. Just for your magneto checks, which are vital, the EMS is more accurate and reliable than the standard RPM drop check.

On the other hand a direct injected engine requires a fuel pump to get the fuel to the cylinder heads. In addition to an engine driven fuel pump there is also an electrically driven auxiliary pump for priming, boosting and backup. A high wing aircraft with a carburetor engine needs neither. It operates simply by the laws of physics. And the the laws of physics do not fail until the universe comes to an end. That is in infinity.

Let’s move to the cockpit:

Glass cockpit versus six pack

The most obvious difference of the Cirrus when compared to most C182s that are flying around, is the glass cockpit. That doesn’t mean that you can’t equip or purchase a C182 with a glass cockpit. It’s just that the C182 has been in operation for so much longer, long before glass cockpits were introduced.

A glass cockpit is more efficient to scan, gives more accurate feedback and reduces the risk of instrument reading errors compared to the conventional six-pack. The Cirrus also comes with a Garmin 1000, including Terrain Awareness and Collision Avoidance system.
There is however a heavier dependency on the aircraft’s electrical system with a glass cockpit. The Cirrus therefore has a conventional Airspeed Indicator, Artificial Horizon and Altimeter, to which the pilot can refer in case of an electrical failure of the primary flight display.

The conventional six-pack consists of mechanical instruments, which are less dependent on electrical power. He would suggest that they are therefore also less likely to fail. That is however a matter of opinion.
When you have an electrical power failure in a six-pack C182, you loose your comms, flaps and the turn indicator. Everything else will continue to operate. There is certainly more you loose in the Cirrus in such an event.

Propeller blade pitch control

Another noticeable difference between the two aircraft is that the Cirrus does not have a pitch lever, there is only the throttle and the mixture.
The propeller pitch in the Cirrus is adjusted through a mechanical mechanism integrated in the throttle, or power lever. The throttle lever is connected to a slotted cam, which connects to the propeller governor. The slot in the cam is machined in such a way, that the propeller pitch maintains 2500 RPM unless the throttle is set at full power or reduced to a low setting where 2500 RPM can no longer be maintained.

It is a really clever system, which reduces the pilot’s workload but also protects the power plant and constant speed unit from incorrect power settings. On the other hand it is obviously somewhat more rigid in terms of power setting control. With a manual pitch lever, you have more flexibility in selecting the preferred power setting between economy and high power cruise. This flexibility is however limited by your engine and constant speed unit.

Instrumentation complexity

The entire instrumentation in the Cirrus is substantially more complex then in the C182. That also means it needs a specialised Engineer to do maintenance and repair on the aircraft. Also is the Cirrus far less common out there in Africa than a Cessna. That is simply because the Cessna has been around for far longer. Many second hand Cessna’s from North America and Europe still fly in Africa.
A significant and very relevant consequence of this is, that the availability of a certified Engineer and spare parts out there in Africa is certainly substantially better for a Cessna than it is for a Cirrus. If you are grounded with your Cirrus, you will be grounded for far longer than the guy with the Cessna. And it will cost you a good few fat bucks more to get airborne again.

Some final considerations:

Overall the Cirrus comes with far more sophisticated systems than a conventional C182. These systems reduce the pilot’s workload, make flying easier, reduce errors and free up additional resources for risk management during flight. In the Cirrus philosophy that makes flying safer.
The Cessna’s design and system is more simple and mechanical. It uses concepts that have been proven during millions of flying hours and thus makes the aircraft as reliable as it can possibly be. In the Cessna philosophy that makes flying safer.

Of course this is his own interpretation of applied philosophies and as such by no means meant to be authoritative. He would be happy to hear your own views and opinions about the two aircraft and preferences among them.

For flying adventures out into remote Africa he prefers the Cessna for its reliability, the stable lazy high wings, longer fuel endurance and also the higher chances of finding a place of maintenance if something does go wrong.
To fly around holiday destinations or give someone a lift for a meeting around South Africa, the Cirrus is definitely the more convenient choice.