← Back to Squawk list
  • 69

Cessna releases "Skylane NXT" - JetA burning C182

Submitted
Jet-A fueled, the Turbo Skylane NXT eliminates Avgas dependency, reducing fuel costs and allowing more time between engine overhauls – keeping your operating costs to a minimum. (textron.vo.llnwd.net) More...

dbaker
SuperstarOverachieverMonthly PickTrendsetterPaparazziJet setterWeekly PickNews junkieMaxed OutDeputyEnthusiastTrusted friendHonor RollDaily PickCaptainExplorerADS-B FeederCriticIndustry GuruGroupieSocialiteOutspokenAmateur PhotographerPromoterAltruistEnlightenedAnnouncerAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Wingscrubber
Wingscrubber 4
Price of a Cessna in 1956 = $8,995, which was reasonable compared to the cost of a new family car at the time of about $3000.

This new airplane is being priced at $515,000. Half a million dollars. More than the cost of a new Rolls Royce, or Lamborghini.

$8,995 adjusted for inflation is $75,888. But you'd be lucky to even find a used 30 year old airplane at that price.

A new Cessna is now 675% more expensive than they were 50 years ago, which is why all we can afford to fly are the same 50 year old airplanes bought back when they were affordable. It's not tough to figure out why GA is circling the drain when an entry-level airplane is 5 times the cost of a family home!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sgraff1971
Stephen Graff 4
Thank the lawyers.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sportpilot1
sportpilot1 1
find a good clean RV 10 or build your own.. it will amaze you.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
n825al
John Belcher 1
Us addicts will buy it anyway!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
fliteshare
fliteshare 1
Proving that G.A. is a sunset industry.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ddljr
ddljr 1
My dad bought a full IFR Skylane new from Cessna in 1974. $38K at his cost. She was N111DL then...but when he moved up to a new Piper Aztec in 1976 he took the N# with so she became....N111DE. There's a picture of her on FlightAware too. Made me really smile because I was only 11 years old then. Lives in So Cal now instead of KDPA but every bit as gorgeous as every 182 is. Yeah, I'm a Skylane fan. Pushed to the end of her limits, she will bring you home safe as long as the pilot doesn't stand in her way. No BRS needed for certification either. And you could put 5 in her with full fuel too. Try that with one of these new ones. I want to see the useful load on this new one though....
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bboaze
Bruce Boaze 1
Hey, they can't have them or their parts built in China! Most cars are a high percentage Chinese parts. Houses too for that matter.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tkrajcar
Tim Krajcar 3
Going to be interesting to see the "real" #s on this - both purchase price delta, and operating cost. The marketing one-sheet claims a "30 to 40% less fuel consumption". Combined with Jet A being, around here, around 20% less than 100LL and it could be a significant difference in operating cost.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
grinch59
Gene Nowak 3
In areas of South Florida, JetA is more expensive.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
gunman1
gunman1 1
Typically jet a is much cheaper.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jcisuclones
jcisuclones 3
Dear Santa,

I want this plane!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
crk112
crk112 3
404 error... bad link
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
BoscoBob
BoscoBob 2
I found a link that works:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=110047&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1717355&highlight=
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
crk112
crk112 1
Thanks!! :-)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
radioace318
Johnny Shelton 2
just read "The new 182 will be available in next year’s second quarter at a base price of $515,000, replacing the avgas-burning Turbo 182, production of which will end once the NXT hits the market. The turbocharged, direct-drive SMA SR305-230E-C1 diesel engine is already FAA and EASA certified. The engine features single-lever control with no mixture connected to a three-blade propeller operating at a constant speed of 2,200 rpm. SMA has facilities in France and Grand Prairie, Texas."

At that price I want to hold out for the turbine.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ddljr
ddljr 1
Had to jump on that one....The reason the Turbo 182 is flagging and being replaced with this kerosene burner is the same reason a turbine would be a really dumb move. Nonpressurized, powerplant is exponentially more expensive at acquisition let alone the average hot section on a Pratt PT-6 is north of $30K on average...and we won't even talk about overhaul. That airplane would likely push $775000, and be pointless. It would be so derated to stay within airframe limits that there would simply be no sense to a turbine 182. Check out the turbine conversion for the Beech Baron. Same issue.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ifrflyer
Lawrence Chistopher 2
Aircraft flying KICT to KOSH
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9008H
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
Just read on FyingMag that once this plane hits the market that the production of the Avgas turbo model will end
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
cgalliand
Craig G 1
Now that Cessna has this motor in their 182, I wonder if Piper would put a pair of them in a Seneca. ?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mboette
mboette 1
I doubt we will see anything new from piper any time soon.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
gunman1
gunman1 1
I suspect turbo diesel will become the standard light aircraft powerplant. 100LL on the way out, jet-a readily available.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sportpilot1
sportpilot1 1
I fly a Vans RV 10 get a ground speed of 195mph on 13.5 gallons.. it carries 4 big guys and fuel and has EFIS with autopilot. cost less than one third of the new cessna.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
HAMSTA
HAMSTA 1
The Iraqi Airforce has been using this type of aircraft for some time now due in part of the the need for 100LL, it has a Mercedes deisel engine that is only good for about 1000 hours or so give or take...Cheers
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
gunman1
gunman1 1
Waiting for the turbo diesel retrofit for my mooney....
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sgraff1971
Stephen Graff 1
Hmmm.. sounds like a nice option to stick on the back of a Cozy MkIV.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
randycampbell
randy campbell 1
Lower fuel burn and cheaper jet fuel but what is the overhaul cost down the road? Interesting airplane.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jorivera
Jose Rivera 1
I think is too expensive, comparing the reduction of operating expenses. for that price I can buy a good condition twin engine and save alot of money. Also how about the weight added for those 87 gallons of usable fuel (around 522 lbs)I will have to sacrifice cargo area passengers weight?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
leon4056
leon tallman 1
if this is anthing like the diesel thats out there now its junk.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
rsbaker
rsbaker 1
How long til a line guy puts 100LL in one of these?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
cgalliand
Craig G 1
This might be the Diesel that Continental has been developing from the SMA Diesel. They bought the rights from SMA to make these. You can/could get the SMA Diesel installed in an 182 as a retrofit.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
andrewstagg
Andrew Stagg 1
Some more info on Flying Magazine: http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-introduces-jet-skylane

Apparently the engine is a SMA SR305-230E-C1 diesel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMA_SR305-230
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jack25
Jack Hawkins 1
It's about time they made the 182 faster.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
zcolescott
Zachary Colescott 1
Interesting. So I'm slightly confused though. Is this a turbine 182 or is it some sort of hybrid, piston engine that burns Jet-A?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
dbaker
dbaker 2
I assume it's a (piston) diesel engine, which would mean it can take JetA.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rick737
richard weiss 2
I hope it soesn't have a "jake Brake". There will be noise complaints
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 4
Now wouldn't that sound cool on short final?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
fritzjames
James Fritz 1
Very cool and a great saftey feature also to make the dopy pilot at pre-check position with head in...aahhh....cockpit look up/out and not taxie onto the runway causing a go around, Ja?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
May as well have a jake, plane is to slow to need speed brakes.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
fritzjames
James Fritz 1
Reminds me of some of the Canadian bush pilots with beavers and norsmans who would rattle or break windows with a low buzz using high rev with fine pitch to make the prop tips pass the speed of sound!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
it better use DEF and have a DPF if anyone ever planes to fly it to California..lol
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
If you were going to spend the big bucks for turbine, I wouldn't think the 182 is the hot ticket. Imho
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tallison46
Tom Allison 1
I'll be interested to touch, feel and fly before I make any decision about that big of an expenditure...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Take this to your local truck dealer for def, dpf, and egr service. Lol. It's coming to an airplane near you
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
danpegla
Dan Whelchel 1
Sorry Sparkie, it's a diesel not a turbine.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Wingscrubber
Wingscrubber 2
http://www.soloy.com/files/Products/Documents/206%20Specs-Price.pdf

If you have an old 206, you can convert it to a turbine for about the same price of this airplane.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
n825al
John Belcher 1
We past right over Wankel. I was factory trained for them in 1968 and other than pollution they were very light and developed lots of torque at operating rpm. Apex seals were a bitch but with modern materials they would be more reliable.You could add as many rotors as you want and any size. Would need a reduction gearbox though, been there before.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Interesting.... One rule of thump when fueling is that if the prop is stiff, avgas, if it spins free jet... Wonder who long it is going to take someone to mis-fuel one of these....
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
10 seconds
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
You're fast!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
madmax82
Daryan Pallas 1
nice!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
LOL, Nice looking plane... But I think maint cost just for routine maintenance would be very interesting... Would be good for someone who wants to log and get certified for turbine time.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
gunman1
gunman1 1
It's not a turbine, it's a turbocharged diesel recip.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss