Back to Squawk list
  • 69

Cessna releases "Skylane NXT" - JetA burning C182

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. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

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!!
Stephen Graff 4
Thank the lawyers.
sportpilot1 1
find a good clean RV 10 or build your own.. it will amaze you.
John Belcher 1
Us addicts will buy it anyway!!!
fliteshare 1
Proving that G.A. is a sunset industry.
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....
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.
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.
Gene Nowak 3
In areas of South Florida, JetA is more expensive.
gunman1 1
Typically jet a is much cheaper.
jcisuclones 3
Dear Santa,

I want this plane!
crk112 3
404 error... bad link
BoscoBob 2
I found a link that works:
crk112 1
Thanks!! :-)
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.
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.
Aircraft flying KICT to KOSH
tim mitchell 1
Just read on FyingMag that once this plane hits the market that the production of the Avgas turbo model will end
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. ?
mboette 1
I doubt we will see anything new from piper any time soon.
gunman1 1
I suspect turbo diesel will become the standard light aircraft powerplant. 100LL on the way out, jet-a readily available.
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.
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
gunman1 1
Waiting for the turbo diesel retrofit for my mooney....
Stephen Graff 1
Hmmm.. sounds like a nice option to stick on the back of a Cozy MkIV.
randy campbell 1
Lower fuel burn and cheaper jet fuel but what is the overhaul cost down the road? Interesting airplane.
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?
leon tallman 1
if this is anthing like the diesel thats out there now its junk.
rsbaker 1
How long til a line guy puts 100LL in one of these?
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.
Andrew Stagg 1
Some more info on Flying Magazine:

Apparently the engine is a SMA SR305-230E-C1 diesel:
Jack Hawkins 1
It's about time they made the 182 faster.
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?
dbaker 2
I assume it's a (piston) diesel engine, which would mean it can take JetA.
richard weiss 2
I hope it soesn't have a "jake Brake". There will be noise complaints
Now wouldn't that sound cool on short final?
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?
May as well have a jake, plane is to slow to need speed brakes.
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!!
tim mitchell 1
it better use DEF and have a DPF if anyone ever planes to fly it to
If you were going to spend the big bucks for turbine, I wouldn't think the 182 is the hot ticket. Imho
Tom Allison 1
I'll be interested to touch, feel and fly before I make any decision about that big of an expenditure...
Take this to your local truck dealer for def, dpf, and egr service. Lol. It's coming to an airplane near you
Dan Whelchel 1
Sorry Sparkie, it's a diesel not a turbine.
Wingscrubber 2

If you have an old 206, you can convert it to a turbine for about the same price of this airplane.
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.
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....
10 seconds
sparkie624 0
You're fast!
Daryan Pallas 1
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.
gunman1 1
It's not a turbine, it's a turbocharged diesel recip.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from 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.