The easiest way to distinguish a turbo from non turbo is the single exhaust stack on the turbos and dual exhaust stacks on the non turbo. Different set of cowl flaps.
The 182 has always been my favorite plane since I was a kid. Im 46 now. RC airplanes are a hobby of mine and the Cessna 182 is my favorite model of the ones ive had and have. It flies so well as a model and I imagine it's the same in the real 182.
I have a friend who owns a 182Q model, and he says the same thing about insurance. All the companies are a lot more reasonable towards fixed gear airplanes, because they can’t have gear up accidents. Whereas complex airplanes like a 182RG model, they’ll charge a pretty penny because of the gear up landings.
@@noblegoldheart8508 EXACTLY! Plus, you don't have the weight, complexity, or expense of having retractable gear. I bet annuals on retractables are expensive.
@@markymarknj and that’s precisely one of many reasons why I’d like to own a 182. Much later down the road of course, but they’re absolutely solid airplanes that can do just about anything. Speaking from experience too, they’re also decently easy on maintenance.
@@markymarknj and yes, annuals for complex airplanes are hideously expensive. Because every annual or 100 hour inspection, you have to do a gear swing. Which includes the labor of jacking the airplane, and using a tail boom to support the tail. A good example of this is the Cessna 310. Every single annual, you have to re-rig the landing gear because it’s a fully mechanical system. And overtime the cables, chains, and rods will wear out and have to be readjusted.
Cessna has been pushing how good Cessna single engine airplanes are. While I am not current (I probably can't get another medical), I still follow the aviation community. Your comment about the airplane being 60 years old really brings home that it's an OLD airplane, with OLD technology. The TIO-540 engine still has magnetos! There are certified electronic spark systems available which will bring better fuel economy. Why isn't Cessna using them? How about aerodynamic clean up? Both the 210 and the 177 have used internally braced wing structures. Okay, maybe not for the Skyhawk, but the Skylane should be able to reduce drag by going to an internally braced wing. Honestly, if I was upgrading the Skylane, we'd start at the front of the airplane. The TIO-540 would be gone. It would be replaced with a Continental CD-300. More horsepower, more performance, better fuel availability, better fuel economy. Diamond is doing very well with that engine in the DA-50 right now. Even with the higher weight of the engine and the fuel, you could probably gain useful load in the cabin. Change out the 552 pounds of fuel to 337 pounds of Jet-A with 50 gallons total fuel on board. With a fuel burn of only about 9 gph versus 14 gph or higher for a TIO-540 and you could go at least as far on less fuel. Next, I would get rid of the wing struts, as mentioned earlier. I think we ought to retract the landing gear, as well. Should give us a few more knots of speed. We might even be able to go to a four blade prop, say from MT or someone. All of our General Aviation airplanes from Cessna, Beech and Piper are decades old designs, or based on decades old designs, using decades old technology. While I understand the very small market for GA Airplanes today, and the cost of certifying a new airplane, at some point, manufacturers are going to have to start switching over to new tech and Jet-A for new airplanes. My two cents.
That would be a great 1.5 million dollar airplane you've come up with! As far as having retractable gear....did you just invent the 182RG, or has it been around for awhile?😀
@@quinnjim I think you're overstating the price a bit, but $1-$1.1M, probably. A new Turbo 182T is north of $800,000 as is. And, as you are well aware, Cessna did do a 182RG, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be brought back. Currently, Cessna has no single engine retractables in production. So, not only the 182, but the 172RG should be returned to production, which allows for 'complex' training.
Turbocharging is great at high altitudes. If you want to go faster than the T182, get a T210. I had a 1967 T210 for several years and its true airspeed was always 200 mph or more from 8,000 feet up, burning 16 gph. The 1967 model has four "real" seats, not six like later (and more expensive) models.
However… the normally aspirated 182 is 100lbs lighter, burns unleaded fuel (UL91, UL94), costs less and still climbs pretty high. But… you‘re right when it comes to flying above high terrain.
Cessna is quickly pricing themselves out of being a true general aviation aircraft supplier. Absolutely gross how expensive basic 172s and 182s are becoming. And VB isn’t helping by jacking up prices through the roof
What's the point of having the prop heated in the TC, but not having boots on the wings? If you fly into known icing, you'll still have an issue with icing on the wings, no?
Me too. 360 6'5" Just beginning as a student pilot in ground school. Got my medical done and asked my AME who is also a pilot and familiar with the Cessna 172 if he thinks I'll fit. He says it'll be a little tight but I will fit.
The best value in new airplanes *Might* be the standard 182. As it can carry 4 actual adults, takeoff and land at almost any airport, and fly a good distance in a reasonable about of time. Coast to coast in long day, if you want to grind for 15 hours aloft, plus 3-4 fuel stops. But best for the price of a 182T? (>$850k?)... You should be looking at Cirrus, Diamond, Mooney. The 182 has advantages, in that it flies like a heavy, faster 172. Annuals are relatively affordable (especially without the turbo). But it is not a "good value" if speed/range/economy are serious factors.
Primary flight training in a 182? Only for a lottery winner. What’s the recommended reserve cost per hour in a TIO540 vs an IO 360? I realize this is a sales video but c’mon…..
@@andrewcavese1387 It would add at least $2000 to private pilot training if you got it done in 40 hours or so. So, no, not lottery winner money, but a lot for many of us. That money would buy you another 13 hours in a 172 though.
Beautiful old technology that has not really changed in 60 years. It is in the price range of more modern aircraft like a Cirrus. Although not a popular statement, the company should have added a ballistic parasure system to the plane to better compete with their primary competition like the cirrus.
Best value??? Who would pay about 1 million dollars for a plane that has about 100,000 dollars of materials in it? Cessna high wing technology has not really changed in 60+ years.
It's not even remotely best value. If anything, it's a far worse value than even luxury brands like Cirrus and Diamond. At least then you get composite skin with carbon fiber trim and looks that are to die for. Cessna has looks only a mother could love and metal skin aircraft that weigh as much as an American.
@@Maniac742 i liked the RG, but am not a fan of the fixed gear… sfill, the cessna 400, ttx, and the Lanceair were beautiful planes. Cessna buying them is only good for shareholders by eliminating a competitor. How great would it have been to design down from the lanceair to a true trainer. Lost opportunities for real advancement. Yippe: 1940’s tech!
I'd agree if these aircraft weren't getting so out of control in cost. A new one of these starts around $650,000. Well this is a metal aircraft. It doesn't even have composite skin or carbon fiber. How many people can afford to drop $650k on aircraft, let alone one that's just a piston single?
typical salesman, never tells you the whole truth -- just partial (the part that helps the sales). It's definitely more complicated -- especially comparing to your primary training, since you have more numbers to watch out. You might never worry shock cool in 172,
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I watched the video completely. The whole video was awesome. Good luck for that
The music is very annoying. Why play music when someone is talking?
ya really it sucks
@@larrydockery7201 actually adding music track is what the UA-cam creative instructors teach.
The easiest way to distinguish a turbo from non turbo is the single exhaust stack on the turbos and dual exhaust stacks on the non turbo. Different set of cowl flaps.
The 182 has always been my favorite plane since I was a kid. Im 46 now. RC airplanes are a hobby of mine and the Cessna 182 is my favorite model of the ones ive had and have. It flies so well as a model and I imagine it's the same in the real 182.
I doubt that your experience flying RC airplanes translates in any way whatsoever into flying an actual plane!
I imagine the fact that the 182 has fixed gear is another reason why insurance is reasonable on these airplanes-no gear up accidents.
I have a friend who owns a 182Q model, and he says the same thing about insurance. All the companies are a lot more reasonable towards fixed gear airplanes, because they can’t have gear up accidents. Whereas complex airplanes like a 182RG model, they’ll charge a pretty penny because of the gear up landings.
@@noblegoldheart8508 EXACTLY! Plus, you don't have the weight, complexity, or expense of having retractable gear. I bet annuals on retractables are expensive.
@@markymarknj and that’s precisely one of many reasons why I’d like to own a 182. Much later down the road of course, but they’re absolutely solid airplanes that can do just about anything. Speaking from experience too, they’re also decently easy on maintenance.
@@markymarknj and yes, annuals for complex airplanes are hideously expensive. Because every annual or 100 hour inspection, you have to do a gear swing. Which includes the labor of jacking the airplane, and using a tail boom to support the tail.
A good example of this is the Cessna 310. Every single annual, you have to re-rig the landing gear because it’s a fully mechanical system. And overtime the cables, chains, and rods will wear out and have to be readjusted.
@@noblegoldheart8508 I'd LOVE to have a 182! It's a great airplane.
Definitely a great airplane , great presentation too !!
Awesome explanation good job !!!
Beautiful 182 T ! Great presentation working on purchasing one sometime in the future! Thank you for sharing!
If you buy from Van Bortel, you will pay top dollar.
😂
Randall,
Excellent video! Without question the T182T Skylane is a hoss of an aircraft.
Best,
Mike Brown
Thank you! 👏👏👏
Fantastic video, thanks for sharing.
What a great aeroplane
Did I see the BRS parachute release handle by the fuel selector?
hi Randall, would you concider the 82 is a good option to circummnavigate
the globe, bear in mind the leg bet Hawaii to CA is over 2400nm,, thank you
For landings what are the airspeeds and flap settings for a Skylane T182T
54kt vs0. 45kt full flaps
Cessna has been pushing how good Cessna single engine airplanes are. While I am not current (I probably can't get another medical), I still follow the aviation community. Your comment about the airplane being 60 years old really brings home that it's an OLD airplane, with OLD technology. The TIO-540 engine still has magnetos! There are certified electronic spark systems available which will bring better fuel economy. Why isn't Cessna using them? How about aerodynamic clean up? Both the 210 and the 177 have used internally braced wing structures. Okay, maybe not for the Skyhawk, but the Skylane should be able to reduce drag by going to an internally braced wing.
Honestly, if I was upgrading the Skylane, we'd start at the front of the airplane. The TIO-540 would be gone. It would be replaced with a Continental CD-300. More horsepower, more performance, better fuel availability, better fuel economy. Diamond is doing very well with that engine in the DA-50 right now. Even with the higher weight of the engine and the fuel, you could probably gain useful load in the cabin. Change out the 552 pounds of fuel to 337 pounds of Jet-A with 50 gallons total fuel on board. With a fuel burn of only about 9 gph versus 14 gph or higher for a TIO-540 and you could go at least as far on less fuel.
Next, I would get rid of the wing struts, as mentioned earlier. I think we ought to retract the landing gear, as well. Should give us a few more knots of speed. We might even be able to go to a four blade prop, say from MT or someone.
All of our General Aviation airplanes from Cessna, Beech and Piper are decades old designs, or based on decades old designs, using decades old technology. While I understand the very small market for GA Airplanes today, and the cost of certifying a new airplane, at some point, manufacturers are going to have to start switching over to new tech and Jet-A for new airplanes.
My two cents.
That would be a great 1.5 million dollar airplane you've come up with! As far as having retractable gear....did you just invent the 182RG, or has it been around for awhile?😀
@@quinnjim I think you're overstating the price a bit, but $1-$1.1M, probably. A new Turbo 182T is north of $800,000 as is. And, as you are well aware, Cessna did do a 182RG, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be brought back. Currently, Cessna has no single engine retractables in production. So, not only the 182, but the 172RG should be returned to production, which allows for 'complex' training.
You’ve mouthed more than 2 cent. Let Cessna always be a Cessna and more flavor you can buy of these great aircraft!
How long will the oxygen canister last with 4 people?
Turbocharging is great at high altitudes. If you want to go faster than the T182, get a T210. I had a 1967 T210 for several years and its true airspeed was always 200 mph or more from 8,000 feet up, burning 16 gph. The 1967 model has four "real" seats, not six like later (and more expensive) models.
However… the normally aspirated 182 is 100lbs lighter, burns unleaded fuel (UL91, UL94), costs less and still climbs pretty high.
But… you‘re right when it comes to flying above high terrain.
Cessna is quickly pricing themselves out of being a true general aviation aircraft supplier. Absolutely gross how expensive basic 172s and 182s are becoming. And VB isn’t helping by jacking up prices through the roof
What's the point of having the prop heated in the TC, but not having boots on the wings? If you fly into known icing, you'll still have an issue with icing on the wings, no?
Great video I would love to fly I’m a big guy at 350 lbs and I don’t think I would fit in them training planes.
Me too. 360 6'5"
Just beginning as a student pilot in ground school. Got my medical done and asked my AME who is also a pilot and familiar with the Cessna 172 if he thinks I'll fit. He says it'll be a little tight but I will fit.
@@jerodkenoyer270 ok let me know how you fit good luck with your training
@@carlmanning6707 I certainly will. Thank you. I hope you get to experience it too.
@@carlmanning6707 I am 6.4 / 250 - the 182 fits like a glove. goinf back to a 172 feels like an insult now
Looks sleek
Great video but….please turn off that horrible music!! It distracts from the important content.
do you offer steam gage to glass training?
Once you learn the Garmin, you will never fly with steam gauges!
how much is average hour cost for this plane?
US$200.00
The Turbo Normalized IO-540 Cessna 185, in my opinion, is THE best plane. It has the 3rd wheel under the rudder post where it belongs!
Mean machine
Beautiful aircraft, so very expensive tho..
Sadly that comes at a 600-800k cost
The best value in new airplanes *Might* be the standard 182.
As it can carry 4 actual adults, takeoff and land at almost any airport, and fly a good distance in a reasonable about of time. Coast to coast in long day, if you want to grind for 15 hours aloft, plus 3-4 fuel stops.
But best for the price of a 182T? (>$850k?)... You should be looking at Cirrus, Diamond, Mooney.
The 182 has advantages, in that it flies like a heavy, faster 172. Annuals are relatively affordable (especially without the turbo). But it is not a "good value" if speed/range/economy are serious factors.
Primary flight training in a 182? Only for a lottery winner. What’s the recommended reserve cost per hour in a TIO540 vs an IO 360? I realize this is a sales video but c’mon…..
Tbh the 182 is not tht crazy to use for training.The prices arent terrible to rent in my area.
@@andrewcavese1387 in my area a 182 is at least $50 more per hour than a 172.
@@shakey2634 yeah im not saying there comparible in price but 50 more an hour is not only for lottery winner lol
@@andrewcavese1387
It would add at least $2000 to private pilot training if you got it done in 40 hours or so. So, no, not lottery winner money, but a lot for many of us. That money would buy you another 13 hours in a 172 though.
Beautiful old technology that has not really changed in 60 years. It is in the price range of more modern aircraft like a Cirrus. Although not a popular statement, the company should have added a ballistic parasure system to the plane to better compete with their primary competition like the cirrus.
I believe you can add one to the 182
Best value??? Who would pay about 1 million dollars for a plane that has about 100,000 dollars of materials in it? Cessna high wing technology has not really changed in 60+ years.
Textron is where great companies go to pasture
It's not even remotely best value. If anything, it's a far worse value than even luxury brands like Cirrus and Diamond. At least then you get composite skin with carbon fiber trim and looks that are to die for. Cessna has looks only a mother could love and metal skin aircraft that weigh as much as an American.
@@Maniac742 i liked the RG, but am not a fan of the fixed gear… sfill, the cessna 400, ttx, and the Lanceair were beautiful planes. Cessna buying them is only good for shareholders by eliminating a competitor. How great would it have been to design down from the lanceair to a true trainer. Lost opportunities for real advancement. Yippe: 1940’s tech!
Because of lawyers! Frivolous lawsuits. Liability $$$
I love the 182 TC with the Garmin nxi…
Insurance is reasonable
OMG - make the frigging music stop! Holy crap is that annoying. I can’t even hear what he’s saying over the damn “exciting” music.
I'd agree if these aircraft weren't getting so out of control in cost. A new one of these starts around $650,000. Well this is a metal aircraft. It doesn't even have composite skin or carbon fiber. How many people can afford to drop $650k on aircraft, let alone one that's just a piston single?
Add $200k for this Turbocharged model.
There are like three airplanes on the market under $1/2Mil.
Why do you play musak over your sales pitch? Is some young kid is producing your videos?
Easier way to tell a turbo from none turbo the exhaust, the none turbo has 2 pipes sticking out while the turbo has 1..
i learned in the 182 to big for the 152
Boring as a Camry.
😂
typical salesman, never tells you the whole truth -- just partial (the part that helps the sales). It's definitely more complicated -- especially comparing to your primary training, since you have more numbers to watch out. You might never worry shock cool in 172,
Unless you are training at -40 degrees, it is unlikely anyone will have any issues with "shock cooling" in a 182/T.
The comparison was between a non-turbo and turbo 182. It was not a comparison with the 172.
if i ever win the lotto ill buy me a cessna 182 love thoes little air planes