The TBO is listed in the article at 2,400 hours - pretty good!
The price of all new aircraft these days is prohibitively expensive for most average Americans. The price of new aircraft really is out of line with incomes - especially when a beautiful home with many upgrades costs only $300,000 where I live. The LSA category was supposed to address this issue with with sub 100k airplanes but most LSAs are falling much closer to 150k than 100k. The only option for most buyers is a 1970s aircraft or airplane partnerships. This aircraft doesn't really represent the first step most pilots will take from rental aircraft to initial ownership but instead remains far above what I ever anticipate owning. And my household earns $100k per year.
1970 California Median Home Price: $88,700
1970 New Skylane 182N Price: $20,895
And AOPA had to do a whole study on why the pilot population is dwindling.
All that aside, I am glad Cessna is moving in this direction. Leaded gas will soon be history.
$515,000 for the base price....I see the death of the single engine Cessna line. True, there are folks that will probably buy a 182 at that price, but most of us have been priced out of general aviation a long time ago. It's still fun to see what's being offered out there, even if it's way out of reach.
With my $4.3M salary this year, while working in the aviation industry, I'm sure I can afford this classic. Oh, wait, who am I kidding. Prices like that are absurd, and certainly the price/performance ratio is significantly skewed. I can't imagine trying to make money with such an expensive aircraft (a 4 cylinder, single engine, 4 seater). I did ask SMA about the cost of the engine last year. If I remember correctly, it was North of $100,000. In an attempt to compare aircraft prices from the 1960's and the average American's income, to today's income/aircraft price ratio. The results are not good. Aircraft are many times more expensive today, any way you look at it. There is no question in my mind a well run business can produce goods cheaper than they can be made "at home". Yet, in the aviation world, experimental aircraft are the better bargain. Something is clearly wrong.
Well, this brings up more questions than answers: What's the TBO? What's the overhaul cost? What was done to fix the 12,000 max ceiling limitation on the engine (brought on by fear of water in fuel freezing)? TCM licensed the SMA diesel we were told a few years ago, but Lycoming is going to provide the support? Inquiring minds want to know more.
Of course, we also have to address the question: How many people can afford a $515,000 182? And why would they?
My research tells me that one gallon of Jet-A weighs 6.8 lbs. Eighty-seven gallons weighs 591.6 lbs. Subtracting 591.6 fron the stated useful load gives a payload of 438.4 lbs. My Archer II has a greater payload. Please correct my math if need be. Why would one want to own this kind of performance for a price like this?
@gsmorgansen Thanks or pointing out an error in the article, the 1,160 nm range is at MAX SPEED of 155 knots, not with full fuel. Cessna says the full-fuel range will be about 1,400 nm, and who'd want to fly that far (at reduced speed) before stopping?
@b.read Cessna sure made it sound like the 182 is just the first diesel model it will offer. It also says the avgas 182 is being discontinued, so I think you can read between the lines here.
This is very bad news for a 100LL replacement. When the big dog in the market decided to dump avgas, you've been warned.