Cessna resumes Turbo 182 production

[LANCECASPER]

https://media.txtav.com/209740-cessna-turbo-skylane-returns-to-textron-aviation-s-renowned-piston-product-lineup

 

I wish it was Mooney resumes Ultra production

[Hank]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

https://media.txtav.com/209740-cessna-turbo-skylane-returns-to-textron-aviation-s-renowned-piston-product-lineup

 

I wish it was Mooney resumes Ultra production

Me too!

Can't help but notice that Textron omitted any reference to pricing in their little blurb above . . . . Probably because they are embarrassed!

[LANCECASPER]

750 do I hear 8? I have 8, do I hear 850?

[Bravoman]

My guess is in the 700s to low 800s by the time you get out the door fully equipped and with tax tag and title. How much are the 206s?

[Browncbr1]

i read that it is 600k without turbo and 650k with turbo

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Browncbr1 said:

i read that it is 600k without turbo and 650k with turbo

You're correct: https://www.flyingmag.com/turbo-skylane-returns-to-cessnas-lineup/

[Parker_Woodruff]

At the prices for pre-owned Turbo Skylanes, starting production makes sense.  People seem to be fine forking over $400K or so (or more???!!!) for used ones.

[Parker_Woodruff]

If you purchased a ~$200,000 late '90s/early 2000s Skylane a few years ago, your purchase is looking like a nice investment.

[LANCECASPER]

Still one of the best all around single engine airplanes ever made. I owned an early model as a 2nd airplane with a friend a few years back with 40 degrees of manual flaps and a STOL kit - very fun to fly in and out of short strips with ease. On the early ones, most likely if you can fit it, you can haul it in that airplane. Should have never sold it . . . 

[Jim Peace]

more airplanes are nice..but what we need are more competent mechanics and mx shops and hangars etc...

[A64Pilot]

The 182 is the Swiss Army knife of airplanes, there pretty much isn’t anything that needs doing with a four place that a 182 can’t do.

Having said that, of the many things it can do, it really doesn’t do any of them exceedingly well, that requires a specialist airplane that of course gives up something to do whatever it’s speciality is.

What I have never understood is why are 172’s so sought after? One can’t hold a candle to a 182

[Vance Harral]

14 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

What I have never understood is why are 172’s so sought after? One can’t hold a candle to a 182

I think it's mainly the flight school environment, which Cessna continues to heavily influence.

My hypothesis goes like this: in training, there's rarely good reason to pay the extra cost per hour for a 182 vs. a 172, for any certificate or rating.  I know of at least two local flight schools that keep a single 182 on the line, while also running a fleet of 172s.  The former are rarely flown and can be booked on a few hours' notice.  The latter have to be scheduled days or weeks in advance.  Sure, some of the students talk about "stepping up" some day, but in the short term there's no value for the extra cost, and the insurance requirements to solo don't help.  Meanwhile, airplanes smaller/lighter than a 172 seem to have viability problems: not enough useful load, etc.  That leaves the 172 as the sweet spot for actual training.  Hence, lots of demand from flight schools.

Turning to demand outside flight schools, you have a bunch of potential owners that completed their training in a 172, who might consider a 182.  But the younger folks going directly to the airlines aren't going to buy any airplane at all - it wouldn't be affordable to them even at half of current market prices.  Amongst the remaining older/wealthier crowd, most of them understand it's difficult to operate a piston airplane as a viable business tool or personal traveling conveyance, and are only interested in the hobby aspect.  And if a "well loved" 172 at the flight school was good enough for their training, then a "nice" 172 is good enough for their follow-on hobby flying.  Sure, a 182 has better utility for not much more investment.  But that's irrelevant if the mission is to periodically fly around the patch with zero or one other buddies for $100 hamburgers and the like, so why pay the extra cost?

This phenomenon isn't unique to Cessna.  One might similarly ask why the PA-28 is so sought after when it can't hold a candle to the PA-32.

I don't have hard data to back this up, it's just a gut feel based on listening to my and others' students around the flight schools talk about long-term ownership plans.

[aviatoreb]

10 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

At the prices for pre-owned Turbo Skylanes, starting production makes sense.  People seem to be fine forking over $400K or so (or more???!!!) for used ones.

I wish Mooney could restart in the same spirit.