Cessna Turbo 182 JT-A

[FastAttack]

Anyone saw this recent article about the 182JT-A?

http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?watch=BzNm1wNTrs2R3ROg4QVpERDWUa8DgkRG&CMP=ADV:1

What do you guys think?

So the pros:
At a fuel burn of 11.5 at cruise and climb ! at FT
at 90kts would it be safe that it uses closer to the 172 fuel burn levels?
a TBO of 2500 hours on this new engine
Jet A ( which is cheaper)
Seems like the payload is higher.
No Mags
No Spark plugs to foul.
Could be use anywhere , from mountain regions to flat lands in florida.

Cons:
Expensive at 500k
Turbo ( another part to do MX)
Computer controlled so the old timers will freak out with 1 lever
Dam that Manifold pressure! ( its diesel but that high number can freak anyone out lol )

What do you guys think as a "future replacement" for our old fleet , even though we all know they are cutting the amount of new aircraft we get per year.


Do you all think this would be a feasible aircraft for CAP to get in the future if the budget on getting new aircraft was no concern?

[bosshawk]

One: this new model isn't a whole lot more expensive than the G-1000s that CAP currently buys.  I suspect that Cessna will give CAP a sizeable discount like they do on the current ones.

I want to see the increase in payload.  Where are they getting that increase?

Cessna has also announced that when they are able to build the Jet-A version in useful quantities, they will no longer build the gasoline ones.  That will mean that if CAP wants 182s, they will be Jet-A models.  I suspect that CAP will see the new models before too long.

CAP cannot use the 172 in the mountains of the West and they aren't buying 206s on any regular basis, so I suspect that the 182 will be airplane of choice.

Turbo: some of the current 182s being purchased by CAP are turbocharged.  There is at least one in CAWG that I know of.

[Critical AOA]

I saw it at Oshkosh and listened in on the Cessna reps talking it up.  Looks sweet.

As to cost savings:

They estimated that if you fly 200 hours per year you will save $7,000 in fuel costs.  I am not certain what the typical CAP 182 averages in hours flown per year.
The cost of the JT-A will be $515K vs $480K for the T182T.  That is a difference of 35K and at the 7K per year savings in fuel will take 5 years to recover.  Of course the more you fly, the more the savings and the sooner the payoff. 

Also, diesels are normally cheaper to maintain and more reliable than gasoline engines.  This being a new engine / install, the wrinkles might not all be ironed out as of yet so the normal maintenance savings might not be as great initially.  Over time, it could be significant.

So cost savings?  Most likely.  How much?  I don't have enough data.

As to payload increase, maybe, maybe not.

I believe that the useful load is currently listed the same at 1030 lbs for the T182T and the JT-A.  BTW, the non-turbo 182T has a useful load of 1,126lbs.
This would seem to indicate the same basic empty weight.  I do not know what the weight difference is for the engine but from what I have seen, it doesn't appear to weigh less.   Both aircraft carry the same amount of fuel which is 87 lbs.  Since Jet A weighs in at 6.8 lbs per gallon vs. 6 for 100LL, a full tanked JT-A model will be carrying almost 70 lbs more in fuel.

However.... with the reduced fuel burn (30-40%), you can put on less fuel for a given mission which should not only offset the extra weight from the greater fuel density but most likely increase your payload as well.

Should CAP buy them?  Far above my pay grade though I would not object.

[Flying Pig]

The engine and associated components are lighter.  No mags, no plugs, no prop control, engine isnt as heavy etc etc etc

You put a turbo prop on one of those and it knocks off about 250 lbs.  But generally with a turbo prop conversion you end up with larger tanks so there can be a trade off.    But a turbo prop is doing about 20gph.

I like the trail of black smoke coming out on take off.....  makes you feel like a B52!

But $515K..... not bad.   I did a proposal to have my TC206H at work converted to a Soloy turbo prop.  The change was about $475K, but based on the amount of hours I fly in a year Jet A vs 100LL saved about $55K a year in fuels costs alone. 

[c172drv]

From the little I've seen this seems to be a great choice for the future.  I would see that we might want to wait a year or two for the kinks to be worked out or start early and get extra support from Cessna as we are a large fleet operator.  We can also see further benefits by committing to Jet A fuel and convert engines on the older aircraft to the diesel options out there.   I think that we'd see a large savings for fuel cost but I'm not sure if it will offset the purchase cost. 

John

[Critical AOA]

The engine is lighter? I would think with the higher compression ratio necessary for a diesel engine that the engine would be heavier not lighter.  In fact I thought that weight considerations was one of the main reasons that diesels have never gained much of a foothold in aviation.  They simply weigh more than a comparable gas engine.

Also, no prop control?  I was under the impression that it had a constant speed prop which should still require a prop governor.  Yes you will not have the manual control handle and cable leading to the governor but I believe that is a relatively minor deal and you are adding a computer to control the prop and engine.

No mags, correct.  No plugs?  It probably has glow plugs for starting.

Sorry but I am not convinced that the package is lighter. 

I would still love to see what the actual total powerplant package weighs for each variant.  As I wrote, I believe they have kept the useful load of the aircraft the same.  So maybe there is a practical zero weight change.

[SarDragon]

Diesel:
    Type: Four-cylinder, four-stroke diesel aircraft engine
    Displacement: 4,988 cm3 (304 cu in)
    Length: 820 mm (32 in)
    Width: 930 mm (37 in)
    Height: 750 mm (30 in)
    Dry weight: 195 kg (430 lb)
    Power output: 169 kW (227 hp) at 2,200 rpm, producing a 734 N·m torque, 18.5 bar mean effective pressure

Current Lycoming:
    Type: Six-cylinder air-cooled horizontally opposed engine
    Bore: 5.125 in (130.2 mm)
    Stroke: 4.375 in (111.1 mm)
    Displacement: 541.5 in³ (8.9 L)
    Dry weight: 438 lb (199 kg)
    Power output: 300 hp (223 kW) at 2,700 rpm at sea level

Heavier, per cylinder; fewer cylinders; lighter overall.

Re: conversion - As of early 2008, SMA had provided over 50 conversion packages (the installation is usually performed by other companies, not SMA). Most of those conversions were performed in Europe, with less than a dozen having been performed in North America. The package costs around $75,000, and installation costs around $7,000.

[SJFedor]

Diesel:
    Type: Four-cylinder, four-stroke diesel aircraft engine
    Displacement: 4,988 cm3 (304 cu in)
    Length: 820 mm (32 in)
    Width: 930 mm (37 in)
    Height: 750 mm (30 in)
    Dry weight: 195 kg (430 lb)
    Power output: 169 kW (227 hp) at 2,200 rpm, producing a 734 N·m torque, 18.5 bar mean effective pressure

Current Lycoming:
    Type: Six-cylinder air-cooled horizontally opposed engine
    Bore: 5.125 in (130.2 mm)
    Stroke: 4.375 in (111.1 mm)
    Displacement: 541.5 in³ (8.9 L)
    Dry weight: 438 lb (199 kg)
    Power output: 300 hp (223 kW) at 2,700 rpm at sea level

Heavier, per cylinder; fewer cylinders; lighter overall.

Re: conversion - As of early 2008, SMA had provided over 50 conversion packages (the installation is usually performed by other companies, not SMA). Most of those conversions were performed in Europe, with less than a dozen having been performed in North America. The package costs around $75,000, and installation costs around $7,000.

But the IO-540 we currently used is governed down to 2400rpm, with an output of only 230hp for C-182T's. So it's actually pretty close in power output based on what's currently in service.