11 gph at 155 knots? Biofuel or not, that's not very efficient for a turbo diesel. 16 statute miles per gallon...

 

Wow, General aviation is saved!!!

Now everyone can have a half million airplane to fly to work.

 

?Are you kidding? It's not amazing, but it is by no means inefficient. That's a comparable burn and speed to a cirrus sr-20. I challenge you to find a car that gets 16mpg at 177mph.

 

It's a turbo though, that thing will rip you apart come overhaul time. Who are we kidding, the thing is half a million bucks. GA is screwed.

 

Like a 182RG, but just a bit slower!

155ktas isn't much of a problem for a NA 182RG, turbo 182 can do like 173 at 14gph, 162kts at 12gph...Twinstar with 14gph is doing better than 160kts...that's TWIN engine burn.

What disappoints me almost as much as the cost is the weight. A new 172 weighs as much (nearly 1800) as an old 182 RG....RG for gods sakes! I realize there are some improvements to crashworthiness, but with cars these improvements are usually incorporated while at the least not increasing weight, these things have become pigs...

I love cessnas, but you can't keep wrapping the same turd sandwich up in new clothes and making it less desirable. It's like one of those tricked out Caddys from the 80s. It pretty much starts to suck at EVERYTHING. While not the fastest, a good useful load and ruggedness offset this. Now it has a much lower useful load with less excess performance. Offer it in a more bare-bones lightweight package. Let the customers outfit it with the A/C, anti-ice, power seats, televisions, etc. They should NOT be trying to compete against SR20/22s and DA50s with 182s.

 

If you can get an airplane in the ballpark of a passenger car, you are doing OK.

An airline ticket is break-even on fuel consumption vs. driving long distances as long as the plane is pretty fuel (they usually are) and the driver is sole occupant (often the case).

The airplane's a lot faster on a TRANSCON, but anywhere you can drive to in a day, you'll save a bunch of money by driving if you have a family of five.

 

In the mid-1970's my parents bought a nice home in the suburbs. I remember at the time that the purchase price was about the same as a Cessna 172 at the time. Decades later and the same home is now valued in the upper 300 to lower 400K range. About the same as a new Cessna 172 today.

The thing that is different is that we lost 18 years of plane production during the 1980's and 1990's. As such we have sticker shock since we have not had anything new to look at in recent memory. In addition GA is missing 18 years of used inventory to help bridge the gap.

All we have really is old 1970's junk and very new 2000 and up. It is kind of discouraging for the new generation who is not comfortable with older stuff like that.

Skyhigh

 

Looks like Conti is going to jump on the diesel bandwagon as well. Cessna uses mostly Lycos and Textron owns Lycoming, but the Columbia uses Continentals so it would be sort of cool if there were a turbodiesel Columbia available at some point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Continental Motors unveils plans for trio of diesels

(D. Hirschman, AOPA, 7/27/12) Continental Motors will obtain FAA certification this year on the first of what the company promises will be a full line of diesel aircraft engines ranging from 150 to 350 horsepower. "These kinds of commitments allow our customers and our suppliers to know and plan their activities," said Continental CEO Rhett Ross. "We will certify a (diesel engine) this year, and we will be in rate production in the first quarter of 2013. Continental hasn't announced any launch customers for the three sizes of diesel engines it plans to produce. (Cessna Aircraft chose an SMA diesel engine for the recently announced Turbo 182 NXT. Continental's first diesel engine will be a turbo-charged 200- to 250-hp model called the TD-300. The TD-450, a 300- to 350-hp version, will go into production in 2015; and a TD-220, a 160- to 180-hp version, will be produced beginning in 2017. The push into engines designed to burn kerosene-based fuels is driven by the lack of leaded avgas in some international markets and uncertainty about the future of 100LL in the United States, Ross said. At the same time, Continental is moving to address questions about the cost and availability of avgas by certifying low-compression piston engines to run on unleaded auto fuel—even auto fuel that contains ethanol. "We are not abandoning the higher horsepower engines," Ross said. "We fully desire a drop-in replacement for 100LL--but we're not going to wait for it."...

 

Now THIS I agree with! It's time the large engine manufacturers embrace it.

 

Neat!