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 watched the video completely. The whole video was awesome. Good luck for that

Definitely a great airplane , great presentation too !!

Fantastic video, thanks for sharing.

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.

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.

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.

Randall, Excellent video! Without question the T182T Skylane is a hoss of an aircraft. Best, Mike Brown

What a great aeroplane

Looks sleek

Mean machine

For landings what are the airspeeds and flap settings for a Skylane T182T

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.

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.

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 really changed much in 60+ years.