Why would you pick a T182T?

[TangoWhiskey]

I'm looking at the specs on a the T182 vs. the T182T. Obviously, one is turbocharged, and one is not.

HOWEVER... the difference in service ceiling is not what one would expect. The 182T has a "Service Ceiling" of 18,100 feet, and the T182T has a "Certified Maximum Operating Altitude" of 20,000 feet.

The Cessna website really uses those two separate terms in describing the maximum altitude.

182T: http://skylane.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml
T182T: http://turboskylane.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml

So, inquiring minds want to know if the T182T is worth the extra money. It has a lower useful load (due to the turbo's weight), a much higher cost, and you only pick up 1900 feet of altitude??

Can somebody explain this to me? Can a T182T actually go much higher than that (the 26000 or so that similarly-powered Beech aircraft can go to?), but Cessna didn't run certification tests that high? If they didn't run tests that high, why not? It doesn't make sense to me for them to market the Turbo as giving a less than 2000' advantage over the much simpler, cheaper, higher useful load normally-aspirated 182T.

Confused...

 

[poadeleted3]

I'm thinking that there are certification requirements above 20,000 feet, but am not really sure. The turbo will be climbing strongly past 10K, the non-turbo not so much. The turbo is faster, climbs better on a hot day and will get you off the ground faster. But it doesn't carry crap. Given the lack of mountains around here, I'd probably go with the non-turbo.

 

[gibbons]

Troy,

I can't speak to the C182, but my normally aspirated A36 has a certified ceiling of 18,500' MSL.

Hahahahahahahah!!!!!! Hehehehehehe!!!! Snort!

Maybe, given enough time and fuel it could claw its way up there. I've had it to 15,000 a few times. Rate of climb at that altitude is about 150 fpm. A turbocharged airplane, however, is climbing strong at 15,000'.

Don't place too much weight on the service ceiling. A turbocharged airplane will maintain a strong climb well above 9,000 while the non-turbo will start wheezing. My A36 used almost 5,000' of runway the other day at an airport where density altitude was about 10,500'. Turbo 182's and turbo Centurians were popping off in about half that.

 

[spiderweb]

Right, and it isn't just that, Troy. Remember that at FL180 the NA 182 will be dragging along at very low MP, so the true airspeed won't be good. Meanwhile, at the same altitude, the T182T will be producing more horsepower and a much better true airspeed.

 

[Frank Browne]

Because any plane is better than no plane?

 

[gismo]

I'm looking at the specs on a the T182 vs. the T182T. Obviously, one is turbocharged, and one is not.

HOWEVER... the difference in service ceiling is not what one would expect. The 182T has a "Service Ceiling" of 18,100 feet, and the T182T has a "Certified Maximum Operating Altitude" of 20,000 feet.

The Cessna website really uses those two separate terms in describing the maximum altitude.

182T: http://skylane.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml
T182T: http://turboskylane.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml

So, inquiring minds want to know if the T182T is worth the extra money. It has a lower useful load (due to the turbo's weight), a much higher cost, and you only pick up 1900 feet of altitude??

Can somebody explain this to me? Can a T182T actually go much higher than that (the 26000 or so that similarly-powered Beech aircraft can go to?), but Cessna didn't run certification tests that high? If they didn't run tests that high, why not? It doesn't make sense to me for them to market the Turbo as giving a less than 2000' advantage over the much simpler, cheaper, higher useful load normally-aspirated 182T.

Confused...

AFaIK most unpressuized turbo'd airplanes are flown below 20,000 anyway so that MOA probably isn't an issue for very many owners. What you get with a turbo is significantly higher TAS in the high teens and impressive groundspeed when eastbound. You also get better takeoff performance with high DA (there is still some loss of takeoff performance with increasing DA, just not as much) and the ability to outclimb slightly steeper terrain. The downsides are higher initial and maintenance cost, and a higher fuel burn rate.

 

[bbchien]

AFaIK most unpressuized turbo'd airplanes are flown below 20,000 anyway so that MOA probably isn't an issue for very many owners. What you get with a turbo is significantly higher TAS in the high teens and impressive groundspeed when eastbound. You also get better takeoff performance with high DA (there is still some loss of takeoff performance with increasing DA, just not as much) and the ability to outclimb slightly steeper terrain. The downsides are higher initial and maintenance cost, and a higher fuel burn rate.

The up side is climb through ice at lower AOA and spending much less time in the top 500 feet of the ice cloud, which is PUNISHING. The Turbo runs 1000 fpm well up through the tops. The wheezy spends minute after minute loading up with ice.

20K is allright until you cross the rockies. IFR, If you don't want to get shaken to pulp, or be enveloped in that constant FL18 to FL 21 ice cloud, you need FL 22 as a minimum.

 

[Henning]

I'm looking at the specs on a the T182 vs. the T182T. Obviously, one is turbocharged, and one is not.

HOWEVER... the difference in service ceiling is not what one would expect. The 182T has a "Service Ceiling" of 18,100 feet, and the T182T has a "Certified Maximum Operating Altitude" of 20,000 feet.

Can somebody explain this to me? Can a T182T actually go much higher than that (the 26000 or so that similarly-powered Beech aircraft can go to?), but Cessna didn't run certification tests that high? If they didn't run tests that high, why not? It doesn't make sense to me for them to market the Turbo as giving a less than 2000' advantage over the much simpler, cheaper, higher useful load normally-aspirated 182T.

Confused...

Well, the comparison is apples and oranges, You are comparing a regulatory number FL200 where you are not supposed to exceed, with an actual number 18,100 which you aircraft will not make unless conditions are perfect or better.

The sticker used to say 23,000 on my Travel Air, I managed to climb well above that, and had usable speed up there.