I did skip that step. It was only one year and technically they were on the same type certificate. The 205 is more correctly the 210-5.

Cessna is not likely to go down that road again.

I think the 182 *was* the most adequatest plane out there, with its best models being built before they shut down production. The restart models have comparatively poor useful load, so it's not as much of a "load it and go" plane.

They need to give it more power and increase the gross weight so it gets back to the 1300 lb useful load it used to have. No utility plane like this should be restricted to 2 people and bags with 5 hours of gas on board, which is effectively what you get with the current 182s.

I doubt it.

210 accident history is not very good. Liability for it would be much higher.

Also much more complex to build. It would be $1M.

A 182 makes sense.

It needs to run on 94UL or Jet-A, though. A new plane requiring 100LL is starting to make very little sense.

Mike C.

They could call it the 210! Honestly, I apparently don’t understand the market because I would think more people would want a new 6 seat turbo 210 than a T182. I wouldn’t want to compete with Cirrus head to head in the 4 seat market with an old aluminum design, but the 6 seat market is more open for them. I would think.

Looks very likely the no planes will require 100LL after this year.

Thus my question about the “bones”.

What’s so different with the C177 ?

I rule out a C210, for same reason as others. No retractable will do well in this space. Same issue with 6 seats. Basically liability for the manufacturer and in-insurable for the step up pilot.

Looks very likely the no planes will require 100LL after this year.

Can you expand on that Charles?

Mike where are you getting that data. It's my understanding that the 210 is right in the grouping of accident rates in the 6 place retractables. I don't disagree with your conclusion, just this particular reason. Unfortunately, I can't find a comparison online.

For it to be a really new plane offering that would be a revolution for Cessna it would have to be a turbo diesel, that works. But it could easily be a another Cessna innovation; a 182 with cup holders and dual USB ports.

Mike where are you getting that data. It's my understanding that the 210 is right in the grouping of accident rates in the 6 place retractables. I don't disagree with your conclusion, just this particular reason. Unfortunately, I can't find a comparison online.

I read somewhere that some Cessna functionary said that Cessna would never build another SE retract.

It reminded me of a interview Flying magazine did with Beech in the late 80’s. The interviewer asked innocuously about the Musketeer line, and the Beech guy said point blank “The facilities & tooling are dismantled and the folks that built them are long gone. They’re not coming back, ever”.

Best,
Rich

" Two people and bags with 5 hours of fuel"

The 182's of the 70's do better than that. And with the STC with the 150 pounds gross weight increase, even better.

My '75 182 P which has the gross weight increase STC, and a 520 with a 3-blade prop will carry 4 185 pound people, plus 130 pounds of baggage, 75 gallons of useful fuel, and fly for 4 hours at 155 knots with a 45 minute reserve. Useful load 1320.

Edit: The 182's with the 520's and 550's are a lot of fun. If you use the power to go faster
you may find that your fun meter loses a little something when you look at your fuel flow meter.

Hey, at least they're tossing something into the piston bucket. A new 210 would have been awesome though.

I remember Russ Meyer being quoted as saying the same thing.