The T182T is a sweet plane. What it lacks is useful load. Likely will not get any increase because of nosewheel. AFAIK it carries a reduced landing weight due to nosewheel strength.

So are you!

The 210 with strut first became the 205. The 205 became the 206 a couple years later.

I believe Cezzna would do well putting the 210 cantilever wing on a 206. Then do some aerodynamic cleanup to get the speed up a bit. Maybe get 165-170 knots out of it. Wah-la, now they something with which to compete with Cirrus - a six-place fixed-gear cruiser.

All 182s are about the best planes around. However, how does the 520 version do at FL190 with 3 on board and full fuel?

Have taken the T182T coast to coast about a dozen times, in all weather; it’s quite a capable aircraft.

First year 210s are basically 180/182s (depends on who you ask) with retracts stuffed in. After 1960 model year it starts to diverge from that analogy, and soon after loses the struts. Just brought back to full time use a 1960 model so am familiar.

210s have complicated hydraulic gear and are not loved by insurance companies. A T182T will do over 150 ktas. If going a small distance, going faster than that (i.e. 170) won’t make much of a difference. If going a large distance, going faster won’t make much of a difference either.

No matter how long I fly or what other airplanes I fly later, I’ll never lose my love for C182’s. Nate’s quote is perfect. When I describe them to others, I explain that they don’t stand out in any one are but are ‘good’ at everything: fun to fly, easy to land, good visibility, good performance, good cabin room, good UL. I never had an unenjoyable flight in the 182 I flew for years. I just love ‘em.

The only exception I recall was when I ran into some light icing on one flight, so if there is a downside, it’s the lack of FIKI but most 182’s are flown in VFR not hard IFR.

In my imaginary hangar of a dozen different aircraft I’d have one of these new T182T’s.

All 182s are about the best planes around. However, how does the 520 version do at FL190 with 3 on board and full fuel?

Have taken the T182T coast to coast about a dozen times, in all weather; it’s quite a capable aircraft.

First year 210s are basically 180/182s (depends on who you ask) with retracts stuffed in. After 1960 model year it starts to diverge from that analogy, and soon after loses the struts. Just brought back to full time use a 1960 model so am familiar.

210s have complicated hydraulic gear and are not loved by insurance companies. A T182T will do over 150 ktas. If going a small distance, going faster than that (i.e. 170) won’t make much of a difference. If going a large distance, going faster won’t make much of a difference either.

That makes sense, since the NA 210 now flying has performance charts for FL200 and it has 40 less horsepower than your conversion. Though I think would take a long time to get there. The nice thing about the T182T however is that it's still climbing ~650 fpm at FL200.

Your IFR checkride sounds not so different than mine (also in Bay area), though had way more toys, so the risk of not finding the ground again intentionally was minimal.

I know this is just hearsay, but I could swear that an insurance pro posted once that 210s have had some costly gear up accidents that are driving the high cost of insurance.

The problem with the G36 (and new 206) is that you can’t actually put 6 people in them. So there really is no new 6 seater. My 1975 NA 210 has a 1525 UL. I have 1,000lbs after putting in 90 gallons and I burn 11 gph lop at 10k feet @ 150 kts. When the engine is run out I will put in an tuned induction cirrus engine.

I would think the market for an actual 6 seater would be good. BWTHDIK