Turbo Skylane Returns To Textron Lineup


Textron Aviation announced on Thursday that it will be returning the Cessna Turbo Skylane T182T to its piston product lineup. A turbocharged version of the Cessna 182 Skylane, the Turbo Skylane T182T was introduced in 2001 and production was paused in 2013. The company says it is current taking orders for the model with plans to begin deliveries in early 2023.

“The Cessna Skylane is a remarkably instinctive aircraft to operate, and the turbocharged engine provides even greater performance that enhances the overall flying experience,” said Textron Aviation President and CEO Ron Draper. “The Turbo Skylane represents our commitment to offering new and innovative solutions to our piston owners and operators, and we’re pleased to bring expanded capabilities to this segment of the market.”

At a base price of $653,000, the 2023 Cessna Turbo Skylane T182T will feature the Garmin G1000 NXi avionics suite with a GI 275 electric standby, a constant-speed, three-blade, electric de-ice McCauley propeller and an in-cabin oxygen system. Powered by the Lycoming TIO-540 engine, it is equipped with a Hartzell Engine Technologies (HET) turbocharger designed to provide the aircraft with 235 horsepower up to its 20,000-foot maximum cruising altitude. The four-seat Turbo Skylane has a top cruise speed of 165 knots, 971-NM range and useful load of 998 pounds.

Kate O'Connor
Kate O’Connor works as AVweb's Editor-in-Chief. She is a private pilot, certificated aircraft dispatcher, and graduate of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Other AVwebflash Articles


  1. Don’t get me wrong; the 182 is a great airplane, but “new and innovative” aren’t exactly the words I would use to describe it. Maybe if this was 1965. This from the same company that stopped production of the TTX, which could fly higher and faster and was definitely a more “modern” design. Interesting that there was no mention of the price…

    • John … if you have to ask the price, you can’t afford it. Methinks you and I will stick with our current rides 🙂

      • It grieves me to think what I sold my lovely 2006 T182T for ten years ago.

        What a grand airplane she was. I put Gami-Jectors on her and she would do 150 kts all day at 12,500 and 11gph, running cool, lean-of-peak.

        I loved **1GS like a favored child until a busted medical took her away, and I still miss her dearly. I’m happy to see Textron bringing this wonderful airplane back even though, as you say, they won’t sell many at that crazy price.

    • Oh, Boy, are you ever correct about stale technology versus (less stale) tech in the TTx. I almost pulled the trigger on both a 2015 and 2016 TTx when each came up for sale (one at VanBortel in Texas). But, buying a retirement place took precedence over my interest in another “toy” (per my Wife). As they say (whoever “they” is): close only counts in horseshoes, nuclear war and fragmentation grenades.

      There was an excellent piece that I stumbled upon last year comparing a TTx with a SR22T; the TTx came out ahead. Reminds me of the PC networking Operating Systems war of the mid-80’s: Novell Netware was Far Superior to Microsoft and the Banyon-Vines/Ungerman-Bass technology (Procter & Gamble’s choice). These days, does anyone know anything about Servers running on anything other than Linux or Microsoft?

  2. “At a base price of $653,000…”

    One of the best all around GA planes ever.

    Easy to fly, as safe as can be expected, carries a load, roomy and comfortable, stable instrument platform, relatively inexpensive to operate, and fast enough, especially at altitude with a turbo.

    With that said, $653,000?!?!?!

    They will sell 9.

  3. the original price of a 182 in 1956 was $17,000 or about 3.5 times the median salary of $4800. The best figure I could find for the current median US salary is about $68,000 which means that this plane is 9.6 times the median salary. I am a 35 year old aerospace engineer. in 1956 in the same type of job I could have afforded to buy a 182 new, now I couldn’t even come close.

    • You’ve hit the conundrum right on the head, Brian. I’ve owned a ’75 172M for nearly 37 years. NEW, it sold for just over $21K and thousands of them were sold during those years. I bought it when it was 10 years old for $13.5K with a run out engine which I flew for 400 hours before installing a factory new 160hp high compression engine under STc. All in, I have just over $30K in the airplane and could easily get twice that if I put it up for sale. With a new panel and radios, I think I’d get even that investment out of it? And if I had to, I kept the original low compression engine IF I have to run it on mogas in the future?

      Unless and until something happens to allow sale of airplanes for a price where “everyman” (that includes the ladies) can afford AND justify one, they’ll only be building these things in very limited numbers, sadly. The 182 IS the epitome of the Cessna single engine four place line, IMHO. I’d love to have one but … sorry … not at this price. I thought the GA Revitalization Act was gonna rectify all of this. Well … maybe MOSAIc?

    • Don’t kid yourself, $17K was a huge sum in 1956 – it would have bought you a nice house in a big city. Today, $700K is about the same. New airplanes have always been very, very expensive. Far beyond the reach of 97% of the population. Prices won’t come down until volume goes up. That’s the issue.

      • it wasn’t that much. a 1957 chevy cost $2300 new. you can buy a new four door sedan today for about $35,000. that would mean that that $17,000 price would be more like $250,000-260,000 today. not cheap but certainly not $700,000. If you use the official inflation rate it would only be $170,000 today.

  4. I think compared to the Cirrus and other aircraft that top $1million they’ll be attractive for many. Question really is what’s the real nicely appointed price?

  5. The only way it would be even close to that price would be if it was the RG version with the extended range fuel tanks. And key word is close. Me thinks it is outrageous myself. Another reason why the 162 failed. The power / performance / useful load ratings really haven’t changed much since the 1950’s. If at all. Little hard to justify the selling of it like that.

  6. “The Turbo Skylane represents our commitment to offering new and innovative solutions to our piston owners and operators, and we’re pleased to bring expanded capabilities to this segment of the market.” What are the “expanded capabilities” exactly over earlier iterations? No thanks–for half that price (or less), I’ll go get a nice used one and introduce EFIS with my iPad, ForeFlight and ADS-B…

  7. After owning an older Skylane for 35 years I have followed the history of offerings. They need to add a turbo charger since the plane has been on a steady increase in weight to the point that it really became a three place aircraft based upon real numbers payload, especially with full tanks, not like the old days when you could fly off if you could close the doors. Too bad they swapped out the smooth Continental for the rough running Lycoming. With all the free money the government has been giving away, the price only reflects the level of real and long ongoing inflation. I guess they could make them cheaper in China, but they would probably just keep the additional profits.

  8. Did Textron not get the memo? Airports across the country are outlawing 100LL. I hope for $700K they through in an STC for sparsely available GAMI 100 and SWIFT fuel.

    Wouldn’t Textron’s R&D money be better spent on a turbine 206? Just figuring the future of high compression piston engines doesn’t look real good.

  9. Please, if you are going to talk “useful Load” at least give the gal. of fuel it holds OR give payload with full fuel. Useful load without the number of gal. is USELESS…..and yes, the pun is intended.

  10. Pet peeve on aircraft articles. Far too many “reviewers” say “But you can only carry XXX with full fuel”–as though that is a negative. (Note–Aviation Consumer is not guilty of that.)

    The reality is that aircraft certified in the 1930s and 40s WERE able to do “fill the seats and fill the tanks”–but they DIDN’T have the range option when the seats were NOT filled.

    Many of us fly aircraft with 6 seats or more, and with that many people on board, SOMEBODY will have to go to the bathroom in a couple of hours, so range isn’t a problem. It’s nice to have the option of additional range when only HALF the seats are occupied–it comes in handy by not sweating fuel in bad weather, or after FBO operating hours, or traveling over sparsely-populated area, or when either facing big headwinds or taking advantage of big tailwinds. Having the option of uploading extra fuel when the seats are not all occupied is valuable.

    • I was just reading all these post. I flew for the last 6 years a 2014 Matrix. It was a wonderful plane but if you added 6 people, you could only put in enough fuel to make it to the runway 🙁 great 4 place airplane but that’s it. I recently turned 70 and insurance was over 20K. I sold my half to my partner and purchased a new Tecnam P2010. Anyone looking for a reasonable comfortable plane, look here vs a 182. With the IO 390, you get almost the same performance as a 182 but much more comfortable plane. There are a couple good videos

      The second video will show you the attributes of the Tecnam. What I love about my plane is inside width is 45″ vs 42′ in a 182. Huge difference. 2. The seats go up and down electrically which my wife loves. 3. We have a third door in the rear for loading and unloading people and luggage. Removing a back seat takes about 30 seconds.. You can buy the plane brand new with a similar warranty to the Cessna for over $100K less. I’m a big guy at over 6′ and 250#. Never felt comfortable in a 182 but this plane there is tons of room. I was asked about fuel and performance. I set manifold and rpm for 11-12 GPH and am seeing ground speeds 120-150 kts. Remember that the 182 has 15 more HP and is 3″ narrower.

      The Tecnam is a game changer for myself and people I know who’ve bought it too.

      Good hunting yall.