faster 182?

Got a demo flight in a new Skylane Saturday morning. Very nice airplane.
The G1000 stuff was a bit bewildering at first but otherwise it flew just
like any good 182...

....except for one thing: it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet, 10 deg.
C OAT, 135 KIAS. Wow! That is 10 knots faster than my buddy's 1980 model.

The guy who runs the FBO that rents it ($190/hr) says their other Skylane is
just as fast. He said changes Cessna made to the cowl and wheel pants
starting in 2005 make the difference. The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Oh, yeah, one other difference I noticed: the view forward is much better
than in older 182s, a combination of new glare shield and seat designs, I
suppose.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:38:32 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

The guy who runs the FBO that rents it ($190/hr) says their other Skylane is
just as fast. He said changes Cessna made to the cowl and wheel pants
starting in 2005 make the difference. The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

FWIW, I routinely plan 141TAS at 15gph in a 2004 182S.

On 12-Feb-2007, "Dan Luke" wrote:

The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.


My suspicion is that part of the increased cruise speed is the result of
aerodynamic improvements and part is due to higher power setting (maybe
about 85%?), as evidenced by the much higher fuel flow

-Elliott Drucker

Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.


Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

"Newps" wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.


Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.

On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Newps" wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.

It is if the new 182s still have only 235 HP.

Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Newps" wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.

It is if the new 182s still have only 235 HP.

Oh. Duh.

I don't know why the high flow. Maybe I looked before we leaned it?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:14:26 -0800, Dan Luke wrote
(in article ):


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Newps" wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.

It is if the new 182s still have only 235 HP.

Oh. Duh.

I don't know why the high flow. Maybe I looked before we leaned it?



IIRC it should be about 13 gph.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Dan Luke wrote:
"Newps" wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.




55 horsepower is a big difference.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Dan Luke wrote:
"Newps" wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.



55 horsepower is a big difference.


Right.

I suspect I checked the fuel flow before we leaned it.