Cessna Turbo Skylane Speed As Tested
Sit down. Fasten your seatbelt. This may be the fastest Skylane flight you've ever seen.
Here's the actual flight data from a Turbo Skylane delivery - Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to Kansas City about 7 am, October 24, 2007.
See level-flight ground speeds in the two-twenties and download a .pdf of the flight data and hand-written notes here.
I'm asked this question all the time:
| I read an on-line Plane & Pilot article on a 2005 turbo 206 and the performance stats mentioned in the article seemed less impressive then what I saw during the demo flight. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/cessna/2005-cessna-turbo-stationair.html At what flight level do you typically cruise and what kind of fuel burn do you see? |
Unlike other manufacturers, namely Cirrus that publish faster speeds using half-empty aircraft loaded lightly, Cessna speed figures are always published at maximum gross weight. That's because Cessna wants pilots to figure aircraft performance using more conservative numbers for flight planning.*
* How do I know this? I worked for Cessna in experimental, and in the early '90s as an accident investigator.
On this particulal flight, I was light (just me and full fuel). Therefore, the true airspeed of this flight was FASTER than published.
I climbed almost to the maximum certified altitude of the Turbo Skylane and leveled off at various altitudes during the climb to take flight data - long enough for the aircraft to be in steady unaccelerated flight after each change. Below, I show performance at recommended cruise power settings and maximum continuous power settings at various mid-altitudes:
Speed as Tested by Steve Wilson
Aircraft: Cessna Turbo Skylane, N1485C, 2,400 RPM
Recommended Cruise Power Setting:
| Altitude | KTAS | Manifold Pressure | Fuel Flow |
| 13,000' | 162 | 28" | 16.6 gph |
| 15,000' | 166 | 28" | 16.7 gph |
| 17,000' | 165 | 27" | 15.7 gph |
| 19,000' | 170 | 27" | 16.2 gph |
Maximum Continuous Power Setting:
| Altitude | KTAS | Manifold Pressure | Fuel Flow |
| 13,000' | 169 | 32" | 24 gph |
| 15,000' | 172 | 32" | 24 gph |
| 17,000' | 175 | 32" | 24 gph |
| 19,000' | 180 | 32" | 24 gph |
(Click on the altitude or power setting for screen shots.)
If you're interested in the speed of the Turbo Stationair T206H, its a few knots faster at light weight: 15,000', 169 KTAS, 30" Hg, 2,400 RPM, 18.6 gph
OK, Stephen, we pirates are not nearly as technically refined as pilots, so would you convert all of those charts, using cubits and fathoms and other pirating and nautical terms?
Reply to this
Stephen, what are your thoughts on LOP operation? I have a 2005 T206 and yesterday ran 149 true at 7000 with 30" mp, 2400 rpm, and 14.5 gph fuel flow. The TIT was 1475, and max CHT 360. This seemed to me to be very healthy. Do you climb out 30-24-20, or do you run leaner? I thought max cruise was 30", you ran 32" in your scenario. It was also interesting that you ran all your scenarios at 2400 RPM. I realize you were going for speed, but do you run any other combinations like 32" - 2200?
I am really interested in power settings and keeping the TIT and CHTs as cool as possible.
Thanks,
Scott
Reply to this
Hi Scott,
To date, neither Lycoming nor Cessna approve LOP operations for the 182/206. It makes sense to me to operate LOP, (because engine temps, especially CHTs are lower), but I do follow the book.
The POH for both aircraft approve operation at peak TIT, however, you will reach redline in the T206 before you can attain it. (At least at higher cruise power settings)
32" is full power in the T182T, and there is no limitation on this power setting so long minimum fuel flow of 24 GPH is maintained to keep the temps down. You are right, 30” at FL200 and below is recommended cruise for the T206. It’s 28” at and below 15,000’ in the T182.
Reduce RPM and you reduce power. Period. Maybe you’ll like the way the engine sounds at lower RPM or you find a sweet-spot with lower vibration, but 2,400 is a nice relaxed cruise setting compared to 2,700 which is commonly full-power in other aircraft. I, myself, prefer to leave the blue knob alone.
Thanks for asking,
Steve
Reply to this
Hi Steve,
A question from abroad - would there be anything gained in running a 172 LOP?
By the way - your blog is cool, your life raft is secured and there is a cold beer waiting for you in Denmark
Cheers from your danish connection, Mads
Reply to this
I'll make this question quick because I've got to get back to work in 14 minutes.
Is there any chance you could provide some engine temperatures for these flights? I think the Skylane is most certainly the best aircraft in its class, however I've heard some things about the engines on the Turbo's running hot? Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to ask a friendly question here. I know I was a little agressive in the other posts but that was not my intention at all.
Thanks,
Joren
P.S. You've got some great information here, it just would be even better with some more detail.
Reply to this
Hi Joren:
In the post above, you will find that the underlined engine power settings are links. Click on a power setting, and a screen shot of the MFD will appear showing engine temps.
Regards,
Steve Wilson
Reply to this
Oh,I missed that you could click on the manifold pressure as well as the altitude.
Thanks,
Joren
Reply to this
Hello Steve,
I am impressed by the numbers of your test flight. How does the T182RG compare to this? Did the aerodynamic improvements and better engine technology compensate the lower drag of the RG 182?
In other words, is it possible to beat the speed of the RG182 at the cost of economy at higher power settings?
Regards
Pierre
Reply to this
Pierre,
This is an educated guess: no, the T182T cannot outrun a Turbo R182. The difference in engine technology is that the T182T is fuel injected. This allows better leaning, therefore better fuel economy. Power is the same.
To compare airframe drag, Cessna advertised a five-knot increase from the 182S to the 182T models. Mainly a result of resigned wheel fairings and the lower cowling. It's not enough to beat the advantage of retracted landing gear though.
It's been years since I've flown a 182RG. Thanks for reading my blog.
Steve
Reply to this