260 se or katmai vs new

[Patrick]

I know this has been discussed but between a 260 se or a new 182, can you help me out with the pros and cons of buying new vs shopping peterson.

Please give me your comments on the 182 turbo as well, I live at 5,000 ft elevation.

thanks,

patrick

[joejenie]

Patrick,

At your elevation, I would recommend a 300se King Katmai instead of a 260 se. You will be glad you did. As for the new vs. Peterson, you know what the answers would be here.

I have a 300se that Todd finished in April for sale. I have 387k in the plane and it is better than any new plane. Call me at 801-726-4321 and I will make you a good deal....

[kwmoore]

First, it depends on what you want. If a 182T would fill your mission and you have no compelling need or desire for the enhanced capabilities of the 260se/300se/Katmai, then the 182T would be a fine choice. Furthermore, a 2-3-year old 182T with a few 100 hr would be your best value, as the original owner would have already taken the $50+K depreciation hit.

OTOH if the unique abilities of the Peterson converted 182's are really an attractive enhancement for you then you should seriously consider them in my opinion. For me personally, having owned 3 of them, I would not choose to buy a 182T because it would be much less fun and it is a significantly less capable airplane, as well as an inferior value (for me) in multiple respects. Here are some aspects that are noteworthy to me, in no particular order:

Takeoff/climb The Katmai uses 1/3 to 1/2 the runway of a stock 182 and has 40% better climb rate (260hp) or 100% better climb rate (300hp). The 300hp version gives about the same TO/climb performance at 4000-5000 feet as the 260hp plane at sea level. That may or may not matter, I've had no problems operating out of high density altitude fields with my 260hp Petersons, although really short runways with required obstacle-clearance have not been a factor in those operations. The IO-550 obviates any need for a turbocharger even at very high DA's.

Payload The 182T is a 600 lb full fuel payload plane, then you have to fly off 2 hr of fuel in order to land. The T182T holds even less, and in my opinion has one of the worst range/payload profiles of any single engine piston plane (hard to run LOP according to several owners I know). In contrast the 182P & Q-based Petersons have 625-700 lb full fuel payloads at MGTOW of 2950 (no landing weight restriction) or 150 lb more with Tom Storli's STC.

Avionics choices With the Peterson you can customize your own panel, from full glass retrofit to VFR only with steam gauges. Likely fewer bugs with the less complex panels too.

Efficiency Running LOP, my 260hp plane gets virtually the same nmpg as an LOP Cirrus SR22. Running ROP, it cruises easily with an ROP SR20 (150-155 KTAS). The 182T is a few kt slower but burns more fuel. The T182T is significantly more thirsty.

Reliability For me, it has been much better than my friends' Cirri. I've heard the 182T engine/airframe are comparatively bug-free but the G1000 still has its quirks. I have not had anything sufficiently costly happen in my 3 planes to make me wish I'd had Cessna's new plane warranty.

Safety Slow speed maneuverability & stall resistance, terrific lift & buoyancy at slow speed, tight turning radius, great climb gradient, short runway requirements, and optional BRS. The IO-470 has been described as "bullletproof" and "ultradependable" in the aviation press. If necessary even without BRS one could bring the plane down at 45 KIAS engine-out under full control with less than 800 fpm sink rate, with some pitch authority left to cushion the touchdown. I believe it's both the safest and most versatile single engine piston plane available.

Fun I love practicing the slow speed and short field capabilities; I often go out just to do this.

Value retention I have discussed this in other threads. Demand exceeds supply and depreciation is less than for the 182T. Check used 182T prices, I think you'll find 2004-2006 planes offered for $240K-$270K, $80-110K less than a new one. That's about 8-10% yearly depreciation.

Cachet It's not a clone of every 3rd or 4th airplane on the ramp. I often have delayed departures because people come up and want to talk about the plane.

The Petersons After-purchase support has been very good and they are a wealth of information.

The 182T is a fine airplane if it suits your mission and fills your Need for Fun. For me, the 260se/Katmai does everything better than the stock 182 and is much more fun.

[Patrick]

Kevin, thanks so much for taking the time to write the reply. Your points are very valid and the 260 or katmai is a very tempting aircraft. I really do not know what to do.
We fly a 210 and as many of them around its in its mid 30´s of age. Constantly we have to go to the shop to fix this, that and the other or fix what stopped working after it went to the shop for something else. As I see it, that is the beauty of buying new, and of course the garming 1000. On all other aspects the 260 wins.
Our flight profile is to take of with 3 or 4 people at 5000 ft elevation, go down to sea level fly around overlooking a farm. One way it takes us 30 to 35 mins to get to destination. Coming back we must climb to 7-8000 ft weather permitting and if not 12,000 ft in a relatively short 40 miles. We also fly to some other destinations an hour away or 1.5 hours away were there is typically no fuel to buy. IFR altitudes in the country range from 11,000 and higher for the more capable airplanes.

Again, thanks for your reply and believe me my head is a mess at this moment.

Thanks,

Patrick.

[kwmoore]

For your mission, do you need the canard? If not, for the price of a new 182T you could get TWO very nice 182P, Q or R with engine upgrades (e.g. IO-470, IO-520, IO-550) and the Storli 3100 lb MGTOW STC for the P or Q and have outstanding dispatch reliability...at least one of them should be mission-capable and not in the shop at any given time! :p

The Wing-X-STOL wingtip extensions could lower stall speed to the low-mid 40 KIAS range on the stock plane too.