Except the gas burning 182 was an old price.  The analysis below assumes a new gas 182 would have held the same price.  Who knows whether or not a gas-powered 182 would have had a 10% price increase for the new year…

Matt

From: Frederick Moreno <frederickmoreno@bigpond.com>
Reply-To: Lancair List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:09 AM
To: Lancair List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [LML] Cessna Diesels and New Turbine Engine

Gas burning 182: $443,500.  Diesel burning 182 (11 gallons per hour):  $515,000.  Difference $71,500.  Depending on assumptions, savings from  fuel repays capital cost in maybe 2000-3000 hours.  Interest on purchase load is 7%, and the annual cost for additional interest is about $5000.  Can you save this much per year to break even and save nothing?  Hmmmm....   Sounds unconvincing to me.   Going to have a marketing problem.    However, in parts of Africa and elsewhere where there is no avgas and thus no other option....   F    With this kind of engine in the pipeline, http://www.aopa.org/oshkosh/2012/news/120723cessna-unveils-turbodiesel-182.html 240HP turbines sucking 28-32 gph are going to have a marketing problem.   Wolfgang