I think the words of someone who has owned one of each are instructive..all numbers about 7 years old and relate to operating in the US.
I have owned five airplanes. The required Cessna 172, a Piper Arrow (a wonderful aircraft), a Cessna T182RG, a T210L and most recently my pride and joy, an A36 Bonanza.
The 182 was a maintenance nightmare. I sold it with tears in my eyes and quit flying because of the continuous problems. Six years later I got the flying bug again and I did what every smart person does who has trouble with a specific type of aircraft: I bought the same type, but bigger and more complex, older (19 years), with higher times (3200 TTAF, 950 SMOH) and more avionics to go wrong…yes!!! A turbocharged 210.
History repeated itself and I sold my T210 for the same reasons I dumped my T182RG, buying the A36 to replace it. This gives me the opportunity to provide a first-hand comparison between the 1975 T210L and a 1978 A36. There are good and bad points on each aircraft.
The biggest problem with the 210 was the constant maintenance. I just could not keep up with it. It was not really a matter of cost, but the actual maintenance scheduling and the constant hassle, almost a full-time job. I believe to own a “mature” high performance Cessna you need to be married to an A&P.
The gear wouldn’t come up four times and more importantly it did not want to come down twice. I had constant problems with the ARC Cessna avionics including an electrical fire. This is in addition to nuisance problems like flaps that would not come down, engine stoppages due to vapor lock…you know, little stuff. Thank God for Flight Safety training: without it I think I would have been a fatality statistic. I was afraid to touch anything because often it would come off in my hand.
The Bonanza, by comparison, has been perfect. Tight, no rattles, doors don’t blow open and everything seems to work. Flying the Cessna, I was becoming neurotic, expecting equipment failure at any moment and constantly watching for falling debris.
The 210 was fast at 162 knots, 65 percent power on 15.5 GPH. The A36 will do 171 knots on 14 GPH. I miss the 89 gallons of fuel on the 210: the A36’s 74 gallons seems inadequate. The Cessna is much more stable than the Beech. You put the nose down on the A36 and it really goes, right to yellow line.
Landings are easier in the Bonanza than the Cessna and the Beech seems to handle bumps better. It rides them out, versus the jolt you get in the 210. One item I thought I’d miss in the A36 was the Cessna’s rudder trim: it does not exist in the Beech. They must cant the engine, though, because it is not an issue and the ball stays fairly close to center during climbs.
I’ve always heard how the Bonanza line is a joy to fly, with well harmonized controls, a real “pilot’s airplane.” I personally prefer the stable, “garbage truck with a loose front end” feel of the Cessna. I would not want to fly the A36 without a working autopilot in IMC. The Cessna, no problem…which is good, because the Cessna autopilot doesn’t work all that often anyway. Also the first time I stalled the A36 I was surprised how it bites and falls off sharply. In normal flight the A36 is a delight; the 210 is stable and relaxing. I vote for the 210.
It really is interesting that the insurance company views the Bonanza as easier and less complicated to fly than the Cessna. I’m sure it’s because of the turbocharger, but hands-down, the Cessna is easier to fly. Insurance from the same carrier, by the way, was about the same cost for the two airplanes despite a hull value for the A36 of more than double that of the Cessna.
The Cessna wins on cabin comfort plus people ergonomics. You have a door on both sides, plus a wing that shelters you from the sun and rain. I also miss the center area for chart storage, lots of cubby holes for stuff (like the odd bits and pieces of the airplane that fall off) and, of course, the elbow room.
The payload on the 210 is much higher than the A36. The Beech with full fuel can carry 766 pounds, the Cessna with full fuel, 900. The normally aspirated model probably has another 100 pounds or so available. The CG problem you hear about on Bonanzas is not a real practical issue on the A36, but again the Cessna is better; you don’t even have to think about it for the most part.
I averaged about $17,300 per year on gas, maintenance and hangar for the Cessna. Looks like the Beech will be about $12,000, apples to apples. Is the cost disparity a fluke? Maybe, but I have two Cessna airplane data points over six years. For the flying I do, this works out to $192/hour for the 210 and about $105/hour for the A36.
I love my Beech. The emotion towards the 210 was disbelief that an airplane in which so much of the design and maintenance is regulated could be so problematical. It is actually less reliable than my 1951 Harley Davidson Panhead motorcycle, a machine not exactly known for its stellar reliability record. Both of my Cessnas have been worse…much worse. Was my Bonanza worth 2-1/2 times the purchase price of the Cessna? You bet!
Big roomy cabin makes the 210 an ideal four-placer, with plenty of space for baggage. The rear two seats are underkill in comfort. (Note with only 4 bums in even a Bo has massive baggage room)
I think the Beech is better made, has superior engineering, superb fit and finish, a metal panel, and you feel safe and secure. The windshield doesn’t even creak like in the 210. That used to scare my passengers, both pilot and non-pilot alike. The Beech is standing up to the ravages of time much better.
High lighting and (note about bums) mine.
Hey FTDK... WE WIN!!!!!
