Running Expenses for c210
Talk about thread drift!
The A36 v 210 debate will go on for ever. Both have the potential to make the proverbial small fortune by starting with a large one, both tend to have fairly complex elderly airframes these days (although you can still buy a new Bo if you have the dough) and Continental engines that will break if not treated with a bit of care, both can lead into a maintenance nighmare fairly quickly although the Cessna is more 'agricultural' in both construction and flying qualities.
Soooo... why bother with either? Unless you desperately need a couple of dicky seats that supposedly make it into a 6 seater, there is a better alternative.... The 182 RG is a little more docile and might survive longer on-line, has a more durable, longer lasting hard to break Lycoming engine, is arguably simpler and cheaper to maintain and has struts. (On earlier 210's, those gear doors are a pain in the butt and even when removed the hydraulics still remain - and when you start talking about corrosion, wing bolts and gear maintenance on a Bo -well!) 182RG performance and load carrying capabilities are close to the 210 also. A good RG is closer to a 210 than a 182. (The original 210 was of course a development of the 182 anyway and even had struts.) Cessna had a lot of trouble in marketing the 210 against the 182RG. For example, rumour has it the the turbo version of the RG was certified to only 20000 ft on paper only because it was so close to the 210 in performance. The 182RG compares well in all load carrying and performance departments, is significantly cheaper to buy and maintain and in the long run is much better for reducing the stressful parts of aircraft ownership, especailly if you have aspirations of earning income by putting it on-line.