Running Expenses for c210

[AirSic]

I have done a search and can't find a thread for this.

Does anyone have any idea how much it would cost to have a C210- not turbo or anything out there- on line.

I need to establish the estimated running costs for things such as -

100 hrly's
Insurance
Registration
General Maintenance Schedule
Etc

Plus whatever else may be relevant.

Anyhelp would be great.

Cheers:ok:

[Clearedtoreenter]

It all rather depends..

on how hard they thrash it, how often they thrash it, what they are supposed to be doing when they thrash it - and of course being a 210, and especially if private hired they'll probably crash it.

Basically you could probably reckon on (say) $4000 for a 100hrly, with the occasional one at $10k +- might be less in private use.

Insurance would be higher for training and charter but depending on the value, the amount of public liability, whether you need passenger liabilty insurance for Charter or not - say $6000 upwards, maybe $12K or more for a really nice late model.

Engine is 1700 hrs(?) life or 12 years in Charter and about $50-60K to overhaul, prop about $16K to renew or 4K to overhaul -either 1500 or 2000 or 2400 hrs or 72 months in Charter.

Hangarage at a place like BK - probably $400/ month, then about $15? per movement (keeping an aircraft on line will give you a few of them!)

Fuel? 50-60 litres per hours again depending on what they do with it - maybe hire it dry to them ?

Don't forget you ASA Charges - about $18 a time at (say) BK

You should also add something for wear and tear - a paint and interior job can easily be $25K and with some operators, you will need one about every 5 years or so.

Work that lot out and you'd be nuts to put it on line for less than $300 per hour - many desperate owners who put nice aircraft on line are of course! for sure if it gets the big hours you need to offset the fixed costs, it will be a wreck quite soon - one way or another. The truth is when you work out what your real costs are and try to equate to what they are paying, it wont work.

[BEACH KING]

"Plus whatever else may be relevant"

Just normal Cessna 100 hourly stuff like trying to get all the cessna gauges and avionics to work, especially the f*** altimatic autopilot.

Then the other small incidentals... like drooping gear doors/hydraulic leaks/gear hydraulic motor leaks and failures/busted plastics/seat rails/water leaks/reribbing the tail and then laugh at the extensive vocabulary of expletives from the engineer as he tries to recowl the thing!

The old 210 does it's job pretty well though, even though I don't particularly look foward to flying them.

[VH-BCY]

Airsic, the C210 demands a fairly high level of respect, which unfortunately a lot of pilots don't have, especially low hour ones. The rate at which it is hired out depends on how many hours/year it does. If it does approximately 200hours/year, a break even rate will be somewhere around the $300 mark. It will be significantly less if you are prepared to work with your LAME's and get your hands dirty as a lot of the costs can involve diagnosing the hydraulic landing gear. A good reference on running costs can be found by buying the Cessna Pilots Association Cessna 210 Buyers Guide by John Frank. It has a whole lot of information on all C210 models and is a must have before buying any 210. :ok:

[youngmic]

You often see syndicates who operate this genre of aircraft (IO520 retract/CSU) charging themselves around $120/hr dry.

So that's not a bad starting figure, and as pointed out by others, usage, looking after it, and helping with maintenance will make a difference.

Putting it on line adds a dimensional twist in the wrong direction, but if managed closely and you are very knowledgeable on the 210 then some of the down side can be mitigated.

A hell of a lot hangs on what condition it is in when you buy in, eng. prop, brakes, tyres, corrosion, paint, mags, alternator, starter, avionics, previous maintenance quaility.

That's why they say if it floats, fly's or ...ah...cooks, rent it.

M

[c100driver]

Hi Airsic,

$300 per hour sounds a little lite. I can throughly recommend the CPA 210 guide, and joining the Cessna Pilots Assn, I save more than the price of admission every year with the advise and the magazine.

I have had aeroplanes' (C172's and C180) on line at Flying Schools and also with two different Charter Operators in NZ. I can recommend that if you want to use it for yourself it is way cheaper to just keep it for your use and Never Never lend it to anyone. Sold the 172's and just keep the 180 for personal use now and save heaps.

:}Hire rule one. The hirer will always damage the aircraft.:uhoh::uhoh::uhoh:

C172 aircraft are going for $240 to $280 per hour here on training and as a rough rule of thumb you double the 172 hire rate, less the fuel costs, less ten percent profit for the school/charterer and that is about the costs for a C206. A 210 could be somewhat higher.

The numbers used for syndicates are false as they have fixed costs included as annual or monthly fees

If you PM me I could send you a calculator excel sheet to play with some figures.

Cheers

[Stationair8]

Many years ago you could do the rounds of various flying schools at YMMB and hire B36, C182RG, C206, C210 and PA32's, but a spate of incidents and accidents soon put an end to that.

I have access to a C210M, the owner has always been very careful who he lets fly and where it goes, and he gives you a checkout in it and will go and do some circuits with you if you haven't flown it for a while. Over the years he has knocked back or refused to give people a check flight in it, which doesn't always fit well with some peoples ego.

Over the twenty years of flying C210's, I seen people do untold damage through poor engine handling, prop strikes, damage gear doors by putting the gear out too fast, some very poor landing techniques in normal and crosswind landings due to flying the approach too fast and not flaring correctly etc.

In any of the Cessna 182/206/207/210 there is a lot of weight on that nosewheel and in turn easy to buckle a firewall and or a prop strike.

I saw a brand new C210 turn very tightly on a congested apron and the pilot managed to get a propstrike, lots of dollars and much swearing and cursing about his new C210 Centurion!!!

I bet in the near future there will be some very expensive AD's come out for C210, after all they have been out of production for 24 years now.

A lot of the C210's in Australia are fairly high time especially those that have been operated in the NT by Tillair, Airnorth, Skyport etc.

[youngmic]

The numbers used for syndicates are false as they have fixed costs included as annual or monthly fees

Oops, my bad yes add about 10k or so to annual figure.

[airmuster]

BEWARE BEWARE

CASA will be soon implementing a SIDS program for the 200 series Cessnas. Was told this last year when hunting for a 210 for private use.

Also beware of (AD210/61 amdt 2). It is not well written, but the gist is that the wings have to be removed to comply fully.... to when AD first introduced. If a/c is factory corrosion proofed then every 12 years thereafter.... otherwise 6 years. BIG EXPENSE, but then again better than falling like a stone.

Many ADCR (Airworthiness Directive Compliance Record) have been signed off without removal of wings....... look at airframe maintenance closely for confirmation.

Cheers.... AM
PM me if you want more info

[Clearedtoreenter]

Hasn't our wonderful regulator now dropped SIDS on 3/400 series? So why would they bother puttiing them on 210's?

Completely silly risk management yet again? - as if the wings falling off 210's or 3-400 series for that matter, is anything like a major cause of coming to grief with the types!

[flyitboy]

Not a single word of encouragement there about having a C210 online (or any plane for that matter!). Why you might ask? Simple really it will cost you more to have/own it for hire than what you could possibly make on it, money & mental health wise!. I used to hire one & many other types many years ago (C210 $100 & C182 $60 P/H ) like a lot of us did in here but to own one you would have to be either very rich & or just plain dumb !In those days it was someone elses problem if we returned with a busted plane.
I wouldn't own a plane if you gave me one. I know that's a contridiction in terms with ref to this thread) Best to hire it, pay the cost at the end of trip 'cause it's a known quantity & there aren't any surprises & then after thr fun sleep like a log at night. Because doing it the other way round you better have a good comfy pillow !
You simply pay for someone else to have all the fun, is this what you want AS?


F

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

it will cost you more to have/own it for hire than what you could possibly make on it.

In most circumstances, I think this is true. It would be interesting to hear from Chimbu Chuckles, who has had an aircraft on an aeroclub line.

I used to hire one & many other types many years ago (C210 $100 & C182 $60 P/H ) like a lot of us did in here but to own one you would have to be either very rich & or just plain dumb ! Best to hire it, pay the cost at the end of trip 'cause it's a known quantity & there aren't any surprises & then after thr fun sleep like a log at night. Because doing it the other way round you better have a good comfy pillow!


I don't think you can buy an aeroplane and put it on a line somewhere for private hire and expect to make money. If you need to do this to subsidise the cost of your own flying then you may well learn an expensive lesson.

For the first 25 years of my flying career I had access to a variety of good aircraft (many near new) at competitive rates. I looked at owning my own on a number of occassions but could not really justify it when I had other aircraft readily available.

For the last 10 years things have been quite different - at least in my part of the world. Access to good aircraft for private hire has been almost non-existant, and I have had some potentially "sticky" situations with poorly maintained aircraft.

You don't need to be "either very rich & or just plain dumb" to own an aircraft today, however if don't have a high disposable income, you do need a tax deductible reason for doing a reasonable amount of flying (200 hrs per year?).

I would never put an aircraft that I owned on a line for private hire. The risk of someone costing you a large amount of money is just too great. I would however allow a very few people to use the aircraft - those who I knew could be trusted to operate the aircraft as if it was their own and would operate it the way I want it operated.

Private aircraft ownership seems to be undergoing something of a resurgence at the moment. My LAME is very busy processing aircraft being imported from the US - most of which I get to test fly. They are being brought in by individuals who have a genuine business reason to fly.

I cannot see how anyone can put a C210/Bonanza on a line for less than $300 wet. At that you wouldn't make much if anything at all.

Dr :8

[Chimbu chuckles]

What FTDK said:ok:

Especially this bit.

I would never put an aircraft that I owned on a line for private hire. The risk of someone costing you a large amount of money is just too great. I would however allow a very few people to use the aircraft - those who I knew could be trusted to operate the aircraft as if it was their own and would operate it the way I want it operated.

When mine comes out of the hangar with new paint/interior/etc that is exactly what will be happening.

[tio540]

In any of the Cessna 182/206/207/210 there is a lot of weight on that nosewheel and in turn easy to buckle a firewall and or a prop strike.

Yet pilots still persist in taxiing with the control column fully forward on high wing Cessnas. They drive the nose into the apron in a turn.

There was a time when you would never see this. I see pilots on the take off roll with the control column firewalled.

This is in nil wind cond's.

Sign of the times.

[maxgrad]

Called airmanship.
Many drivers about today will not understand the full extend of the term.

Column firewalled on taxi.......210 with door swinging in the breeze unattended or attended and no care.

Mixture usage either too rich or too lean.

The amount of things one sees that are just not good for the a/c or hip pocket are too numerous to mention.

[the wizard of auz]

Hasn't our wonderful regulator now dropped SIDS on 3/400 series? So why would they bother puttiing them on 210's?

No, they have not. in fact they have added some stuff to the original SID.
Expect a program of this type to eventually be in place for ALL GA type aircraft in Australia. :ugh:

[Clearedtoreenter]

'No, they have not. in fact they have added some stuff to the original SID.
Expect a program of this type to eventually be in place for ALL GA type aircraft in Australia. :ugh:'

What even Pipers? SIDs is just a Cessna word - an arse covering risk managment exercise from Cessna - Yep, it probably will come for all but there is not much justification for mandating it when most GA aircraft are already maintained to something less than the manufacturer's schedule anyway.

[youngmic]

Airsic

This may not be the direction you wish to go, however worth a thought.

A mate has had a RAAus registered Sportstar online for 2 years and is very happy with how it is being looked after and is making a measurable financial return on it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the days of high performance GA types is near over particularly with on line hire.

However there is a growing market of pilots in the RAAus category and a healthy demand for types to fly.

Some of the advantages are:

1. Cheaper buy in cost.
2. Much much cheaper maintenance and repair costs.
3. Much simpler operating skills required, eg. no mixture no CSU, no retract.
4. A pool of pilots who appear to have a better skill base often with more knowledge due to a greater passion for there hobby.
5. More likely to be hangared and in a smaller (cheaper) hangar.
6. The online operators are often a friendlier bunch of people who are less financially cut throat.

Down side is you probably won't own a 160 kt machine, but you could, they are out there.

M

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

RAA = A pool of pilots who appear to have a better skill base often with more knowledge due to a greater passion for there hobby.

Now there is a topic for a vigorous debate!

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

I'll kick it off........

There is a very good base of experinced folk from GA to ATPL and some serious careful and sensible RAA only.

But there are a hell of a lot of the others.....the ones the Doc is thinking of.:ooh:

I am often amazed.....and I am not a Sky God by any stretch.:hmm:

J:ok:

[Jamair]

SIDs came about for Cessna due to their non-life-limiting of their aircraft. Mr Cessna did not think that his personal and business-oriented aeroplanes would still be bogging around doing RPT and CHTR at 30+ years and 30,000 + hours!:eek:

Mr Piper, on the other hand, life limited his aeroplanes (PA31s) to 13,000hr before a wing spar mod, then another 13,000hr to airframe retirement.

Beech has a program of wing bolt and undercarriage replacement / maintenance that - as the aircraft age - make continuing to use them a dollar-negative exercise; essentially having the same effect as a SIDs program.

Certainly buy an aeroplane if you can afford it for yourself and maybe a few close associates who know what they are doing; it is one of lifes real joys to own an aircraft. BUT don't put it on line to offset the costs, you will lose.

[youngmic]

Burley scattered, hat and sunnies on, light up a smoke, open a beer.

Now weight.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Probably won't have to wait long.:E

[Jamair]

....and I look forward with great anticipation to my invite from Chuck to have a go at his 'new' Bonza.........:E

[Fantome]

A short wait till nosey prick, noticing no line on reel, says sarcastically how many you caught today mate? Arr. . . you'd be the third.

[flyitboy]

You don't need to have any association with the RAA to not have some level of professionalism. Today I heard a C310 using R/T at a major airport as if they flew in from the movie 'Deliverance'. It was just awful to listen to, even sounded like "squeal boy"!:bored:. And to think that this guy was in charge of a multi that wasn't a toy as in an RAA plane!
Airmanship? what's that !!!


F

[Jabawocky]

Like I said..........Cowboys are not common to just one breed of horse!:cool:

J:ok:

[Stationair8]

The old C210 hasn't done to bad for an airplane designed in the late 1950's and refined through until 1984.

An interesting article in American Flying by Richard Collins in relation to his P210 and parking it due to increasing maintenance costs and no insurance companies willing to insure a new owner, and the other thing was Cessna had a 10,000 cycle life on the fuselage for its original certification but reading between the lines he had talked to someone in the know and it was time to scrap the airframe.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day Stationair,

Was that 10000 cycles pertinent to the P210 only,

and, can you, (or anybody else), please advise what the projected Total Airframe Time would be for the 'wings off' inspection?

And, is that inspection also due with the aircraft age in years, regardless of Airframe Time Flown?

It sounds very severe for a 'Normal' C210 which may be relatively low time.....

Just curious is all....

Thanks:ok::ok:

[Stationair8]

No only applied to the P210, I believe.

If you look at the C210M it would be an average of 31 years old, and say an average of 300 hours a year would give you 9300 hour airframe and if it did 500 hours a year that becomes 15,000 hours, certainly a lot more than what Cessna planned on.

Look at Cessna walking away from the C441 Conquest after 22,500 hours and it was designed under later FAA regulations whereas the C210 has used the original certification rules of the 1950's and evolved through the "grandfather clauses". Cessna never had any plans to put the C210 back into production, whereas the C182/C206 is back in production,so there must be something that they are concerned with, and explains why they purchased the company that produces the high performance single.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day 'Stationair8',

Thanks muchly for the response - and, pls check yr PM's......:ok::ok:

[the wizard of auz]

Look at Cessna walking away from the C441 Conquest after 22,500 hours
Actually, that again was our esteemed regulator. Australia is the only place on earth that this requirement is mandated.

[gassed budgie]

Cessna never had any plans to put the C210 back into production, so there must be something that they are concerned with


Correct. But it wasn't the structural integrity or longevity of the airframe that Cessna had concerns with. It was the parts count. There's around a 35% increase in the bits and pieces that go into a 210 airframe over and above a 206. The 210 was a labour intensive machine to manufacture, soaking up a lot of man hours on the factory floor being rivetted together.
Cessna did in fact toy with the idea of restarting the 210 production line but felt it couldn't manufacture the airframe at a competetive price. They then, almost as an afterthought, considered doing a 206RG but that was knocked on the head (amongst other reasons) when it was decided to stay out of the retractable market altogether. Cessna finally resolved the question of do we or don't we, by bulldozing the 210 production tooling.
The 210 is one of the best things that Cessna ever did and they're going to find it very, very hard to match its performance when they finally get around to introducing their NGP family of aircraft (don't hold your breath waiting).

[gassed budgie]

Cessna had a 10,000 cycle life on the fuselage for its original certification


Cessna never had a limit of hours or cycles on the P210 airframe.


the amount of testing done was probably equal to about 10,000 hours, though there would be no life limit placed on it (P210) because none was required under the regulations of that day. The only life limit was on the windshield, windows and cover for the deice light: 13,000 hours.


From Collins's column in FLYING.

[Stationair8]

Most pressurised aircraft designed in that era have a 10,000 cycle life.

That includes the Piper Mojave etc.

You can still fly it but the pressurisation system is not to be used.

Have a read a number of articles written by Cessna engineers and test pilots, they all regarded the C210 as a great aircraft and Cessna actually spent a lot of money working on a smaller version of the C210, before going with the 182RG and also worked on a laminar flow wing and a strutless version for the C337.

[PlankBlender]

I am also considering a Cessna purchase, and had to learn from a reputable LAME and CASA that SIDs are now mandatory for all operations as of November last year, and while you can still fly any non-SIDs compliant machine until the MR runs out, after that they're grounded as they won't get a new MR without the SIDs done.

In addition, said LAME also knew from talking to Cessna that they are currently writing SIDs for most singles, so expect prices to go into freefall like those of the twins are already.. non-compliant twins currently trade at about a third of the price of SIDs compliant machines :eek:

SIDs can cost from 40-80k for a single (scope of inspection depending on serial, age, etc.) and between 60-120k for a twin. The large bandwidth is due to the uncertainty of what will be found during the inspection.

Also, SIDs are NOT one-off's, again depending on age, serial, etc., there are follow-on inspections. SIDs are a 400+ page addendum to the maintenance manual, and they are updated fortnightly, so talk about shooting a moving target!!

In my view, Cessna are shooting themselves in the foot with the SIDs approach. Piper and Beech have much more transparent schemes, and the SIDs approach to maintenance just increases the already high risk when looking at investing in an aeroplane.

After much research, I would side with most posters here, unless you have a valid business reasons (and a business plan for your investment that works) to own your own plane, rent it!

[Jabawocky]

You could buy a new one..........wont be a problem for some time!

J

[JIM1984]

Just have a chat to 'Bush Mechanics' he knows all there is to know about the 210. And by the way how are you mate?:ok:

[airmuster]

Another reason for Cessna dropping the 210 line was that for it to be competitive with speed etc they found that they needed more horses up front. So they trialled a IO550 and although some of us have flown such a beast, Cessna test pilots didn't like the skittish nature of its performance characteristics whereas the IO520 was more or less an upbeat 182RG. .... docile. They could foresee problems with pilots getting behind the tailplane...... so off it went.

AM;)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

So they trialled a IO550 and although some of us have flown such a beast, Cessna test pilots didn't like the skittish nature of its performance characteristics


"Skittish"? Tell me more?

I have to run-in an IO550 C210 in the next couple of weeks.

I certainly wouldn't call the IO550 BE36 "skittish" compared to an IO520 BE36.

Dr :8

[Chimbu chuckles]

Oh come on...an IO550 doesn't make THAT much difference. The version I heard was they looked at how many new A36s Beechcraft sell annually and decided their wasn't a market for many more US$600k 6 seat, retractable singles. That a Cessna can't compete with a Beechcraft is hardly news:ok:

The 'fact' I find fascinating is that US Insurance companies will not, according to Richard Collins, insure P210s at any price, even with "9000 hrs on type"..and that they have such a poor engine failure record.

I think there was more to Collins' parking his, apparently extremely well maintained, P210 than meets the eye of the reader.

It didn't even need new windows, by his own admission, for several thousand more hours. Perhaps it was his age, 73...loss of nerve or extreme insurance company requirements...he mentions in the article that he was getting more and more conservative and essentially, by the sound of it, limiting himself to VFR weather. I find it hard to believe that his aircraft was only good for the knackers yard.

Do older aircraft actually need more maintenance...well in as much as they need some maintenance and new aircraft need little if any then I suppose yes.

Does that make them unaffordable? I don't think so if the maintenance is thoughtfully done. My Bo is having, essentially, a ground up restoration and I fully expect when finished will be as reliable and 'economical' as any Bonanza out of warranty.

A new Bonanza when I bought mine was running 10 times what I paid. The interest alone on that amount of money over the period I have owned my Bonanza FAR exceeds what I will have spent in total by the time I wheel it out for the post maintenance test flights...and I include the capital cost in that estimation.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, unless you have a tax deductable reason to own an aircraft and high, recompensed utilisation, new is out of the question unless the capital cost is not a consideration...you have more money than sense. Certainly that reality does not apply to me.

There is not a damn thing wrong with 20 or 30 year old aircraft that have been maintained well for private ops. Type ASO into google and peruse the Bonanzas, or whatever is your poison, for sale in the US...dozens of immaculate aircraft with 2000-5000 TT and upgraded everything...for 1/3rd the cost of a new aircraft.

While aircraft ownership is without doubt not one of the smarter things you can do with your money it aint near as dumb as some...and you're dead an awful long time.:ok:

As to what a 210 costs to own...as a starting point on a nice, well maintained aircraft in this class you could work on annual fixed costs of $5-6k insurance, $3-4k hangarage. Maintenance $3-6k and DOCs $130/hr wet.

Plus of course capital cost...I own mine so bank repayments not something I think about.

Having it on line at an aeroclub will cost you money. What is worse than the $ cost is the stress attendant with hirers treating your aircraft in a manner that will leave you seething.

Stress being the result of the mind overcoming the bodies natural desire to choke the $hit outa some ar$ehole who desperately deserves it.

As FTDK suggested above...keep it to yourself and a small group of experienced and trusted individuals who you KNOW will treat it as you wish it treated. The only benefit of having an aircraft on line is it is flown regularly, which is good for the aircraft generally and your pocket, if you cannot, as was the case with me. I am based overseas and only get to fly it once every 6 weeks or so then a couple of big trips a year. A handful of enthusiastic mates can solve that problem even if you let them fly it for petrol money only, occasionally. Or come up with a rate that encourages them to fly it regularly.

As an example if you took that wet DOC figure above and said to your mates "yours for $230/hr wet +landing fees" and if they do 60 hrs a year between them you have offset your Insurance or shove the money in a maintenance account for the shiny new IFR GPS, new navcom or whatever. Every once in a while you gather your mates and several cartons of beer and wash and polish your bird. And $200-230 wet for an aircraft in this class is CHEAP!!

[the wizard of auz]

I don't know about the 550 being skittish (they didn't seem all that much different to fly in my opinion), but I do know that all three of the ones I flew had cooling problems at most power settings.

[Chadzat]

If by cooling problems you mean it never gets hot and you have to keep it all shut up to get some heat in the thing -then that has been my experience too!

The IO550 equipped 210 I have flown was a beast. If only they all had that sort of performance! Because lets be honest- a 10,000hr 210 with a tired IO-520 in it doesn't give eye watering performance out of a bush strip when its 40 degrees!

In terms of describing a 550 210 as skittish- perhaps they were testing the install in a pre-M model with the lower gear and flap speeds? The one I flew was an L model with the lower speeds, and on a long descent you needed a few miles in a level segment to get it back into the acceptable speed range to start dropping things!

[gassed budgie]

Skittish isn't a word that springs to mind when describing an IO-550 powered 210. The only difference I've ever noticed was the 2700RPM redline, a higher fuel flow for a given power setting and slightly better performance at altitude.
I never had cooling problems in the aircraft that I flew. Having seen some recent (woeful) engine re-installs after engine overhaul I would suggest the cooling problem probably had more to do with the incorrectly installed, unrefurbished engine baffling than with the engine itself.
The 'R' model 210 is the nicest I've flown. No bobweights, downsprings or aileron/rudder interconnect springs hooked into the system. It was a revelation. Never dreamt of using the word delightful and Cessna 210 in the same sentence. In some respects (I did say some, Chuckles and FTDK) perhaps even better than the much admired and imitated V35/A36.

[flyitboy]

The C210 not unlike the Holden HR was great in it's day, but we have moved on. Commodores (although poor quality& almost worthless after 12 months) do the job but there are other better choices. Ask the Dr, he knows the best airframe, although it's a 'fishtail' version of the proper one !:}


F

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The BE33, 35, 36, 55, and 58 all wag their tails - the BE35 just does it best!

Dr :8

[Capt Wally]

Yes Dr yr correct there, they all do just that. Best single I've ever flown tho bar the wagging. You can feel the quality right thru the accelerator pedal !:)


CW

[gassed budgie]

The C210 not unlike the Holden HR was great in it's day, but we have moved on


Moved onto where? There's nothing out there in the world of piston singles that will do what a 210 can do.

[Stationair8]

Cessna C210M/N 6 blokes and four hours of fuel, not many twins will get you anywhere near that.

First fly of a 210, was a brand new 210N fully IFR with a white leather interior.

Had a part time job as a refueller, a guy had a P210N, that he used to go to Strahan and pickup crayfish/abalone in the mid 80's that was about the only one in Australia.

Piper Lance/Saratoga nice aircraft but limited in what can be carried.

Beech B36, nice aircraft but not a lot of passenger appeal or baggage room.

Beech F33 Aerobat one of those would do very nice for Sunday flying and the odd aerobatics.

Beech V35 owned one of them, very nice except it was only a Dinky Toy.

[flyitboy]

What about the new G36? A real mans plane, would leave the old basic 'commodore' (C210) for dead now. Mr Cessna stopped making the C210 'cause it was 'dated' & there was no more room to develop it, besides it had a lousy turb pent speed making it way to unsafe for my liking in nasty wx.

The only good thing a single engined Cessna has over the RR of A/C (the Beech's) was the high wing, great for shade !:)


F

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Beech V35 .......... very nice except it was only a Dinky Toy


I will not bite! I will not bite! I will not bite! I will not bite! I will not bite! I will not bite! I will not bite! I will not bite! I will not bite! I will not bite!

Dr :8

[clear to land]

C210 - NOTHING flies as far, as fast, as cheaply, carrying as much, and then lands on very short strips. I think a better analogy than a HR would be a Toyota Troopie, with the 206 being the Landcruiser ute. My 10 cents worth.:)

[gassed budgie]

Mr Cessna stopped making the C210 'cause it was 'dated' & there was no more room to develop it, besides it had a lousy turb pent speed making it way to unsafe for my liking in nasty wx


Wrong on all counts. Mr.Cessna never shut down the line. You'd have to ask Mr.Genral Dynamics about that one. He said something along the lines of "we can make just as much money selling one Citation as we can selling a hundred 172's". GD were never ever interested in single pistons.
Cessna developed the basic 210 airframe a lot more than Beech ever did with it's A36 over the same period of time. One of the main reasons for this was that Walter got the A36 right the first time around (and that doesn't mean that Cessna didn't with the 210).
Cessna went to considerable effort during '83/84 to modify and improve the 210 airframe . It was introduced in 1985 as the 210R with some very significant refinements to the aircraft. Cessna were committed to the 210 and it would have been more than interesting to see where the 210 would have been today if it had been kept in production.
As for the alledged 'lousy' air turbulence penetration speed, this line is consistantly rolled out by those who don't know much about the 210 and more than likely have never flown one. The spar carry through structure on the cantilevered 210's is in fact superior in strength to the earlier strutted 210's (and to the 206's). I've never been worried in a 210 when 'things go bump in the night'.
I've got around a thousand hours on the A36/V35 and can say with some sort of authority that it is indeed a fabulous aircraft. The only two complaints that I constantly have, are that you sit in the sun and that on a hot day a fair bit of heat comes back at you from under the panel. The V35 is perhaps the classic S/E GA aircraft of them all.
Having said that it needs to be said again, there's nothing out there in the world of piston singles that will do what a 210 can do. And that includes the G36.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The V35 is perhaps the classic S/E GA aircraft of them all


Hard to argue with that!

For anyone who has forgotten what "sex with wings" (no, not the ugly mug in the left front seat) looks like:

http://www.fototime.com/8DEBA74FFD9380E/standard.jpg

Having said that it needs to be said again, there's nothing out there in the world of piston singles that will do what a 210 can do. And that includes the G36

If fact the G36 does not stack up well against the C210, or earlier A36s. Beechcraft got pretty slack with increasing weight of the aircraft as it gained more bells and whistles. The end result is that the G36 will not carry what earlier A36s will.

When I win Lotto I will go to the States and buy a low time, nil prang, high engine time, pre-G36. Have a turbo-normalised IO550 fitted. Have it completely refurbished (with conventional seating), new avionics stack, etc - and live happily ever after in Bonza heaven!

I have recently flown a 91 model A36 (IO550 engine) and in the next couple of weeks I get to run in a C210N with a new IO550. Will be interesting to compare the two.

Dr :8

[flyitboy]

ahhh poor 'gassed budgie' got a little too much gas did we from my post?:E
Wrong on all acounts, yr opinion only, not shared by all am sure!

I've worked on the C210 & you wouldn't get me in one other than a nice day !
You can feel the quality in a Beech, but you can't even see the quality in a Cessna never lone the feel !
They do the job just like a common garden variety Holden, but there like arseh***s everyone has one !:E
I've flown both, the Beech out handles the C210 in every respect, speed & payload are overated when it's not needed everytime!:)

F

[Led Zep]

For getting into short ****ty strips the Beechcraft wins. Getting it out again is a different story. :} The 210 is a bit better in that area. :E

[Chadzat]

For getting into short ****ty strips the Beechcraft wins. Getting it out again is a different story. The 210 is a bit better in that area.

Well said that man!

[gassed budgie]

ahhh poor 'gassed budgie' got a little too much gas did we from my post


Your still swingin' after the bell Flyitboy.
I never said the 210 was better built than the Beech product. Beechcraft will win that round every time.
I never said the 210 handles better than the bonanza. It doesn't.

I've worked on the C210 & you wouldn't get me in one other than a nice day

That's normally the next line right after the one about the low turbulence penetration airspeed. It really doesn't stand up to any sort of informed scrutiny.


Wrong on all acounts, yr opinion only, not shared by all am sure!


Not my opinion. Fact.

[flyitboy]

Well 'gas' all I can say is that if the C210 was half as good as you sprook off about then why can't you still buy a new one? Simple answer really but not point wasting it on you 'cause you 'seem' to know all the answers already!:ugh:



F

[Stationair8]

The worst thing about all the later and newer model Cessna's, Pipers and Beechcraft is the amount of extra crapp that gets shoved into them in the form of gadgets, interior etc.

Look at the basic empty weight of an early model C206 compared to the new "sports utility" version 2008 C206.

Some of the last C210N's into this country were fully IFR but still could carry a good payload.

[Clearedtoreenter]

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.

[BEACH KING]

Mostly all true about the 182RG,

however, there are some very big negatives.

a) Most 182RG's have a carby, with the asscociated drama of not having fuel injection
(carby ice being the biggest one)

b) 182RG has those dinky little wheels with big tyre pressures. Leads to big trouble with people thinking that they are just a normal 182 with retractable gear.... Not so. A fixed gear 182 is a very very good bush strip machine, however the RG is one of the worst, especially in black soil. Those little wheels dig in and bog in an instant. I know of two 182 RG's ending up with this drama, one resulting in a prop strike and the other a wrinkled firewall. The 210 eats it in this regard.
Anything other than a pretty good greaser landing will result in a pretty good bounce on hard surfaces too.

c) They are slow compared to C210 and Bo. All talk about 165 knots is crap. Expect under 150 knots if it's not turbocharged.

d) It is a Cessna:E

[flyitboy]

Yep sure is a sever thread drift & those that say so keep it alive & well !
:) How could you not drift off on such a thread. I used to go to Mt Panarama (Bathurst 500) yonks ago & watched the Cessna V Beech everytime (Holden V Ford). Fights, nasty words & God knows what else but most knew then that Holden's are like Cessna's, basic, poor quality & where more like 'farm ute's than planes. Beech on the other hand looked good & felt the same parked next to the RR's:)

"Beech King" you said it all in the last line of yr post

"d) It is cessna:E, although you should have added 'afterall' !
You are spot on also with the C182RG, few are around these days & for reasons exaclty as you mentioned.

F

[185skywagon]

geez, beachy and flyit, leave us Cessna drivers alone.
At least "most" of us Cessna drivers know what those pedal things on the floor are for.
:E

[BEACH KING]

C185, you will be able to instruct me as to their operation and maybe even demonstrate the use of these strange pedals on the floor when we go for our aeronautical jaunt on Saturday.

I find it hard to accept that the intended use of these pedals is anything other than for footrests,.... another fantastic feature of the Bonanza aircraft.

I have observed... numerous times.. your vigorous use of the floor pedals when I have accompanied you in your rear wheel drive CESSNA aircraft. I have assumed up until now that the use of the pedals somehow contributed to it's propulsion.:O

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I dunno 'Beachy',

Ref your Be-35,

I used to use the left rudder only to stop the tail from waggling - as distinct from 'wagging' - skid the silly thing slightly, then s l o w l y reduce the rudder bar pressure so that li'l ol' ball comes back to where it oughta be...and wait till the next time....which usually wasn't long.....
And put maps up against the window to keep the sun out of my eyes.....
(See and what....):}:(
Now, any decent 210 driver knows about the rudder trim...and we sit in the shade!:D

Now, REAR wheel drive pedals....thats a whole new ball game! But not once you're 'up there'....:=

Anyhow....Running costs....Fuel about the same, IO-520 at 2400rpm or so...
Airframe costs.....
then all other costs are about 'wot it are for that class of aircraft'
wouldn't be much diff between these two I reckon.....

:ok::ok:

Yeah! I know.... a l o n g w a y off thread....:*

[flyitboy]

yeah sorry '185' we ought not to bag the 'utes' of the flying world:bored:. We've all flown them sometime during our climb to the upper levels.



F

[185skywagon]

OK. Now to the 210: allow $150/hour Fuel and other DOC's.
$4000/ 100hrly(maybe less or more, depending on condition). $8000 Insurance with pax liability.

Now you Beech drivers shove orf.:ok:
Bloody Oak floor-boards and all.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Geez, I turn my back for a day, to take the FTDK south for a little medical care (its ADF is a bit dicky!) and look at the mess I find when I come back in here.


c) They are slow compared to C210 and Bo. All talk about 165 knots is crap. Expect under 150 knots if it's not turbocharged.



And if its turbocharged - you might get 155 kts and 65 L/hr unless you climb it into the flightlevels and suck O2.

Don't get me wrong, I like the C182RG - but a C210 it ain't!


C185, you will be able to instruct me as to their operation and maybe even demonstrate the use of these strange pedals on the floor when we go for our aeronautical jaunt on Saturday.


What the (?) Beachy, you gonna slum it on Saturday in the farm ute? I guess you'll have to leave at Sparrow F*rt to make it by lunch time!

skid the silly thing slightly

Ya gotta be kidding Griffo! Wally Beech put pedals in the Bo for use in Take-Offs and Landings only. I suspect your problem was a fear of heights. The V-tail should be operated above A080 only - where the air is generally smooth as a baby's botty - except when crossing the Tamani in October when FL140 might be a better option. OK, they may shimmy an little closer to the ground on descent, but that's just to make sure you are awake for the landing.

Dr :8

[Clearedtoreenter]

'Don't get me wrong, I like the C182 - but a C210 it ain't!'

True! But the 182RG comes much closer, although possibly 10 or so kt slower, the point is that having a derated Lycoming is a much more sensible ownership prospect compared to either of those other exotic expensive beasts, especially when considering load carrying, runway performance etc.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think we need to differentiate between C185s and ALL other Cessnas...mighty, MIGHTY machine is the Skywagon.

Best looking Cessna ever built too...those wussy sloping tails:yuk:

For those whining bout the lack of shade flying a Bo I have one word...curtains:ok:

[185skywagon]

CC is correct.

Now all you Beech heads, I have 2 words for you. Muskateer/Sundowner.
Particularly the Mouse with the IO-346 Conty. Only aircraft in the world with this donk.

Seriously, the 210 would have to be about the most capable SE Charter machine going. Not too many surprises if you have knowledgeable spanner twirlers.

[Capt Wally]

Oh I see a hot debate going on with the old Ford V Holden (as flyitboy put it) analogy. How many of us in here have flown both types? Probably 99% of us. Did they both get you back to earth safely? (they always will return you to earth, no matter what!) As long as it has wings, & flies to where you are pointing it it matters little if it's a high or low wing.
One day you might be flying a C210 with 20 kts H/W, the next time you maybe flying with a 20 kt T/W in a Bo, end result? about the same time enroute so speed doesn't always matter. That's a rough analogy, not meant to be type specific.
The C210 would have to be the high performance 'ute' of the sky, the best view for pax, can't better it there. The C185 (for eg.) would have to be the best 'farm ute' of all time (although C182 good bush plane if you know what yr doing). The A36 & it's bros would have to be the 'fairmonts' of the sky with quality oozing from them. The point is they all have 'labels' attached to them & do certain tasks better than others. I myself would prefer the C210 for outright speed for say 4 bums, more than that & yr looking at 'legless' for pax No's 5 & 6! The A36/V35(latter more for roller coaster rides) are for 'class'. Not the fastest nor the best load carriers but the classiest with good off field survivablity due to it's 'brick shti-house' construction. You hire a roller to look the part with the feel to go with it, enter the Bonaza range. You hire the Cessna's for the farm work & to have shade whilst yr out there doing it.
Look at the end of the day 10 kts or so means little over an average leg, it gets down to comfort & reliablity.

Now to where it all started by the looks of things. Cost of owning/hiring either types? EXPENSIVE! No two ways about it.

I used to fly a C210M model for it's owner many years ago, he was rated but only VFR with low exp. Was in perfect cond. due to one thing, he was RICH! & never hired it out so it stayed in good shape. Fast plane, flew straight as an arrow but you always knew you where in a Cessna, there was no escaping that fact.
I wouldn't hire either types out if I owned one, but then again why would I want to own a plane & burn $100 notes at a rate faster than handing them over to the misses !:ok:

CW

[maxgrad]

Now that Capt W, was well said!

[BEACH KING]

Then Capt Wally came in and introduced some LOGIC:(

FTDK, not sure how we are getting there yet, but one things for sure...
we won't be driving:)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Now all you Beech heads, I have 2 words for you. Muskateer/Sundowner


185, you had to bring them up didn't you?

I guess even the best of families has its black sheep / retards / skeletons in the closet!

Dr :8

PS: I am actually with CC on the C185 - great bit of kit. Just jerk'n ya chain!

[Capt Wally]

tnxs guys for yr kind words, I'm only telling it how it is really. It ain't rocket science, like clothing & pretty much everything else in life where there's choice, everybody has different tastes.
I've flown numerous types from C150 thru to the L35/36 & a shti load in between & everyone one of them did the task at the time. Some rattled their way thru the sky & others took me for an armchair ride, at the end of the day I loved every minute of every plane that I mastered:)


CW

[Stationair8]

Cessna C210 or Bonanza, I rather fly one of these fine products any day than that horrible PA-32R-301T that was designed by Piper and the DOT based the BAK exam on.

And Mooneys what a horrible cramped heap of junk!!!!

Still like to have a fly of one of those Turbine C210's that they do in the USA.

Also have a soft spot for the PA-24/400 Comanche.

[185skywagon]

Forkie and CC,
we Cessna drivers have our own demon in the form of the 150hp C177.:O.

re the 185:Got a new 86" 3 blade prop the other day.
T/o roll is vastly improved over the 80" 3 blader. Reduced by about 1/2 to 2/3.
I was getting 150ktas the other day at 25/2450.
Gets about 142 ktas at 24/2250.
nearly Bo and 210 speeds.

Beachy, are we going in the Roller or the ute on Saturday?

[BEACH KING]

Mmmmm..... decisons decisions descisions

autopilot versus no autopilot

to drink or not to drink.....that is the question

Don't care C185... your decision

[flyitboy]

hey where you guys going? Fancy having a choice for the ride of the day. if the wx is fine take the Cessna, if the wx is crap take the Bo, hmmm, better make that a double Bo Dr:E ''
yeah '185' the C177 (150 hp) was a disgrace, flew one once down at YPID, thank God the 'flat earth society' are lying otherwise I'd still be trying to get airborne!:E Even the C177rg was a joke, got my retract endors on VH IQQ & was lucky to stay aloft wiht max pwr !

Careful 'Beech' don't let the C185 go to yr head just cause it can land on a dime, you pay for that by way of 'kingswood' quality!:E


F

[Jamair]

Have flown a C210 with IO520 back to back with a 550 and there is sod-all difference, apart from a little more 'willingness' at higher altitudes; noticable particularly on taking off from high DALT locales (TWB in this case).

One had a very nice panel.....
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p271/jamair_photos/C210.jpg

the other had factory aircon and a leather interior.

BUT Chucks 'new' Bonza with the EFD1000 panel is gunna be a real winner IMHO....new IO550, new interior, new panel, new paint....mmmmmmm!!!!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Ahhh....the IO550 in it next time you fly it will be the same IO550 was in it last time you flew it...doubt you'll recognise anything else but:ok:

Garnnn....bring the 185:E

We already got piccies of the drugstore Bo.:}

C177....and there I was thinking I'd flown everything single Clyde had built since 1961 and now realise there is a hole in my experience...that will remain the case, given my druthers:rolleyes:

[Led Zep]

The 200HP version was o'right. Still not a rocket but all things are relative. :8

[Peter Fanelli]

Those of us that have been around for a while would know that back in the 70's and 80's there was a lot of emphasis on efficiency. No one would have considered a 4 place aircraft with 300 hp like a Cirrus or a 4 place that burns 24 gph such as a Columbia 400. But now it seems all that has gone out the window, thanks to Cirrus and Columbia.

I often wonder what could be done with some older clean designs if efficiency wasn't a factor.

C210 or Bonanza with a 375 hp GTSIO-520 anyone?

C177RG with a 210 engine perhaps,

Anyone elses imagination running wild?

[flyitboy]

To put a 'gitso' in a C210 or Bo would be 'adding' to their woe's. The conty in any form is a stressed engine, fancy making it more so! And to think that all that could be in the hands of a low time pvt pilot!:bored:

Remember also it takes a huge amount of extra horsepower to gain a little more outright speed due drag, it's usually the climb etc that benifits more.
The idea of a turbine such as the C20 (Allison) would be perfect but oh the cost!

F

[Peter Fanelli]

Well assuming money is not the issue and we're not talking about planes for the masses, just for fun.
Personally I think the Gitso is a fine engine as long as you know how to operate it correctly, and lets be honest there's a lot of low time pilots around who have been trained by instructors I wouldn't trust with a Honda Z.
Also was struck this afternoon by the thought of an Aero Commander 500S with a pair of Allisons. Big exhausts out the top of the cowling.
Couple of Nomad engines upside down would do it. That's probably about the size of airframe that SHOULD have had those Nomad engines in the first place.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

C210 or Bonanza with a 375 hp GTSIO-520 anyone?


Nope!

Turbo-normalised IO550 for me!

Dr :8

[Shanty]

Beachy

you should slip by here with the long feller and have a beer with me and the chinese airforce.
CC is right ...SKYWAGON..

[BEACH KING]

Shanty
Am planning to do just that, when it cools down a bit up there.

Hopefully we won't get stuck on the reef 25 nm from home this time:uhoh:

[saabsforever]

As regards dry hire it is just not worth it. I have a C185 but most big block Continental Cessnas are about the same to run. I had three goes, the first bloke was good but did not get his AOC for scenic flights, so did not do the hours. The second damaged the elevator while I was overseas and did nothing about having it fixed. The third had the work and was a good PiIot but did want to pay the real cost of using one of these machines. I worked it out at $250 Hr minimum dry rate, and that is subsidising their flying if you count all the fixed costs and allow for refurbishment. Since then I have inhibited the engine while away and have not had any worries at all. Plus the Aircraft remains in as new condition as it was after rebuild. There are very few C210 or Bonanzas in NZ by the way, the country is too small for the extra speed to make much difference. But about 40 185s and 40 or so 180s. Horses for courses and all that.

I will now drift off and point out the best big block Conti- The IO 470. Below is a cut and paste from a mob who convert the 182 to a Stol machine (Peterson 260SE/STOL) with their comments which may be of interest.

2) Range and Endurance Our customers were often times flying into back country areas where fuel was not available, and many more flew in instrument conditions. An unwanted by-product of going to a larger cubic inch engine is higher fuel consumption which in turn reduces the aircraft range and endurance.
We wanted an engine whose fuel consumption at an equal percent of power had about the same fuel consumption as the Skylane’s original engine. The IO-520 or IO-550 at an equal percent of power would have consumed enough additional fuel to reduce the Skylane’s range and endurance by 1.5 hours. This was not acceptable. The IO-470 engine is the same cubic inch engine as the original Skylane engine, but with a much more efficient fuel injection system. Due to this, the fuel consumption at an equal percent of power is the same as the unmodified Skylane. More continuous power with no reduction in range or endurance. An added benefit is a $10,000 savings in fuel costs through TBO over the IO-520 or IO-550.
3) Reliability Due to the conditions our customers flew under, maximum reliability was a very important feature. When looking at the various engines we had to choose from, some facts were obvious. While the IO-520 is not a bad engine, it likewise has not been a great engine either. The IO-550 has had a very poor history. The IO-470, on the other hand, has had an excellent service record since the early 1960’s. Without question, the IO-470 engine is the best, most reliable, big engine manufactured by Continental. End quote.


Full specs are on the Continental website but the 470 has a bore and stroke of 5 and 4 inches respectively. The 520 has ¼ inch more bore and the 550 ¼ inch more stroke as well. The 520 turns at 2850 Max, the 550 2700 and the 470 2650. IO 470 compression is 8.6:1 against 8.5:1 for the others. Turbos are 7.5:1. Given these fairly minor differences it is surprising the changes in fuel consumption and reliability, for what is essentially the same engine. Cannot see how they are stressed at all. They can crack Pots because the factory cranked out some very inferior cylinders over the years. Sadly the 185 is sulking in the hanger as the mighty IO 470 will only run for 20 minutes before backfiring and running rough, chasing up weak valve springs or fuel control issues.

As for a 210 against a Bonanza well a Bo is just a work of art while the 210 is still a Cessna flung together for a price!

[the wizard of auz]

Ah, the holden V ford thread is still kicking along.
FTDK........ your pic looks like that airplane was designed by committee........ sort of like a camel....... and as for sexy??????. my god!!! I guess we all have different tastes....... otherwise fat sheila's couoldnt get laid. :E
I reckon your all wrong.......... stick the pistons in your...ear. gimme a van for work flying any day. (ducks for cover)
Oh, where is Mr. Beech's competitor for the van?.

[Stationair8]

So whats wrong with fat chicks?

[pw1340]

What about an early 210 (not sure on the model designation) with the io470 and struted wings.

Sure it's not a true 210, more like a 182rg really, but you will get about 145kts at a reasonable fuel burn and still seat 6 (maybe not 6 adults).

Probably not ideal for charter but if you are only looking to cart the family about and need the seats it may not be a bad comprimise. Purchase cost would be considerably lower than a later model machine which, depending on your finances may negate the need to line hire it.

I have never operated one so I am not claiming any expertise here, but it may be worth researching. Maybe some on here might be in the know.

PW

PS as for SIDS on single cessnas, my local casa engineering guy (who, believe it or not is a most helpful gentleman) has heard not even a whisper about SIDS coming for any cessna singles but he did suggest talking to cessna direct or any of the cessna owners associations

[flyitboy]

God is this thread still going. Look all intell people that have had anything to do with aviation know that buying/hiring a plane such as the C210 is tantamount to being certifable ! Amazing how a simple dumb question resluted in a zillion responses ! I've said elsewhere here in another thread don't do it, drugs & sex are cheaper ask any AFL player !:E Those guys are the biggest loosers of all time, don't try to out do them by buying a plane !:E !



F

[Stationair8]

You are right their flyitboy, be an AFL player and do drugs and sex and then get caught you can always sell and tell your story to New Idea or Home Ideas magazine.
But if you are a law abiding citizen and you buy a dodgy C210, even Today Tonight will hard pressed to buy your story.

[saabsforever]

The first ones in the early 60's did indeed have struts and used the 182/180/185 Fuse which at that time were all pretty much the same. No idea where they found room to fold up the wheels. Later they used essentially the 205/206 Fuse with struts and only later went to a clean wing and modern Body. But if they only did 145 Kts then only a few knots (if any) more than a good clean 185 without all the expense of fold up wheels. A 182 RG must be faster than that though, I once flew the mighty 172RG and it did 140kts in spite of being a very limited aircraft in all other respects.

[gassed budgie]

Later they used essentially the 205/206 Fuse with struts


The 205 came from the 210, not the other way around as was suggested. When the 205 was intially certified, it was done on the 210 type certificate as the 210-5. In fact the 205 was originally built on the 210 tooling. The 206 was simply a 205 with an IO-520 in place of the IO-470.


A 182 RG must be faster than that though, I once flew the mighty 172RG and it did 140kts


The 182RG I fly does 160/161 ktas with 2 POB and 200lts in the tanks. It drops back to 156 ktas with a full load. Fuel flow is 52 lt/hr. I had an oppotunity to fly another RG recently and it wound out to 163 ktas in the cruise with a light load. Some of the above have suggested that 182RG's are good for about 145 kts and not much more. If that's all your getting, your might want to locate and use the gear retract handle.


Cessna had a lot of trouble in marketing the 210 against the 182RG


It was the other way around. 182RG production ran to 2042 units (plus another 170 aircraft from the frogs). 80% of the RG fleet was manufactured in the first three years of production. After that, 182RG sales tapered off dramatically. Over the same period of time Cessna manufactured 2727 210's (not including the P210). The 210 outsold the RG in every year except 1979. Twice as many 210's were rolled out of the factory doors from '81 through '86 than the 182RG. In the last year of production (for both aircraft) for every one RG, there were six 210's. The RG became known as the poor man's 210. For not a lot more money, you could get yourself into a 210 instead of a 182RG and this was certianly reflected in the sales figures.
But, if your in the market for a true 4 seat retracable nothing else can touch them.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The 182RG I fly does 160/161 ktas with 2 POB and 200lts in the tanks.


GB - you either have your hands on a particularly quick one, or you take a big stick to it.

The C182RGs I have flown (4 ?) were honest 155 kt machines!

Dr :8

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Quote:
So they trialled a IO550 and although some of us have flown such a beast, Cessna test pilots didn't like the skittish nature of its performance characteristics
"Skittish"? Tell me more?

I have to run-in an IO550 C210 in the next couple of weeks.



Well I've put the covers on the V-tail, updated my will, kissed the Mrs, and patted the little Forks on the head!

Tomorrow's the day I put the spurs to the IO550 C210!

Either I'll post a report or you'll read about it on the news.

Dr :cool:

[StrutlessDrKiller]

they trialled a IO550 ...... Cessna test pilots didn't like the skittish nature of its performance characteristics


They sure as hell got that right!

Dr :8

[Stationair8]

So FTDK, so are you selling the V35B and moving over to the dark side?

[StrutlessDrKiller]

So FTDK, so are you selling the V35B and moving over to the dark side?


No, the FTDK has become a Hangar Queen - awaiting a 100 hrly.

I am doing the owner of a newly imported IO550 powered C210N a favour by running it in for him. It is something of a challenge cause the run-in specs call for 70-75% power for the first 10 hrs. Those sort of power settings put "The Beast" way up into the yellow arc and make this risk averse pilot a little nervous. My answer to this problem is to lap it up the coast at 1000' over water in the morning when the air is cool and calm and being halfway up the yellow arc is (hopefully) a minimal risk!

This is one seriously quick aeroplane - but I suspect the margin for error is small!

It will be an interesting challenge for a long-time C172 pilot!

Dr :8

PS: I'm a pretty solid Bonanza convert!

[Capt Wally]

hey what's with the name change Dr:8? Just 'cause yr going to fly a 'commodore' 'cheapy' (like BMW's, like ar**holes everybody's got one!) doesn't mean you have to enjoy it !:E & to fly a SE at such low level & over water with lousy turb pent speed is askin' for it mate !:E
Remember Dr when you have to act super fast with a prob by way of using only memory in the C210 the wing stays on top Dr, not blw where yr used to it being for the last few 1000 hrs !:E


CW:ok:

[StrutlessDrKiller]

to fly a SE at such low level & over water with lousy turb pent speed is askin' for it mate !:E


Heh Wal! Got the beach just out the window, mate - and me lifejacket in a little pouch on me waist. Anything happens (short of the wing parting company a la Cloncurry circa 1980) - she's a beach ornament!

Dr :8

[Stationair8]

Yeah FTDK, blokes flies somebody else plane likes then thinks he will sell his own plane, then its a new car, boat, wife etc!

[StrutlessDrKiller]

Someone in here asked me for my thoughts on the IO550 powered C210 vs the FTDK (V35B) - sorry, can't find the post!

OK, the jury is IN!

I knotched up 20 hrs in the IO550 C210 today, including two flights of 3+ hrs at 9 or 10,000'.

I have a couple of hundred hours in C210s, about 400 in the FTDK and maybe another 20 in the A36 and various other Bonanzas.

Flown at the same power settings/alt/etc, the performance of the two aircraft is virtually identical! There would not be a bee's dick in it!

The V35B has Gamis but doesn't have an all cylinder engine monitor (ACEM) (at the moment) - the C210 has the ACEM but has TCM "matched" injectors not Gamis. Neither the V35B nor the C210 were happy running LOP - so were both flown 50oC ROP.

The "jury" have flown in both the V35B and the IO550-C210 - all voted for the Bonanza as the more comfortable aircraft to travel in! The C210 was considered a "rough" ride. I found that interesting given the V-tails' tail wagging tendencies.

And I can tell you that it is a great deal easier to manage the speed of the Bonanza on descent than it is with the C210. The 210's tendency to at the top of the green arc or well up into the yellow arc makes me nervous. I got held up on descent into YBTL this afternoon and ended up over the fence at 140kts with the gear down and 10o flap - turned off at the second taxy way rather than my usual 1st taxyway! Dropping the gear does not slow it down like the Bonanza!

Give me a Bonanza every time!

Dr :8

[Capt Wally]

Hey Dr:8 we would have all been surprised if you had said otherwise (prefer C210):) I will admit the Bo's do feel more 'solid' in flight but I too reckon that the C210 can be slippery, something that a lot of pilots want!
In a controlled crash I reckon the Beach would be stronger & in some ways more survivable.
Now what's next to fly for the Dr:8? Sundowner? :p

CW:ok: