Running Expenses for c210
Grandpa Aerotart
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
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.
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 '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.
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!!
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
F
The C210 not unlike the Holden HR was great in it's day, but we have moved on
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Beech V35 .......... very nice except it was only a Dinky Toy
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 9th Mar 2008 at 06:21.
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.
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
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.
The V35 is perhaps the classic S/E GA aircraft of them all
For anyone who has forgotten what "sex with wings" (no, not the ugly mug in the left front seat) looks like:
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
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
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 9th Mar 2008 at 08:42.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahhh poor 'gassed budgie' got a little too much gas did we from my post?
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 !
I've flown both, the Beech out handles the C210 in every respect, speed & payload are overated when it's not needed everytime!
F
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 !
I've flown both, the Beech out handles the C210 in every respect, speed & payload are overated when it's not needed everytime!
F
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.
The 210 is a bit better in that area.
ahhh poor 'gassed budgie' got a little too much gas did we from my post
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
Wrong on all acounts, yr opinion only, not shared by all am sure!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
F
F
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.
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.