Running Expenses for c210
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, 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
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
, 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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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.....
Yeah! I know.... a l o n g w a y off thread....
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!
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.....
Yeah! I know.... a l o n g w a y off thread....
. We've all flown them sometime during our climb to the upper levels.
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.
Bloody Oak floor-boards and all.
$4000/ 100hrly(maybe less or more, depending on condition). $8000 Insurance with pax liability.
Now you Beech drivers shove orf.
Bloody Oak floor-boards and all.
Last edited by 185skywagon; 11th Mar 2008 at 10:50. Reason: misspelt Beech
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.
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!
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!
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
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.
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.
skid the silly thing slightly
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 12th Mar 2008 at 07:02.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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.
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.
Grandpa Aerotart
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
For those whining bout the lack of shade flying a Bo I have one word...curtains
Best looking Cessna ever built too...those wussy sloping tails
For those whining bout the lack of shade flying a Bo I have one word...curtains
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
CW
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 !
CW
Now all you Beech heads, I have 2 words for you. Muskateer/Sundowner
I guess even the best of families has its black sheep / retards / skeletons in the closet!
Dr
PS: I am actually with CC on the C185 - great bit of kit. Just jerk'n ya chain!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Forkie and CC,
we Cessna drivers have our own demon in the form of the 150hp C177..
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?
we Cessna drivers have our own demon in the form of the 150hp C177.
.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?