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.

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

Now weight.

Probably won't have to wait long.:E

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

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

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

J:ok:

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.

Re the venerable C-210...
 

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:

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.

G'day 'Stationair8',

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

Actually, that again was our esteemed regulator. Australia is the only place on earth that this requirement is mandated.

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).

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

From Collins's column in FLYING.

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.

Cessna SIDs
 

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!

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

J

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:

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;)

"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