Running Expenses for c210
 

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:

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.

"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.

C210 expenses
 

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:

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

Think of a number and double it!
 

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

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.

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

SIDS for Cessna 200 series
 

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

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!

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

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 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

What FTDK said:ok:

Especially this bit.

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

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.

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.

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:

'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.

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

Now there is a topic for a vigorous debate!

Dr :8

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:

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