Advice: C210N Which one would you buy ? (Low Airframe vs. high Airframe time)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advice: C210N Which one would you buy ? (Low Airframe vs. high Airframe time)
Hi,
The choice is between two C210Ns both planes are manufactured in 1980, have the had the same AMO and have a similar pricetag. Both planes have been checked to be corrosion free.
Aircraft 1: The airframe has 3500 hrs.
Engine is a TSIO 520 turbocharged, GAMInjectors, with 1250hrs TBO left, however the 12 year engine limitation will force an overhaul in 4 years (Namibian rules apply...). Prop needs to be overhauled in 2 years´or 1900 hrs. The autopilot is one that is working well. The panel is basic IF Bendix King with GPS unit.
Has had the same owner for the last 20 years and the plane was hangered on a farm within a dry semi arid climate zone. Some birds also occupied the hangar and made a few droppings on the plane, causing the paint those spots to thin down so much, that the base metal is starting to shimmer through - so it will need a bit of a touch up in this regard. Oxygen Bottles etc are working. Interior is about a 6/10 looking a little bit old stylish.
Aircraft 2: The airframe has an unatractive 12500 hrs.
Engine is a brand new factory IO-550 (Bonaire Conversion) with 1750 TBO left. The 12 year limitation TBO will only be in 2027. The new Prop needs to be overhauled in 4 years or 2000hrs. No autopilot. Panel is in immaculate condition with almost the same instrumentation as Plane 1. It has the Flint tip tank conversion, increasing endurance by 1.5 hrs.
The plane had a few owners, the one with the longest ownership being the manager of the AMO who claims the high airframe hours are not such a great factor as the plane has also been maintained without compromises. The plane did a lot of charter but also a lot of survey flying, which boosted the time on the frame. The Interior, seats etc. are in a 10/10 mint condition and representable for further charter flights.
Now the issue is, that some people claim, that they would never go for the high houred plane, others say the opposite and feel, that as the age of both planes is the same, the high houred plane would not be a worse purchase as it was in continued service (averaging 33 hrs a month on plane 2 vs. the 8 hrs a month on plane 1), more regular maintainance and the TBO's due to the new engine's life and Prop life are far are more favourable. Another owner of three 210's, of which 2 are already grounded, the only one which is still doing the job is the one with more hrs ie. 10000hrs plus a figure that the others never ever reached. Some existing C210 have 20000 hrs on the frame.
If it were not for the hours, it would of course be a no brainer and plane 2 would be the obvious choice, as it would cause far less sceduled maintainance.
How would one weigh out the factors on the airframe ? Which one would be the better chioce ?
Thanks in advance ! :wink:
The choice is between two C210Ns both planes are manufactured in 1980, have the had the same AMO and have a similar pricetag. Both planes have been checked to be corrosion free.
Aircraft 1: The airframe has 3500 hrs.
Engine is a TSIO 520 turbocharged, GAMInjectors, with 1250hrs TBO left, however the 12 year engine limitation will force an overhaul in 4 years (Namibian rules apply...). Prop needs to be overhauled in 2 years´or 1900 hrs. The autopilot is one that is working well. The panel is basic IF Bendix King with GPS unit.
Has had the same owner for the last 20 years and the plane was hangered on a farm within a dry semi arid climate zone. Some birds also occupied the hangar and made a few droppings on the plane, causing the paint those spots to thin down so much, that the base metal is starting to shimmer through - so it will need a bit of a touch up in this regard. Oxygen Bottles etc are working. Interior is about a 6/10 looking a little bit old stylish.
Aircraft 2: The airframe has an unatractive 12500 hrs.
Engine is a brand new factory IO-550 (Bonaire Conversion) with 1750 TBO left. The 12 year limitation TBO will only be in 2027. The new Prop needs to be overhauled in 4 years or 2000hrs. No autopilot. Panel is in immaculate condition with almost the same instrumentation as Plane 1. It has the Flint tip tank conversion, increasing endurance by 1.5 hrs.
The plane had a few owners, the one with the longest ownership being the manager of the AMO who claims the high airframe hours are not such a great factor as the plane has also been maintained without compromises. The plane did a lot of charter but also a lot of survey flying, which boosted the time on the frame. The Interior, seats etc. are in a 10/10 mint condition and representable for further charter flights.
Now the issue is, that some people claim, that they would never go for the high houred plane, others say the opposite and feel, that as the age of both planes is the same, the high houred plane would not be a worse purchase as it was in continued service (averaging 33 hrs a month on plane 2 vs. the 8 hrs a month on plane 1), more regular maintainance and the TBO's due to the new engine's life and Prop life are far are more favourable. Another owner of three 210's, of which 2 are already grounded, the only one which is still doing the job is the one with more hrs ie. 10000hrs plus a figure that the others never ever reached. Some existing C210 have 20000 hrs on the frame.
If it were not for the hours, it would of course be a no brainer and plane 2 would be the obvious choice, as it would cause far less sceduled maintainance.
How would one weigh out the factors on the airframe ? Which one would be the better chioce ?
Thanks in advance ! :wink:
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would stay away from the hangar queen.... Planes that are little utilised tend to hide serious problems. You will also need to factor the "shock" the plane will have from chilling in a hangar most of the time - to being used extensively by you. Lots of things will break, lots of things will deteriorate quickly.
Given identical pricing, the overhaul required in 4 years, and the change of prop soonish would be a deterrent enough, to not consider it unless I wanted a project.
Yes plane 2 does have a lot of hours, but seems to have been utilised more recently and maintenance issues would have cropped up. (And hopefully been fixed!)
Either way, I'd strongly recommend that an independent engineer has a thorough inspection to help identify potential disaster if purchased!
Given identical pricing, the overhaul required in 4 years, and the change of prop soonish would be a deterrent enough, to not consider it unless I wanted a project.
Yes plane 2 does have a lot of hours, but seems to have been utilised more recently and maintenance issues would have cropped up. (And hopefully been fixed!)
Either way, I'd strongly recommend that an independent engineer has a thorough inspection to help identify potential disaster if purchased!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for replies so far!
N Reg is not an option, as I want to have it fly comercial as well and the 12 year limitation will apply in anycase. I also don't have a FAA license, only EASA, SACAA and Namibian.
N Reg is not an option, as I want to have it fly comercial as well and the 12 year limitation will apply in anycase. I also don't have a FAA license, only EASA, SACAA and Namibian.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it were me, I would go for the higher time frame, assuming it is quite substantially lower purchase price. It has been flown regular, so one can assume mechanics is in working condition. A hangar queen may give you some unexpected surprise on things you never would expect to come off at unpleasant times. 12,500 is not that bad for a C210 and I would say far from unpleasant. I.e. the 1xx series has an estimated recommended lifetime of 30,000 hours, don't have the 2xx number handy, but suspect it'll be the same.
I have to admit, I usually skip OH considerations on engine and prop, as these are a simple matter of doing the remaining value of the component at purchase right.
Are you planning commercial day-VFR only? If so, you may not need the costly Turbo (which adds significant cost in running and maintenance and engine lifetime), the IO-550 is a more rugged compared to the TSIO-520 anyways, Flint is a big Plus, so - in my eyes all counts for the higher time fuselage.
(BTW: you state you wanna use it in commercial ops, so maybe this thread better go to the appropriate section instead of private flying.)
I have to admit, I usually skip OH considerations on engine and prop, as these are a simple matter of doing the remaining value of the component at purchase right.
Are you planning commercial day-VFR only? If so, you may not need the costly Turbo (which adds significant cost in running and maintenance and engine lifetime), the IO-550 is a more rugged compared to the TSIO-520 anyways, Flint is a big Plus, so - in my eyes all counts for the higher time fuselage.
(BTW: you state you wanna use it in commercial ops, so maybe this thread better go to the appropriate section instead of private flying.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ops will be limited to VFR day-time only. Maybe the one or other night time ferry or positioning flight. Weather in Namibia is VFR 99% of the time except for occasional fog at the coast which burns off in the later hours of the morning - but the airfields are VFR only anyway.
A few things to consider about the high time airframe.
1) There is a significant repetitive AD on the wing spar for 210's with over 5000 hrs. The inspection is not cheap as the wing tank sealant has to be removed to access the spar. If anything bad is found in the inspection the airplane will probably not be economically repairable.
2) You did not say how the airplane got to be such a high time airframe. If it was because of any kind of low level inspection operations, stay away
Final thought.
When I leaned to fly in 1976 a "high time" Cessna was one with over 3000 hours. An "old" Cessna was more than 20 years old. Cessna never dreamed that the average airplane still in regular use would be 40 plus years old. Even the "low time" 210 is still an airplane with a lot of original 36 year old bits. Those bits are going to fail and are going to be expensive to replace. I would have no preconceived notions over the relative merits of one over the other.
The only thing that matters is the general condition of that specific airframe. Don't cheap out on the pre-purchase inspection, it could save you a boat load of money down the road.
1) There is a significant repetitive AD on the wing spar for 210's with over 5000 hrs. The inspection is not cheap as the wing tank sealant has to be removed to access the spar. If anything bad is found in the inspection the airplane will probably not be economically repairable.
2) You did not say how the airplane got to be such a high time airframe. If it was because of any kind of low level inspection operations, stay away
Final thought.
When I leaned to fly in 1976 a "high time" Cessna was one with over 3000 hours. An "old" Cessna was more than 20 years old. Cessna never dreamed that the average airplane still in regular use would be 40 plus years old. Even the "low time" 210 is still an airplane with a lot of original 36 year old bits. Those bits are going to fail and are going to be expensive to replace. I would have no preconceived notions over the relative merits of one over the other.
The only thing that matters is the general condition of that specific airframe. Don't cheap out on the pre-purchase inspection, it could save you a boat load of money down the road.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your input.
I kind of want to avoid having to pay for 2 pre-sale inspections
I know that that main wing spar poses the greatest threat and is already a hugh task a pretty damn expensive. All the SIDs have been performed on both aircraft, the question is, if it is necessary to remove the whole wing again to be sure ?
Eddy current test of the lower main spar cap is conducted every 350hrs and they see their environment as severe.
Edit: looks like the high houred plane is the one of choice. Thanks guys !
I kind of want to avoid having to pay for 2 pre-sale inspections
I know that that main wing spar poses the greatest threat and is already a hugh task a pretty damn expensive. All the SIDs have been performed on both aircraft, the question is, if it is necessary to remove the whole wing again to be sure ?Eddy current test of the lower main spar cap is conducted every 350hrs and they see their environment as severe.
Edit: looks like the high houred plane is the one of choice. Thanks guys !
Last edited by Propellerpilot; 7th Sep 2016 at 09:11.
