Step up from NA 182 to P210?

Morne

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
699
Display Name

Display name:
Morne
First post in a long while...

6 years ago when I bought by carburated C182E I had a "normal mission" of 250nm each way and was a low time (100-ish hours TT) pilot with no instrument rating. Since then I got my IR and flown in lots of actual (still current). I got my HP endorsement in the 182 and even rented a 182RG for a handful of hours one year while my bird was in annual to get the complex endorsement.

My mission has changed since then. That 250nm each way round trip is no longer. However, I have several trips a year now in various parts of the country. For instance, last summer I flew KBJJ to KRVS (and back at the end of the week) 4 times. That's 724nm each way, necessitating a fuel stop. It's also about 6 hours in the plane each way. I've flown my bird to Phoenix, New Orleans, Vermont, Miami, and coastal Carolinas. All very long trips in the NA 182. Trips to eastern Pennsylvania, Washington DC, and anywhere in Virginia are still easily within a single tank, obviously. But I have also had to stay low under winter/spring cloud decks with ice in them and have even started accumulating ice 3 times (and promptly got out of it, naturally). While I can still take my wife and 2 kids comfortably in the 182 more room/payload/speed would certainly be nice.

Financially I am in a better place than when I bought the 182. My house is paid off. So the increased OPEX and MX of a complex/turbo airplane is within my means today. Hence my desire and ability to upgrade. Whatever I do I will sell the 182 before buying another bird, I will not own 2 airplanes.

So, what to buy? I kicked around a lot of options but the most important criteria for the wife's acceptance value includes:
1 - Must be easy to get in and out of. This rules out virtually every low wing. Yes, I admire the low wing birds and have even flown one (Grumman Cheetah). They just aren't for her and thus aren't for us to own.
2 - Must be better in turbulence than my current 182. That basically means a heavier plane which is pretty easy to accomplish. It rules out the Diamond series of planes whose sailplane style wing makes each bump easily felt (and it's a low wing anyway).

That brings us to the 210 series. I really admire the whole line of them. I fully understand just how dramatically they changed from the early 60s to the early 80s. Frankly, I probably should've bought a 210 in the first place but I was concerned that it was "too much plane" for a low time pilot like me. Now that I am over 600 hours I am more confident and think I could handle the step up with proper instruction.

Then I had a buddy, who is not a pilot but has owned a P210 (had a professional pilot fly him around) in the past, contact me. He indicated that he's got a business arrangement in the Carolinas that he might be getting into that would allow him to become an airplane owner again and asked if I wanted to go 50/50 in with him on a P210. For him pressurization is a must. I am intrigued. Really intrigued. I think a P210 would be very comfortable for my wife to fly in and would get me around faster without too dramatic of an increase in OPEX and MX.

If you were in this position would the P210 be the right bird for you? Are there other birds I am forgetting?

As to shopping for a P210 I get that things like inconel exhausts and intercoolers are very desirable to get the most out of them. Oddly, with the current state of weather information available in the cockpit the radar pod on the wing is less of a selling point than in the old days. I have picked my way through plenty of ugly stuff with an iPad/Stratus and a strikefinder in my 182. So an ancient (likely inoperative) radar pod is really not something I care much about.

Another thought - to avoid dealing with the potential for struggling through the headaches caused by prior ham-fisted pilots is it smarter to buy a runout P210 and immediately major both the engine and turbo? That way I can start with a clean slate and fly her right? Or since I'd just be starting to learn how to run a turbo bird should I fly 100-200 hours on it first and get experience before wiping the slate clean?

The last point to consider is that ever since I bought my plane (right around when I got my PPL) I have always been an outright owner. I am not used to sharing a plane. I could conceivably buy a P210 outright but it would be a bit more of a stretch financially. 50/50 not only makes the acquisition cost less but also helps if a big maintenance hit comes along (which is sure to happen with a bird of this complexity). I hated the old rental birds I trained in because they weren't maintained the way I would want them to be, that's what drove me to buy my own plane.

I realize there is a lot here. Appreciate input.
 
Insurance rates of 210s is rather expensive. Have you considered a 182RG? Range of both planes are comparable and the 210 is only 10 KTS faster.
 
How important is pressurization to you? I get the desire for turbocharging, but unless your regular missions demand pressurization it is an expensive option...you can buy a lot of oxygen for the difference in price. Other than that, and with a caveat to get good transition training in the new systems it is a good idea.

Bob
 
Just my .02 as a 182 owner. I got into ownership with a freshly dried PPL (I think I had about 70 hrs when I bought). I purchased for two reasons (mainly).
1) The only suitable rental in my area that could carry family plus bags was a C205. Wet rates plus daily mins would have had me spending at least 5k/year on rental, NOT counting all the burger runs and time building/fun flights that I would've done in their 172's. Essentially, it was roughly the same all-in to own as rent for my mission.
2) I wanted to be able to fly when I wanted to fly, not when a calendar told me it was my turn.

In my experience, I don't necessarily fly enough to justify #2 and thus could have taken on at least one partner and it probably would've worked. We assume that we are going to fly A LOT, and it ends ups being less.

However, this is where I think you would have issues compared to me. Very, very few of my flights have been confined to a "need to get there" schedule. It sounds like yours might be and/or they are for business or some other "need" rather than "want". If that is the case, you should be asking "if I go 50/50, what happens when my partner and I both NEED the airplane?" A "we planned on flying to the coast for the weekend, but the partner has the plane" is a lot different than "I have to be in "X" city by Monday for work, and the partner has the plane."
 
Partnerships have their own pitfalls, so I won't comment (plenty of them work out great).

I would consider a T210 and oxygen.

If you're dead set on a P model I know of one for sale
 
Unless you really need that altitude id look for a strutless 210 with a NA IO550, don't make things complex to just make things complex. It'll do about 90% of the same thing for way less MX headache
 
To fly and maintain a P210 takes a good mechanic and someone to show you how to manage that engine. Talk to some mechanics and P210 owners (is there a type club?).
 
This is a mission for a Bonanza A36... preferably one with a TN engine and optionally, de-ice capabilities. If your baggage and cargo were less, I'd say cirrus.
 
You really need to look at how altitude and the favorable winds work. I fly a turbo, but would say that for at least 50% of the time I'm below 10,000 feet b/c of winds. The P210 is a fantastic machine, but I second the T210 option with 02 from a practicality standpoint. FIKI would be more on the priority for me, if I had to pick between the two.
 
Pressurization is really a nice feature to have. I can live without it, but it has benefits even low if you're flying long days.

The P210s are known for their maintenance headaches, but turbos and pressurization in general will provide those. I would see if you could make the financial jump to a Malibu as it's a much nicer airplane, although hangar could get to be an issue depending on what's available with you.

Performance wise, that's an easy jump you shouldn't have an issue.
 
A few points.
1. Diamond actually rides better then you think. The wings are somewhat flexible which gives a better ride then you expect. Go fly one and you will see.
2. When your wife says easy entry, who for? You, her, everyone?
If everyone, Cirrus, Columbia and Diamond I pretty much thr low wing choices. If her, then Bonanza and Mooney get added to the list.
3. I have not checked recently, but 182 used to sell reasonably easily. Depending on what you are looking for, will determine if you should overlap or sell first.
4. Consider paying a touch morr and saving on headaches by going to a broker that sells a lot of the model you want. E.g. Loan Mountain Aircraft for Cirrus. Flypass.com for Mooney and Diamond. They will almost always take a 182 on trade. Most of the sales guys can even take the specs of the kind of plane you want and tell you when it hits the market.
5. Turbo charging and pressurized aircraft in theory are simple systems. However they push the engine much harder. The result is often mechanical issues if you do not learn how to operate them correctly and carefully.


Good luck,

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
 
This is a mission for a Bonanza A36... preferably one with a TN engine and optionally, de-ice capabilities. If your baggage and cargo were less, I'd say cirrus.

There is a 36-Bo at our field that my perspective partner has rented in the past. He wants something else. He is driving the need for pressurization. I would also like pressurization.

Cirrus is out altogether. Not my bag. My wife couldn't get into it if she tried. Even if she could, I don't want one.

Mooney is out. I sat in one. No way I'd stay in that position for hours on end. No way my wife gets into one, either.

Malibu would be great - if I doubled my acquisition budget! Trying to keep it under $200K, thanks. If I buy a plane more expensive than our house I will be in big trouble.
 
Use to drool over Richard Collins' 210. With so many equipment options out there, easy to see $150k spread from low to high price on Controller.com

STOL, intercooled, no boots just hot prop and plate, think TBO on that engine is 1600? Doesn't even get to the panel (Cessna auto pilot, picture doesn't show the Aspen?). Watch out for the fresh paint...

The market on these are all over the place, but this one is the lowest $ I've seen on a P series: https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1451683/1979-cessna-p210n

Find one for your mission that's got the equipment you'll want to fly behind for a long time.
 
600 hours and an IR... is a twin too much? The Aviation Consumer review of the C310 says you can get up to 200 gallons of fuel and burn 25 GPH at 180+ knots. That's 7 hours of endurance and 1200 nm or range with reserves. Purchase price is comparable to a 210, but maintenance will be higher (double?). Comments say all in costs are $250 - $300/hour. (For comparison, their all in costs on a 210 is $150 - $175/hour.)
 
600 hours and an IR... is a twin too much? The Aviation Consumer review of the C310 says you can get up to 200 gallons of fuel and burn 25 GPH at 180+ knots. That's 7 hours of endurance and 1200 nm or range with reserves. Purchase price is comparable to a 210, but maintenance will be higher (double?). Comments say all in costs are $250 - $300/hour. (For comparison, their all in costs on a 210 is $150 - $175/hour.)

Well, sure. Even though the OP articulated his reasons for acquiring a P210, he'll jump at the opportunity to buy a non-pressurized twin and pay the maintenance for two engines.

Yeah, it bugs me when someone posts that he has a particular aircraft in mind (indicating a process of elimination took place) and other posters chime in about every aircraft from an Ercoupe to a 421.
 
Well, sure. Even though the OP articulated his reasons for acquiring a P210, he'll jump at the opportunity to buy a non-pressurized twin and pay the maintenance for two engines.

Yeah, it bugs me when someone posts that he has a particular aircraft in mind (indicating a process of elimination took place) and other posters chime in about every aircraft from an Ercoupe to a 421.
Good point. The ercoupe would work here. A bit slow but op cost would be low. Good suggestion.
 
@3393RP He said he was intrigued by pressurization, not that it was a requirement. He listed two requirements: easy to get in and out and more capable in turbulence (which I construed as a more capable IFR platform) than the 182. My suggestion was aimed at both of those, and it acknowledged the downsides as well. The OP even said he sold himself short, saying "probably should've bought a 210 in the first place but I was concerned that it was "too much plane" for a low time pilot like me." Just trying to keep options on the table to avoid tunnel vision again.
 
Back
Top