Cessna 210?

N747JB

N747JB

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
6,248
Location
Atlanta
Display Name
Display name:
John
I am going to sell my Conquest I soon, since 90% of my flying is to the beach and back and it's usually just me and my wife. I was considering a newer, if that's the right term for a 40 year old airplane, 210 either turbo or non-turbo. It seems most on the market are Turbo, which is fine for my use. Anyone have any real world ownership numbers they want to share? Speeds, fuel burn, maintenance etc? It looks like a slightly wider cabin than our 182Q, is that correct? I think air conditioning would be a plus, but I don't see many with that option.
Thanks, John
 
Not direct answers to your question (in true PoA fashion):

I don't know what your budget is, but you may consider a factory new T182 or T206, with the turbo you'll get nearly as much speed as with a 210, but Mx costs will be next to none, especially if new.

Either way, 210's are very capable planes and even open up a lot of backcountry options. Once the gear is down and locked it's very VERY strong gear, but getting it down and locked can be a problem. Non-Turbo expect to see ~160 knots on 16gph, assuming the Conti IO-520 powered ones, not the earlier models.

FIKI is also an option on many 210's, as is pressurization if you wanted to go that route, but IMO it adds unnecessary weight and complexity to a piston single.

AOPA did a comparison on Bo vs 210 with the same engine and the 210 won in just about every contest... just for those that will be along to say "get a bo"
 
I'm with @Mtns2Skies then, T206 would be my choice. If you can't swing the finance payments, older conti powered 206 then. To be clear, this mission can be accomplished by a 172, so these nit picks about light piston models is all inconsequential for a sub 500NM mission, let alone a 250NM one.

I would go for cabin comfort on this one, and let the retract vs FG discussion be merely incidental/ancillary to the former. Block speed is not an inflection point for this mission imo. A 2-door high wing would be my preference for pax centric comfort.

Just take the 182 you already own down to the beach. I guess I don't see what you're actually after as a 182 owner, especially considering the huge total cost and capability shedding from the conquest.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'm with @Mtns2Skies then, T206 would be my choice. If you can't swing the finance payments, older conti powered 206 then. To be clear, this mission can be accomplished by a 172, so these nit picks about light piston models is all inconsequential for a sub 500NM mission, let alone a 250NM one.

I would go for cabin comfort on this one, and let the retract vs FG discussion be merely incidental/ancillary to the former. Block speed is not an inflection point for this mission imo. A 2-door high wing would be my preference for pax centric comfort.

Just take the 182 you already own down to the beach. I guess I don't see what you're actually after as a 182 owner, especially considering the huge total cost and capability shedding from the conquest.
Click to expand...
I am looking to lower my costs, I am pretty close to retiring and don't want the ongoing expense of a turbine on what will be a fixed income, a decent income, but still, I am paying $1375 per month for a hangar in Atlanta and a tie down in Destin! I may stick with the 182 that I share with my son, I just want something more capable for 3 or 4 guys to go to New Orleans etc. I like the newer 206's, but damn that's a lot of money!! :eek:
 
benyflyguy said:
How far away is the beach?
Click to expand...
240 nautical miles, 5 1/2 hours by car, so it's not a terrible car ride and if I am not working or at least as much, I won't be in a hurry. I just like having an airplane!
 
N747JB said:
240 nautical miles, 5 1/2 hours by car, so it's not a terrible car ride and if I am not working or at least as much, I won't be in a hurry. I just like having an airplane!
Click to expand...
That long of a drive you’ll be less likely
To go as often. Hammers solve the worlds problems hitting nails...pilots solve them with flying places. 182 would be fine for you and the wife, but add the buddies trips to New Orleans then the 206 would be the bees knees...I think.
 
A friend had a 70s model turbo 210 that I got to fly in. Easy in/out, great view below, tons of space, and at 10,000 ft it still climbs at >1000 fpm. Incredible plane.
 
Here's the Bo' case... Get an A36 and take out the right front seat, and the right middle seat. 3 door low wing and with the seats out that aren't needed, you don't have to crawl up on a wing! Cabin class piston single.
 
Weight restrictions or price might kill it as an option but what about a Malibu as a compromise between a 182 and a 425?
 
@JCranford has a very nice 210 that he looked long and hard for. He would be a good person to provide some real world info.
 
mondtster said:
Weight restrictions or price might kill it as an option but what about a Malibu as a compromise between a 182 and a 425?
Click to expand...
Very tight cabin, hard to get in the cockpit for a fat guy! :eek:
 
I feel like the step down from a conquest would be any of the PA46 airframes, a Cessna 310, Piper Seneca or Baron. There are a lot of nice older examples of these for <350k. If the wife is used to pressurization now, then the Mailibu/Meridian may be the way to go.
 
John, I would avoid the turbo. Extra MX for the turbo engine (and from what I’ve heard the exhaust on the T210 isn’t a great design) plus it won’t get you significantly better speed. Wayne Bower has owner both and said the block times were essentially identical.

The advantage of the T210 is you could get them with FIKI, although I’m thinking if you’re retiring and trying to reduce costs while also having a more flexible schedule that doesn’t buy you much.

I haven’t sat in one so I can’t comment on space.

I would not buy a new T206. That’s not the best engine in the world.
 
Eric Stoltz said:
Here's the Bo' case... Get an A36 and take out the right front seat, and the right middle seat. 3 door low wing and with the seats out that aren't needed, you don't have to crawl up on a wing! Cabin class piston single.
Click to expand...

I was thinking to suggest this or a lance


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
lance would be a nice retirement bird. mx cost of an arrow cant be beat.
 
N747JB said:
I am going to sell my Conquest I soon, since 90% of my flying is to the beach and back and it's usually just me and my wife. I was considering a newer, if that's the right term for a 40 year old airplane, 210 either turbo or non-turbo. It seems most on the market are Turbo, which is fine for my use. Anyone have any real world ownership numbers they want to share? Speeds, fuel burn, maintenance etc? It looks like a slightly wider cabin than our 182Q, is that correct? I think air conditioning would be a plus, but I don't see many with that option.
Thanks, John
Click to expand...

When I used to fly the 210, the nose wheel refused to lock, and it collapsed on landing. Since then I've heard this is a common problem in 210's.
 
Since all 210s are getting long in tooth they risk gear failures. And let's not forget pilots forgetting to lower the gear. I know, it won't happen to you until it does. A used C-206 sounds like what you need. Turbo adds about 10 knots but not be necessary in low country and less than 500nm trips. I fly a T182 for work and the turbo went out at 1500 hours and took the engine with it. Luckily our director of ops got us a new engine instead of just selling the aircraft as-is.

You can find an older NA 206 and put in a full GTN touch screen stack and other goodies, instead of the bulky G1000. Definitely a step down from the Conquest but your wallet will thank you.
 
Doesn't sound like a 206 would add that much capability over the 182 you already have.
 
The past i
weilke said:
Doesn't sound like a 206 would add that much capability over the 182 you already have.
Click to expand...

The last I heard, the 182 was at college with JB's son. He mentioned above that they share it.
 
3393RP said:
The past i


The last I heard, the 182 was at college with JB's son. He mentioned above that they share it.
Click to expand...
He's home from college and working, once he has his instrument rating, he could fly whatever I buy. I am just talking and getting ideas right now, I will sell the 425 before I dare buy another airplane! Two is plenty!!
 
I have owned a normally aspirated 210L a Turbo T210M a 206H and a 182S

The 210 NA was slightly faster than the T210 by about five knots,

The biggest maintenance issue was the turbo charger, you have to change oil frequently and let that sucker wind down before shutting it down, no big deal, I did all that but it still had its days.

Both are great IFR platforms and will haul nice loads with great range. just don't stretch it distance wise.

Landing gear, I never had an issue in 3,000 hours of 210 time,and I had the gear doors, trick was I did not drop the gear above 100 kts, that came from Cessna service center old timer, if you drop them fast they can have cracks or bend, big bucks the ones that had the doors taken off are slightly slower , the landing gear system on a 210 is complex for sure and can easily get out of wack.

Nose gear, the wires that tell if gear is up or down are prone to bending and cracking the wires so no gear indication, if you buy a 210 get the wing mirrors and always loo down after dropping the gear even if the green light is lit. Ask me how I know that, nose came down on a brand new 210, but the mains were not down, since the down light is connected to the nose gear I had a green light, all was good ? NOT

If your mission is to just go from ATL to FL you do not need a turbo, when I was a young guy flying a lot of Cessna's from the factory to the new owners/ dealers more T210's went West, than East more T210's were made than NA

Turbo does burn more fuel not a lot but 18 gallons without leaning the daylights, I like to run lean conservatively burn the fuel than buy cylinders, it worked for me the NA was about 16.5

Speeds, I never really sat there and said what is my TAS, I am more about GS and how long is it going to take, the 210NA averaged about 160 kts, the turbo about 165 on good days, and I made a lot of trips in 210's

The back seats are worthless except for kids and a PIA to get to, the baggage doors likes to leak.

Find a C 210 guide by John Frank former CPA guy.

I also had a 206H, that sucker had a lot of 210 qualities except speed, it is really a 135 knot airplane, the 182S was about the same speed, I took out the rear seat that gave more room for cargo, watch the W&B it as not hard to get the tail low if loaded heavy in the rear . landing if you have two people and full fuel you are forward CG and it was harder to flare, so I put some weight in the back when I flew it solo or tow up front so it was easier, I think the 206 was heavier on the controls the horizontal tail was larger than the 210

206 was a great short field airplane, lightly loaded I could get off in about 500 feet with 20 degrees of flaps. and the stall horn blowing stay

Landing I could land in about 800 feet stopped on an 1800 usable foot grass runway with 100 ft trees at the end

The 206 fuel burn about the same as the 210's just slower, the restart 206's have some nice stuff on them that the previous Cessna''s did not but they weight if the add ins did decrease the useful loads.

If I were you and your mission is the beach at Pensacola, I probably would not buy a 210, the maintenance is higher, the insurance is higher, they are all older air frames, you have to deal with smoking wing rivets, doors do not shut right, gear issues and the avionics might need upgrading. Just a few things to think about.

The 210 is an awesome airplane, fast and good loads it is actually my favorite single engine airplane and I have crossed the USA many times in a 210, in all a lot of IFR, it is a beautiful airplane for longer trips, stable and easy to land.

The 182 is more than adequate for what you want, you are not going that far, the time saved in the 210 vs the 206 or 182 is maybe what 15-20 minutes, My 182S actually fit my flying, the best cost wise and utility wise.

206's are pricey and in demand I would look for an 1998-2002 to save some $ make sure that the crank AD was done.

210's look for the last year made 1985? they are the best ones made

But look at the bright side you will see all of GA and AL from down low and slow, rather than fast and high, and you can cruise the beaches down low too.
 
I couldn’t have said it better than strangebird did. I love my 210, but there are costs associated with it that I don’t think would justify the ownership for you. I got mine mainly because I have occasional need to go to both coasts and get across the rocks, hence the turbo.
 
I own a 210L. Strangebird pretty much covered it. Mine is NA. I mostly fly it around the east coast and haven't felt the need for a turbo which adds cost. I average 160 kts at 24/2400. The high wing, 2 doors, and wide cabin make for a very comfortable ride. I took out one of the middle row seats for more room. The back seats are really best for kids. It will carry whatever you can put in it.

Questions? Just ask.
 
N747JB said:
I am going to sell my Conquest I soon, since 90% of my flying is to the beach and back and it's usually just me and my wife. I was considering a newer, if that's the right term for a 40 year old airplane, 210 either turbo or non-turbo. It seems most on the market are Turbo, which is fine for my use. Anyone have any real world ownership numbers they want to share? Speeds, fuel burn, maintenance etc? It looks like a slightly wider cabin than our 182Q, is that correct? I think air conditioning would be a plus, but I don't see many with that option.
Thanks, John
Click to expand...
If you get a T210 you'll stop flying the straight leg 182 and you will miss the Conquest's capabilities and your wife will miss the pressurization. My vote is you sell both planes and get a P210 or Malibu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top